The
Bakken Shale needs more natural gas takeaway capacity, North Dakota
wants to encourage more in-state consumption of Bakken-sourced gas, and
two entities — WBI Energy and a combo of Intensity Infrastructure
Partners and Rainbow Energy Center — have each proposed similar (but not
identical) cross-state pipelines that would help achieve those aims.
But, assuming that two new pipelines would be overkill, which of the two
proposals is the more likely to advance to a final investment decision
(FID), construction and operation? In today’s RBN blog, we discuss the
two competitors and the state of North Dakota’s impending decision on
which pipeline project to support.
Since the early days of the Shale Era — and the RBN blogosphere —
we’ve written frequently about the ongoing need to build more midstream
infrastructure to serve Bakken production. Crude oil gathering systems
and takeaway pipelines. Crude-by-rail terminals. Gas gathering systems
and gas processing plants. Natural gas and NGL pipelines. Even now, with
Bakken crude oil production holding steady at close to 1.2 MMb/d
through most of the 2020s — far below the play’s 1.5-MMb/d peak six
years ago — the push to develop more infrastructure continues. There are
three primary drivers: (1) a gas-to-oil ratio (GOR) that has more than
doubled since the mid-2010s, (2) steadily increasing production of NGLs
(see our recently posted Two Gunslingers for more on that); and (3) gas-demand pull from new power generation, data center and industrial projects.
Today, our focus is on gas pipelines — especially two competing
proposals to build large-diameter pipelines that would run from the
Bakken to the eastern edge of North Dakota. (More on those in a moment.)
The vast majority of the nearly 3.5 Bcf/d produced in the Bakken
heads toward the U.S. Midwest via TC Energy and ONEOK’s jointly owned
Northern Border Pipeline (dark-yellow line in Figure 1 below), which
transports both Western Canadian and Bakken gas. Much smaller volumes of
Bakken gas flow into Pembina Pipeline Corp.’s Alliance Pipeline
(light-purple line), whose flows are dominated by gas from Western
Canada. Note that Alliance transports “rich” or “wet” gas with
significant levels of NGLs that are largely removed at Pembina’s
2.1-Bcf/d Aux Sable gas processing complex just west of Chicago.
Ticker CHRD: the record date for the August dividend payment for Chord Energy is August 15, 2025. This means shareholders of record on this date will be eligible to receive the August dividend. The dividend will likely be declared on or around August 2, 2025. The payment date is scheduled for August 29, 2025.
Tesla: California registrations down 20% in 2Q25.
Apple: looks like EU will accept Apple's proposals. Huge. Two words: President Trump.
EPA: about to "86" climate change? By the way: etiology of the "86" is completely unknown. However,
The slang term "86" generally means to get rid of, refuse service to, or
eliminate something or someone. While its precise origin is debated,
it's widely believed to have originated in the restaurant and bar
industry in the early 20th century, possibly as a form of code or
shorthand.
"Possibly as a form of code or shorthand." Well, duh.
BRK: folks are starting to take notice. Neither article says much; social media comments are helpful. Even huge apologists for WB / BRK can read these numbers.
"Inching"? LOL. Pre-market, July 23, 2025, just after Trump announces trade deal with Japan.
Permian update: without question, a must-read, one of the best Julianne Geiger articles on the subject ... or maybe it's just because it's such a "feel-good" article. Link here.
Some excerpts but every paragraph is worth reading:
WoodMac expects ExxonMobil’s Permian output to rise 55% to 2.3 million boe/d by decade’s end, holding steady through 2040. Chevron is expected to churn out a 25% increase, to 1.2 million boe/d by 2030. In both cases, the Permian will supply nearly a third of total output—onshore, low-cost, and infrastructure-rich. It's not just scale—it’s resilience. Even as the broader U.S. rig count drops (down 7 last week alone, to 544), these majors are using AI and advanced analytics to keep well costs low and recovery factors trending up.
