Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

"The Shale Oil Boom" paper by Leonardo Maugeri

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.

Re: The Shale Oil Boom by Leonardo Maugeri

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 14 Aug 2013, 23:02:15

tell you what, Doc; why don't you explain to DC the accounting/reporting path for oil and natural gas production in Texas, who knows what first, the TRRC or the EIA or the SEC or the FBI. And while you are at it, draw me a picture, one of them flow charts with the little squares in it, in crayon, so I can understand it. Not too complicated now, you know how dumb I B bout them high dolla public companies.


You certainly are an obnoxious ass....when you get done with your snarky self-serving responses perhaps you might want to document what it is that is being reported. Barrels produced at the wellhead? Or perhaps barrels at separator, or perhaps barrels at point of sale. They all are slightly different. And generally reported production in a given month is often corrected in the following month for various reasons. I know a bit about that having spent a lot of time doing A&D reviews which required looking at that level of detail.

What the SEC has is reported sales barrels (less shrinkage, usage and other losses) and that would be a number that is consistently applied across all of the companies. Public companies report quarterly to the SEC, you can't discern what individual well production is from that information but you can certainly tell what a company is producing in a given trend and those numbers are reliable and consistent. Because each state has its own regulations, some companies use SCADA, others have field operators recording production and because of the various places that measurements might be taken you need a source that has a consistent reporting framework.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: The Shale Oil Boom by Leonardo Maugeri

Unread postby Oily Stuff » Thu 15 Aug 2013, 08:28:23

Thank you, DC. I have learned something. Respectfully, however, EIA-813 appears to be more directed at pipeline/storage facilities, blending tank farms, and storage facilities used in SPR inventory accounting than it is directed at individual producers operating in Eagle Ford shale fields in S. Texas. For instance the minimum amount of crude oil on hand at a "facility" must be 1000 bbls. and I can assure you that very few operators are holding that many barrels on an individual lease as that creates operational headaches given the high volume of daily production, limited storage capacity and problems associated with separation and treatment of BS&W prior to oil sales and water disposal. That oil is getting moved off lease as fast as possible. Please see 813, Part 6.

I believed, perhaps incorrectly, that you were attempting to study individual well performance in the Eagle Ford and how that translates to predicting the future of the play relative to America's energy plight. I think the data that can be gleaned from 813 does not identify Eagle Ford shale production from Yates
Field production, correct me if I am wrong. Nor does the data from that EIA data give us any insight into individual lease and well performance in the Eagle Ford or any other field. Please see 813, Part 3. If you are using EIA data and assuming that all production increases in Texas held in storage, put in a salt cavern, or run down a pipeline is Eagle Ford shale production, respectfully, that may not be true.

The Texas Railroad Commission unloads untold regulatory grief on me every day. It is not without it's problems, the TRRC, and I know first hand it is overwhelmed at the moment from these shale plays and from operators who intentionally or incorrectly misreport and delay reporting in the shale plays. But I am a proud Texan and from a keen knowledge on the history of the TRRC and how it essentially taught the rest of the world how to regulate its oil and gas business, I believe that the only way to evaluate actual tight oil leases and well performance is by using TRRC data, even if it means having to wait a few months for them to get things sorted out. Ultimately the TRRC does get it sorted out, down to the last barrel, per lease, per field, per reservoir.

When that barrel of oil leaves a Texas lease, it is accounted for and that becomes real data. If for instance I am mapping around looking for a prospect to drill, evaluation well performance and/or reservoir decline and remaining OOIP, I use TRRC data, not EIA or SEC data. I can only give you the benefit of my actual experiences and the ability, or inability to feed my family.

Thanks again for your good work, mate.
Oily Stuff
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed 17 Apr 2013, 14:24:43
Location: Texas

Re: The Shale Oil Boom by Leonardo Maugeri

Unread postby dcoyne78 » Thu 15 Aug 2013, 08:33:19

ROCKMAN wrote:DC – This makes more sense. The filters on DrillingInfo are clumsy with respect to identifying what wells are producing at a single point in time. But this is what I’ve figured out: During May 2012 there were 1869 EFS wells classified as oil and 430 classified as gas/condensate. The numbers I gave you for May 2013 would represent those wells plus the ones added since May 2012 and those that have stopped producing since then.


