Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Literally none of your guesses are right, and you give yourself over a year timeframe to be graded.

Use freezing temps to argue for global warming? Swing and a fucking embarrassing, drop-to-your ankles miss.

Edited by StassneyHorn
Posted

Yea I’m gonna argue cold weather means global warming, JC just listen to the dumb shit you put out.
You’ve been wrong countless times, you hedge every guess, then you expand the timeline you can be judged on. It’s embarrassing. Your false start on Nat Gas was the latest. You and your industry are as soft as the paper cups you spit in.

Posted
On 8/2/2024 at 7:36 PM, billfromlaketravis said:

I’ve heard they’re maxed out in the old Enron building. I’m trying to remember the last rumor I heard. Allegedly, they bought a lot of land on 99 near Bridgeland.

Thank God we’re just moving across the street. Greenway is an easy commute and there are a ton of good restaurants nearby. I need my lunches. 

Current buildings are mostly maxed out, but there is a lot of redesign going on that will add more space by simply being more efficient. A lot of the spaces are now hybrid with 2 teams sharing it on a 2/3 basis. That's for the worker bees though, the C suite guys are getting some premium spots in the towers soonish. If the Hess merger ever closes, there is a giant tower next to Discovery Green that they will inherit too and I'm told it has an exceptionally long lease. 

Other options for space that make sense would be the old Continental Building, which CVX had leased about 25 floors for years until COVID hit. Now it's mostly empty, and just a garage for CVX and HPD. It's a nice building though, and it was the Omni HQ building in RoboCop 2 which is pretty cool. The old Exxon HQ is 2 blocks away and has been empty for years, which could also work with some significant buildout. There's also the empty green space from the old YMCA that they never developed, but I don't see them spending 100m+ to do that. That's going to be a decision for the next CEO, which will probably happen next year. The Bridgeland building is currently on hold until some other things are settled, it has not broken ground yet. 

I think the "move" is a bit overstated by people looking to shit on California though. The San Ramon campus was sold years ago and just exited officially in June. There is a new building with a 5 year lease nearby that will be the offices for those in California for the next several years. No one is being forced to move right now, and no relocation or early retirement packages are being offered to anyone outside the executive support staff. In the past those were the norm to encourage migration, but for now there is no urgency. I do however, know several people on SR that are actively looking for a new job elsewhere, because they don't want to move to Houston and they know it's coming. I can't blame them, but I think it's a bit early to panic. This is going to be more of a slow transition that ends around 2030. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
Current buildings are mostly maxed out, but there is a lot of redesign going on that will add more space by simply being more efficient. A lot of the spaces are now hybrid with 2 teams sharing it on a 2/3 basis. That's for the worker bees though, the C suite guys are getting some premium spots in the towers soonish. If the Hess merger ever closes, there is a giant tower next to Discovery Green that they will inherit too and I'm told it has an exceptionally long lease. 
Other options for space that make sense would be the old Continental Building, which CVX had leased about 25 floors for years until COVID hit. Now it's mostly empty, and just a garage for CVX and HPD. It's a nice building though, and it was the Omni HQ building in RoboCop 2 which is pretty cool. The old Exxon HQ is 2 blocks away and has been empty for years, which could also work with some significant buildout. There's also the empty green space from the old YMCA that they never developed, but I don't see them spending 100m+ to do that. That's going to be a decision for the next CEO, which will probably happen next year. The Bridgeland building is currently on hold until some other things are settled, it has not broken ground yet. 
I think the "move" is a bit overstated by people looking to shit on California though. The San Ramon campus was sold years ago and just exited officially in June. There is a new building with a 5 year lease nearby that will be the offices for those in California for the next several years. No one is being forced to move right now, and no relocation or early retirement packages are being offered to anyone outside the executive support staff. In the past those were the norm to encourage migration, but for now there is no urgency. I do however, know several people on SR that are actively looking for a new job elsewhere, because they don't want to move to Houston and they know it's coming. I can't blame them, but I think it's a bit early to panic. This is going to be more of a slow transition that ends around 2030. 
Negged for being knowledgeable, informative and non-political.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)

We all know who “Guest” was, and Beeper and the other usernames you’ve had in the in between. You have been wrong and late on Nat Gas this entire year and then managed to bungle beating your chest about the fundamentals changing.