Goldman Sachs recently declared the U.S. shale boom years officially over. But that misses the nuance. Yes, the easy growth is gone. But for majors with prime Tier 1 acreage and deep capital pools, this isn’t the end—it’s the monetization phase.
The focus now is on harvesting cash, not chasing barrels.
What makes the Permian such a strategic fortress isn’t just its size—it’s the rare combination of geology, infrastructure, and optionality. With thousands of drilled-but-uncompleted wells, ample takeaway capacity, and unmatched midstream connectivity, operators can toggle activity up or down faster than anywhere else on earth. That responsiveness gives U.S. majors a tactical edge in volatile markets. And as capital discipline replaces boom-era exuberance, it’s the companies with scale and flexibility that will win.
The Permian isn’t just a resource—it’s a lever for navigating the next two decades of uncertainty, and Exxon and Chevron are the only ones strong enough to pull it with confidence.
COP / Oklahoma / Anadarko shale: link here. Also, here, no paywall yet. Stone Ridge Energy to acquire; Flywheel Energy to operate.
The sale, if completed, would enable ConocoPhillips to exceed
its divestment goal of $2bn, a target established following the
assumption of $5.4bn in debt from Marathon.
The numbers (it looks like a great deal for both companies):
$1.3 billion
300,000 acres
39,000 boepd
per acre: $4,333 / acre
per flowing boe: $33,333
The grid: link here. Even better, much more data and no paywall yet. Archived. This was major headline story over on CNBC at 5:31 a.m. CT. Again this was an all-time record.
Not only did rates go up, but production will increase -- higher rates, increased generation:
These are incredible numbers:
PJM auction prices rise due to data center demand, supply shortfall, per MW: $329 / 270 = 22% increase. For BGE and Dominion: $466 / $444, respectively.
PJM Interconnection today announced the results of its 2026/2027 Base Residual Auction (BRA), which secured 134,311 MW of unforced capacity generation (UCAP) and demand response to meet projected electricity needs for more than 67 million people across 13 states and the District of Columbia.
Regions under the Fixed Resource Requirement acquired an additional 11,933 MW in UCAP for a total of 146,244 MW (UCAP) available to serve forecasted peak electricity demand plus a reserve margin.
UCAP represents a generation resource’s maximum output adjusted for its estimated ability to reliably perform at times of highest system risk.
The price came in at the FERC-approved cap, $329.17/MW-day (UCAP), for the entire PJM footprint. This price compares with $269.92/MW-day for the 2025/2026 auction for the RTO, except for the BGE and Dominion zones, which cleared at $466.35/MW-day and $444.26/MW-day, respectively.
I am
inappropriately exuberant about the Bakken and I am often well out front
of my headlights. I am often appropriately accused of hyperbole when it
comes to the Bakken.
I am inappropriately exuberant about the US economy and the US market.
I am also inappropriately exuberant about all things Apple.
See disclaimer. This is not an investment site.
Disclaimer:
this is not an investment site. Do not make any investment, financial,
job, career, travel, or relationship decisions based on what you read
here or think you may have read here. All my posts are done quickly:
there will be content and typographical errors. If something appears wrong, it probably is. Feel free to fact check everything.
If anything on any of my
posts is important to you, go to the source. If/when I find
typographical / content errors, I will correct them.
Reminder: I am inappropriately exuberant about the Bakken, US economy, and the US market.
I am also inappropriately exuberant about all things Apple.
And
now, Nvidia, also. I am also inappropriately exuberant about all things
Nvidia. Nvidia is a metonym for AI and/or the sixth industrial
revolution.
I've now added Broadcom to the disclaimer. I am also inappropriately exuberant about all things Broadcom.
I am
inappropriately exuberant about the Bakken and I am often well out front
of my headlights. I am often appropriately accused of hyperbole when it
comes to the Bakken.
I am inappropriately exuberant about the US economy and the US market.
I am also inappropriately exuberant about all things Apple.
See disclaimer. This is not an investment site.
