Advertisement

National Petroleum Reserve

I didn't order any of that fancy shit, but am packing 3 freefly sun shirts to Kauai next week.

That topic is also a good example of why it's best to do a bit more research before spouting off online. I'd heard one Radiolab podcast that concluded that not wearing sunscreen, as long as you're not in the high risk pool, and as long as you're not getting "burned" isn't any more harmful. It stuck with me because I've always felt better not wearing it. But after your comment I actually tried to back that up with some papers and it turns out there is very little evidence, as long as you pick an FDA approved product, to refute the claim that wearing sunscreen is healthier.
Cut the contrarianism . . .
 
The funny thing about oil n gas predictions is that the experts have been trying for years. And they are still wrong
Personally I'm fine with the way things are. And would rather see our government get spending under control.
And it's not governments job to save me.
As far as petroleum exploration in the National Petroleum Reserve. Specifically set aside for petroleum development. And the majority of federal lands locked up as not develpable as part of the agreement for land use. Americans continue to fight their government.
It's too bad when our biggest fear is government, just my thoughts
Development that provides for a large part of our economy directly n indirectly. And is done in a safe manner.
Energy security should be an increasing concern for us all.
Yes at its peak there was 2 billion barrels of oil. And near 500 million today. And growing. With new technology and a tax structure that incentified it. And the state government benefits.
Companies are in business to make money. There is nothing wrong with that. Seems that saying a company is " big" . Seems like trying to conjuncture thoughts of something bad.
To me. Producing good jobs. In a safe environment in an environmentally safe way. That pays very good dividends to the state. And a very small portion was put away for the people. As our contusion says the resources belong to the people. And more than 80% of Alaskans as their government to honor, expectedly. From petroleum development.
So how is this bad
 
Last edited:
But the economics don’t change. For the record the north slope wells are big and awesome. They aren’t crappy wells, if you get rid of all the taxes/weather/seasonal drilling/ fed restrictions/ insane transport costs/material costs/lobby costs/litigation people would still be drilling like crazy.
And workers. Don’t forget workers. That seems to be an increasing problem across industries.

To summarize your point, I had an O&G exec tell me one time that oil in the ground is worth $0. It’s only worth something once you get it out and it all depends on the cost to do that.
 
I've met at least 3 guys from Montana that worked on the north slope. 2 weeks on and 2 weeks off. Between wages and commercial flights twice a month, labor costs are steep getting the oil out of there.
 
Why we need Alaska oil. A little cold weather in Texas and the sissies stop producing.

Yeah it's a real bummer there aren't any states between AK and Texas that produce oil... oh wait

Oklahoma, Colorado, and North Dakota all produce more oil than AK does.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ConocoPhillips made over 8 billion
I think in some ways that's really the entire issue Alaska has going forward.

There are basically 3 operators in the entire state.

Conoco = 4 rigs
ENI (Italian Public) =1 rig
Hilcorp (Private) = 1 rig

ENI is sun ~30,000 BOD and Conoco and Hilcorp are like ~200,000

A well declines over time so in order to keep your production even level you have to keep drilling, honestly I'm not familiar enough with North Slope decline rates/completion rates to tell you how many.
1644063948657.png

1 rig for ENI probably? increases production
1 rig for Hilcorp, I doubt increases production
4 rigs for Conoco? not sure

Go on ENI's website and try to find anything about Oil, like shell and other European operators they are waaay more green energy conversion train than US companies.

Hilcorp is private so I can't find out much about their plans.

So basically the fate of AK, which uses Oil and Gas taxes for everything, is entirely reliant on 1 company, Conoco. Conoco has said they are spending 1B in Alaska.

To compare to the lower 48, Colorado and Oklahoma produce similar amounts of hydrocarbons to Alaska. Here are the operators + rig count for OK. Now it's shale and therefore a steeper decline curve so it's not a 1 OK rig =1 AK rig... I'm not sure what it is as there is a ton of variability in even OK but... I think it demonstrates how much more diverse the operating environment is...

53 rigs with 7 public operators. Conoco is probably the size (market cap) of the first 10 (excluding XTO) operators combined.
1644066797157.png

But I think the not having all your eggs in one basket, close proximity to infrastructure, good tax and regulatory environment, and cheaper drilling costs means that with Oil prices the way they are we will see Oklahoma grow production more rapidly than AK.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think in some ways that's really the entire issue Alaska has going forward.

There are basically 3 operators in the entire state.

Conoco = 4 rigs
ENI (Italian Public) =1 rig
Hilcorp (Private) = 1 rig

ENI is sun ~30,000 BOD and Conoco and Hilcorp are like ~200,000

A well declines over time so in order to keep your production even level you have to keep drilling, honestly I'm not familiar enough with North Slope decline rates/completion rates to tell you how many.
View attachment 211222

1 rig for ENI probably? increases production
1 rig for Hilcorp, I doubt increases production
4 rigs for Conoco? not sure

Go on ENI's website and try to find anything about Oil, like shell and other European operators they are waaay more green energy conversion train than US companies.

Hilcorp is private so I can't find out much about their plans.

So basically the fate of AK, which uses Oil and Gas taxes for everything, is entirely reliant on 1 company, Conoco. Conoco has said they are spending 1B in Alaska.

To compare to the lower 48, Colorado and Oklahoma produce similar amounts of hydrocarbons to Alaska. Here are the operators + rig count for OK. Now it's shale and therefore a steeper decline curve so it's not a 1 OK rig =1 AK rig... I'm not sure what it is as there is a ton of variability in even OK but... I think it demonstrates how much more diverse the operating environment is...

53 rigs with 7 public operators. Conoco is probably the size (market cap) of the first 10 (excluding XTO) operators combined.
View attachment 211232

But I think the not having all your eggs in one basket, close proximity to infrastructure, good tax and regulatory environment, and cheaper drilling costs means that with Oil prices the way they are we will see Oklahoma grow production more rapidly than AK.
See @neffa3 . Push a few buttons and all this solid gold analysis pops out! Didn't even have to subscribe to a newsletter. 🙂
Good stuff wllm.
 
Ollin Magnetic Digiscoping Systems

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,544
Messages
2,024,582
Members
36,226
Latest member
Byrova
Back
Top