Timeline of Bakken oil production

49 Comments on "Timeline of Bakken oil production"

shortonoil on Sat, 9th Jul 2016 7:45 am 



Shale is an industry with $362 billion per year in gross sales that required over $1 trillion in investment to construct. If it pays zero percent interest on that $1 trillion investment, and returned a 10% profit margin on gross sales it would require 27 years to just pay back its initial investment.

In the world of business that is called a LOSER. Anyone else would call it just another government funded waste of money. Putting another coat of paint on this pig is just going to give you a freshly painted pig.

At this point the best move to make would be to shoot it and eat it – before everyone goes broke trying to feed it!

Mike on Sat, 9th Jul 2016 8:03 am 



Can you please provide a source for your estimate of 1 trillion dollars invested in the US shale oil business. Is that a guess, or if not please tell where I can confirm that. Thanks.

joe on Sat, 9th Jul 2016 8:24 am 



This is exactly the right curve for a tight oil bumpy plateau economy. Im more interested in how these wells get funded. They require constant capital investment so rather than looking a growth curves, I would be looking at profit curves. The FED might raise rather by 25 basis points or less this year. That story alone tells anyone with 2 brain cells all they need to know about the economys true health.

Plantagenet on Sat, 9th Jul 2016 10:45 am 



The Obama presidency has seen the greatest growth in oil drilling activity in US history. Its been straight out of the “drill baby drill” playbook for the last 7 years straight!

Cheers!

shortonoil on Sat, 9th Jul 2016 12:35 pm 



“Can you please provide a source for your estimate of 1 trillion dollars invested in the US shale oil business.

Can you provide sources that say otherwise??? The industry has issued more than $300 billion in just HY bonds! The investment that has been put into the industry has been widely discussed by a number of industry analysts. Or, do you expect some one else to do your research for you!

jjhman on Sat, 9th Jul 2016 12:50 pm 



Short:

I’ve enjoyed your perspective on the oil industry for several years on this site. Not backing up your statement of “facts” is a real credibility downer.

Have sources for your numbers or talk about something else.

marmico on Sat, 9th Jul 2016 2:46 pm 



Can you provide sources that say otherwise???.

Yes. The ETP fuctard can’t because he is as dumb as a door knob.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/E318RX1Q020SBEA

Boat on Sat, 9th Jul 2016 4:16 pm 



Plantagenet on Sat, 9th Jul 2016 10:45 am

The Obama presidency has seen the greatest growth in oil drilling activity in US history. Its been straight out of the “drill baby drill” playbook for the last 7 years straight!

T

Boat on Sat, 9th Jul 2016 4:58 pm 



The Republicans have always blamed the Dems for not opening up more federal lands as a cause for high gas prices. They also cite regulations as a reason for a lack of refineries. Of course it was all lies.

Turns out there was plenty of oil to drill, over production caused a 2 mbpd oil glut. There is so much refinery capacity the US is now the largest finished petroleum exporter in the world.
Not only that fracking became a cheap source of nat gas feedstock for refineries along with CHP tech. Refineries are cleaner as a result.
The switch happened for 3 reasons. New emission regulations, large incentives for CHP tech and nat gas is cheaper than oil for a feedstock.
So yes Plant, Obama is the FF king of change. The first black oil man prez to make FF cleaner and cheaper.

Rick Bronson on Sat, 9th Jul 2016 5:13 pm 



Bakken the Bravo goes down fighting to the mighty Saudis. Sadly its comrades like Permian, Eagle Ford and Niobrara are also going down and the Saudi reinforcements are supplemented by Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, etc.

Without the Shale, the OPEC must have bumped up the prices to $150 / barrel.

Now wounded OPEC is charging only $50 / barrel and are planning to slowly bump it up again.

But this will not happen as new boys are joining the fight against OPEC.
Andy they are Tesla, BYD, Nissan, BMW, GM.

It gets interesting and the oil prices are struggling to get even $50/barrel.

Rozz on Sat, 9th Jul 2016 6:43 pm 



Can you tell the difference between normal market fluctuations in production and agonal decline? Apparently not, but then no one expects you to.

Mike on Sat, 9th Jul 2016 7:08 pm 



Mr. Short, I asked you a simple, respectful question; where did you get your 1 trillion dollar number? 300 billion is a long way from 1 trillion. I don’t need anyone doing research for me, you made the statement, I didn’t. Your selling your research. You can’t back it up with a source. Got it.

dooma on Sat, 9th Jul 2016 8:17 pm 



For some reason, I seem to draw parallels between fracking and the (mis)use of Mercury to extract gold in the early days of the gold rush.