Disclaimer:
this is not an investment site. Do not make any investment, financial,
job, career, travel, or relationship decisions based on what you read
here or think you may have read here. All my posts are done quickly:
there will be content and typographical errors. If something appears wrong, it probably is. Feel free to fact check everything.
If anything on any of my
posts is important to you, go to the source. If/when I find
typographical / content errors, I will correct them.
Reminder: I am inappropriately exuberant about the Bakken, US economy, and the US market.
I am also inappropriately exuberant about all things Apple.
And
now, Nvidia, also. I am also inappropriately exuberant about all things
Nvidia. Nvidia is a metonym for AI and/or the sixth industrial
revolution.
I've now added Broadcom to the disclaimer. I am also inappropriately exuberant about all things Broadcom.
Chatbots
are becoming the go-to source for online answers for many consumers,
chipping away at the dominance of traditional web search and adding
another avenue of outreach that brands must cultivate to connect with
customers.
An
estimated 5.6% of U.S. search traffic on desktop browsers last month
went to an AI-powered large language model like ChatGPT or Perplexity,
according to Datos, a market intelligence firm that tracks web users’
behavior.
That pales beside the 94.4% that still went to traditional search engines like Alphabet’s Google or Microsoft’s
Bing, which have tried to fight off the new competition by adding
artificial intelligence summaries to the top of their search results.
But
the percentage of traffic that went to browser-based AI search has more
than doubled since June 2024, when it was 2.48%, according to Datos,
which is part of marketing software company Semrush. It has more than quadrupled since January 2024, when the figure was just under 1.3%.
From the first section of chapter four of The Story of Semiconductors by John Orton, c. 2004.
This is absolutely fascinating. It puts into perspective:
how far we've come; and,
how fast things are moving.
This was done quickly using a keyboard that has a "bad" n. I've tried to correct all the typographical errors but can't guarantee that all typographical errors have been corrected.
Note: below:
Ge: the semiconductor, germanium; and,
Si: the semiconductor, silicon.
Chapter 4: Silicon, Silicon, and yet more Silicon.
4.1 Precursor to the revolution
With
the crucial advantage of hindsight, we are very well aware of the sea
change consequent upon the invention of the transistor but it should not
really surprise us to learn that those struggling to come to terms with
it at the time were less readily persuaded.
Yes, it [the
transistor] was small and yes, it used far less power than the incumbent
device (the thermionic valve -- the vacuum tube) but there were
disadvantages too. There was the problem of excess noise and the
difficulty in producing devices which could amplify at high frequencies.
Needless to say, in its early days, the transistor was seen essentially
as a possible replacement for the valve -- many of the companies taking
part in its development were primarily valve (or, since they were
mainly American companies such as RCA, GE, Sylvania, and Philco, tube) companies whose main business was, and continued to be for some considerable time, either valves or tubes. [In American these were called "vacuum tubes"; in England they were called thermionic valves.]
It
is important to recognize that, though solid state circuity was
eventually to dominate the market, sales of valves did not even reach
their peak until 1957 and showed little sign of serious decline until
the late 1960s -- the transistor might be an exciting technical advance
but was not at all obvious that it represented a major commercial
investment.
The possible exceptions were the small start-up
companies, such as Texas Instruments (TI), Farichild, Hughes, or
Transitron, who carried none of the tube or valve baggage which
encumbered the larger companies but they were, by definition, small and
insignificant! They were, however, flexible and enterprising and it was
from them that many of the important innovations in semiconductor
technology were to come.
Technical innovation might be exciting and full to the brim with promise but, during the 1950s, the chief problem in transistor manufacture
was one of reproducibility. We have already touched on the difficulty
of controlling the base width in double-doped and alloyed structures
which had a direct and crucial effect on cut-off frequency but there was
the additional problem of encapsulation which frequently failed to
stabilize the device against atmospheric pollution.
Many
manufacturers were obliged ot divide their product into "bins"
containing high-grad devices which might sell for $20 apiece down to
run-of-the-mill (crumby?) specimens which they were lucky enough to
offload for 75 cents!
