Replies

Technology already has. It may not seem that way because there was a boom on and there were development costs, construction costs and all that came at a higher price.

To drill and complete some of the earlier Bakken wells was profitable at $40, but leases were substantially cheaper then.

When things got going, by 2010 there was a shift from the older, static rigs (had to be rigged down and reassembled at the next wellhead) and isolated wells (one well per drilling location) to pad wells (4 to eight wells drilled from a single pad) and 'walking' rigs--rigs that could move without taking them apart.

That cut downtime between wells from 2 weeks to 2 days, saved a lot of money on earthwork, had a smaller environmental footprint, and saved the cost of bringing in crews to rig down and rig up again for each of the wells on the pad.

Considering a rig move cost about 250K at the time, the savings on a 4 well pad was 750K or more, just in the rig move crew costs alone. (Of course, that wasn't a good deal for companies who specialize in moving rigs).

Drilling 9500 +/- ft. in the productive strata didn't hurt (especially when those layers are sometimes as little as 4-6 ft. thick), and the drilling (with casing strings) costs went from about 5 million to 3.5 million.

Completion costs varied, but were reduced to about 4 million dollars. (that's the cost of hydraulic fracturing, surface equipment, lines, valves, treaters, separators, and holding tanks, plus gas feeder pipelines to take raw wellhead gas to processing facilities).

Much of that drilling cost reduction came from increased drill rates, from 500 ft. a day at the start to 3000 ft. a day more recently.

So total well costs went from about 10 million to under 8 million.

I expect those costs will drop further as service company rates become more competitive.

It is a buyers market when in decline, a sellers market when expanding.

But the price of oil isn't set by the seller, it is set in the futures market by the buyers (and some speculators, granted).

That price depends on global supply and demand. With the current global economic malaise, demand is down, and with Iran, Libya, and ISIS selling oil along with everyone else, the supply exceeds demand.

There have been calls for OPEC meetings to cut back their production, but that has failed to happen.

Just today, the article Saudis to look at economy diversification due to oil price crash was posted, so ours isn't the only part of the oil patch that's hurting, and the Saudis heavily subsidize their economy (and have been putting a significant dent in their treasure continuing those subsidies) from oil revenues.

I expect US oil exploration will remain slower until we see oil pass $50, and pick up around $65 to $75/bbl.

Until then, most of us will be looking for other work to get by.

While there will be auctions of equipment and vehicles for dimes on the dollar, when you aren't sure when the flow of dollars will resume, you get pretty tight with your savings. Unless you can see where you can make money with something, you hang on to your money.

The effect is that vehicle fleet and truck purchases, along with heavy equipment are down and will lag the resurgence when it comes.

A lot will be scrapped, eventually, especially older equipment or equipment that cannot be refit to drill pad wells without complete rig downs.

The only way an acceptable price floor on oil might be set would be to place a sliding tariff on imported crude, which would phase out at a floor price. That would raise the price of imported crude oil to a floor price, which would be stable as a bottom price for domestic oil, and even select countries oil as well.

Recall, of all the countries we import oil from, we get the most from Canada.

The problem with that, although it would enable the development of considerably more resources (enough to survive without imports outside North America), is that the increase in price would cause hardship for those who would not benefit from the higher price, directly or indirectly.

At the same time, though, the tariff (which would be a Constitutional revenue means) would put money in the Federal Coffers which could be earmarked for anything from infrastructure to paying down the debt.

It would have to be carefully considered, and I can't say I support the idea, even though I find it personally attractive because it could enhance my income.

The Federal Government needs some discipline when it comes to spending, and the reduction in size and scope thereof would be getting back to what the Founders intended.

Fiscal responsibility has not been the Government's strong suit.