Cite?
Certainly not the pre fracking avg for Tx. Im also curious as to the date fracking became a factor in your stats.
Halberto.....It's formation specific as I recall. Doesnt matter who's drilling.....the aggregate production for the entire field =xx bbls/month. I have been out of the industry for awhile tho. You're probably better connected wirth more relevant info.
i have a question to the oil experts in this thread: is a $500 per month offer from an oil company to let them run pipe through your land a fair offer or nah? besides getting a lawyer, what else is there to be done?
's not bad depends on how long a run and if there's any frontage language. .Halberto will have a better feel for this....
Yeah....'s what I thought.
Is this a temporary water pipe for a drilling site?
google only bring up all the recent stuff from fracking, but I was amazed to read that 50000 wells in USA averaged 5 b/d.
for Texas: http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/data/prod...wellcounts.php
it's certainly plausibe if you take the worst 50K wells in USA,
Bakken is hugely productive?
The number of operating wells in the US has been increasing rapidly while the corresponding productivity (considering all the wells in the US) has declined. There are about 9,000 wells in North Dakota (analyst expect the number to go up to 50,000 by 2030). The state produced more than 800,000 barrels of oil a day in May, a new record. This averages to 89 b/d from each well in North Dakota, hence the need to constantly add new wells in order to maintain a sustainable level of output.
http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles...-in-bakken.php
I'm not sure what your point is, boo bird. I do know that the last sentence in the clip you posted is not logical. I see no causation between an 89 barrel a day average and "hence the need to constantly add new wells in order to maintain a sustainable level of output."
straw man, Cosmic Crotch Rot
I didn't write the article. The need to drill 50K wells by 2030 comes from the objective of high total levels of output from the aggregate of wells that average a piddling 89 b/d.
A "piddling 89 b/d?"
If I had just one piddling well on my property like that I would be one happy sum . Landowner royalty would be $800,000 a year.
i'm not sure right now. but what if it was?
Well, if it's an underground oil/gas line they can't just pay monthly rent. They have to get it permitted and buy deeded easement. If it's a water line that's only going to be there on the surface for a couple of months it's just a matter of what you can negotiate. You can try to ask more than they offered but they also have the option of going around you on your neighbors property if you ask too much.
You are aware that the are other recovery methods besides fracking, right?
Because, if you arent, you probably need to research that a little before you start pegging production numbers to fracking. Additionally you might want to establish a fracking time line.
IOW, get a clue.
CC with the goods.
Pipeline easements are a big deal and you should hire a professional. NEVER sign the deal they bring to the table first. It's not the price, it's all the other stuff. Rule of thumb on price is take the size of pipeline in inches and multiply that by feet. Example: If it's a 12" pipeline and it crosses 1000' of your property the easement should cost about $12,000 plus cost of remediation after pipeline is installed. You want to make the easement for ONE pipeline and the easement dies when the pipeline quits flowing hydrocarbons. If they want to add pipelines later that's a new negotiation.
thanks, cc
too many variables to gives a blanket answer.
I didn't read the article and I'm not disputing profitability but when you take out royalty, ORRI, tax, transportation, and expenses, you're a long way off. Plus you rely on being able to drill consistently good wells. Not to mention the crazy bonus and brokerage $. And the mechanical risk and risk of having some high mother er of charge if million dollar decisions. And these plays are always smaller that first anticipated. Maybe I missed your point but it's not that ing easy.
Lol. You're right. Obamacare sux.So they drill a well, make a lot of money for a little while, then stick the tax payers with "depletion allowance"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depletion_(accounting)
ACA doesn't suck, it will be a huge hit, a huge step forward for America's humanitarianism towards its own citizens.
Proof? HOW viciously the Repugs, duped assholes on ST, Fox Repug networks, etc, etc are lying about it and sabotaging it, esp in red states.
The Repugs know ACA success along with demographics favoring Dems pushes them out of power nationally for a long time. The Repugs will have their ty little polluted, right-to-work-for-less states with high proportions of uninsured, undereducated, un/underemployed, impoverished, but not much else. Feds have to find a way to stop reimbursing non-ACA states for their crazy ER expenses.
ACA in an oil tlhread.
boutons, you're so easy.
TBACA in an oil tlhread.
boutons, you're so easy.I didn't bring up, your suck-buddy CTOA did.
Yet you felt copelled to throw out three prargraphs of your moronic talking points.
Remember, the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