3291 oil wells in May 2013.
Last 12 months: 1439 oil.
May 2012= 3291-1439=1852.
dcoyne78
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013, 19:45:15

Re: The Shale Oil Boom by Leonardo Maugeri

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 15 Aug 2013, 09:28:19

DC - where does your data come from? According to DrillingInfo, that gets it data from the TRRC, there were 2532 EFS leases producing in May 2013. Remember companies in Texas only report production by lease and not by well. The data base does show 4060 wells on those 2532 leases but that doesn't mean all those wells are producing in May. Two different leases may each have 5 wells that were completed in the EFS but one may have all five wells producing that month and the other only 2. A well that was completed in 2009 and abandoned in 2011 will still show up in the well count. The lease count may be lacking a few due to late reporting but it can't be erroneously high: no one accidentally reports a lease as producing if it isn't: if you report it as producing you'll report a volume produced and have to send a check to cover the state production tax. No one pays taxes they don't owe.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: The Shale Oil Boom by Leonardo Maugeri

Unread postby Oily Stuff » Thu 15 Aug 2013, 09:35:45

Rockdoc, please take note of the fact that I don't need to use the quote button to remind you what you just wrote and I address you by your username.

Where the production occurs at the facility is completely irrelevant to the debate regarding whose data to use to evaluate Eagle Ford production, as was the SEC BS. I was defending the accounting/reporting methods of the Texas Railroad Commission and attempting to understand from DC how he uses EIA data, instead of TRRC data, to evaluate Eagle Ford shale performance; I might ask you how that is "self serving" but I don't much care.

I work with public companies, done occasional deals with them, bought their production, drilled in between their abandoned wells and fixed their blowout messes. I can think outside the small, independent producer box, and the shale box, quite well, thank you. You seem single minded in your defense of public companies and can't get out of the box.

I was "snarky," yes sir. I am not as educated as you are but I have found my way thru the oilfield for over 60 years very well, am not retired and do the real work to make it happen every day. In other words I don't watch it being done, or read about it, or talk about it, I actually have to do it. I have had smart people look down their noses at me my entire career and lecture me, correct me and tell me it can be done the way I was doing it, that because of my lack of education they were smarter than me. I think you think that I am "obnoxious" because I am not overwhelmed with your public company box.

I will ignore the fact that you feel the need to call me names because I don't live in your box. I am not an engineer or a PhD but I do have good Texas manners.
Oily Stuff
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed 17 Apr 2013, 14:24:43
Location: Texas

Re: The Shale Oil Boom by Leonardo Maugeri

Unread postby dcoyne78 » Thu 15 Aug 2013, 10:11:48

ROCKMAN wrote:DC - where does your data come from? According to DrillingInfo, that gets it data from the TRRC, there were 2532 EFS leases producing in May 2013. Remember companies in Texas only report production by lease and not by well. The data base does show 4060 wells on those 2532 leases but that doesn't mean all those wells are producing in May. Two different leases may each have 5 wells that were completed in the EFS but one may have all five wells producing that month and the other only 2. A well that was completed in 2009 and abandoned in 2011 will still show up in the well count. The lease count may be lacking a few due to late reporting but it can't be erroneously high: no one accidentally reports a lease as producing if it isn't: if you report it as producing you'll report a volume produced and have to send a check to cover the state production tax. No one pays taxes they don't owe.


Hi Rockman,

The data is based on the data you gave here. I was just trying to put it all in one place.
The number of wells I am using is an estimate because before you gave me this data, I had very little good data, just rough estimates.

