Premium said:

---

Price of oiL today

---

In response to this? How long do you think it'll last?
Oil plunges after Saudi energy minister reportedly says OPEC is in 'produce as much as you can mode'

I think there's an artificial barrier at $80 that the industry will (inverted) bounce up to several times before punching through. The demand isn't going away, and will likely continue to increase. I think most operators feel really good about $70-80 in the long term. The current 1-year prediction for oil price isn't $76 which is ~about where we right now anyways.

The demand issue is what is keeping this down. Emerging markets are in serious trouble and when you include fx risks and removal of fuel caps you have big issues.

I think everyone is trying to find an equilibrium in price. That is very hard.

Endeavor looking to be next big deal in Permian (this has seemingly been the rumor for a while, we'll see if successful

https://www.wsj.com/articles/endeavor-energy-resources-explores-potential-sale-1540332513

They've already had a few jump ship. One went to my old roommates company.

Just a heads up, we are hiring for quite a few positions. Some in Utica basin and others in Dallas.

https://texags.com/forums/18/topics/2992240
Shoot me a message if you're interested in something.

Motion seconded. If you work in midstream and are looking for a job don't hesitate to reach out. I work specifically in engineering and in Houston but we are hiring in just about every single department and in several locations.

https://www5.recruitingcenter.net/Clients/targa/PublicJobs/controller.cfm

Thinking of pursuing a Masters in Data Science. Want to get everyone's thoughts on where they think the biggest issues data management, and analysis there is in upstream?

Do you all think there is an opportunity for data science to make a positive impact and whether there's a need ofr data scientist?

thepartygoat said:

---

Thinking of pursuing a Masters in Data Science. Want to get everyone's thoughts on where they think the biggest issues data management, and analysis there is in upstream?

Do you all think there is an opportunity for data science to make a positive impact and whether there's a need ofr data scientist?

---

There is opportunity for positive impact. Company I work had a big data science push and we are heavy adopters and has some interesting outcomes from data review.

Biggest issue is storing data in the proper space and organized. People like to hoard their data on their machines and forget to send it on to a larger audience.

I'm not in the O&G industry, but there's always a need for data scientists. We did some work with a consulting company who had done a project with Exxon, and without knowing any details obviously, the related demo they gave us looked awesome and very useful.

I think any company who is not already trying to collect, aggregate, and interpret data in an actionable and end-user friendly way is already behind the curve.

FYI.

Ragoo works for Targa as well.

AgLA06 said:

---

FYI.

Ragoo works for Targa as well.

---

we work together there.

I guess he knew that then.

I guess I assumed Targa might have been big enough y'all might not have realized that. My bad.

If someone where to work with BP, in IT in Houston, and working on IT purchase of BHP assets what location would they typically work from? Energy Corridor off I10?

There was a knuckleheaded country guy at a high level at Targa I used to deal with.

Ragoo when did you move to targa?

Anybody here work for KMI?

terradactylexpress said:

---

Ragoo when did you move to targa?

---

back in August

I may or may not have been the one that he sent his resume to "get it in front of the right person".

Anyone know of any engineering positions available in Denver. I had a relative just move there and she's looking for a job. Can send resume.

Totally agree. These idiots don't care about facts are only concerned with their agenda. This should really wake people up to see what is going on around them and to get involved.

Quote:

---

This initiative was designed to mandate that new oil and gas development, including fracking, be a minimum distance of 2,500 feet from occupied buildings such as homes, schools, hospitals, and other areas designated as vulnerable. Vulnerable areas are defined by the initiative as "playgrounds, permanent sports fields, amphitheaters, public parks, public open space, public and community drinking water sources, irrigation canals, reservoirs, lakes, rivers, perennial or intermittent streams, and creeks, and any additional vulnerable areas designated by the state or a local government."

---

...

Quote:

---

Colorado Rising is leading the campaign in support of this initiative. Colorado Rising argued, "Currently, fracking operations are allowed to take place just 500 feet from a home and 1,000 feet from a school building (and right by school playgrounds). The industry has shown blatant disregard for public health and safety, and the current state regulatory body the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) has not provided responsible protective regulatory oversight to prevent inappropriate siting of toxic fracking operations adjacent to homes, schools and water sources."

