Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by GoRicky on August 21, 2020 at 19:46

Same for my family, beginning in around 1931 (East Texas Field). We still remember the great depression WWII and the fuzzy 1950s... '60s & I arrived fresh from school in the '70s.  Oil (sweet and heavy), gas (sweet and sour) - - - we produced it all, no matter what the price.

A bit of advise - stay in royalties.  Chesapeake is an example. But, If possible, do you really  have access to things we know nothing about?  If SO (or not) I would like to meet with you !  

Permalink Reply by GoRicky on August 21, 2020 at 19:58

The CUB would be OK with me --------------

Permalink Reply by Jesse Joyner on August 21, 2020 at 20:09

Yes, I agree on sticking with royalties. And I appreciate the invite, but I don't do much traveling these days. I used to have a security clearance with the Pentagon, but not now. So your guess on some of the stuff is probably better than mine. Enjoy the pop in NG prices coming down the pike. If the futures price of $3.26 holds for Jan. 2021, it'll ring some bells. You might also want to research Edgar Cayce, if you haven't already done so.  

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 22, 2020 at 0:33

GoRicky, the only candidate that matters at this point is the Democratic presidential nominee.  He has not said that he would institute an all encompassing ban on fracking and there is no such plank in the Democratic platform.  At one time he toyed with the idea of banning fracking on public lands which is a smart move while competing to be the party nominee.  Sounds good to those who are most concerned about that issue but means practically nothing as BLM lands aren't significant in the production of either oil or natural gas.  Now as the nominee there is no need to play to that wing of the party.  If you are hearing repeated warnings about a fracking ban, it's not coming from Democrats.  It's coming from right wing media and conservative pundits.  It is a scare tactic with no basis in reality.  Of course those media outlets and pundits have been disconnected from reality for some time now.

Did you believe that Mexico would pay for the wall?  Or, that cancelling regulations would bring back the coal industry?  Candidates make a lot of claims while running for office that they are incapable of accomplishing or will conveniently forget about after elected.  Personally, I don't have a problem recognizing which of those claims are hyperbole and which are serious.

Permalink Reply by dbob on August 22, 2020 at 3:10

Skip - a federal lands ban could extend to many offshore properties and substantially limit development in broad areas out west (Delaware Basin/Permian) and up north (Bakken).  

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42432

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/oil-and-gas...

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 22, 2020 at 3:47

Could possibly but not something that has been stated.  And to my understanding federal waters are not BLM administered.  Is that correct.  The discussion should also include the fact that less than 4% of BLM lands are leased and less than 2% is currently being developed or in production.  I have been convinced that the supply glut will continue for many years regardless of whether new BLM lands are included in production.  Improved technical drilling and completion continues to up PPP reserves and as infrastructure reduces flaring the supply of associated gas will not just return but increase so it is rational to predict a long period of depressed natural gas prices.  The good news is that natural gas focused operators have evolved to make an acceptable profit at prices that were historically  considerably less than their break even price.  Any major expansion in exploration and development will find it hard to secure financing as the number crunchers know that regardless of the potential reserves to be produced, the risk of "stranded reserves" is rising yearly.  New development is especially at risk.  I appreciate the linked reports but find them less than convincing.  One is obviously drafted to please certain interests and the other is an article based on that "study".

Any time I hear the loaded term, "Energy Dominance", it raises red flags.  The chance of objectivity is low.

Permalink Reply by dbob on August 22, 2020 at 13:28

https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/oil-and-gas/about#...

For fiscal year (FY) 2018, sales of oil, gas, and natural gas liquids produced from the Federal and Tribal mineral estate accounted for approximately 8 percent of all oil, 9 percent of all natural gas, and 6 percent of all natural gas liquids produced in the United States.

But not every acre of that land is being developed for energy. About 26 million Federal acres were under lease to oil and gas developers at the end of FY 2018. Of that, about 12.8 million acres are producing oil and gas in economic quantities. This activity came from over 96,000 wells on about 24,000 producing oil and gas leases.

IMHO, a federal land fracking ban or slowdown would take a lot of low cost future development off the table and would be good for prices in the Arklatex.  Whether it would be good energy policy is a different question.  I'm not confident that the BLM number above includes the values from federal leases administered by BSEE.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 22, 2020 at 14:08

I've posted the same quote off the BLM website in another discussion.  I  guess that the 8% and 9% would impress me more if we were not in a supply glut.  Remove it and, as you allude, private mineral owners and the operators of their mineral interests would make marginally greater revenue.  If I was expecting oil demand to increase for another 5 to 10 years, as I was pre-COVID, that marginal supply might have been needed.  Now?  Who knows?  The calculations have changed.  The bottom line is that there is no promised ban and the greater likelihood in my opinion is a moratorium on any new leasing on BLM lands leaving current leases in production or in their lease term as is.  As I am sure you are aware the industry mostly avoids BLM lands prospective for the Haynesville and Bossier shales in deep south E TX.

I believe in the dangers of climate warming so a moratorium or an outright ban is not a fear I hold.  My concern is for the immediate future of natural gas and the urgent action that the industry needs to take to hold that door of opportunity open.  The industry seems to not recognize the danger and  to date what they have done and said is a day late and an dollar short.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page