Ohio's Utica shale is shaping up as a gas-rich, not oil-rich play

http://www.ohio.com/blogs/drilling/ohio-utica-shale-1.291290/ohio-s...

The data appears to show that the Utica shale will be dominated by natural gas more than oil. The oil volumes were lower than had been projected, and that’s likely a disappointment to analysts and energy companies.

"It’s shaping up largely as a natural-gas play," said Tom Stewart, executive vice president of the Ohio Oil and Gas Association. "I’m not disappointed or discouraged by the numbers. … But this is a process that takes time to develop."

It is possible that large quantities of oil may still be found in sections of the Utica shale in Ohio, he said.

Views: 15395

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by JR on May 22, 2013 at 2:44pm
I keep reading/hearing it took 7 years for them to crack the oil code in the bakken. It seems, there's no disputing oil is there, but its a new code to crack. Have seen this on several unrelated sources. And a couple have said it'll only take maybe 2 years to figure it out. These sources are possibly biased, and unbiased for sure.
Permalink Reply by gary SWF on May 23, 2013 at 12:52am
Chesapeake believes Ohio (ODR) report very misleading.....many wells very constrained.................5-22 conference call............
Permalink Reply by JR on June 16, 2013 at 9:12am
Jodi, would you have a link to the slideshow of this presentation? I'd like to see if/how they label the counties in their new package. Thx!
Permalink Reply by gary SWF on June 16, 2013 at 9:25am
see pages 2 and 3 of article ......So 20 million barrels per section(640 acres) lets say at 18% royalty rate and  $90/barrel.....is .....20,000,000 X.18 X $90= Total royalty for life of well of......equals $324,000,000 per section or $324,000,000/ 640 acre =$506,250/acre........is my math right????.....and could be 50% more if it is 30,000,000 barrels????.......Have I missed a decimal????    Thanks in Advance......
Permalink Reply by Frank on June 16, 2013 at 4:56pm

Your math matches mine except I am at 20% and in Tuscarawas county.

 

0i7okn54zwbdoPermalink Reply by 0i7okn54zwbdo on June 17, 2013 at 5:25am

20 to 30 million barrels in place.  That does not mean recoverable.  Very important distinction. 

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on June 17, 2013 at 5:29am
Recoverable 'Today' - another (I think)
important distinction.
0i7okn54zwbdoPermalink Reply by 0i7okn54zwbdo on June 17, 2013 at 6:51am

Increases in recovery techniques is not something that can be extrapolated. You have to make assessments based on the information you have at the time.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on June 17, 2013 at 6:55am
R i i i i i i i i i i g h t !
0i7okn54zwbdoPermalink Reply by 0i7okn54zwbdo on June 17, 2013 at 7:39am

Let's take EVEP at their word and call it 30 million per section.  Low end of recoverable is ~1.2%.  High end is 5% which absolutely nobody thinks is safe to estimate.  Let's call it 3%.  900,000 bbls, give or take.  On 160 acre spacing you get four wells into that section.  Let's say your net cost is $8,000,000 per well.  You'd be looking at a long term profit of ~$13,000,000 per section.  That's pretty good, especially if you could get to a scenario where well costs (and transportation costs) are controlled.

Permalink Reply by Jim on June 18, 2013 at 6:42am

What would the bbls/acre foot be?  What thickness is EVEP using? 

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on June 18, 2013 at 6:52am
What's an "acre foot" ?
There are 43,560 square feet per acre.
Are you looking for barrels per square foot ?
If so take 900,000 / 640 Acres / 43,560 = .0323 bbls / sq. ft.

RSS

© 2025   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service