Both contaminate the water source around them and both create a major headache when it comes to the rehabilitation of a mine site.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uokmsSi7LTY

Dustin Hoffman on Sat, 9th Jul 2016 9:40 pm 



Mike, please do not expect shortonoil to respond. If he does, fine.
I recommend you do some back pedalling and review past posted comments by shortonoil to get a fuller composite of the BW Hill message.
Start by going to the top page and with the Google custom search space type in “shortpnoil” and a list of comment pages will appear. Read those that show and you will have a better understanding.

shortonoil on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 6:49 am 



“I’ve enjoyed your perspective on the oil industry for several years on this site. Not backing up your statement of “facts” is a real credibility downer.
Have sources for your numbers or talk about something else. “

There has been over 70,000 shale wells drilled in the US since the beginning of horizontal drilling to tap into source rock. Hughes includes over 63,000 in his study. The cost of drilling a shale well has run from $3.5 million (EF) to over $15 million (Bakken, McKenzie county). The cost of drilling those wells is pushing half a $trillion. Including other infrastructure, and the interest on the money over the last 12 years, and you have got something looking a lot like $1 trillion. Between 2009 and 2013, according to Deloitte, US gas and oil spent $850 billion on E&P. Shale was a big part of that number. Estimates that have put the investment into shale at $1 trillion (which have come from a number of analysts) appears well supported.

Further, if you graph Shale production from 2004 to 2015, and integrate it, you get total boe produced. That comes up to 4.4 Gb, or $227 per barrel of boe of investment.

If we use the Etp Model, and the average energy density; and assume that Shale production is an energy breakeven, the cost of production for that 4.4 GB comes out to be $168 boe. If the $1 trillion number is correct, which it appears to be, Shale is a net energy loser with an ERoEI of about 5:1.

Links are not required when the calculation is as simple as adding up a few numbers, and applying some common sense. Since most of the quotes regarding oil that appear on the net are simply pulled out of someone arse it is a good idea to do your own checking. That’s why we refer mostly to our own links.

http://shalebubble.org/dbd-map/
http://dupress.com/articles/capital-investment-in-oil-and-gas-sector/

http://www.thehillsgroup.org/

marmico on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 8:20 am 



US gas and oil spent $850 billion on E&P

Bull shit. According to Deloitte, the data consist of net new capital issued of 39,273 publicly listed companies worldwide, including those acquired from 2009 to 2013.

Deloitte

Links are required when you persist with your fuctardedness.

Apneaman on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 8:58 am 



marmi, do you think I’m going to comb through a 24 page pdf to find the data to confirm your specific claim?

Henceforth, this shall be my link to provide supporting evidence for all my claims.

http://www.google.com

Boat on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 9:57 am 



ape,

Just learn to read a chart. Then like most doomers,(when they find their claims to be false) discredit the source. BAU

rockman on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 10:02 am 



Y’all need to calm the f*ck down…all of you. You might want to pay attention to someone who has actually drilled for oil/ NG for more the 4 decades.

“If it pays zero percent interest on that $1 trillion investment, and returned a 10% profit margin on gross sales it would require 27 years to just pay back its initial investment.”

I don’t know how accurate shorty’s guess might be. But the exploration biz may never has been profitable TAKEN AS A WHOLE. And that includes the first half of the 1900’s when the big US trends were developed. Anyone here can pull up production curves for those fields and be impressed. Well…Da! LOL

But how many here can pull up the production curves of the tens of thousands of those wells that NEVER PAID OUT…let alone took 27 years to do so. And how many have ever looked at a map showing the additional DRY HOLES drilled looking for all that EASY OIL. As the Rockman has pointed out before let me be a bit more blunt: those referring to all those EASY OIL don’t have a f*cking clue what they’re talking about. It has never been easier. But it has been much EASIER the last 30 years. Success rates have been much higher. Unfortunately successful at finding much smaller onshore fields because that was what was left to find.

I can point to many hundreds of Eagle Ford wells that WILL NEVER recover their investments. And I can point to many hundreds that will recover FANTASTIC PROFITS.

So what do you think you get when you add very good wells + modest wells + poor wells + wells that never pay out + dry holes + $billions spent looking for prospects that are never found let alone drilled?

