SI
SI
Advertise on SI

 Gold/Mining/Energy | Big Dog's Boom Boom Room


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: CommanderCricket who wrote (157957)10/1/2011 9:53:56 AM
From: Ed Ajootian   of 179016
 
CC, Interoil (IOC) -- I bought back a small amount of my position in this yesterday, its great to see Phil M. finally come around to my way of thinking! <g> I really feel (and always have felt) that a farmout of the LNG project to a large, experienced, well-financed company is the best way to go with respect to getting something out of these massive resources they have discovered.

I'm intrigued by the potential that the Bwata (Tricerotops 2) prospect holds, and assuming they stay with the plan of drilling that this quarter it would seem that the results of that well would dovetail well with the point at which final bids for the farmout would be due in. Speaking of which, have you heard/seen anything about what the timeframe for the farmout process would be? Given the scale of the project and large amount of $$$ involved I would think it would take quite awhile just to get the data room ready.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: Glenn Petersen10/1/2011 12:06:03 PM
3 Recommendations   of 179016
 
How North Dakota Became Saudi Arabia

Harold Hamm, discoverer of the Bakken fields of the northern Great Plains, on America's oil future and why OPEC's days are numbered.

By STEPHEN MOORE
Wall Street Journal
October 1, 2011

Harold Hamm, the Oklahoma-based founder and CEO of Continental Resources, the 14th-largest oil company in America, is a man who thinks big. He came to Washington last month to spread a needed message of economic optimism: With the right set of national energy policies, the United States could be "completely energy independent by the end of the decade. We can be the Saudi Arabia of oil and natural gas in the 21st century."

"President Obama is riding the wrong horse on energy," he adds. We can't come anywhere near the scale of energy production to achieve energy independence by pouring tax dollars into "green energy" sources like wind and solar, he argues. It has to come from oil and gas.

You'd expect an oilman to make the "drill, baby, drill" pitch. But since 2005 America truly has been in the midst of a revolution in oil and natural gas, which is the nation's fastest-growing manufacturing sector. No one is more responsible for that resurgence than Mr. Hamm. He was the original discoverer of the gigantic and prolific Bakken oil fields of Montana and North Dakota that have already helped move the U.S. into third place among world oil producers.

How much oil does Bakken have? The official estimate of the U.S. Geological Survey a few years ago was between four and five billion barrels. Mr. Hamm disagrees: "No way. We estimate that the entire field, fully developed, in Bakken is 24 billion barrels."

If he's right, that'll double America's proven oil reserves. "Bakken is almost twice as big as the oil reserve in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska," he continues. According to Department of Energy data, North Dakota is on pace to surpass California in oil production in the next few years. Mr. Hamm explains over lunch in Washington, D.C., that the more his company drills, the more oil it finds. Continental Resources has seen its "proved reserves" of oil and natural gas (mostly in North Dakota) skyrocket to 421 million barrels this summer from 118 million barrels in 2006.

"We expect our reserves and production to triple over the next five years." And for those who think this oil find is only making Mr. Hamm rich, he notes that today in America "there are 10 million royalty owners across the country" who receive payments for the oil drilled on their land. "The wealth is being widely shared."

One reason for the renaissance has been OPEC's erosion of market power. "For nearly 50 years in this country nobody looked for oil here and drilling was in steady decline. Every time the domestic industry picked itself up, the Saudis would open the taps and drown us with cheap oil," he recalls. "They had unlimited production capacity, and company after company would go bust."

Today OPEC's market share is falling and no longer dictates the world price. This is huge, Mr. Hamm says. "Finally we have an opportunity to go out and explore for oil and drill without fear of price collapse." When OPEC was at its peak in the 1990s, the U.S. imported about two-thirds of its oil. Now we import less than half of it, and about 40% of what we do import comes from Mexico and Canada. That's why Mr. Hamm thinks North America can achieve oil independence.

The other reason for America's abundant supply of oil and natural gas has been the development of new drilling techniques. "Horizontal drilling" allows rigs to reach two miles into the ground and then spread horizontally by thousands of feet. Mr. Hamm was one of the pioneers of this method in the 1990s, and it has done for the oil industry what hydraulic fracturing has done for natural gas drilling in places like the Marcellus Shale in the Northeast. Both innovations have unlocked decades worth of new sources of domestic fossil fuels that previously couldn't be extracted at affordable cost.

Mr. Hamm's rags to riches success is the quintessential "only in America" story. He was the last of 13 kids, growing up in rural Oklahoma "the son of sharecroppers who never owned land." He didn't have money to go to college, so as a teenager he went to work in the oil fields and developed a passion. "I always wanted to find oil. It was always an irresistible calling."

