It is for the same reason Bakken oil price at the wellhead is significantly below market price, transportation restrictions. Keystone pipeline would replace much more expensive rail transport of Bakken oil which would raise the well head net price. That will not happen as long as Buffet and Burlington Northern continue to contribute significantly to Obama and the democrats. It is the same in spades for the northeast natural gas situation. Insufficient pipeline capacity and rail transport is not practical. More pipeline capacity would smooth the prices. There were probably crickets because it is so obvious that only a dumb knuckle dragging former engineer would see a need to respond.
Looks like I said something if the first of this reply series that offended Yahoo. Too bad, it had some basic shale reservoir information that would have been useful understanding hydrocarbon production mechanics.
Mention is made of an author deleting material that may have been wrong or possibly misleading. Well, I think that is probably a correct action as there is not much sense continuing to mislead folks if the author learned new information and was convinced his posted material was not correct. I have been know to pull a post myself, I am glad the feature is available.
I addressed the "small scale expensive just concluded CO2 fracking experiment..." in another post. Basically, it was not a fracking experiment, that statement is probably out of context.
It is for the reasons in the previous post, high capital costs to construct and complete shale wells and then the very steep decline rates that require continued drilling to maintain production rates, that I believe hydrocarbons from shale is going to be a big disappointment to people thinking the US is going to be energy independent. Shale will be a contribution to our total production for many years to come, it is just going to be metered out very slowly as a results of the production physics (low permeability).
Again, it has been several years back since I was a reservoir engineer, but allow me to share my one experience with CO2 injection. The pipeline operator delivered the CO2, period. It was the oil company's responsibility to inject it. Second, there are other miscible fluids, like enriched gas or micellular fluids that can be used, so CO2 has to complete on an efficiency and economic basis. One last consideration, in a CO2 flood, quite likely a slug of CO2 will be followed by a polymer based fluid buffer and then water, so the volume of CO2 and time for injection is only a fraction of the total CO2 flooding time period will In the scheme of things, CO2 will likely be like a gnat on an elephant's but when comparing to KMI's income. Should it amount to much, it will likely be several years out.
CO2 use for enhanced recovery is a tertiary operation flowing primary production which depends on in-situ energy to move fluids to the producing wells and then secondary recovery where a second cheap fluid (water, natural gas, etc.)is injected to provide incremental energy and a "sweep" of oil toward production wells. Not saying it could not have happened, but I really doubt an exploration geologist, geophysicist or other professional has CO2 in mind when applying their skills toward locating a potential new hydrocarbon field.
Coal to gas is done commercially in South Africa, but probably will not pass permit muster in the US as a significant by product is CO2 and the cost to do something with it at the plat site is prohibitive. Too bad as it would be a good use of coal. Another use would be coal feed stock in a thorium reactor. It is being further studied in Canada. I know little about nuclear energy, just relaying information from a news article that identified the study objectives and the researchers.
I agree that these companies are being severely stressed by low product prices and how the Fed has ratchet jawed about rate hikes to suppress PM's. I do not believe they will raise rates. First, the federal debt service would skyrocket and that would wreak havoc on the budget. Low rates has been a facilitator of irresponsible federal spending and you can be sure the vote buyers will not want to cut back. Second, raising rates will depress the stock and bond markets. They are not interested in depressing the asset values held on their books. Also,depressing the stock and bond markets could be a trigger for declining markets that get out of hand. Third, if markets are depressed and PM's raise, the cat is let out of the bag on the charade we call a free market. Real price discovery will point to the lawless banking system in a hurry and the government will look like even bigger fools than they are by neglecting the rule of law. One thing for sure, the fruitcake economics being administered is not going to last much longer.
On the positive side for silver, since the early November low, Silver has traded generally flat to a very slight up bias. I can envision a base building bottom being built around $15.00 and change. There was a dip below $15.00, but that took place during the wee hours of the morning and lasted very quick when exposed to volume trading. That test suggests that $15.00 may be pretty solid support.
Reading the various blogs and message boards will lead one to conclude pessimism is rampant. That may be a contrary indicator suggesting the bottom is near. I too have been in several PM stocks and have taken a serious hit, but I am holding as I believe they will come out just fine in the end. Have a look at Homestake mining during the great depression, it did very well with their product price fixed, even reduced at one point. SSRI should survive and do very well. It may turn out that early November was the low and it has started on a volatile uptrend.
Agree. Depending on circumstances, CO2 can have a high capital cost at initiation depending among other things on the proximity of the CO2 to the oil reservoir.
Mission Canyon, Duperow, and Red River are formations in the Williston Basin with conventional reservoirs that contribute to North Dakota's total oil production
I believe you have not been completely accurate in this post. Oil is not fracture treated. Fracturing is breaking something and you cannot break a liquid unless it is frozen. Hydraulic fracturing is hydraulically applying enough pressure to break or split the matrix rock. "The Dakotas have the Bakken shale" is correct, but North Dakota also has the Mission Canyon, Duperow, and Red River formations below the Bakken that contribute to the total oil production. They are conventional reservoirs and fracture treatments have been implemented for each horizon in the Williston Basin.