Edited by StassneyHorn
Posted

You absolutely missed the trough and the buildup, thumped your chest at the ytd high mark and we have seen you be silent since. Shouting fundamental change then saying fundamentals are constantly changing is legit lol

Posted

Hopefully we can avoid a ME war: what’s wrong with the Saudis  ?

 

BREAKING: US crude oil production has officially hit a record 13.4 million barrels per day.

Daily oil production has increased by 22% over the last 4 years.

Since 2008, production has skyrocketed 350% from ~3.8 million barrels per day.

The US is now the world’s largest oil producer exceeding  Russia's output by ~35% and Saudi Arabia by ~38%.

The US is dominating global oil production.

 

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
55 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

 But that percentage increase is minuscule and the only reason we are setting records is because daily oil in 2019 was just that, whereas now the figure includes oil and refined product. I do not understand why the market doesn’t even talk about this. 

Where did you get this information? I did a little bit of digging and can't see any mention of refined products being included in the daily production metrics or when this methodology changed. This is the only thing I can find about changes being made to the way they compile data.

https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news-and-insights/latest-market-news/1069355-eia-to-change-crude-production-report-method

 

Posted
11 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

This was dated 9 years ago. The change occurred in the last 2. I’ll look for it. Didn’t mean to say refined product as in gasoline. Talking about condensate. It has the net effect of inflating our daily production by like 500-800k bopd. 

The main production page says exactly that, but shows it going back a decade. Unless you are saying the older numbers don't include or calculate condensate correctly, the point is moot. 

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61545

Screenshot_20240814_105300_Chrome.thumb.jpg.5b733c5517ddda812553a89dcb282459.jpg

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
29 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

This was dated 9 years ago. The change occurred in the last 2. I’ll look for it. Didn’t mean to say refined product as in gasoline. Talking about condensate. It has the net effect of inflating our daily production by like 500-800k bopd. 

No offense, but this sounds like some copium you heard from a luncheon speaker at the DPC...

Here's another article that specifically mentions the EIA including condensate in their data back in 2015:

"It is also important to note that EIA's published estimates include lease condensate, while some tables that TRRC provides tabulate crude oil and lease condensate separately. Condensate accounts for about 15% of the total crude oil and condensate volumes produced in the state of Texas."

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=22012

  • Haha 1
Posted
On 8/9/2024 at 7:31 PM, StassneyHorn said:

Yea I’m gonna argue cold weather means global warming, JC just listen to the dumb shit you put out.
You’ve been wrong countless times, you hedge every guess, then you expand the timeline you can be judged on. It’s embarrassing. Your false start on Nat Gas was the latest. You and your industry are as soft as the paper cups you spit in.

$100 oil is right around the corner now that we have record production. Maybe next year. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Rex Kramer said:

I’m adamant about oil being higher and significantly higher for awhile from where we are now. 

Well, at some point oil is going to find a floor and go up.  When you revise your timing every few months you will eventually be right and be able to spike the ball.

Congrats on your upcoming victory... when, who knows?

Posted
3 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

The current price of crude at $78-80 is reasonably valued based only on commercial inventories. It is no coincidence oil bottomed in June 2023 when US stopped buying SPR, and it promptly rallied 20%. It has been volatile due to recession fears but crude consumption doesn’t go down in a recession. Without SPR we’d have remained at $100 or more for the last 2 years, absent some OPEC removal of cuts (that I am not sure they could supply anyway). 

I’m adamant about oil being higher and significantly higher for awhile from where we are now. 