Only with the emergence of planar technology
could these problems be overcome -- and this process was not even
invented until 12 years after the point contact transistor.
And, needless to say, it took several more years to become widely accepted.
Nevertheless,
early transistors did find applications, first in hearing aids where
the low power requirement, low weight, and small volume were obvious
bonuses (though the excess noise associated with many devices could
hardly have been welcomed by users!) and in small portable radios -- the
ubiquitous "Transistor" which did more than anything to bring the word
into common usage. [This explains the "hearing aid" mania that began in the 60s and to some extent, continues.]
Again, it was on one of the small firms (TI)
which saw the opportunity and forged an arrangement with the Industrial
Development Engineering Associates (IDEA) to produce the "Regency TR1"
radio in October 1954. It was challenged, in the following year, by
Raytheon with its own model and subsequently by subsequently by numerous
others, including, significantly, Sony who later contributed to the
delight of youth (and the chagrin of the elderly!) with its highly
successful "Walkman" personal tape player.
Applications in car
radios followed soon afterward and, in spite of various sticky patches,
by the year 1960 there were some 30 US companies making transistors to a
total value of over $300 million (see Braun and Macdonald 1982: 76 -
77.)
Another area of application which attracted immediate
attention was that of computers. These were still in a very primitive
state of development during the 1950s -- analogue computers had been
used in radar systems as early as 1943 but the first general purpose
digital electronic coputer (ENIAC -- Electronic Numerical Integrator and
Calculator) was not built (at Penn State University) until 1946.
It filled a large room, used 18,000 valves and dissipated 150kW!
British
computing skills had been honed by code-breaking endeavours with the
Colossus machine during the Second World War (Colossus was first
introduced in 1943 and by the end of the war there were no less than 10
machines in use) and this experience was probably vital to the
development in Cambridge of a rival to ENICAC, known as EDSAC (Electronic
Digit Storage Automatic Calculator).
This appeared towards the
end of the 1940s, while the first transistorized computer was probably
the TRADIC developed by Bell for the US Army in 1954, employing 700
transistors and 10,000 Ge diodes (all hand-wired!), followed by a commercial computer from IBM, containing over 2,000 transistors, in the following year.
The
low dissipation and small physical size of the transistor gave it an
immediate advantage and its solid state construction offered hope of
much improved reliabiliyy -- however, it was initially limited in speed
by its relatively poorly controlled base width and once the decision to
use digital techniques became generally accepted, this took on a more
serious aspect because of the extra speed required for digital
processing (see Box 4.1).
Indeed, there was relatively little
enthusiasm for the long-term future of such machines -- a US survey at
the end of the 1940s suggested theat the likely national need
might be satisfied by about a hundred digital computers!
Such are the
perils of technological forecasting! In mitigation, one must accept that,
at that time, they [computers] were relatively expensive and ponderous
instruments.
While the commercial and consumer markets for
transistors and transistorized equipment were still in an uncertain
state, there could be little doubt of the seriousness of US military
interest.
Much military electronic equipment had either to be
portable, to be airborne, or to be attached to missiles where size,
weight, and ruggedness were at a premium. The transistor therefore came
as a heaven-sent opportunity to the military purchasing arm and, right
from the word "go," government finance for transistor development was
widely available -- indeed, there was more than a hint to suggest that
military backing kept the youthful transistor industry afloat during a
large part of the 1950s. [I was born in 1951; the history of the computer age and my life are almost exact contemporaries.]
Something between 35% ad 50% all US
annual semiconductor production was destined for military use during the
period 1955- 63 (Braun and Macdonald 1982: 80).
(It should be
remembered, too, that it was largely pressure from the military that led
to the early demise of Ge in favour of Si as the preferred transistor
material on the grounds of its much better resistance to thermal runaway).
Added to this came the decision by President Kennedy in
1961 to mount an intensive space programme, with the intention to "put a
man on the moon by 1970."