Do you think the COMBINED results are going to look good. In the 80’s generated prospects for a company that spent $28 million and found $96 million worth of NG. During that time I also worked for a company tha spent $550 million to find $140 million of oil/NG.

In general comments here is correct…to a degree. And they are also utter bullsh*t to a degree. LOL.

So maybe that shale plays are a NET MONEY LOSER. Well, again, DA! Why should that be any different then most (in not all) the oil/NG tends THAT HAVE EVER BEEN DEVELOPED. I have no idea how much was spent in the late 70’s boom. But compared to the 2,000 rigs during the recent boom the 4,500+ rigs during that 35+ year ago boom generated nothing close to the production increase we just experienced.

So to pull th old “I do this for a living and you don’t” crap. But I do and have been for more the 40 years. LOL.

Northwest Resident on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 10:38 am 



All this bickering about cost of production and profitability per well is missing the main point.

The main point being that the energy production system upon which the global economy depends is in serious, terminal and catastrophic decline.

To maintain a semblance of normality (BAU) and to avoid dealing with the ramifications of energy production breakdown (kicking the can) for as long as possible, our political leaders (and the financial elites who control them) have opted to compensate for rapidly diminishing energy per capita by pulling future consumption into the present — i.e., incurring exponential debt. Put it all on the credit card!

I really don’t give a rat’s ass about any particular well or shale play being profitable or not. The entire oil industry is deeply in debt, sinking deeper and dragging the world down with it. That’s the BIG PICTURE. Squabble about minor details all you want, the fundamental reality is undeniable.

onlooker on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 10:51 am 



Good analysis North. Especially “The main point being that the energy production system upon which the global economy depends is in serious, terminal and catastrophic decline.” That cannot be denied by anyone and is looking at the entire forest and not some particular tree (well – shale play).

Boat on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 11:21 am 



“The main point being that the energy production system upon which the global economy depends is in serious, terminal and catastrophic decline.” That cannot be denied by anyone and is looking at the entire forest”

You have no idea what the forest looks like. There is decades of oil out there and the money to consume and produce it.
If there is a long term dark cloud on the horizon for oil it would look like climate change and a switch to an electric transportation.

As for short, the clock continues to tick. Were in month 7 of a 3 year time table. The oil business will have collapsed according to the PHD.

Northwest Resident on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 11:30 am 



“There is decades of oil out there and the money to consume and produce it.”

What “money”? Are you referring to those zeros and ones that the FED and other central banks create by pressing the “print” button on their fiat-creation computer systems?

Are you claiming that unpayable debt has no downside, no negative consequences? Do you believe that every problem in the world can be solved by simply going deeper into debt?

This last week witness a very strange occurrence in global markets. Inflows to sovereign bonds/treasuries pushed yields to record lows — an epic flight to safety by investors worldwide. At the same time, the stock “market” once again ramped up to near record highs, a full-on rush to risk-on.

How do we reconcile these two opposing trends?

Easy. Real people and real “money” are rushing to safety, seeing what YOU do not see, which is a global economy on the verge of collapse. While at the same time, corporations pump the stock buybacks to keep the stock prices high, funded with all those interest-free zeros and ones that the FED and other central bank printing presses create at will.

Money?! Give me a break, Boat. You don’t get it, or you do and you’re just playing dumb. Which is it?

Boat on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 11:30 am 



“The main point being that the energy production system upon which the global economy depends is in serious, terminal and catastrophic decline.” That cannot be denied by anyone and is looking at the entire forest”

You have no idea what the forest looks like. There is decades of oil out there and the money to consume and produce it.
If there is a long term dark cloud on the horizon for oil it would look like climate change and a switch to an electric transportation.

As for short, the clock continues to tick. Were in month 7 of a 3 year time table. The oil business will have collapsed according to the PHD.

As far as the global economy goes the total amount of btu’s consumed will continue to rise reguardless of what happens to oil.

Apneaman on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 11:30 am 



Thanks boat. No one does charts like you buddy. If fact, I think it’s fair to say that you have created a whole new genre of interpretive chart art. Let me know when your opening off Broadway.

Boat on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 11:55 am 



NR
“Easy. Real people and real “money” are rushing to safety, seeing what YOU do not see, which is a global economy on the verge of collapse”

The global economy on the verge of collapse. I have read those very same words for decades. I have invested money for decades and done very well by discounting such views. Even during the 2008 crash I did not rush to safety and was rewarded. Some of us are just bettering at investing than others. By the way, did you mention the market was near an all time high?

