Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Economics vs. ETP

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 14 Dec 2017, 14:58:51

Sorry searcher,you are so wrong .Below is Net Profit of CHK for the last 10 years:


what is it that you do not understand regarding the difference between cash and non-cash accounting items and how it impacts a companies bottom line?

You can keep going on and on about this but all you are doing is pointing out that they took a lot of DD&A and reserve write downs. You are not speaking to EBITDA which is what determines a companies ability to continue operating with positive economics.

In 2015 revenues were $12.8 billion and in 2016 they were $7.9 billion

In 2016 cash operating expenses were $7.8 billion and in 2015 they were $11.1 billion

What that means is they showed a cash only positive cashflow of $117 MM in 2015 and $100 MM in 2016 whereas you show them at a loss of $14.9 billion in 2015 and $4.9 billion in 2016. Those are paper losses important for tax calculations and valuing a company or set of assets at the time of sale, but not important when looking at day to day operations.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby dcoyne78 » Thu 14 Dec 2017, 15:34:54

Hi Rockdoc,

A typical Permian Basin well (average well with first oil flow in 2016) may produce about 425 kb of oil over its life.

https://shaleprofile.com/index.php/2017 ... mber-2017/

Mike Shellman who owns his own oil company and is very familiar with oil accounting says

http://peakoilbarrel.com/opec-november- ... ent-624127

Lets assume $50 oil based on a hedge and what appears to be growing deduct to WTI because of bottlenecks. Less 7.5% severance and property tax ($3.50), less 25% RI ($12.50), less ($3.00) per incremental BO G&A, less ($2.5o) per incremental BO interest expense, less ($8.00) per incremental BO lift costs = $21.00 per incremental BO take home pay.

I don’t buy the well costs those yahoos tout; the AFE’s I’ve seen for the laterals, frac’s, 600K BW at $1.50 per BW, acreage costs, etc. they have in the Permian are $9M, with no problems and there are always problems…Pioneer in the Midland has now had to add a 3rd string of casing to a lot of their wells.

$9M divided by $21 net back is actually 428,600 BO to payout. Even if we use 400K BO to reach payout, and add the increasing gas component in the revenue stream, and declining WH price per mmbtu, if it is not flared because of its own bottlenecks…its not good. The economics of all shale oil wells suck at $50. Their “breakeven” price calculations are lies.


You have claimed repeatedly that most of the LTO wells payout after 1 year.

For the average 2016 Permian well cumulative oil output was about 125 kbo after 12 months. Could you explain how an $8 million dollar well is paid for in 1 year with 125 kbo? About 32% of this oil goes to royalty and tax payments leaving 85 kbo to pay for the well, even if we assume operating expenses are zero, we would need a wellhead price of about 8,000,000/85,000=$94/b.

As wellhead prices are around $50/b and LOE is probably $8/b for a net of $26/b (after paying $16/b for RI and taxes), that suggests about 371 kbo are needed to reach payout. The average Permian well won't get to that cumulative output in 5 years, and maybe not even in 10 years.

I am just not buying your one year payout. There may be a couple percent of monster wells where this is true, but not true for the average Permian well.
Last edited by dcoyne78 on Thu 14 Dec 2017, 16:37:53, edited 1 time in total.
dcoyne78
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013, 19:45:15

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby dirtyharry » Thu 14 Dec 2017, 15:53:49

rockdoc123 wrote:
Sorry searcher,you are so wrong .Below is Net Profit of CHK for the last 10 years:


what is it that you do not understand regarding the difference between cash and non-cash accounting items and how it impacts a companies bottom line?

You can keep going on and on about this but all you are doing is pointing out that they took a lot of DD&A and reserve write downs. You are not speaking to EBITDA which is what determines a companies ability to continue operating with positive economics.

In 2015 revenues were $12.8 billion and in 2016 they were $7.9 billion

In 2016 cash operating expenses were $7.8 billion and in 2015 they were $11.1 billion

What that means is they showed a cash only positive cashflow of $117 MM in 2015 and $100 MM in 2016 whereas you show them at a loss of $14.9 billion in 2015 and $4.9 billion in 2016. Those are paper losses important for tax calculations and valuing a company or set of assets at the time of sale, but not important when looking at day to day operations.