Protect Colorado is leading the campaign in opposition to the measure. Protect Colorado argued that the measure would "devastate our economy, wipe out thousands of jobs, and endanger our environment. [It] would threaten private property rights and could even cost Colorado residents hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits." Karen Crummy, a spokeswoman of Protect Colorado, said, "This initiative is economically devastating to the state of Colorado. Not only would it cost thousands of jobs, but it would cost billions in actual economic impact."

---

...
Playing a little devil's advocate:

How much of an affect are we talking here? What would the total exploration footprint drop by if this went into effect? Finding creative ways to drill an extra 2,000 ft horizontally to find the same payzones might not be that monumental of a task...? I think it's a pretty stupid measure, but other than having to drill a little further , what else is causing issues.

I do see that re-entering an abandoned well would be considered "new development" which is dumb. And the list of "vulnerable areas" has grown and can be re-defined by local government (IMO, more local control is better, so if a community wants to bar fracking or exploration around their local area, that should be their call to say NIMBY).

Educate me, because while I disagree with the need for the measure, I don't see a BIG problem with it either.

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

Quote:

---

This initiative was designed to mandate that new oil and gas development, including fracking, be a minimum distance of 2,500 feet from occupied buildings such as homes, schools, hospitals, and other areas designated as vulnerable. Vulnerable areas are defined by the initiative as "playgrounds, permanent sports fields, amphitheaters, public parks, public open space, public and community drinking water sources, irrigation canals, reservoirs, lakes, rivers, perennial or intermittent streams, and creeks, and any additional vulnerable areas designated by the state or a local government."

---

...

Quote:

---

Colorado Rising is leading the campaign in support of this initiative. Colorado Rising argued, "Currently, fracking operations are allowed to take place just 500 feet from a home and 1,000 feet from a school building (and right by school playgrounds). The industry has shown blatant disregard for public health and safety, and the current state regulatory body the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) has not provided responsible protective regulatory oversight to prevent inappropriate siting of toxic fracking operations adjacent to homes, schools and water sources."

Protect Colorado is leading the campaign in opposition to the measure. Protect Colorado argued that the measure would "devastate our economy, wipe out thousands of jobs, and endanger our environment. [It] would threaten private property rights and could even cost Colorado residents hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits." Karen Crummy, a spokeswoman of Protect Colorado, said, "This initiative is economically devastating to the state of Colorado. Not only would it cost thousands of jobs, but it would cost billions in actual economic impact."

---

...
Playing a little devil's advocate:

How much of an affect are we talking here? What would the total exploration footprint drop by if this went into effect? Finding creative ways to drill an extra 2,000 ft horizontally to find the same payzones might not be that monumental of a task...? I think it's a pretty stupid measure, but other than having to drill a little further , what else is causing issues.

I do see that re-entering an abandoned well would be considered "new development" which is dumb. And the list of "vulnerable areas" has grown and can be re-defined by local government (IMO, more local control is better, so if a community wants to bar fracking or exploration around their local area, that should be their call to say NIMBY).

Educate me, because while I disagree with the need for the measure, I don't see a BIG problem with it either.

---

Because if the terms, something like 90% of state land would be undrinkable. They are including this like dry creek beds as "vulnerable" so the end result is there is almost nowhere that the circles don't overlap. The DJ basin would be almost entirely undrillable if this passes.

It's all about passing a ban oil and gas bill indirectly by making a "common sense" emotional appeal. Measure Z in Monterey California was the same thing. It was a "ban 'fracking'" to protect water resources bill that also happened to ban drilling and salt water disposal.

Saw this on the Politics thread about it...not sure how accurate as I haven't checked it

Gordo14 said:

---

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

Quote:

---

This initiative was designed to mandate that new oil and gas development, including fracking, be a minimum distance of 2,500 feet from occupied buildings such as homes, schools, hospitals, and other areas designated as vulnerable. Vulnerable areas are defined by the initiative as "playgrounds, permanent sports fields, amphitheaters, public parks, public open space, public and community drinking water sources, irrigation canals, reservoirs, lakes, rivers, perennial or intermittent streams, and creeks, and any additional vulnerable areas designated by the state or a local government."

---

...