I looked pretty closely at Eagle Ford 2 data last fall and determined that many leases have multiple wells and that it is quite difficult to determine the number of producing wells. Many leases on schedule are not producing (about 20 % when I checked) though I am not sure if this is just a reporting problem and many leases have 2 or more wells, which often started production 6 or more months apart. In these cases I did not use the data to develop the average well profile because it was too difficult to disentangle the data from the multiple wells. In cases where multiple wells on a lease went online within a month of each other I used the data from the multiple wells and assumed if there were 4 wells that 1/4 of the output from the lease was from 1 well, or that each produced identically. Based on the data I have I cannot tell what the individual wells are producing in this case. There are 200 or so wells that I analyzed that are single wells on a lease.

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

Re: The Shale Oil Boom by Leonardo Maugeri

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 15 Aug 2013, 10:21:21

DC - A pain in the ass with Texas reporting regs, eh? LOL. From first hand experience you can't assume equal production per well on a lease. I've seen wide variances for wells on the same lease from super good to money losing dogs.

I'm in DC right now on vacation. But I'll pull up the numbers for the 10 best single well leases for May producers and 10 doggie ones. I'll stick with wells that started producing May 2012 to avoid the learning curve effect. It won't be a great stat for the trend but it's something.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: The Shale Oil Boom by Leonardo Maugeri

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 15 Aug 2013, 11:15:48

DC - Here are some for numbers for every to contemplate especially the optimists amongst us.

In May 2012: 235 leases began producing from the EFS. Of those leases 27 had been plugged and abandoned by May 2013. Of those abandoned leases the best production was 31k Bo and the worse was 3k Bo.

Just 101 lease had only one well on it. The ten best cumulative production for the wells beginning in May 2012 and still producing in May 2013: in k bo - 246; 234;210;206;202;193;183;181;178;177. The worse ten wells in that same period: in k bo - 11;11;12;14;16;17;19;19;25;29. And these are the weeks still producing. I'm pretty sure none of them will make 300k bo.

The pubcos, and others, like to point out those press releases about ther big wells. But did you see any news about those 27 leases that didn't produce for even 12 months before they were plugged and abandoned? How about those ten wells that are still producing in May 2013 but have only averaged about 15k bo for their first year? But I bet the folks that made those 200k+ bo wells the first 12 months have hit the PR trail big time. And thus the risk for anyone to trying to characterize any trend based upon just those pubco press releases. Not quit the whole story.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: The Shale Oil Boom by Leonardo Maugeri

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 15 Aug 2013, 11:48:41

DC - Some more numbers to chew on. Many rate EOG as one of the best EFS players. So how did they do in May 2012? They put 46 wells on production that month. Only 4 were single well leases. For the first 12 those wells have produced 134k, 39k, 30k and 26k. All 46 of the wells that went on line in May 2012 they have averaged 88.7k bo for their first 12 months. Given the high initial decline rates it doesn't seem likely those wells will average 300k each over their life. Unless, of course, they can keep the producing for the next 50+years.

Again, interesting how the actual data doesn't quite match the hype, eh? Next I'll lifts up Chesapeake's skirt and check them out.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: The Shale Oil Boom by Leonardo Maugeri

Unread postby Oily Stuff » Thu 15 Aug 2013, 12:05:45

I can't wait to see under CHK's skirt.

I assume this production data that RM is kind enough to forward to us comes from DI, which in turn can only come directly from the Texas Railroad Commission.
Oily Stuff
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed 17 Apr 2013, 14:24:43
Location: Texas

Re: The Shale Oil Boom by Leonardo Maugeri

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 15 Aug 2013, 12:08:14

DC - Same stats for Chesapeake: during May 2012 they put 16 wells on production. Only 5 were single well leases and during the first 12 months they produced 59k, 67k, 72k, 96k and 105k bbls of oil. During the first 12 months those 16 wells produced an average of 38.9k bbls of oil each.

Still haven't found a population of recent wells that look as though they'll average anywhere close to 300k bbls of oil. Guess I'll keep looking. Those press releases couldn't be misleading folks that badly, could they?
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: The Shale Oil Boom by Leonardo Maugeri

Unread postby Pops » Thu 15 Aug 2013, 12:45:18

I think it was the CEO of EOG who last year said last year was the peak of shale growth.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: The Shale Oil Boom by Leonardo Maugeri

Unread postby John_A » Thu 15 Aug 2013, 13:29:14

ROCKMAN wrote:Still haven't found a population of recent wells that look as though they'll average anywhere close to 300k bbls of oil. Guess I'll keep looking. Those press releases couldn't be misleading folks that badly, could they?