And we’re not at record production. @The Royal We I’ll find you material and post here. I’m looking. Wasn’t a DPC rando luncheon speaker. 

image.jpeg.52a9315fbfeec49ae767d44fde5bab70.jpeg

 

I really enjoyed going to the DPC luncheons every month years ago, but looking back on some of the subject matter and speakers is a little cringy. The engineer who spent his  free time researching Global Warming as a hobby gave us a talk about how the climate wasn't really changing, the grizzled industry veteran who said something to the effect of "there's only ever been one Ghawar field, only one Prudhoe Bay, only one Spindletop, and there will only ever be one Barnett Shale (mic drop)", the engineer that said there's no chance that wind and solar will ever make a meaningful contribution to the electricity mix, etc.

"We're not at record production" when all of the data I've seen pretty clearly shows that we are, in fact, at record production sounds like something you heard there. But I'll take your word for it, wait patiently, and consider any information you have to the contrary with an open mind.

Posted
1 minute ago, Rex Kramer said:

People say stupid shit. I get speakers for that deal now, and I think we have upgraded considerably. I got Sheffield and Double Eagle and Black Mountain and some high profile small/midcap investment bankers you’d know specializing in A&D just this year. Having said that, there is one Ghawar and I doubt it’ll ever be repeated. The Barnett comment was monumentally stupid. However, renewables have terrible energy returns on investment. All renewable streams. Terrible. There will likely be a walk back of their % of the mix. 

I found my research article. How do I upload PDFs here without taking 4 separate pics and uploading them?

The Barnett comment is pretty hilarious in retrospect. In his defense this was probably in 06 or 07 when unconventional plays were really just getting rolling. Renewables can't compete on ROI, but they do contribute significantly to the electricity supply at this time - this guy was claiming it was impossible to scale them up fast enough to ever make a dent because they were only contributing <1% at that time.

I think you can just click on "choose files" and attach a PDF to your post. It may not appear as an embedded image but will be there.

Posted
1 hour ago, Rex Kramer said:

Hmmm. So they didn't change the production calcs to start including condensate, but the EIA did make changes to their adjustment factor?

I found the original twitter thread referenced in your PDF and none of it seems nefarious or out of bounds to me, but a lot of it is admittedly over my head.

This chart from his thread shows how their adjustments have changed over time. There's a big dip in the monthly average adjustment the second half of of '22 at the same time the EIA's overall production numbers were still increasing - yea? It's a bit of a black box for me, but I don't see how you can say the EIA's daily production number is bogus because of their adjustments. What am I missing?

image.jpeg.a1e2264ef02349764ef07bcb13c66a67.jpeg

 

image.thumb.png.0ca3c9f3e621a46035faba94b3966830.png

Posted

Replies should probably be offline, but I really didn’t like how my comp conversation went yesterday. My manager, who is a friend, went through the Korn Ferry competencies with me. Highly skilled at everything.

Then we talk comp and gives me a lot of shit about how I’m within range, department is capped out, etc… I think I’ll do OK on my bonus, modest raise, but the underlying message is you’re stuck and there’s nothing you can do about it. Be happy with an easy job that pays OK. I get the 7/7 march, but no vested bonus/stock.

I’ve been a landman since 2011 and done a little bit of everything. In house since 2012. Looking for a challenge where I see some equity or an ORRI coming my way. Needs to be Houston based. 

Posted
9 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Replies should probably be offline, but I really didn’t like how my comp conversation went yesterday. My manager, who is a friend, went through the Korn Ferry competencies with me. Highly skilled at everything.

Then we talk comp and gives me a lot of shit about how I’m within range, department is capped out, etc… I think I’ll do OK on my bonus, modest raise, but the underlying message is you’re stuck and there’s nothing you can do about it. Be happy with an easy job that pays OK. I get the 7/7 march, but no vested bonus/stock.

I’ve been a landman since 2011 and done a little bit of everything. In house since 2012. Looking for a challenge where I see some equity or an ORRI coming my way. Needs to be Houston based. 