Once again, given the modest lifting
capability of current US rockets, weight was a vital factor and all
electronics must therefore be transistorized.
Ruggedness and reliability, too, were better served by solid state devices than by the older, relatively fragile vacuum tubes.
The
European industry, though technically well advanced, received only a
fraction of this level of support, and with inevitable consequences --
competition with America was, at best, patchy and generally
ineffective.
Nor was this state of affairs helped by some unfortunate technical planning.
An
unhappy example lies at the door of the British Post Office (then
responsible for telecommunications as well as mail delivery, see
Fransman 1995: 89 - 97).
When it became clear, after the Second
World War, that domestic and industrial demand for telephone services
was soon likely to escalate, the Post Office, in 1956, took the bold
decision dramatically to upgrade its telephone switching capabilities by
leapfrogging from the rather ancient mechanical switching technology
then in use to an advanced, digital " time division multiplexed" (TDM) system, employing fast electronic switches.
This
was designed to bypass the more modest technology the being
contemplated by most of their rivals, the crossbar switching system and
to give the United Kingdom an almost unassailable lead in this important
field.
It failed on account of the inadequacy of the components
then available -- a complete exchange was installed in Highgate Wood in
1962, only for it to succumb to excess heat from the 3,000 thermionic
values employed (see Chapuis and Joe 1990: 62).
At the time when the
decision was made to go ahead, the transistor was far too uncertain a
prospect (Ge devices were liable to thermal breakdown and Si had
scarcely had time assert itself -- it was, in any case, rather slow for
digital applications-- see Box 4.1) so the choice of an old, well tried
component technology was probably inevitable. (Even though this did
contrast with the boldness of the overall project aims!)
Success
with similar TDM switching systems had, in fact, to wait until 1970 when
suitable integrated circuits (IC) became available. What was worse from
the UK industry viewpoint was the resulting attempt to salvage
something from the ruins by reverting to he original mechanical
switching technology, thus robbing the Post Office suppliers of the
opportunity to develop intermediate switch technology, based on
transistors and (as they became available) integrated circuits. It was a
body blow for UK solid state device technology from which it never
quite recovered.
These references to integrated circuits
(ICs) serve to bring us back to our mainstream discussion of the
development of solid state active devices, for it was the invention of
the integrated circuit in 1958 - 9 which provide the jumping-point for
the real electronic revolution which still shows no sign of slowing. It
was clear to many, "wizz kids" of the 1950s that the transistor had the
potential for the development of large-scale, though compact, electronic
circuits, and several attempts were made to facilitate progress in this
direction.
However, it soon became apparent that there was a
limitation set by the necessary interconnections -- all of which
required individual attention with bonder or soldering iron -- and
several people began thinking of way to overcome this. The first public
proposal for integration has been credited to an Englishman, Geoffrey
Dummer of the Royal Radar Establishment (RRE, as then was) who presented
a conference paper in Washington in May 1952, and who, by 1957, has
persuaded the RRE management to fund a contract with the Plessey Company
to build a flip-flop circuit based on his ideas. This resulted in a
scale model which seems to have created considerable interest among
American scientists but very little excitement within the United
Kingdom! In fact, it was at TI in September 1958 that Jack Kilby first
built an actual circuit in the form of a phase-shift oscillator. It used
Ge, rather than Si because, at the time, Kilby could not lay hands on a
suitable Si crystal and it employed external connecting wires
individually bonded to the components but it demonstrated the use of the
bulk Ge resistance to form resistors and a diffused p-n junction
diode to provide capacitance -- there was no need to add these
functions by hanging discrete components onto the semiconductor circuit.
As a demonstration of the integration principle, it may be likened to
the point contact transistor -- a huge step forward but some way from
commercial viability.