Apneaman on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 11:55 am 



Boat, what year, long term from now, do you figure climate change will start being a serious problem?

Eight Billion-Dollar Weather Disasters Have Hit the U.S. So Far in 2016

“In fact, the Lone Star State was a contributor to five other billion-dollar weather events in 2016. ”

https://www.wunderground.com/news/billion-dollar-disasters-weather-us-2016

Plenty of that money and BTU’s (same thing really) being used up to rescue folks and clean up afterwards. See, you live in the state that got the worst/most of it and you are STILL claiming AGW is a future problem. Any reasonably person would rightly question your assessment to put it mildly. Were you out of town and missed it?

Hard to imagine this going on for all that much longer since it’s going to get worse and it’s not happening to a 1955 shiny and robust infrastructure, but rather one that has already been rotting away for decades.

A Country Breaking Down

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/02/25/infrastructure-country-breaking-down/

Boat on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 12:05 pm 



ape,

When that 8 billion gets to 50 billion per year would be a guess. The true sign would be relocation from low lying areas. That isn’t happening yet.

marmico on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 12:16 pm 



The doom porn meteorologist masquerading as a climate scientist doesn’t even know how to verify that The Google works.

https://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4RVEA_enCA658CA658&q=39%2c273+publicly+listed+companies+worldwide%2c+including+those+acquired+from+2009+to+2013.

Northwest Resident on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 12:28 pm 



Boat, you have been the beneficiary of a 40-year long central bank sponsored debt binge. Me too, by the way, and multitudes of others. Any joker who put his money into the stock market 40 years ago has made out like a bandit, simply because of all the “money” that central banks have pumped into the system to simulate economic growth.

These days, trade is plummeting, commodity prices have plunged and going lower, trucking and transportation in general is sinking like a rock, and meanwhile those who were not fortunate enough or smart enough to put their money into the stock market (about 95% of all people on planet earth) have missed out on the debt-fueled rocket shot to wealth nirvana.

It is ending, Boat. Without massive debt infusions, it would have already ended. While I personally believe that you aren’t as dense as you pretend to be, it may be that you are in fact that dense and are able to hang out on this forum, playing the contrarian role, without absorbing some of the information that is leading investors and financial experts everywhere to realize the end of the debt-fueled rocket ride is coming to an end, and very soon.

I have a nice 401K too. My attitude, watching is grow, has for the last several years been “easy come easy go”. And go it will. It won’t be a shock to me when the value of my 401K drops by half or more, as it inevitably will. But I get the impression that you will be devastated, along with most other people who think they have something real in their 401K or other asset values.

Question for you: When analysts from all the major banks, and IMF, and central bank members, and financial analysts across the spectrum are all on record in recent months stating that stocks are significantly over-valued, does any of that analysis manage to penetrate your thick skull?

How about when the Chinese president says that the global economic situation is “grim”. Do you have better insight and facts to support your laughable (to me) optimism about future economic stability/growth?

Apneaman on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 12:30 pm 



Boat, if you’re such a slick investor why are you still laboring away at 58 years old for a measly 30K a year? Ya, you’re a wold class investor alright, but real shitty on the career choices huh?. Fuck sakes, the last time I made under 30K working a job was 1989. I would have been embarrassed to tell everyone that like you did. A 58 year old white man in America making a whopping 30K and bragging? How good of them to share the table scraps with you.

If they did not bail the TBTF banks out with taxpayer money and give those who neither need of deserve ZIRP and NIRP the whole fucking deal would already be over. Every single structural problem that lead to the mess has not only NOT been addressed, they have been ignored and gotten worse. You’re in good hand with “Corporate State”.

Northwest Resident on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 12:32 pm 



marmico — Last week you went “on record” with one of your posts that you had sucked so much cock that you got pregnant.

Still doing that? When are you due? Boy or girl? Or twisted deformed blob of brain-dead human meat, just like its father/mother/whatever?

BTW, I thought it was Nony who was always sucking so much cock that he got pregnant, or so he frequently claimed in numerous posts. Are you two jokers related, or what? Both spawned from the same sordid anal orifice?

shortonoil on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 12:36 pm 



“Easy. Real people and real “money” are rushing to safety, seeing what YOU do not see, which is a global economy on the verge of collapse. While at the same time, corporations pump the stock buybacks to keep the stock prices high, funded with all those interest-free zeros and ones that the FED and other central bank printing presses create at will. “

It is ironic, and very human to forget that it was just 8 years ago that the world almost came to an end when Lehman collapsed. The FED patched it up with a few $trillion in off the press currency; but the underlying problem was never addressed. The banking system was insolvent, and it is still insolvent. The world has a currency system that is scheduled for catastrophe, and there is no force on earth that can prevent it. No matter how much one attempts to bury their head in the sand, their ass is still sticking way out into the air.