What BS . I said they do not show any profit by GAAP standards . EBITDA is not a GAAP standard . Are you saying that CHK does not pay I (Interest) it pays no T(taxes),it^s assets do not D( Depreciate) and they do not have to A(Amortise).I don^t know from where you learnt your accounting but if you were running a company you would run it to the ground . By the way why were GAAP standards laid out ?Oh, I forgot the guys who devolped them were idiots ,because you are the one of the few who is intelligent . Just a reminder your vocation is geology and not accounting ,so please do not go where you have no credibility . All companies who appointed an accountant to head their operations ran them to the ground : example Mr Harold Geenen at ITT a thorough bean counter who destroyed a firm which was leader in all it^s fields . If you want I can give a lot of examples .
Reminds me of a Richard Pryor movie where when he is caught in bed with a woman by his wife says ^ Whom are you going to believe me or your f****** eyes ^ . :lol:
dirtyharry
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri 07 Apr 2017, 10:53:43

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby dirtyharry » Thu 14 Dec 2017, 16:16:42

rockdoc123 wrote:
When you look at the S&P 500, and see that 30% of its market cap is made of companies that have never turned a profit, or even had a year of positive cash flow there is very little question as to who are the stupid ones


It would be the ones who don't understand accounting principles and the difference between cash and non-cash items. Or those who get all of their financial opinions for suspect bloggers. :roll:


Ok,we are stupid, agreed . Genius please justify the current valuation of Netflix,Amazon,Tesla ,Uber,Snapchat . We await your answer, the great one.
dirtyharry
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri 07 Apr 2017, 10:53:43

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 14 Dec 2017, 16:26:09

You boys can keep arguing over the various metric as to what CHK is really worth. But neither one of you are putting up one f*cking dollar to back up your positions. Unlike the current shareholders who do have real dollars backing their evaluation of the company. And currently that market cap is $3.36 billion. Been a lot higher in the past as well as being half that amount at one point.

Those shareholders consider CHK to be worth several $billion. Just MHO but I would say their opinion is worth considerably more then what either of you two say since they are actually backing that opinion with cold hard cash. You two? Just words on a website that 99.99% of the public doesn't even know exists. Either one of you could be completely wrong and it will cost you nothing.

Don't mean to be rude but I suspect y'all are starting to bore most folks here. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby dcoyne78 » Thu 14 Dec 2017, 16:32:37

Hey Rockman,

I asked Rockdoc not you, but what do you think of what Mike Shellman said about payout for Permian wells? See my comment 3 up.

Also if you still subscribe to drilling info could you shoot me an email with Texas statewide C+C data from drilling info for Sept 2017? (just the total for the state will do.)
[email protected]

Thanks.
dcoyne78
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013, 19:45:15

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby dirtyharry » Thu 14 Dec 2017, 16:45:35

ROCKMAN wrote:You boys can keep arguing over the various metric as to what CHK is really worth. But neither one of you are putting up one f*cking dollar to back up your positions. Unlike the current shareholders who do have real dollars backing their evaluation of the company. And currently that market cap is $3.36 billion. Been a lot higher in the past as well as being half that amount at one point.

Those shareholders consider CHK to be worth several $billion. Just MHO but I would say their opinion is worth considerably more then what either of you two say since they are actually backing that opinion with cold hard cash. You two? Just words on a website that 99.99% of the public doesn't even know exists. Either one of you could be completely wrong and it will cost you nothing.

Don't mean to be rude but I suspect y'all are starting to bore most folks here. LOL.


RM,whenever I address you I say ^ with due respect^ and I mean it . So must understand that those shareholders who are holding on to CHK are doing it on a word ,it is called ^HOPE^. They are backing nothing ,they are stuck having fallen for false promises and now hoping like hell that they will recoup all they have lost . Their cash is gone and I can see no reason to put my cash in a drowning operation .It would be stupid of me . As to the shareholders since they are banking on hope just some thoughts :
1. Hope only prolongs the agony of man . It leads to inaction . Better is fear that will lead you to action .
2. To hope that you are going to fix something that is broken is futile ,it will drive you crazy .
The first is by Neitsche and the second is from the movie Mad Max 2.
Ok ,this discussion is on a forum which 99.9 % of the world does not know it exists . Then why are you posting here ? Why post your POD view (highly appreciated by me) ? In spite of disagreements my personal view is that we on this forum and others like POB are that 0.01% that will go ^silently into the night ^ because we knew the predicament called ^Peak Oil^.
P.S; On a personal level I do not mind even if you were rude , I have learnt a lot from you .Take care and be well
Last edited by dirtyharry on Thu 14 Dec 2017, 17:00:07, edited 1 time in total.
dirtyharry
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri 07 Apr 2017, 10:53:43

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Thu 14 Dec 2017, 16:57:01

dirtyharry wrote: Sorry searcher,you are so wrong .Below is Net Profit of CHK for the last 10 years:

If, like short, you keep beating the same dead horse because you don't know what you're talking about, that doesn't make you right. But thanks for playing.

I'm sure your games are fun for the lovers of doomer porn.

I never said CHK was a great company, or one I want to invest in.