The practical breakthrough came from
Fairchild Semiconductors in the following year, in the form of a patent
application by Robert Noyce claiming a method of making an integrated
circuit using the Si planar process and forming the necessary
interconnections by evaporating metallic films and defining them by
photolithography. This was surely the practical way to go but it was
nearly 2 years (March 1961) before Fairchild made their first working
circuits based on these principles, closely followed by Texas in October
1961. These two companies were serious rivals, not only with regard to
IC manufacture -- a titanic patent battle, also ensured over the
question of priority in the basic invention (see the stimulating account
given in Reid 2001). It took nearly 11 years of legal jousting [think Charles Dickens, Bleak House] before
the Court of Customs and Patents Appeals finally adjudicated in favour
of Fairchild -- Robert Noyce was officially declared the inventor of the
microchip! Not that it mattered very much -- by that time the world of
chips had moved on to such a degree that the issue had become of little
more than academic interest and, in any case, the two protagonists Kilby
and Noyce were, on a personal basis, more than happy to share the
credit. In the year 2000, Kilby was awarded a half share in the Nobel
prize and, doubtless Noyce would have joined him had he not died some 10
years earlier. That it should have taken the Nobel Committee more than
40 years to acknowledge a technical development of this magntude must
be seen as both remarkable in itself and sad in the extreme in that it
prevented Noyce from receiving his rightful share of the honour.
So
prodigious have been the ramifications of their invention that one is
somewhat taken aback to learn of the initial lack of interest shown by
equipment manufacturers in these early circuits. The problem was that
they were too expensive -- it was actually cheaper to build the same
circuit from individual component, hard-wired together, than to buy the
appropriate integrated version from TI or Fairchild. Sales were minimal.
Stalemate!
That was until May 1961 when President Kennedy threw down
his famous challenge that America should put a man on the moon by the
end of the decade. Almost immediately it became clear that the required
rocket guidance would demand highly sophisticated computer technology
and that such advanced circuity could only be realized in integrated
form. Hang the expense -- this was the only way to go! Such a dramatic
kick-start to a technological revolution smacked of divine intervention
by a Higher Being with an unfair interest in the fledgling US chip
industry -- certainly no other country ever received a comparable boost.
The result was demonstrated by the number of ICs sold: in 1963 the
number was a mere 500,000, by 1966 it had risen to 32 million.
Government
spending may have been the vital stimulus but the importance of
diversification was quickly appreciated. Jack Kilby was put to work at
TI to develop a revolutionary consumer product in the shape of a pocket
calculator which appeared in1971. No fewer than 5 million calculators
were sold in 1972. At the same time the digital watch made its
appearance took the consumer market by storm. Ted Hoff of Intel
developed the first microprocessor also in 1971 and the first personal
computer (PC) followed in 1975 in the form of a Popular Electronics kit!
The revolution was well and truly launched and the industry has hardly
cast a backward glance.
Progress in increasing complexity of integrated
circuits has shown a quite remarkable steadiness -- in 1965 Gordon Moore
(a physical chemist working in Noyce's group at Fairchild) made his
famous pronouncement which came to be known as "Moore's Law," that the
number of components on an IC would continue to double every year and
such has almost been the case. A careful examination of the data up to
1997 suggests that the annual increase is actually closer to a factor of
about 1.6 but the really striking feature is its long-term consistency,
encouraging confident prediction for future increases, at least as far
as the end of the first decade of the new millennium.
Solid state
circuitry has gone from "small scale integration" (SSI, up to 20 "gates"
in the 1960s to "medium scale integration" (MSI, 20 - 200 gates) at the
of the 1960s through "large scale integration" (LSI, 5,000 - 1000,000
gates) in the 1980s and what might be called "ultra large scale
integration" (ULSI, 100,000 - 10 million gates) by the end of the 1990s.
Moore himself, continued to play a role in these developments --
together with Robert Noyce, he left Fairchild in 1966 to found Intel
whose sales rose from $2,700 in 1968 to $60 million in 1973 and in the
year 2000 to $32 billion. The basis of this performance has, of course,
been the steady decrease in size of the component transistors and
we shall look in more detail at this anon. However, we must first
bactrack to examine another important breakthrough, the development, at
last, of a real field effect transistor (FET).