We think that there is a very high probability that oil will be the trigger that fires off the $800 to $1000 trillion derivatives bomb that is all cocked, and loaded and ready to go boom. It might, also, be a virus, a solar storm, or some big space rock that no one saw coming. Regardless of what sets it off, it will go. What can’t be maintained … won’t be; and planet earth is headed into terminal bankruptcy.

marmico on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 1:10 pm 



marmico — Last week you went “on record” with one of your posts that you had sucked so much cock that you got pregnant.

Someone hacked my handle. You are such a fucking retard, why would they hack yours, coder boy?

Do you wanna see it?

Northwest Resident on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 1:23 pm 



“Someone hacked my handle.”

Same excuse Nony used to use every time he made the “sucking so much cock” claim. You two ought to hook up and have a good time, you’re so much alike.

More likely, we have a manic depressive grotesquely obese blob of human scum sitting at his computer all day, subsisting on government/taxpayer handouts, playing the role of “somebody important” and occasionally letting his real self blurt out, embarrassingly so, followed by “someone hacked my handle” denials.

Take your meds. Keep posting. This forum loves having its very own resident asshole along for the ride to total collapse.

rockman on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 1:55 pm 



NR – Exact point I tried to make but perhaps too subtle. It’s one think for a company to piss away its shareholders’s asset as well as that of the bankers/bondholders. But a much more serious/dangerous dynamic when the govt helps to underwrite the process via its monetary policies. In that case, as you point out, individual wells, fields or even companies are not relevent: we want a sense of the BIG PICTURE. Govt monetary policies that make risk taking easier with relatively cheap capital but also take away the higher interest earning of safer investments like CD’s. Which also pushed much private capital into a risky stock market…a market that threw itself heavily into fossil fuels companies. Sorta like doubling down on what might be a bad bet…a potentially very bad debt.

Companies in a industry that has a proven record AS A WHOLE that generated meager if any profits. Consider the statistic the Rockman ran across about 15 years ago. Probably very close to the same today. Offshore federal waters: think in terms of the BIG PICTURE revenue stream: the lease bonus monies paid to the Feds + the royalties paid to the Feds + the NET INCOME received from the companies that produced the oil/NG = $X. No one here knows the answer or has the ability to research it so just offer your personal impression: what % of $X did the companies receive? I’ll provide the answer later.

GregT on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 1:55 pm 



“You have no idea what the forest looks like. There is decades of oil out there and the money to consume and produce it.”

And you Boat, have no idea what a tree looks like, never mind a forest full of them, and you still display a complete lack of understanding as to what money is, or where it comes from.

Not a fucking clue.

rockman on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 2:16 pm 



Here’s a hint: between 1953 and 2000 the Feds received $62 BILLION in offshore lease bonuses. Which included monies paid for lease blocks that never produced a single $ of income for the companies as well as leases that were produced with poor a ROR’s or actually lost money.

JuanP on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 3:09 pm 



Marmi, Please use tinyurl.com when posting long links like the one above.
Now the comments run off the page and the thread is ruined.

kanon on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 3:25 pm 



I think the St. Louis FED graph shown quarterly investment totals. I didn’t add it up, but I think it sums to well over a trillion since 2008.

marmico on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 3:29 pm 



between 1953 and 2000 the Feds received $62 BILLION in offshore lease bonuses

WOW, PODMAN, the first thing you can do is air out the trailer so you can see the keyboard to post the link.

The second thing you can do is determine the net present value of the federal lease bonus to the net back to the producer. Otherwise, stick a tool down hole.

There are 1% dry holes in the U.S. shale oil/gas biz.

You see, you are being sucked into the same vortex with the ETP fuctard door knob. Someone who makes numerical shit up and then tacks to literature (irony) in hope of rescuing his ripped to shred asshole.

The PODMAN is dumb. The ETP Fuctard is dumber.

rockman on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 3:42 pm 



OK…some data to help:

Total OCS revenue 1953 thru 2000: $430 billion
Total fed OCS revenue: $133 billion
Gross company OCS revenue: $297 billion – 69%

Gross because that doesn’t include operating expenses which are very high compared to onshore wells. Unfortunately can’t find even a rough estimate of the total cost to drill the tens of thousands of offshore wells or the many thousands of platforms (5,000 still producing today) or the cost of the hundreds of thousands of miles of offshore pipelines and dozens of huge shore bases. And let’s not forget the $billions spent on overhead such as salaries, infrastructure and seismic data.