He became a wildcat driller and his success rate became legendary in the industry. "People started to say I have ESP," he remarks. "I was fortunate, I guess. Next year it will be 45 years in the business."

Mr. Hamm ranks 33rd on the Forbes wealth list for America, but given the massive amount of oil that he owns, much still in the ground, and the dizzying growth of Continental's output and profits (up 34% last year alone), his wealth could rise above $20 billion and he could soon be rubbing elbows with the likes of Warren Buffett.

His only beef these days is with Washington. Mr. Hamm was invited to the White House for a "giving summit" with wealthy Americans who have pledged to donate at least half their wealth to charity. (He's given tens of millions of dollars already to schools like Oklahoma State and for diabetes research.) "Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, they were all there," he recalls.

When it was Mr. Hamm's turn to talk briefly with President Obama, "I told him of the revolution in the oil and gas industry and how we have the capacity to produce enough oil to enable America to replace OPEC. I wanted to make sure he knew about this."

The president's reaction? "He turned to me and said, 'Oil and gas will be important for the next few years. But we need to go on to green and alternative energy. [Energy] Secretary [Steven] Chu has assured me that within five years, we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon.'" Mr. Hamm holds his head in his hands and says, "Even if you believed that, why would you want to stop oil and gas development? It was pretty disappointing."

Washington keeps "sticking a regulatory boot at our necks and then turns around and asks: 'Why aren't you creating more jobs,'" he says. He roils at the Interior Department delays of months and sometimes years to get permits for drilling. "These delays kill projects," he says. Even the Securities and Exchange Commission is now tightening the screws on the oil industry, requiring companies like Continental to report their production and federal royalties on thousands of individual leases under the Sarbanes-Oxley accounting rules. "I could go to jail because a local operator misreported the production in the field," he says.

The White House proposal to raise $40 billion of taxes on oil and gas—by excluding those industries from credits that go to all domestic manufacturers—is also a major hindrance to exploration and drilling. "That just stops the drilling," Mr. Hamm believes. "I've seen these things come about before, like [Jimmy] Carter's windfall profits tax." He says America's rig count on active wells went from 4,500 to less than 55 in a matter of months. "That was a dumb idea. Thank God, Reagan got rid of that."

A few months ago the Obama Justice Department brought charges against Continental and six other oil companies in North Dakota for causing the death of 28 migratory birds, in violation of the Migratory Bird Act. Continental's crime was killing one bird "the size of a sparrow" in its oil pits. The charges carry criminal penalties of up to six months in jail. "It's not even a rare bird. There're jillions of them," he explains. He says that "people in North Dakota are really outraged by these legal actions," which he views as "completely discriminatory" because the feds have rarely if ever prosecuted the Obama administration's beloved wind industry, which kills hundreds of thousands of birds each year.

Continental pleaded not guilty to the charges last week in federal court. For Mr. Hamm the whole incident is tantamount to harassment. "This shouldn't happen in America," he says. To him the case is further proof that Washington "is out to get us."

Mr. Hamm believes that if Mr. Obama truly wants more job creation, he should study North Dakota, the state with the lowest unemployment rate in the nation at 3.5%. He swears that number is overstated: "We can't find any unemployed people up there. The state has 18,000 unfilled jobs," Mr. Hamm insists. "And these are jobs that pay $60,000 to $80,000 a year." The economy is expanding so fast that North Dakota has a housing shortage. Thanks to the oil boom—Continental pays more than $50 million in state taxes a year—the state has a budget surplus and is considering ending income and property taxes.

It's hard to disagree with Mr. Hamm's assessment that Barack Obama has the energy story in America wrong. The government floods green energy—a niche market that supplies 2.5% of our energy needs—with billions of dollars of subsidies a year. "Wind isn't commercially feasible with natural gas prices below $6" per thousand cubic feet, notes Mr. Hamm. Right now its price is below $4. This may explain the administration's hostility to the fossil-fuel renaissance.

Mr. Hamm calculates that if Washington would allow more drilling permits for oil and natural gas on federal lands and federal waters, "I truly believe the federal government could over time raise $18 trillion in royalties." That's more than the U.S. national debt, I say. He smiles.

This estimate sounds implausibly high, but Mr. Hamm has a lifelong habit of proving skeptics wrong. And even if he's wrong by half, it's a stunning number to think about. So this America-first energy story isn't just about jobs and economic revival. It's also about repairing America's battered balance sheet. Someone should get this man in front of the congressional deficit-reduction supercommittee.

