Curious if anyone has any insight on Utica prospects in the SW PA Marcellus areas? Have heard rumors for a while about drillers exploring the Utica under the Marcellus for a few years, now, from existing Marcellus sites but all seemed to be speculation, which, of course, is all there is until someone actually drills. There is a wealth of gas under the area in the various formations and scuttlebutt is that it would be more economical for drillers to utilize already held leases to reach additional formations from existing pads/units, reducing cost. Sitting in Washington County in an actively drilled locale brings the question to more interest for future security. Also, on a side note, today is the Annual Meeting and Proxy Vote at EQT in the contest between current board and the Rice Team. I, for one, am anxious to see where it goes.
I tend to agree the statement made by Lori Huber, "it would be economical for drillers to utilize already held leases to reach additional formations from existing pads/units, reducing costs."
Preliminary work has already been done such as right's of way, Beefing up of access township roads, installing of many pipelines to transport gas well production to points of sale among other necessary preparations needed.
Encap's demand for Montage to park a drill rig in order to raise the stock price, isn't working well at all. down,down,down! like a farmer not buying seed and planting a crop, somehow leads to profits.
In well pad development there is the surface use agreement that outlines the well pad, access drive and then LOD (limit of disturbance). If the well pad was constructed two years and the LOD surrounfing pad and drive are replanted, what rights two years later does the operator have to to store equipment or drive across and through the LOD outside the pad berm to park vehicles, lay water lines or a water pump, etc.and make ruts. To me the LOD is a temporary use to support an area large enough to allow room for pad and driveway construction.
My understanding of temporary is 3-6 months, but no more than a year, so when I complain of activity and equipment parked outside the pad berm constructed two years ago to the operator they just say "well we are still within the LOD" I think their explanation is a load of crap since I also have an equipment location approval clause and an enurement (in benefit of landowner) clause in my surface use agreement, and told them I don't equipment and vehicles outside the pad.
What you y'all think about the operators explanation to this issue based on your understanding of Pad vs LOD? Thanks.
interesting discussion with our farm vet today. one of his N.Y. farm clients contracted 30 acres for a solar installation. $1000 per acre each year for the projects life. Hmmm... put away the corn planter.
Yeah, but you can't hear corn grow and corn doesn't kill and injure birds; plus 30 acres of corn is a beautiful thing.
solar. not wind. solar cooks birds, but it's quiet. i'd try to sell "O'l Beautiful", but she died years ago. fine udders,she had.
I am not sure if a PV solar array cooks birds.....CS installations (concentrating solar) most certainly do.
I will guess this is a private concern....not the first step of Cuomo's energy plan.
Still....the only way this is profitable to the installation owner is the generous subsidies (30%??) and guaranteed selling price.
This will mean a natural gas generating plant somewhere will be required to idle down during sunny days....very inefficient operation....some studies have shown this practice may actually INCREASE the CO2 contribution overall.
There is a threshold of renewables any grid can absorb....after that threshold.....intermittency becomes an issue....but Cuomo know best! /sarc
no doubt these are boondoggles. but, at these rental rates, landowners in upstate NY will be standing in line to paint their farms black with solar panels. who else is paying $20000 per acre over 20yrs. they won't care who pays or even whether they work. alot of desolation and desperation up yonder.