[ROCKMAN]

$20 per bbl??? That remains to be seen IMHO. But at current prices? Folks that didn't understand the pressure that the managers of pubcos feel to increase booked reserves y-o-y that led to the original shale boom will also have trouble understanding this report.
From

http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/1 ... its_Expand

"The shale surge that’s tied down global oil prices shows no signs of abating, as four of the biggest U.S. drillers said they’re not backing away from lofty production targets for 2017. In second-quarter earnings reports, EOG Resources Inc., Devon Energy Corp., Newfield Exploration Co. and Diamondback Energy Inc. all outlined goals on Tuesday that would help push U.S. output toward a record 10 million barrels a day next year. Even Pioneer Natural Resources Co., which trimmed the top end of its forecast due to delays in the Permian shale basin, still expects to increase oil and natural gas volumes by 16 percent at year’s end.

The reports suggest staying power for a supply glut that’s kept world oil prices on a roller-coaster ride this year, even as OPEC nations vowed to reduce output. The optimism from the U.S. shale fields followed quarterly reports last week that showed major international producers including Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc are also learning to make money at $50 a barrel,less than half the peak that crude reached three years ago.

“In the best parts of the basins, shale is here to stay," said Rob Thummel, managing director at Tortoise Capital Advisors LLC in Leawood, Kansas, which manages $16 billion in energy-related assets. “Shale production is going up. It’s not a matter of if; it’s just a matter of how much."

Learning to make a profit at $50 a bbl shouldn't be to difficult: all Big Oil has to do is remember how it made profits from 1982 to 2004 when the inflation adjusted price of oil was significantly less then the current price. The big question will be whether it finds a meaningful number of projects similar to what it found during those 2 decades.

[ROCKMAN]

"I will never convince you that energy is lost getting energy." That would seem to beg the question: if the world is currently consuming more then the IEA estimate in 2013 of a total primary energy supply of 1.575 × 10 to the 17 power Wh (= 157.5 PWh, 5.67 × 10 to the 20 power joules) or 13,541 Mtoe...then where are we getting this apparently inexhaustible supply of energy used to produce the energy we're consuming?

[dirtyharry]

And another one bites the dust . http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-0 ... hedge-fund

[AdamB]

And another one bites the dust . http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-0 ... hedge-fund

Keep cleaning out the amateurs...just show them to the door, the sooner the chaff gets swept away, the sooner the wheat is revealed.

[ROCKMAN]

"And another one bites the dust." And bare in mind that neither of these dead fish every drilled an oil/NG well or invested in one. Just more fools who thought the could predict the future price of petroleum.

[rockdoc123]

Learning to make a profit at $50 a bbl shouldn't be to difficult: all Big Oil has to do is remember how it made profits from 1982 to 2004 when the inflation adjusted price of oil was significantly less then the current price. The big question will be whether it finds a meaningful number of projects similar to what it found during those 2 decades.

The main challenge I see notwithstanding the inflation issue is that manpower costs have steadily risen over the years irrespective of the numerous price corrections we saw. Companies may have hired less people but there is a limit to how low you go if you are running a going concern. The issue is salaries and total compensation for employees just continued to rise over the years. That's a good thing for employees of course but does make it more difficult each price crash. Companies seem to be more apt to decrease their total staff rather than ask staff to take substantial pay cuts. The rationale here is that companies are worried that if they drop salaries and total compensation they are suddenly in a very uncompetitive position when price rises and risk losing their best employees. In any event it just means that over time the lowest price that companies can operate under and still be successful is a continual tug of war between rising employment costs and the ability to decrease other operating costs through innovation and technology.

IN terms of projects out there I am of the opinion that the next sea change will not be a new shale basin but rather improvements in recovery factor associated with the unconventionals. Currently the average recovery factor from tight formations in North America is in the 3% - 7% range compared to conventional reservoir primary recovery of somewhere in the 25% - 50% range. A quick perusal of the SPE recent literature shows a number of promising research initiatives to this end. One I read not that long ago indicated that their studies related to CO2 flooding resulted in 1.5 times increase in recovery factor. This is significant if you consider that the EIA estimate of technically recoverable tight oil resources would suddenly rise from 78.2 Gbbls to 122 Gbbls. Areas of play trends which were less attractive due to EUR that just didn't cut it would suddenly become places where activity is concentrated. The whole idea of secondary recovery in unconventionals is just now starting to gain a bit of traction.