I'm personally seeing this type of attitude from the top of our org as well. This is especially the case in DFW where all the consolidation and mergers have moved a lot of big companies out of the area. A lot of people are miserable but don't have any alternatives. Really need some small, private companies to start sprouting up when all these non-core assets start going to market. 

Posted

Totally missed that Autry Stephens died yesterday.

Quote

Autry Stephens, the billionaire founder and chairman of Endeavor Energy Resources, has died aged 86, the company disclosed on Friday, after a prolonged battle with cancer.

 

Posted
On 8/15/2024 at 2:00 PM, The Royal We said:

Hmmm. So they didn't change the production calcs to start including condensate, but the EIA did make changes to their adjustment factor?

I found the original twitter thread referenced in your PDF and none of it seems nefarious or out of bounds to me, but a lot of it is admittedly over my head.

This chart from his thread shows how their adjustments have changed over time. There's a big dip in the monthly average adjustment the second half of of '22 at the same time the EIA's overall production numbers were still increasing - yea? It's a bit of a black box for me, but I don't see how you can say the EIA's daily production number is bogus because of their adjustments. What am I missing?

image.jpeg.a1e2264ef02349764ef07bcb13c66a67.jpeg

 

image.thumb.png.0ca3c9f3e621a46035faba94b3966830.png

There's a growing trend to only report C2-C4 (ethane, propane, butane) as NGLs.  C5+ (pentanes plus, natural gasoline, naphtha, whatever you want to call it) often goes in company financials and reported as crude oil.  It is for the most part (usually fetches a price 85%+ of WTI), so this isn't some sneaky accounting trick.

What's making this very confusing is that the majors and some large independents own midstream and downstream infrastructure, so double counting of supply is very real.  

1. Oil company (or the upstream business unit of an integrated major) reports c5+ in their crude oil production.  Cool.  No rules against that, and is consistent with what the liquid actually is.

2. Midstream company (or midstream business unit of an integrated major) separates the heaviest of the c5+ at the processing plant and blends it with crude oil.  This gets sent down the crude oil pipeline instead of the Y-grade pipeline.  Cool, this is consistent with what the upstream company is doing.  But EIA's accounting of hydrocarbons often counts it again (especially if the midstream company has an incentive to do so, depends on the GPT contract), especially on these weekly EIA updates.  So now we have upstream and midstream counting the same c5+ for supply purposes.  

3.  Y-grade (mostly c2-c4, but still enough c5+ to throw balances out of whack) gets sent to the gulf coast in dedicated pipelines, individual components go through fractionation.  C5+ is then separated and blended into crude oil during downstream processing.  This also gets counted as crude supply, depending on how it's separated.  This is never balances, volatile hydrocarbons are unpredictable and change drastically with small changes in temperature.

4.  Crude oil transportation infrastructure.  The lightest ends of stabilized crude oil (this is also c5+) can still flash to vapor, then condense again with small changes in temperature.  This is often removed, especially before export.  More "crude oil" for the purposes of EIA's supply.  Here's more confusion: even heavy crude oil contains a lot of c2-c4 that gets thrown in with propane, etc for supply purposes.

It's also worth discussing the differences between the weekly EIA estimates, which are just estimates.  Best to take a 4 or 6 week rolling overage, which ends up closer to the balanced supply and disposition a few months later.

I'm still confused with all of this, and so is everyone else.  The only way to do this more precisely is track the each specific hydrocarbon chain (c2-c30+) and adjust for cracking, and that's not possible.  See that big jump in 2023? That's partly a result of the changes DeCarolis was talking about.  I have no idea how much of that 1 million bbl/d jump is a result of double-counting, but I do know there's some.