But of course they lie. What I want to know is how is it that government scientists can figure this stuff out, and put estimates on it which don't fall for the hype, and people still run around acting as though the hype is real?

This came out awhile back.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1118/OF12-1118.pdf

Page 7. 2/3's of the way down the page.

Eagleford Shale Oil Mean EUR: 55,000 barrels.

The idea that government scientists can sort through the hype but everyone else falls for rosie scenarios hook, line and sinker is a bit disconcerting.
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36

Re: The Shale Oil Boom by Leonardo Maugeri

Unread postby dcoyne78 » Thu 15 Aug 2013, 14:49:46

ROCKMAN wrote:DC - Same stats for Chesapeake: during May 2012 they put 16 wells on production. Only 5 were single well leases and during the first 12 months they produced 59k, 67k, 72k, 96k and 105k bbls of oil. During the first 12 months those 16 wells produced an average of 38.9k bbls of oil each.

Still haven't found a population of recent wells that look as though they'll average anywhere close to 300k bbls of oil. Guess I'll keep looking. Those press releases couldn't be misleading folks that badly, could they?


Hi Rockman,

It is quite hard nailing this down because of the way Texas reports its data, the 30 year EUR for the average well profile I developed (based on the Eagleford 2 field) is 232 kb not 300 kb, 20 year EUR is 226 kb, and 15 year is 221 kb, first 3 years output for the average well is 172 kb. I realize that if 4 wells are on a lease it is highly unlikely that their output would be the same, but as we are looking for the average anyway we can treat it that way to find our "average" well as long as all 4 wells start production at about the same time (within a month).

My average well profile is based on 170 wells which started producing between Dec 2010 and April 2012, data was collected in Feb 2013 so the more recent wells have only 9 months of data, 133 wells had 12 months or more of production and the average 12 month output of these 133 wells was 108 kb. I have not gone back to reevaluate this "average well", but it is all based on data I obtained from the TRRC.

My only complaint about the TRRC is the aggregate output data, I think the EIA estimates for statewide TX C+C for the period of May 2012 to May 2013 is much better than the TRRC estimates. For individual leases, well counts, etc, the EIA is not useful at all and the TRRC is the best that we have.

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

Re: The Shale Oil Boom by Leonardo Maugeri

Unread postby dcoyne78 » Thu 15 Aug 2013, 15:51:45

ROCKMAN wrote:DC - Here are some for numbers for every to contemplate especially the optimists amongst us.

In May 2012: 235 leases began producing from the EFS. Of those leases 27 had been plugged and abandoned by May 2013. Of those abandoned leases the best production was 31k Bo and the worse was 3k Bo.

Just 101 lease had only one well on it. The ten best cumulative production for the wells beginning in May 2012 and still producing in May 2013: in k bo - 246; 234;210;206;202;193;183;181;178;177. The worse ten wells in that same period: in k bo - 11;11;12;14;16;17;19;19;25;29. And these are the weeks still producing. I'm pretty sure none of them will make 300k bo.

The pubcos, and others, like to point out those press releases about ther big wells. But did you see any news about those 27 leases that didn't produce for even 12 months before they were plugged and abandoned? How about those ten wells that are still producing in May 2013 but have only averaged about 15k bo for their first year? But I bet the folks that made those 200k+ bo wells the first 12 months have hit the PR trail big time. And thus the risk for anyone to trying to characterize any trend based upon just those pubco press releases. Not quit the whole story.


