Locator: 46490B.
Active rigs: 38.
WTI: $70.77.
Four new permits, #40439 - #40442, inclusive:
Three permits canceled:
Locator: 46489SAKE.
Locator: 46488INV.
TAG: Snarky.
Breaking
Later, 4:18 p.m. CT:
Original Post
Also, when I bought JNJ years ago I never knew about JNJ's talcum powder issue. But other than that, the 10-Ks have been very helpful. LOL.
Oh, that's right ... there was also the Texaco fiasco -- involving Paul Getty or something along that line .. .I've long forgotten ... but other than that the 10-Ks have been very helpful. Oh, yes, the whole thing with Lucent decades ago...
Oh, another one ... 3M ... multiple lawsuits, including the biggie -- the hearing protection issue -- I never even knew 3M was involved with hearing protection ... yeah, reading those 10-Ks have been a real hoot.
Now, back to Shakespeare and The Merchant of Venice --- which, by the way, also involves a lawsuit. LOL.
Locator: 46487GM.
During the boom, Brigham drilled four Pyramid wells on the northwest side of Williston. The pad remained unchanged for quite some time while the city of Williston grew and surrounded this pad, including the new Williston High School and I pretty much forgot about the Pyramid wells. Today, I noted that these wells have been acquired by Grayson Mill and Grayson Mill now has six more locations "on" the same pad:
All six horizontals will run parallel, north to south, and all will end in section 22 to the south, except #35866, which will end in section 21 to the south, and to the west of section 22.
The production data for the wells have been updated.
From March 3, 2023:
The Pyramid Wells On The Northwest Side Of Williston
Near the New Williston High School
*****************************
Screenshots
Locator: 46486B.
WTI: $71.80.
Tuesday, January 9, 2024: 9 for the month; 9 for the quarter, 9 for the year
39996, conf, Ragnar Exploration, Reardon 1-20H,
39928, conf, Neptune Operating, Fritz 20-29-32 2H,
39927, conf, Neptune Operating, Fritz 20-29-32 3H,
Monday, January 8, 2024: 6 for the month; 6 for the quarter, 6 for the year
39929, conf, Neptune Operating, Jacobson 17-8-5 3H,
Sunday, January 7, 2024: 5 for the month; 5 for the quarter, 5 for the year
39930, conf, Neptune Operating, Jacobson 17-8-5 2H,
Saturday, January 6, 2024: 4 for the month; 4 for the quarter, 4 for the year
39025, conf, Hess, GO-Golden Valley-157-96-2833H-2,
39024, conf, Hess, GO-Golden Valley-157-96-2833H-3,
**********************************
The Wells Of Interest
The wells:
| Pool | Date | Days | BBLS Oil | Runs | BBLS Water | MCF Prod | MCF Sold | Vent/Flare |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BAKKEN | 11-2023 | 30 | 10841 | 10836 | 22713 | 31176 | 30976 | 200 |
| BAKKEN | 10-2023 | 30 | 11768 | 11813 | 23177 | 26245 | 25954 | 291 |
| BAKKEN | 9-2023 | 30 | 12509 | 12496 | 25749 | 24241 | 23944 | 297 |
| BAKKEN | 8-2023 | 28 | 16463 | 16322 | 47405 | 37632 | 37173 | 459 |
| BAKKEN | 7-2023 | 25 | 26110 | 26002 | 32845 | 27597 | 27101 | 496 |
| Pool | Date | Days | BBLS Oil | Runs | BBLS Water | MCF Prod | MCF Sold | Vent/Flare |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BAKKEN | 11-2023 | 30 | 9966 | 9945 | 25694 | 26513 | 26329 | 184 |
| BAKKEN | 10-2023 | 29 | 9948 | 9995 | 25107 | 22468 | 22222 | 246 |
| BAKKEN | 9-2023 | 30 | 10986 | 10898 | 29685 | 22509 | 22248 | 261 |
| BAKKEN | 8-2023 | 22 | 9340 | 9264 | 30224 | 15938 | 15680 | 258 |
| BAKKEN | 7-2023 | 24 | 16019 | 15953 | 56550 | 38022 | 37696 | 326 |
*****************************
RBN Energy
RBN Energy: high court ruling in "Chevron Deference" challenge could upend energy regulations.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments January 17 in a pair of cases that are poised to capsize the so-called Chevron Deference, a 40-year-old legal doctrine that provides a key foundation for modern administrative law. It’s a big deal – big enough that we’re willing to wade into a little bit of legalese to help make sense of it. So strap in because in today’s RBN blog, we’ll explain what the Chevron Deference is, why it’s worth knowing about, how it applies to two cases that could alter its application, and how a ruling that limits or eliminates the doctrine’s usage and application could transform energy industry regulation.
Let’s start with some background. Under our Constitutional system of checks and balances, Congress legislates by passing laws (Article I), the Executive Branch issues regulations to execute and enforce those laws (Article II), and the courts interpret them (Article III). The federal agencies that make up the Executive Branch are often referred to as “creatures of statute.” This means that their authorities to regulate are limited to the powers delegated to them by Congress — no more, no less. But the extent of that delegated authority is not always black and white. Laws are often lengthy and complex, and void of important details. This is largely out of necessity — it would be impossible to craft legislation that addressed every possible situation or future development — but also by design, as Congress has typically operated under the presumption that statutory law should set frameworks and standards, with individual agencies being best equipped to handle the details, given their subject-matter expertise and ability to respond quickly to changing conditions.
The gray area between what Congress intends and what the agency actually does is where the Chevron Deference comes into play.
Way back in 1984, in a case known as Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council (aka “Chevron”), the Supreme Court considered Clean Air Act regulations implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defining the statutory term “stationary source.” The NRDC had challenged the EPA’s interpretation, which treated all pollution-control devices in a single industrial or power plant as one “stationary source,” which made it easier to install new control equipment without having to recertify the whole thing under much tougher “new source” requirements if the changes weren’t increasing emissions for the plant. The high court approved the EPA’s approach, writing that when a court reviews an agency’s interpretation of the statute it administers, the court must first determine whether Congress “has spoken to the precise question at issue.” If Congress did speak directly to the question, the statutory language must be followed because the courts and agencies must “give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Thus, if the agency’s interpretation is consistent with that expressed intent, the interpretation is valid. If not, the agency’s interpretation is not valid. This analysis is now called Chevron Step 1.