Image

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted

Here's another way to look at it.  This is n-butane (c4) production.  It's quadrupled in the last 15 years.   

image.png.704bdf1fa4405c11ec45b163347497fd.png

 

In reality, actual production of c5+, whatever you want to call it, has likely grown proportionally.  It's so hard to track because of where it gets separated in the supply chain.  But here's the EIA's lightest (closest to c5+) crude oil classification.  Reported supply is down.  The biggest reason is blending with heavier crudes to meet WTI spec of ~40 API.  

image.png.837d4bfb1aec87b9b9fc6c522b54733b.png

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted

I exclusively work gulf coast conventional assets in south TX so I guess I’m the idiot geologist out of the loop…
 

What’s the deal with these characters Sarah Stogner/Hawk Dunlap vs. the RRC out in the Permian? Lawsuits vs. Chevron and small operators out there (Pitts Energy, Williams Oil). I grew up in Midland in the 90s but have never worked anything Permian subsurface.
Wood, btw (Sarah, not Hawk NTTAWWT)

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
I exclusively work gulf coast conventional assets in south TX so I guess I’m the idiot geologist out of the loop…
 
What’s the deal with these characters Sarah Stogner/Hawk Dunlap vs. the RRC out in the Permian? Lawsuits vs. Chevron and small operators out there (Pitts Energy, Williams Oil). I grew up in Midland in the 90s but have never worked anything Permian subsurface.
Wood, btw (Sarah, not Hawk NTTAWWT)
Both stories I read focus on the fact the she hates Trump over what exactly she is "going after the oil companies" over, but she is running for DA and the fun fact here is that there are only 16 practicing lawyers in Loving/Ward/Reeves
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
11 hours ago, Wilcox Cummingtonite said:

I exclusively work gulf coast conventional assets in south TX so I guess I’m the idiot geologist out of the loop…
 

What’s the deal with these characters Sarah Stogner/Hawk Dunlap vs. the RRC out in the Permian? Lawsuits vs. Chevron and small operators out there (Pitts Energy, Williams Oil). I grew up in Midland in the 90s but have never worked anything Permian subsurface.
Wood, btw (Sarah, not Hawk NTTAWWT)

From what I've gathered seeing various posts on LinkedIn, they seem to focus on improperly-plugged abandoned wells. It's their contention that RRC is slow to remediate when old plugs fail and leaks occur, especially in the case of "orphan" wells (i.e. no responsible party that is fiscally solvent can be located).

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/texas-oil-regulator-under-scrutiny-zombie-wells-gush-back-life-2024-08-14/

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted
37 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

I only read expert opinions, been burned too much by hedge artists who disappear and delete accounts.

Wait, so you put some money on things because of what Rex said? And you’re here bitching about it? That’s on you.

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Hate said:

Wait, so you put some money on things because of what Rex said? And you’re here bitching about it? That’s on you.

No you fucking idiot

2 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

Hedge artist?  This idiot continues to think I’m a trader, ignoring that I’m not and own production where it doesn’t much matter whether I’m right now or a year from now. Please don’t quote him. 

Quit reading my posts? Another lie from the family office

Edited by StassneyHorn
Posted
4 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

I just read we were 700 bcf above 5-year average in mid-March. In mid-August, that reduced to 325 bcf above, in 5 months through a shoulder season and summer, a deficit of over 2 bcfd. Which tracks with US gas production dropping 5% from year end. Nobody is talking about this. 

The job of the gas market is to get to 4 TCF in inventory heading into the winter. There were only 2 ways to accomplish this in 2024, neither of which required higher prices or rising (or even flat) production.

With the 4 TCF goal largely on track to be accomplished, it will be left to Mother Nature to balance the market this winter. 100+ L48 production and “normal” winter weather are pretty tough to get excited about.

Posted
1 minute ago, Dr Fear said:
15 minutes ago, Storm the Field said:
JD says we should be producing 3 million more barrels per day and 2 or 3 times as much nat gas.
 

Flare, baby, flare!!

E&P companies need to be less concerned with "making money" or being "economically viable" and should just produce at max capacity all the time to keep prices as low as possible. I am a very serious individual.

  • Hook 'Em 3

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...