This post is from a suggested group
The near symmetrical triangle on the futures projects to $160/bbl:


View groups and posts below.
This post is from a suggested group

This post is from a suggested group
Using the SPR for tactical reasons is crazy, keeping just the current draining rates would drain it completely by April 2027.
now US is at record production if anything happens the released amounts might increase.
not everything is recoverable, they are getting out the best stuff that is in the best locations.
if prices increases might help shale production, which I doubt, shortages might impair heavily production which is dependent a lot on diesel and other petroleum by-products.
Your thoughts?

I believe the minimum operating level (MOL) for the SPR is 150 million barrels. For May the SPR stock decreased by 35.6 million barrels, currently the SPR is at 207 MMb above MOL, so at a rate of decrease of the past month we reach MOL in 6 months or December 2026. I agree using the SPR in this way is a mistake, much of it (or perhaps all of it) is being exported, also not smart policy.
This post is from a suggested group

At $80 WTI the Hockley well in Duval County will ultimately have a return on initial investment of 400% or more (4:1), produce for 35 years with an annualized decline rate of <4%. I've drilled them. I know what they cost.
The Diamondback wells cost $15 MM each, including land costs that occurred with the Endeavor M&A. They may require 3 strings of casing given where they are and if there are issues drilling thru the San Andres and Upper Spraberry. They'll be lucky to produce 20 years, max, before reaching economic limits and decline by 90% within 3 years. At $80, full cycle, those wells will have a 50% ROI (1.5:1). $15/$7.5.20=2.5-3.0 % annualized rate of return before taxes.
If you were working out of your own personal check book this is the way you would compare the economics; the shale sector, of course, will make those monster IP…
Mike
Once again you nailed it. You either have to be blind or a raving nutter not to see what a boondoggle shale has been. I cannot believe how big corporations like Exxon, Chevron and Occidental have been suckered in to this which is why I don't own any stock. You could make more money betting on horses. Shale is a shark infested pool.
This post is from a suggested group
According to both Chevron's CEO and Exxon's SVR, oil stocks are getting very low. in 2-3 weeks, the cushion will be gone and it will take 4 months to get the oil markets settled down. This will shoot oil up to $150-160 overnight. We are reaching the shortage danger zone. Trump has to shit or get off the pot.
Dick, I agree; they probably should already be $150 given rational, supply/demand fundamentals. What troubles me, deeply now, is that a handful of people in the world, all over the world, can manipulate oil prices so easily.
This post is from a suggested group
Well control hands don't take a lot of photographs, sadly, and no video. They're all too busy working. And most companies having the problems don't want the publicity or anything that might be used against them down the road somehow. We're often told, no photographs and no talking about it.
Sometimes rig hands and personal on location that had a lot to do with the blowout in the first place take a few photos, but it's always from a quarter mile away where they won't get hurt.
Kuwait was an exception to that and a lot of good photos of production wells on fire are floating around. The great Algerian fire in North Africa in 1964 had a professional photographer that shot black and white stuff that was breathtaking but now owned by Getty and prints can cost up to $5000 each, and more. If you steal one off the…

You have posted about this before, and I always get a kick out of it. But my ? for today
is about a different part of the post. And probably a silly assed ? at that, Professor.
I know you pack the cotton, vaseline, and ear plugs in to protect your hearing, as in another post you mentioned the dinner you attended with David Thompson, Coots, and Red (RIP to all three) and they were basically yelling stories at each other. My question is about when that practice started, and as loud as a big blowout is, does it really help?
This post is from a suggested group
In a perfect world, are we at Peak Oil? No, not quite—but it's not a perfect world.
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, 'cause Kansas is going bye-bye."
-Cypher
Anne, I am sorry, I accidently deleted your comment. My bad. You said that Exxon is warning America that inventory levels are very low and we should listen.
This post is from a suggested group

"Surging" U.S. Shale Oil Production"
"Drill Baby, Drill Is Finally Working"
"Tight Oil Opens the Taps"
Those are some of the headlines the past two weeks as higher Iran induced oil prices are supposedly adding more rigs, completing more DUCs and coming to the aid of a desperate world in need of more cheap American oil.


Here is an example of what I mean about people that can't count DUCs. The API is designed to over-inflate/exaggerate everything the industry does, to make it look better, but I will stick with the Novi and Enverus on this topic. Novi said 560 in all of the Permian and Enverus said recently 1,500 for the entire country. So I am unclear, as I mostly am, where the Exxon Petroleum Institute gets its information.
I will NEVER understand the business logic in borrowing CAPEX at 5.5% interest rates to drill $5 MM wells just to let them sit for years, generating NO revenue. Below $65 WTI, on a full cycle economic basis, wells don't make 5.5% annualized return on CAPEX. Buy $10 MM CDs at the bank and lock them in for 5 years and you make more money than a tight oil well with a 25% OWR, including NGLs.
This post is from a suggested group

If you read the Midland paper article, you'll see that 50% of natural gas produced in Texas is exported either by LNG or by pipe to Mexico.
(Pressure) depletion in the Permian Basin is the real deal. Well productivity is falling and decline rates have never been higher. The crap in the article about increasing well productivity in the Permian is a stoopid EIA metric that does not account for DUCs being completed that require no rigs.
Eagle Ford productivity is down nearly 26% in 2025, BOE per perforated foot, or lateral foot, either one. From the Texas part of the Delaware Basin out West, down 14% in 2025 and down nearly 8% in the Midland Basin. Produced water volumes are pushing 28 MM BPD.
Exports do NOT lower hydrocarbon prices for the American consumer, that is a lie. Over half U.S. oil exports go to NATO countries in Europe,…
This post is from a suggested group
I know there must be a good answer, by why not use either salt water or produced water for fracking?
There are many issues with using either salt (sea water) or produced water for frac fluids. Sea water has a typical level of about 3.5% total dissolved solids TDS (by weight) and produced water 10% or more. Carbonate and sulphate anions can reach their limit of solubility quite easily . Both sea water and produced water are in a chemical equilibrium with these anions. The main cations that in sea water are sodium, potassium, calcium and magnesium. Calcium and Magnesium will be at or very close to their solubility limits ( hence limestone rock and sulphate deposits on coastlines). pH, pressure and temperature changes can also cause precipitation.
High TDS water causes issues with the preparation of frac fluids which vary in composition by include cross linked gels, guar gums and polyelectrolytes which are all impaired by high TDS prep waters. Even more important is the concentration for cations in the formation water which will be at the limit of solubility for Calcium, Magnesium, Barium and Strontium. Barium and Strontium both have very low solubility with carbonates and sulphates. Any precipitation of salts in the formation will impede the flow rate. pH control is also critical and frac fluids are typically alkaline to help reduce corrosion.
For this reason fresh water, which is typically less than 0.08 % TDS is preferred.
I have attached a link to a paper from the ASC (American Chemistry Society) which goes into detail on this subject. It is very technical but if there are any questions I will do my best to explain.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acsomega.3c05145?ref=article_openPDF
For about 6 years I was heavily involved with water treatment for 0il production, refineries and petchem plants before moving into refining and petrochemical plants technology.
Thanks.