Mr. Moore is a member of the Journal's editorial board.

online.wsj.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (157879)10/1/2011 12:40:37 PM
From: Alastair McIntosh2 Recommendations   of 179016
 
Ontario is going to fulfill future energy needs by solar, and windmills in Lake Erie

Last February the Ontario Liberals shelved any plans for windmills in the Great Lakes. If the Conservatives form the new Provincial gov't next week look for more cut-backs in green energy.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (157981)10/1/2011 1:25:11 PM
From: Bearcatbob   of 179016
 
North of Barrie last summer I saw small groupings of solar panels on pillars scattered around the pastoral landscape. I cannot imagine those things were economic.

Bob

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (157982)10/1/2011 6:38:34 PM
From: russet   of 179016
 
Stupid Ontario government gives those solar panel owner thieves feed in tariffs so they get $1.00 or more per kwh they feed into the grid. Taxpayers go further into debt to subsidize the solar power crooks.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Salt'n'Peppa who wrote (157954)10/1/2011 8:05:30 PM
From: Archie Meeties4 Recommendations   of 179016
 
It's ridiculous. Even a cursory look at safety would show that a pipeline is far safer and has a far smaller carbon footprint than railing or trucking out the stuff.

Some of the environmental furor about the xl pipeline reminds me of the ridiculous debates we have on social policy in the US. Candidates will offer their positions on abortion as proof of their social conservatism, basing it on the unassailable principal that life is sacred and that the opposing candidate is morally bankrupt. However, I have never in my entire life heard a meaningful discussion by a politician about how they will address; murder from domestic violence (kills 2X more than late term abortion), rape (20X+), hate crime related assaults, etc. Best leave those problems alone, they don't have quite the utility to score political points!

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Archie Meeties who wrote (157984)10/1/2011 11:54:30 PM
From: teevee10 Recommendations   of 179016
 
It is not rediculous. Capping oil sands production by denying pipeline access to market(s) is considered by the Sierra Club, AGW advocates and a number of other environmentalists as the line in the sand to stop an increase in carbon based energy consumption. This rabble fears that the progress made selling AGW and alternative energy will be undone. I believe in time that AGW will be seen in a similar historical context as how we now view populist movements like eugenics and later, McCarthyism.

Few American's realize that 25% of the XL pipeline capacity is booked by Exxon and it's Canadian subsidiary, Imperial Oil, for future production from their Kearl oil sands project under development in Alberta, and 25% is dedicated to carry Bakken oil production from the Dakota's. I am not sure which companies have the remaining 50% booked.

Unfortunately, the White House record of acting in favour of US oil companies has not been good.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: teevee who wrote (157985)10/2/2011 12:24:48 AM
From: Archie Meeties   of 179016
 
The oil will be exported somehow, and through a pipeline is the safest.

The analogy you're looking for with AGW is to the Copernican revolution or the theory of evolution. Like those, AGW is a scientific finding that is accepted among scientists, but will take some time to be understood. Like evolution, or copernicus' findings, it's resisted because it appears to challenge authority. In time, after the polar caps are gone and the SW drought intensifies (both previous GW predictions), and sea levels flood coastal towns, there will be some gradual acceptance. Although still not by all. After all, In some places they're still vigorously teaching creationism (Iran, for example).

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Archie Meeties who wrote (157986)10/2/2011 12:43:16 AM
From: teevee20 Recommendations   of 179016
 
AGW is a scientific finding that is accepted among scientists

???? Since when? Climate change is accepted among scientists, especially geologists. It is accepted and now proven (latest results from CERN) that the sun is THE big driver in climate change. Anthropogenic climate change is a political movement, not science.

From a geological perspective the climate change we are most probably going to experience next is another ice age. Enjoy the interglacial warming while it lasts.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: teevee who wrote (157987)10/2/2011 1:00:05 AM
From: Archie Meeties6 Recommendations   of 179016
 
97% of climatologist and >80% of all earth scientists believe that climate change is significantly linfluenced by man made activity.

I don't think you're going to alter your views, even if that number was 98%. There have clearly been times when the consensus view is mistaken, perhaps current warming has nothing to do with returning into the atmostphere potent greenhouse gases. Perhaps greenhouses gases don't really matter, perhaps it's cosmic rays that are causing global warming. Perhaps we've been unable to detect a change in cosmic rays because of faulty instrumentation. Perhaps the models for global warming are accidentally accurate.

Re the CERN experiment.

Here's what the author of the CERN experiment said of the results.

"At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step," he says.

Another author...
“Anyone who believes that we see an enhancement of clouds through cosmic rays is moving too fast,” he told swissinfo.ch.

Here's the link to the 97%
tigger.uic.edu 

Here's your cosmic rays...Like I said maybe the instruments are faulty and there really has been an decrease over the past 40 years and that's the reason the earth is warming. It's possible. Instruments can be wrong and the scientist that monitor the instruments could be recording bad data.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (3)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.