All I did was point out that unlike the chart which pstarr posted which doesn't show a realistic picture, including a roughly flat past two years, the chart of CHK doesn't look like total doom, even though, of course, short jumped on that without knowing what he's talking about. (Consistent with ETP).
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 10142
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
Location: Central KY

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby dirtyharry » Thu 14 Dec 2017, 17:11:53

Outcast_Searcher wrote:
dirtyharry wrote: Sorry searcher,you are so wrong .Below is Net Profit of CHK for the last 10 years:

If, like short, you keep beating the same dead horse because you don't know what you're talking about, that doesn't make you right. But thanks for playing.

I'm sure your games are fun for the lovers of doomer porn.

I never said CHK was a great company, or one I want to invest in.

All I did was point out that unlike the chart which pstarr posted which doesn't show a realistic picture, including a roughly flat past two years, the chart of CHK doesn't look like total doom, even though, of course, short jumped on that without knowing what he's talking about. (Consistent with ETP).


My Guru said ^ When in doubt look for the math ^ . 2+2 =4 is true from the time of Jesus Christ to the time of Donald Trump . I just posted plain simple arithmetic . Take it or leave it . I think you are a balanced commentator and it is not my intention to put you down ,just an effort to show that your assessment on CHK is let us put it like this ^overoptimistic^. No offense intended .
dirtyharry
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri 07 Apr 2017, 10:53:43

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Thu 14 Dec 2017, 17:18:23

dirtyharry wrote:
Outcast_Searcher wrote:
dirtyharry wrote: Sorry searcher,you are so wrong .Below is Net Profit of CHK for the last 10 years:

If, like short, you keep beating the same dead horse because you don't know what you're talking about, that doesn't make you right. But thanks for playing.

I'm sure your games are fun for the lovers of doomer porn.

I never said CHK was a great company, or one I want to invest in.

All I did was point out that unlike the chart which pstarr posted which doesn't show a realistic picture, including a roughly flat past two years, the chart of CHK doesn't look like total doom, even though, of course, short jumped on that without knowing what he's talking about. (Consistent with ETP).


My Guru said ^ When in doubt look for the math ^ . 2+2 =4 is true from the time of Jesus Christ to the time of Donald Trump . I just posted plain simple arithmetic . Take it or leave it . I think you are a balanced commentator and it is not my intention to put you down ,just an effort to show that your assessment on CHK is let us put it like this ^overoptimistic^. No offense intended .

No offense taken. You're welcome to your opinion. But until you show some MEANINGFUL reasons, which deal with realistic data, why the financial standards and the entire financial market structure is wrong, and you, pstarr, and short are right by making sh*t up, call me unconvinced.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 10142
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
Location: Central KY

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 14 Dec 2017, 17:49:15

Harry - I hoped you and others would catch the somewhat sarcastic tease in that post. I'm expecting even a more confused response from Doc...I baffle him from time to time. LOL. But as far as folks stuck with the CHK stock I doubt many of the current shareholders have had their position very long. There are days now when as many as 15 million shares are bought by new players. In fact I know a number of cohorts who have been buying small position. And those buys have nothing to do with a presumed value of CHK but expectations of higher prices. At $3.36/share it only takes just a $0.40/share move to generate a nice ROR. And if I were a serious speculator I would take a serious position anticipating an corporate takeover. Between the current price and reducing debt via asset sales I think the possibility is more likely now then ever before. As I've explained before a company lie CHK would never be liquidated in bankruptcy. They either transfer most/all of the stock to the creditors or they aare ought out by another company.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 14 Dec 2017, 20:36:52

I am just not buying your one year payout. There may be a couple percent of monster wells where this is true, but not true for the average Permian well.

Although the story is different for each basin, various parts of the basin and various operators (based on their competency) here is a way of looking at the math.

Rystad did a break-even analysis for the Permian and Bakken in February of this year and arrived at 2016 breakeven costs for the Permian of $33/bbl and for the Bakken of $29/bbl. That means at $57/bbl WTI operators would net back $24/bbl in the Permian and $28/bbl in the Bakken. They also pointed out that drilling and completion costs on average in the Permian basin were $5.2 MM and in the Bakken $5.9 MM.

Rates from last year for both basins are all over the place given some wells were either drilled in poor places or just badly completed and others seemed to get the best of both worlds. As an example, EOG reported many wells last year with high initial production (eg: IP rates of 3455 bopd and 6.4 MMscfd and 3909 bopd and 5.3 MMscfd) as did Whiting (7800 boepd). Indeed there are many wells in both basins where the average annual first-year production rate is 1000 bopd. However when you take into account the poorer wells the averages for the Permian basin in the first year are around 600 bopd and for the Bakken 550 bopd (Oil and Gas Journal) which takes into account the steep first year decline from IP rate.