Quote:

---

Colorado Rising is leading the campaign in support of this initiative. Colorado Rising argued, "Currently, fracking operations are allowed to take place just 500 feet from a home and 1,000 feet from a school building (and right by school playgrounds). The industry has shown blatant disregard for public health and safety, and the current state regulatory body the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) has not provided responsible protective regulatory oversight to prevent inappropriate siting of toxic fracking operations adjacent to homes, schools and water sources."

Protect Colorado is leading the campaign in opposition to the measure. Protect Colorado argued that the measure would "devastate our economy, wipe out thousands of jobs, and endanger our environment. [It] would threaten private property rights and could even cost Colorado residents hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits." Karen Crummy, a spokeswoman of Protect Colorado, said, "This initiative is economically devastating to the state of Colorado. Not only would it cost thousands of jobs, but it would cost billions in actual economic impact."

---

...
Playing a little devil's advocate:

How much of an affect are we talking here? What would the total exploration footprint drop by if this went into effect? Finding creative ways to drill an extra 2,000 ft horizontally to find the same payzones might not be that monumental of a task...? I think it's a pretty stupid measure, but other than having to drill a little further , what else is causing issues.

I do see that re-entering an abandoned well would be considered "new development" which is dumb. And the list of "vulnerable areas" has grown and can be re-defined by local government (IMO, more local control is better, so if a community wants to bar fracking or exploration around their local area, that should be their call to say NIMBY).

Educate me, because while I disagree with the need for the measure, I don't see a BIG problem with it either.

---

Because if the terms, something like 90% of state land would be undrinkable. They are including this like dry creek beds as "vulnerable" so the end result is there is almost nowhere that the circles don't overlap. The DJ basin would be almost entirely undrillable if this passes.

---

Gotcha, I missed that part. So it comes down to what's defined as "Vulnerable". If it had stuck to just habitable buildings and riverbeds, it'd probably be alright.

so here is the official report on the impact done by the COGCC
https://cogcc.state.co.us/documents/library/Technical/Miscellaneous/COGCC_2018_Prop_112_Init_97_GIS_Assessment_20180702.pdf

the summary is that 85% of non-federal land in CO would be off limits to new development. 94% of non-federal land in the top 5 producing counties would be off limits. Here is the map:

I see, yeah that's bad

the other issue here, is it does nothing to prevent a neighborhood from being built within the buffer of existing wells which would then prohibit continued development by the operating company. And that house explosion last year in Firestone was just this sort of thing. a neighborhood was built right in the middle of an old gas field, and the house in question had to cut a gas line for the basement. not trying to place blame one way or the other, just an example of "habitable buildings" encroaching on existing O&G, not the other way around

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Colorado Rising is leading the campaign in support of this initiative. Colorado Rising argued, "Currently, fracking operations are allowed to take place just 500 feet from a home and 1,000 feet from a school building (and right by school playgrounds). The industry has shown blatant disregard for public health and safety, and the current state regulatory body the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) has not provided responsible protective regulatory oversight to prevent inappropriate siting of toxic fracking operations adjacent to homes, schools and water sources."

---

---

The other issue is the support for it is coming from inflammatory and often inaccurate language like this. There is no connection being made to show how fracking 500 feet form a home and 1000 feet from a school is somehow extra dangerous. there might be parts of an O&G operation that would be but they single our fracking as their buzz word even though it is likely the safest part of the well life to be near a structure. the industry has not shown blatant disregard, in fact most up there have bent over backwards for saftey and health. in a 3 month period in 2017 I spent something like $1.5 million on nothing but general housekeeping type stuff to keep locations clean and nice. this was across like 70 locations. then the claim that frac ops are "toxic" is either very ignorant or fraudulently misleading. living in denver you will be exposed to far more toxic fumes than siting on a frac site (Citation needed).

Reworking or going back into an old well will almost always requiring compliance with the new rules, so that part isn't a surprise.

Wildhorse did it again. Sold to CHK for $4B

Skillet Shot said:

---

Wildhorse did it again. Sold to CHK for $4B

---

I think they could have done better than just to merge with CHK for equity. I don't blame them for selling now, I just feel like CHK stock is a great way to lower your transaction value.

SN getting murdered today.