Hi Rockman,

As I don't have access to DI, I am not sure about a few things, 235 leases started producing in May 2012 so by May 2013 we would have 13 months of production, (are you throwing out the first month which is usually a little lower?), 101 of these were single well leases and 124 were multiple well leases. For the multiple well leases did all of the wells begin production in May 2012? For those leases where this is the case they can be included with the single well leases and we can find the total 12 month output for all wells that are either single well leases or multiple wells starting production in the same month on the same lease and then divide by the total number of wells meeting either of these two conditions. This would give us an average 12 month output for this sub sample of wells. It would be interesting to compare this with the 108 kb number that my earlier data points to. Based on the 20 numbers you have given for 10 best and 10 worst, the average is 109 kb, it would be nice to get the average of the entire list of 101 wells if that is easiest. Note that the 108 kb is for 12 months and the 109 kb is for 13 months, for my wells with 13 months of data the 13 month average is 109 kb which is surprisingly close to the average of the 10 best and 10 worst wells. The 77 wells for this 13 month average started producing between June and Dec 2011. This is probably just a coincidence, it would be nice to see the 13 month average of the 101 single well leases from May 2012.

Thank you for these numbers, it would have been a huge amount of work to produce this directly from the TRRC database.

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

Re: The Shale Oil Boom by Leonardo Maugeri

Unread postby John_A » Thu 15 Aug 2013, 16:08:27

pstarr wrote:
John_A wrote:The idea that government scientists can sort through the hype but everyone else falls for rosie scenarios hook, line and sinker is a bit disconcerting.
I don't know about you, but most here have never fallen for rosie scenarios. Art Berman and Rune Likvern's work at Oildrum has saved many portfolios and back 40's from ruin.


Are you serious? In 2009, about the time Berman left World Oil and declared that shales were money losers, I jumped into Pioneer Resources, which had just about completed divesting itself of overseas assets and was doing domestic tight resource plays.

The stock has gone from $16 to $150 since Berman told everyone to run from these types of resource plays. Pioneer built a business model of exactly that. Can you name a portfolio which wouldn't mind a nice $134 per share gain?

But please, if Berman has anything else he wants people to avoid, let us know, there is a killing to be made betting against his oil and gas financial acumen.
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36

Re: The Shale Oil Boom by Leonardo Maugeri

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 15 Aug 2013, 17:03:53

John - I think one aspect of the disagreement is a bit of apple to orange comparison. There the expectation of a company stock increasing in value vs. how profitable a trend or group of wells may be. Over the years I've made good money on incompetent companies working good trends, competent companies working in poor trends, a good bit of profit from poor companies working in poor trends, etc, etc. I once made a lot money riding with a company I knew had zero chance of success IMHO. It's always about timing. The shales in general can be profitable. I also know some players in the shale that will certainly lose their ass. But believing that would stop me from playing their stock.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: The Shale Oil Boom by Leonardo Maugeri

Unread postby John_A » Thu 15 Aug 2013, 17:08:06

ROCKMAN wrote:The shales in general can be profitable. I also know some players in the shale that will certainly lose their ass. But believing that would stop me from playing their stock.


It is business. Someone is always losing their ass, and the oil and gas biz is even rougher than most. Fortunately the portfolios of some have done quite well with companies developing these resource plays. Too bad Berman isn't known for "picking only these really good companies who know how to work resource plays" rather than "resource plays suck". That would make his opinion worthy of basing a portfolio on, but as best I can tell at this point he has just been wonderful to bet against.
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36

Re: The Shale Oil Boom by Leonardo Maugeri

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 16 Aug 2013, 09:43:37

John - Not that Art needs me to defend him but he became so focused on Chesapeake as the poster child for shale hype that he tended to ignore shale players that had a better handle on the trends. And as we saw much of what ailed chk wasn't the shales themselves but management. But in the end there are still two metrics to measure shale profitability: how much to be made producing the wells and how much to be made on the shale player stock. I still consider Petrohawk to be one of the most successful shale players despite the fact they did relatively little drilling. Flipping the company for $12 billion made the a star in my book. Their drilling efforts...not as much.

DC - I did make on goof by not pointing out my numbers were for oil only and didn't include NG or ngl's. But since they tend to be somewhat proportional to the oil volumes they give one a sense of magnitude. Working on a tablet at the moment it's not as easy to run the DrillngInfo in Excel. When I'm back next week I'll try to ship you the raw data so you can cook yourself.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

PreviousNext

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 72 guests