[Outcast_Searcher]

And another one bites the dust . http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-0 ... hedge-fund

&

Keep cleaning out the amateurs...just show them to the door, the sooner the chaff gets swept away, the sooner the wheat is revealed.

I just read yesterday how hedge funds just lost over $half a billion betting against Tesla earnings this week. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/03/hedge-f ... tesla.html

(I don't make unhedged bets against the likes of Tesla. I'm smart enough to be too "skeered" of pain).

Overall, hedge funds under-perform the S&P 500 over time, while charging overall fees in the ballpark of TWO orders of magnitude more than the most efficient S&P 500 index funds, such as Vanguard's admiral version.

It makes you wonder how long these clowns can keep fooling the dumb rich folks.

And I know, some hedge fund clowns do outperform. Well, short of having a time machine, tell me how you reliably predict WHO outperforms apriori, and don't forget to factor in the huge fees.

[rockdoc123]

It is interesting to look at the way oil and gas companies trade hedges. The one main reason for hedging if you are an O&G company is because there is a certain price point below which the pain is too great and your company is at risk. To that end most companies will give away some of the upside to protect their downside. When companies make acquisitions they tend to hedge the value of that purchase at a price close to the purchase price so as to protect their downside. I think there are very few traders working for large companies that seek to "beat the market".

[ROCKMAN]

Doc - So true. In fact, every one of the big acquisitions I've seen in at least the last 20 years that included a big loan the lender REQUIRED the company to put a significant hedge in place. The lenders didn't want any "big pain" filtering down to then.

But don't be confused folks: a petroleum company hedging its production has nothing to do with hedge funds loosing their asses. Two different dynamics.

[AdamB]

Regarding the trolls, I just yesterday posted a private message to Newfie asking the same. Perhaps if others were to do so, it would have an effect? There are other moderators also.

As for Asy7, I don't see where ETP reference at a peak-oil web site can be considered trolling.

Advertising and pimping for SALES is the problem.

People reference stupid crap all the time, Gail's work, Art Berman, Zerohedge, once upon a time it was FTW, LATOC, etc etc.

Referencing bad ideas as you wish, but when people are pimping and advertising for sales, that is something else altogether.

It's a useful and seemingly highly-predictable model of declining oil-field permeability/porosity and middle-API resources. Not that much different in effect than measures that are used to define USGS reserves. It measures mathematically the difficulty and energy expense required to produce oil.

It does no such thing...but then it requires someone who can do that thinking thing to figure it out apparently. Try it sometime, you must be DECADES away from your learning at the Stoner Instructional Complex, break free from the intellectual chains they installed on your mind and THINK already.

It seems that is only a problem for two, maybe three people. I would ask them politely to desist from their self-appointed responsibilities of moderating this site. This is our discussion, if you don't care to join with respect and maturity than please leave. Find another playground

I agree. How soon can you find another playground? Maybe you and Short can get a forum up and running to supercharge report sales, he can provide all the necessary sock puppets, you can provide the unthinking commentary, and maybe he'll cut you in on a portion of the profiles as incentive to just be as ignorant as you always are?

You have to admit, in this world when someone will pay you to be yourself, this isn't a bad thing.

[radon1]

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Ru ... cking.html

Russia Claims To Have Invented Alternative To Fracking

Russian scientists and local oil field services companies claim to have created a technology for thermochemical gas fracturing that could be an alternative to hydraulic fracturing and could increase oil production by between 1.7 and 6 times, Russia’s news agency RIA Novosti reports, citing the University of Tyumen’s press service.

[ROCKMAN]

The Russians didn't just invent sh*t. A quick search found a govt sponsored report on TDGF (Thermodynamically Drive. Gas-dynamic Fracturing) from 2005. The final technical report was publishedf 7 years go. Didn't bother wasting time looking any further back in time.

And basically it's not so much fracturing as it is a thermal EOR method to increase oil flow by heating up the rock.