CO2 is not associated with drilling per se, rather it is a subsequent tertiary recovery operation that normally takes place long after the drilling rig has left the well. That is not to say development drilling cannot take place in a reservoir that is being flooded with CO2. I am aware of a drilling operation in a Wyoming field where this was the case.
Good post thewzardaz. You replied to another post that was pulled down while I was replying summarizing a study about CO2 flooding in the Bakken formation which I thought was also an excellent post. I wanted you to see my reply so it is posted here:
I believe thewzrdaz has stated the situation accurately, but it has not been understood in proper context. He never stated CO2 caused fractures, but that the CO2 injected into the Bakken shale would preferentially flow through previously induced and/or naturally occurring fractures in the formation rather than through the matrix rock. CO2 will not sweep oil from the matrix if it does not flow through the matrix. It makes sense in this respect: the matrix shale rock has high porosity, or void space in which the oil resides, but the porosity is interconnected very poorly, or the permeability is extremely low. Permeability along a natural or induced fracture is going to be an order of magnitude or more higher, thus the flow through a natural fracture will be preferential to the matrix.
In a secondary or tertiary recovery operation, it is normally an operational requirement that fluids be injected below fracture pressure to increase the likelihood that the fluid enters and flows through the matrix sweeping the oil rather than creating a fracture and bypassing the oil.
It has been quite a while since I practiced reservoir engineering, but I can add a few considerations. It is miscible flooding, not CO2 gas injection at the reservoir. One criterion is that the physical conditions in the reservoir must be such that the CO2 is above critical point, so that the CO2 will be miscible with the fluids being displaced. Reservoir rock properties must be conducive to flooding. One reason water flooding, secondary recovery is done before miscible, tertiary flooding, is to assure the expensive CO2 will not finger through the rock to the producing wells without pushing the oil in front. There are other considerations such as assuring the CO2 will be compatible with connate water and not create precipitates that plug the matrix permeability. Also, equipment must be tolerant of the inevitable corrosive environment that will be created.
Incrementally, the mechanical condition of the wells and all tubular equipment must sound and zone isolation verified. If a field has only been produced in primary, there may be considerable unitization work to be done to assure royalty and different working interests are treated equitably with reservoir recovery operations taking place over differing ownership interests. The most important consideration is economics. Reservoir engineering will be done to determine incremental recovery and over a time profile and economic models applied to assure minimum economic return is generated for the project investment and risk profile. Many reservoirs will not economically qualify.
My point of the post is to highlight a few considerations that go into evaluating a reservoir for any tertiary recovery project including CO2. It is definitely not a given that CO2 will work in any reservoir and even if CO2 will physically “work”, it still must be economic and feasible wrt royalty and working interest ownership.
I took a quick look at this company and do not see it as a potential barn burner. It was over $5 last summer and off seriously from the high. Is burner technology that profitable?
Dollar island is in sight from the gunwale with the naked eye of a sailor that is blind in one eye and can't see out of the other. Things are starting to look real good.
I would rather they go it alone, they have too much going for them. With gold rebounding to the all time highs, this stock could easily be a five bagger, not so unreasonable when considering the stock was over $4.50 in early 2011. A little more recognition from institutions, and this stock should get the respect it deserves.
I would think with the suppressed share price, it is LSG taking someone over rather than a premium being priced in for being taken over. I wonder if folks with inside information are bailing and will be getting back in on the news. With this morning's news release, I would expect the earnings release to be very positive. Thus a long term hold will probably work out, but there may a buying opportunity in the near term.
LSG reported good year end results and has good production, good reserves and good growth potential. In short the known story is very good. I am really concerned we are going to see an ugly skeleton come out of the closet in the form of a news release. A confidence builder for me would be seeing a positive price moving news release or some more interest by institutional holders. Last quarter there were 36 with increased positions and 20 with decreased positions, however, the increased shares were 23 million compared to 40 million decreased shares. New holders out numbered sold out positions 15 to 7 and share count was 12 million bought to 3 million sold. I remain positive, but to remain positive is becoming more difficult as the stock performance lags.
Trucking ore on public roads is not attractive as the loads are limited by regulation and the distance is great. Huldra tried this in BC and it proved disastrous, albeit they had other problems that contributed to them going under. That said, I am not opposed to them merging, but I believe LSG has a bright future on its own.
After reading the press release, I too think we received a good report with the exception of the comparison to the whopper impairment charge from last year. Taking it into consideration, we went from $8.5 million to $23.6 million. Not bad, but with all the good news, I would have thought the profit number would have been a bit better. It is good to see the debt down and cash up. I wish more of the cash and bullion was in retained bullion as I believe PM prices are going up along with LSG stock price.
Short Interest 23 810 510 + Naked - Huge Squeeze Coming by goldoking7777 •Mar 12, 2015 1:11 PM is the header for your last post on short interest that you conveniently removed. Here is my reply to that post and this one, as it is still relevant
Short interest as reported by NASDAQ for end of February is 12,652,302. Care to cite your source?