COG
#Where our internal curtailed volumes were, at the time that we had maximum curtailment.
Is that kind of the ---+.
Well, I think you could look at it, <UNK>, just like you would look at the baseline decline.
You look at, you kind of look at where the curtailed volumes were, even though you weren't producing at that point in time.
As you bring the baseline decline, it's all proportionate to those curtailed volumes.
Thank you.
Can't hear you, <UNK>.
Yes, the production was kind of in the mid-teens, and it was more the Cotton Valley assets, and not the Haynesville.
That was about three-quarters of a Bcf, just those alone for us in the South region.
And it was done ---+ when did it ---+.
It was down most of the, or half or so of the first quarter, and it's back on line about the April 20 or so.
Hey, <UNK>.
Well, I think it's, I agree with some of what I read out there right now, that the midstream space is being challenged by an effort to, basically keep hydrocarbons in the ground, point blank.
I do agree with it being more difficult, and the activists trying to stop progress on the midstream.
I think in certain areas of the country, it will be more pronounced than others, and geographically it seems to be up in the East right now, where it's a little bit more populated, it seems to have more intensity and more emotion attached to it.
But again, I'll go back to what we referred to last quarter, and you look at the footprint necessary to get a certain level of energy to a demand source.
Natural gas has one of the smallest footprints that there are out there.
If you make an equivalent to renewables, and what it takes to deliver equivalent production, what's being discounted and not discussed is the footprint necessary to be able to deliver renewables and the equivalent production levels.
So all those things are part of it, but I think geographically, it's going to be more difficult in other areas to lay the infrastructure.
But I do think that the process is being considered by the administrators in a way differently, than it has been in the past.
And I think it's clear, that there's not scalable opportunities for renewables to take the place of what hydrocarbons, and natural gas in particular, will deliver as far as demand as concerned.
So just a difficult time right now.
I do feel though, that with the projects that we have in place, I think the mitigation discussions that we'll have going forward to mitigate in an objective way, will also come into play.
I think we do that, but we're going to be better at that aspect of it.
We're certainly sensitive to all the needs out there, and we'll continue to move forward with what we think are projects for the majority's need.
Well, first off, let's back up to the premise, that is the reason for the question.
One, is what is the level of contamination of any water in the first place.
That question has been evaluated in a lot of different ways, water well tests, and it's a significant amount of dollars and a significant database that represents to us that the water has not been contaminated by the operations.
On the chemical side, drilling side, we have a closed-loop system.
We have, also through the frac side, we have a closed-loop system on the frac side, less and except what we put into the formation.
So we're confident that our operation using best available technology is mitigating any concerns about water.
Do I think that there are other areas that maybe has volumes of produced water, and those volumes of produced water then going through a process different than today, and continuing to look at produced water, and how you dispose of produced water.
I think there's probably ongoing research that will continue to look at that, and try to improve in an area that's very good right now, but would try to improve on any produced water disposals.
Yes, thank you, <UNK>.
All right.
I appreciate it, Rocco, and I appreciate everybody's interest in Cabot, and I look forward to a report next quarter.
Thank you.
