How can you be sure this environment is not a dearth, a lack of demand?
rockdoc123 wrote:Yes, I saw the TRC's website and also posted the link above, but TRC gives annual amounts, not monthly rates like the EIA gives in the reference in the OP.
TRC also reports average monthly production up until 2015 and then they report the monthly production to current date elsewhere, just have to dig around a bit.
What is worth looking at is the rig count versus monthly production. I think that tells the story when you realize the vast majority of the increase from 2009 onwards was unconventional which requires continuous drilling and lots of rigs in order to increase production (this isn't the case with older conventional production).
ROCKMAN wrote:BTW: mentioning the name of a formation in the Permian Basin (or anywherer erlse, for that matter) doesn't prove sh*t about reserve potential. Show me the maps, proposed well locations, economic analysis including cost and oil prices, detailed spacial reservoir analysis and then we'll have something to discuss. This he said/she said bullish*t is wasting everyone's time. I've worked four decades in a world populated with detailed data...not hyperbole. LOL.
A Guest Post by Guy Minton (Details for the chart above are explained in the post.) The Texas Railroad Commission (RRC) had the oil and gas production reported online in early 2005, and became fully online for producers and the public on Feb 14, 2005. At the time it was set up, it required the producers to input their production in the production file for existing approved leases, and in the pending lease data file for those leases which have not yet received an approved lease number by the RRC. Each month, the RRC only reports the oil and condensate that is currently updated that month which is in the production file. Historically, the production did not seem to be completely reported. The lag time to near full reporting of RRC production went from almost 18 months, down to about nine months within
copious.abundance wrote:Updated graph with data through December 2017.
Here is a prediction today from an industry insider.
People who simply look at historical production charts to make future projections continue to get it all wrong.
rockdoc123 wrote:Here is a prediction today from an industry insider.
I apparently am missing something here because the company who the host introduces as a "shale pioneer" was only formed in 2016. Perhaps they were referring to the CEO who was formerly with EOG through the formative years.
The prediction made that some basins will start to decrease in production shortly and referencing the Eagle Ford as an example is a bit self serving given the company in question only has holdings in the Deleware basin portion of the Permian.
What he did say near the end is that slow down in production growth will drive oil prices higher. As I've said before higher oil prices means that areas that aren't currently economic to develop will be so for a period of time there is going to be a see-saw until such time as all the potential drill locations have been drilled regardless of price. So if prices stay range bound undoubtedly you will see a leveling off of production in basins that have already seen a lot of drilling, it they rise on the other hand then production will also rise.
Going forward, the Permian, which is made of up many pancaked layers of oil-soaked rock in West Texas and New Mexico, will see the greatest leaps in well improvements over the next four to five years, Papa said in the Bloomberg interview.
"You’re going from only round 1 to round 2 of technology applications" in the Permian, he said. "Whereas in the Bakken, you’re going from round 5 to round 6. Maybe in the Eagle Ford, you’re going from Round 3 to Round 4 in waves of technology improvements."
tita wrote:For those who prefer to read, instead of listening "Fux News":
vtsnowedin wrote:So you think Rachel Maddow is a better news source while she spends half a show going on on Trump sending an invitation to Putin to attend the Miss Universe pageant when Russia hosted the show? Or perhaps you only read the NYT or the Washington Post and swallow everything they feed you without a grain of salt.
tita wrote:vtsnowedin wrote:So you think Rachel Maddow is a better news source while she spends half a show going on on Trump sending an invitation to Putin to attend the Miss Universe pageant when Russia hosted the show? Or perhaps you only read the NYT or the Washington Post and swallow everything they feed you without a grain of salt.
I don't know who Rachel Maddow is, and I don't live in North America. I'm just more interested in written news. I consider Fox News or NBC News as populist medias, with poor information background accuracy. They say what people wants to listen.
I listened to the link you gave... I found it funny when the journalist talked about Marcellus as an "enormous deposit of oil". I'm quite sure you can spot the differences between the two treatments of the same information between Fox news and WSJ.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 169 guests