So looking at the Bakken first that amounts to $5.6 MM net cash flow for the first year based on oil only and for the Permian $5.2 MM. This is not far off the Rystad number for total D&C cost for these wells and one has to remember by doing this sort of reverse engineering way of looking at things it adds costs beyond the first year of production into the breakeven cost calculation hence the estimated first year cash flow should realistically be higher. This supports the one-year payback. And of course, the better wells that EOG and Whiting reported payback in a few months time.

We could also attempt to build this up from the bottom.
Drill cost $5.2 MM
Opex $3500/month/well
G&A $3/bbl
Transportation $1.00/bbl
First year production at 600 bopd average daily is 219,000 bbls
Net back revenue first year is $5.3 MM
Total opex is $42,000
Total transportation is $219,000
Net free cashflow would be $5.0 MM in the first 12 months, close to payout.

Of course if you want to take the Berman methodology and focus only on the bad wells where there is no way of telling if they were drilled or completed correctly then you will end up with long payouts.

so Rystad is saying the cost for drilling is lower than you are using, and Oil and Gas Journal is suggesting in 2016 average IP rates are much higher. Along with the decent netbacks Rystad calculates this results in early payback.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby shortonoil » Thu 14 Dec 2017, 22:55:30

The trigger has arrived; the first derivative of Chinese credit formation (the credit pulse) is collapsing. It will get here within 6 to 9 months.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-1 ... hy-matters

In other news - a White House consul has said: (down the page quit a bit)

Others had more idiosyncratic impulses. Kevin Harrington, a former associate of Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel brought in to shape national security strategy, saw close ties with oil- and gas-rich Russia as critical to surviving an energy apocalypse — a fate that officials who worked with him said he discussed frequently and depicted as inevitable.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... 615b0f627c

which is what we have been saying for the last few years:

http://www.thehillsgroup.org
User avatar
shortonoil
False ETP Prophet
False ETP Prophet
 
Posts: 7132
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 14 Dec 2017, 23:26:52

and i don't want to go here but once again it is Zerohedge.
I'm sorry this gentleman is pretty much a fool. He can't read a finance sheet and understand it and he focusses on subjects he has no background to comment on. Yet the nutbag doomers here will continuously link to his ridiculous claims.
At some point the sane folks here need to draw a line in the sand.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 14 Dec 2017, 23:35:18

AdamB wrote:
Yoshua wrote:This tread is called Economics vs. Etp. But if the energy isn't there, the economy won't be there either.


The title of this post is a joke. etp has nothing to do with economics.


Just thought I would continue to point out the obvious.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 14 Dec 2017, 23:39:43

pstarr wrote:
AdamB wrote:
Yoshua wrote:This tread is called Economics vs. Etp. But if the energy isn't there, the economy won't be there either.


The etp doesn't talk about the energy available to the economy.

wrong. It's exactly what it does.


Really? Can you point out shortys use of coal ENERGY in the economy? Thank you.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 14 Dec 2017, 23:44:11

Yoshua wrote:Adam is talking about resources that the Hill's Group sees as low to zero net energy resources that won't deliver any energy to the economy.


Such as coal? Natural gas? Low or zero net energy resources to the economy? And these low or zero net energy resources, claims of this are coming from the same non-reservoir petroleum engineers that have all these 84% recovery factor fields that Short can't give us the names of? That the USGS can't find after a 5 year research project? You know...real live scientists, with real live petroleum engineers that shorty didn't ask before proving...again...that he has no experience in the field of engineering in question?
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 14 Dec 2017, 23:53:05

dirtyharry wrote:
Rock doc says ^As to predicting the failure of the shale gas revolution...it already happened dimwit. That is why the natural gas prices are so low there was too much success.^

So now it is ^What we loose in profits we make up in volume ^. A one way ticket to bankruptcy . If all companies had ^too much success^ like this the world would be full of billionaires . :-D


Image
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 14 Dec 2017, 23:58:01

shortonoil wrote:
Outcast, you should stick to criticizing the Etp


Since he doesn't know anything about it, and doesn't understand it, that is not gong to work very well either.


Some of us do know something about it, and understand it, and have pointed out why you really needed to get someone with the appropriate experience involved so you don't end up looking like...well...did the Royal Society spot the same nonsense that we have here?
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby AdamB » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 00:02:21

dcoyne78 wrote:Hi Rockdoc,

A typical Permian Basin well (average well with first oil flow in 2016) may produce about 425 kb of oil over its life.

https://shaleprofile.com/index.php/2017 ... mber-2017/


Which sub-basin? Which shale? Which bench in the shale?

This "average everything you can find" routine works when you can't do it better. The information is available, so why would anyone not do it right?
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

PreviousNext

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests