COG
#It's a hard number to come up with, specifically, on what we have.
I'm looking around the table and (laughter) nobody's raised their hand yet on that, <UNK>.
But let me say it this way that, as we put together our program for 2016, we felt and certainly feel very comfortable about what we're able to deliver in volumes for 2016.
Highlighting that point is, the amount of capital necessary to just keep us flat is ---+ it's not inconsequential but it's not a very, very high number at all.
But looking at 2016 was not really the target of what we tried to accomplish with our program.
We approach it in a conservative manner, trying to stay within cash flow using a conservative commodity price.
Frankly, in our range that we used, again, risking our number, though our expectation is Constitution will be a 2016 event.
We have actually not included any volumes in our 2% to 10% range on the production range that we provided in our guidance.
So in looking at what we're able to have rolling out of 2016 with our current capital program and looking at our ability to ramp up in a fairly short fashion, if we wanted to add some incremental capital, we have no question rolling into the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017, that we're going to be able to fill not only Constitution but also Atlantic Sunrise, which gets us to the 1.35 additional incremental ---+ 1.35 Bcf a day that we expect to be moving in 2017.
Yes.
We're going to need ---+ to grow ---+ the total volume to be incremental, we would have to move the rig count up a little bit.
We would complete additional stages than we have forecast for probably the latter part of 2016.
But I still feel like and if Phil was sitting here, that if we see that everything is staying online in the latter part of 2016, that everything for Atlantic Sunrise is in queue moving towards the September commissioning, that we would be able to meet those volumes, 850 million a day, as incremental volumes with our anticipated 2017 program.
Certainly, we haven't made the guidance on, in release of what our capital program and activity level would be in 2017, but we would be able to meet the September commissioning of Atlantic Sunrise with incremental volumes to where we stand today.
That's right.
Yes.
Okay.
The cost ---+ the 15% drilling completion costs, total well cost reduction is from our average of 2015 cost.
I'm sorry, <UNK>, I didn't get the second part of your question.
We had a slide in our most recent investor presentation.
On the completion side, the majority of the cost is from cost reductions.
On the drilling side, the majority of the cost is from efficiencies.
We have a slightly higher cost on the total well cost in drilling complete.
Completion costs represent a little bit higher percentage of total well cost than the drilling side.
Thank you.
Downside in the sense that we would reduce our capital program.
Yes.
We would manage that, yes.
We would manage that allocation of capital.
We certainly do not want to have capital sitting out in the field that we can't monetize.
So we would probably reduce our exposure, reduce our capital until the appropriate time that we could plan for the commissioning of the pipeline, if we were to see a significant delay in the commissioning.
I wouldn't have expected the approval to occur on Constitution prior to this time.
However, I'm not disillusioned to the extent that we don't expect it to come in a timely manner for our 2016's admissioning.
Well, Atlantic Sunrise is making ---+ I'll let <UNK> weigh in a second, this might be kind of an editorial comment.
But on Constitution, we have been years in discussions, preparation and have fulfilled all of the requests, all the mitigating factors, all of the hurdles that have been brought by the interested parties including the New York DEC.
We have added certainly some of the mitigating factors, added incremental cost to the project.
We had a major reroute of the ---+ that was fine with Constitution to mitigate any watershed issues.
In fact, by that reroute, we improved what we think was any impact.
We have, again, on stream crossings have an extensive plan in place that mitigates any of the concerns about stream crossings.
That has been well-documented by the DEC and now has been prepared into a final document.
So I think everybody is pleased with that effort.
Atlantic Sunrise is in that same process now and having discussions for the mitigation factors and looking at the right of ways to be able to mitigate any concerns that any stakeholders might have at that stage.
I feel comfortable that the outline and the timing of commissioning that we've laid out is going to be met.
<UNK>, you can weigh in.
Yes, <UNK>, probably the biggest difference on the two projects besides just the learning curve aspects of the second project is, the route on the greenfield portion of Atlantic Sunrise is totally in the state of Pennsylvania.
We have a long history of working with the DEP and with the FERC, so I think from a just a simpler project aspect, it's gone smoother so far.
The community outreach portion of the project's been very successful.
The survey permission's and right-of-way acquisitions has been very successful to date.
The project is on schedule.
We're ---+ at this point in time, we look very good in terms of hitting the in-service date.
Thanks, <UNK>.
I appreciate the interest in Cabot.
I know there's some frustration by all of us on our ability to be able to get the infrastructure in place and commissioned and to be able to move the natural gas in support of all those that are looking forward to having it.
I do hope that the takeaway this morning is that Cabot does remain focused in all the right areas.
That is a disciplined focus on the efficiencies and returns while managing our business for the long-term success of the organization.
Additionally, we remain committed to effectively managing those controllable variables that we have in our program and also mitigate the uncontrollables the best as we possibly can.
So again, thank you.
Certainly, I think Cabot has some brighter days out in front of it.
Thank you, Carrie.