[rockdoc123]

I was also thinking that, like SAGD or THAI?

Not the same. SAGD involves injecting steam in injector wells and allowing gravity to drain the superheated oil into producing wells. THAI is more like the fire floods we experimented with back in the seventies. Steam is injected into a horizontal well and once the reservoir temperature reaches a certain level oxygen is injected which results in combustion. The problem with both technologies has been predictability of flow and in the case of THAI (much like the fire floods run in the seventies) reservoir damage. The TDGF idea is completely different. It is proposed to be used in semi-depleted conventional reservoirs that might be damaged and hence recovery is less than expected. Rather than doing a conventional water/surfactant frack in a given well what they propose is doing the pressure frack with chemicals that essentially create a heated frack. This not only is supposed to improve permeability but also oil mobility. Whether or not it can change wettability in the reservoir is unknown and that is a big question. There is no combustion that happens (as far as I can tell from the paper I read) so a great portion of the fluids should be recovered and recycled. All that being said the effect of this method will only reach not much more than 100 metres from a well bore under existing mega-frack technology. So the overall increased recovery may not be that great. That being said experimentation in areas like this are what drives innovation in the industry and eventually improved recovery.

[radon1]

The Russians didn't just invent sh*t.

They didn't say they discovered anything. They said they built a technology that they tested and it produced certain results. It is probably based on some soviet time research anyway.

[ROCKMAN]

Radon - Perhaps English is your second language. LOL. From your link: "Russian scientists and local oil field services companies claim to have created a technology for thermochemical gas fracturing that could be an alternative to hydraulic fracturing..."

FYI: created = invented. Copying someone else's homework is not doing your home work. LOL.

[radon1]

Radon - Perhaps English is your second language. LOL. From your link: "Russian scientists and local oil field services companies claim to have created a technology for thermochemical gas fracturing that could be an alternative to hydraulic fracturing..."

FYI: created = invented. Copying someone else's homework is not doing your home work. LOL.

My first language is the language of the original text and I can tell you that in the context, created=/=invented. In the context, created = developed. Whether they copy-pasted anything I have no idea. If they did and the results were so promising, then why wasn't this technology promoted previously by whoever developed it in the first place?

[dissident]

The Russians didn't just invent sh*t.

They didn't say they discovered anything. They said they built a technology that they tested and it produced certain results. It is probably based on some soviet time research anyway.

The world is supposed to know, thanks to American propaganda, that only Americans can invent and develop technology of any type. The rest of humanity is living in mud huts while the residents of Exceptionalistan have a monopoly on human intelligence. Obama claimed "Russia doesn't make anything".

Arrogant American prats take the cake. Being in North America I know that most indigenous students do not take math, science and engineering courses through the university level. They are all into "business", etc. America staffs its research centers with Chinese and other foreigners. This includes MIT, etc.

[ROCKMAN]

radon - "If they did and the results were so promising, then why wasn't this technology promoted previously by whoever developed it in the first place?" Who said those results were promising? Their lab tests were failures. Not only was the method never tried in a actual field test they couldn't even get the equipment to function without destroying it. So they dropped the concept. In fact it was so far from being proven to be commercially viable no one in the US pursued it any further.

And it you read the detailed Russian press releases they have NOT PROVEN the technique is commercially viable in an actual reservoir. From Russian lips:

"The Oil Technology Center is conducting experimental-industrial trials in the oil fields that belong to Lukoil and Rosneft."

And if you understood the basic concept behind frac'ng you would not be very hopeful. Producing fractures in a reservoir does little to nothing to increase productivity. Because of "sealing pressure" the fractures close and heal themselves. Methods for inducing such fractures are over a 100 years old. What is required are proppants pumped into such newly created fractures. Where the term "proppant" comes from: those sands grains "prop" open the fractures. Without the proppants the rock pressure forces the fractures closed. In fact, in very high pressure reservoirs they use material like sintered bauxite as a proppant: the "sealing pressure" is so high it crushes the sand grains and the fractures seal.

So we might as well table this discussion until the Russians provide something more then THEORIES. Like actual DOCUMENTED proof the technique not only works but is also a economically viable option. Will probably take a few years one way or the other.