But easy to guess it represents a big chunk of that $297 billion in GROSS REVENUE. And, of course, it took many years (10 to 20+ not uncommon) so that reduces the ROR significantly.

Bottom line: taken AS A HOLE the oil patch is never going look like it’s doing very good financially. And onshore production: just one geologist’s personal experience over 4 decades: the Rockman has seen more monies spent then made. Which would explain why the great majority of companies the Rockman has been associated with failed and no longer exist.

IOW the oil patch is no place for pussies afraid to loose their butts. LOL.

Northwest Resident on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 6:44 pm 



I took a double penetration in the ass last night and had a cock down my throat too. I was in heaven!

shortonbrains on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 6:53 pm 



Shale oil is approaching the dead state due to entropy because it cost 868 quadrillion dollars and only produced 85 cents. Dont believe me, too bad. Wanna see my numbers? Too bad. I don’t have any. My model proves it empirically. Just ask Futilitist.

Dustin Hoffman on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 7:13 pm 



Mr. Shortonoil thank you for responding to Mike’s inquiry. Seems Mike is MIA.
Found this article and posting it here since it is the topic of discussion at present

http://www.mrt.com/business/oil/article_5c3a952c-4557-11e6-a2a2-df87a3e8f015.html?mode=jqm

“About 35 years ago, Ed Hirs, now a University of Houston energy fellow, worked in mergers and acquisitions for the old Houston conglomerate Anderson, Clayton and Co.
….

Hirs figured a company with six times more debts than cash flow was in trouble. And his calculation, in turned out, was a harbinger. Within months, several companies he had identified had gone bankrupt, he said.

So – what if we applied the same logic to today’s oil crash?
Over the last decade, as companies were drilling thousands of wells and pulling up oil in unprecedented volumes, operating cash flows were steadily rising. By 2014, cash flows at publicly-traded oil field companies had climbed by 60 percent, to $376 billion.

At the same time, net debt rose 10 times more quickly – from about $60 billion to more than $411 billion.

In 2015, oil prices tanked. And so did operating cash flows, by $145 billion, a one-year drop of almost 40 percent.

But net debt rose, to $455 billion last year
ew companies have escaped the trend. Net debt at Exxon, the industry’s gold-standard, ballooned by $56 billion, and cash flows dropped by $18 billion over the decade. The storied independent oil producer Anadarko reported a 400 percent increase in debt, to $15 billion last year, and a negative cash flow of almost $2 billion.

“Something is going to have to give,” Hirs said recently. “This is not a sustainable trend.”

Thanks for your generous I sights.

shortonoil on Sun, 10th Jul 2016 7:57 pm 



Six times more debt than cash flow?

For the world’s petroleum producers that is $9.7 trillion. That debt now stands at $2.5 trillion, but it is doubtful that world’s producers will ever reach $9.7. Although it is presently building at $2.3 trillion. We just don’t see it directly because a lot of it is being absorbed by the NOCs.

rockman on Mon, 11th Jul 2016 9:37 am 



“There are 1% dry holes in the U.S. shale oil/gas biz.” Marm is doing a first class imitating every con man he’s met trying to f*ck over unsophisticated investors. LOL. Just like those crooks (like the ones that the Rockman reported and were arrested by Texas Rangers) Marm skips the fact that hundreds of shale wells neverThere are 1% dry holes in the U.S. shale oil/gas biz. recovered 100% of the investment. But true: they weren’t “dry holes”. And the Rockman isn’t just tasking nickles and dimes: consider the company that paid $12 BILLION for Petrohawk’s Eagle Ford position.

Forget the $12 billion and the capital they spent drilling: from the day the deal closed the stock value of this public company steadily declined. To date the value of their stock has fallen over $90 BILLION. No doubt those shareholders wished they never heard of the EFS. LOL.

rockman on Mon, 11th Jul 2016 9:39 am 



…many hundreds of shale wells that never recovered 100% of the investment…

Kenz300 on Thu, 14th Jul 2016 6:59 am 



COMING SOON…………..

Increasing production from Iran and Libya………….

Boom……..Bust…………….

When will the highest cost tar sands producers go broke………….