Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by bo boboski on February 5, 2015 at 10:12am

It sounds kinda strange. They already paid the Halls a bonus for leasing their minerals a couple years ago,  Probably close to $500,000. Now they buy the 96 acres for $1,000,000.? $1.5 mil. for 96 acres? Does this mean that open farmland in rural Guernsey county is worth over $15,000. per acre? I don't think so. There must be a lot more to it. Carrizo would still be paying the Halls royalties too,if they include that property in a unit. The Halls are probably soaking up the sun on a tropical Island about now. It will be interesting  indeed to see what Carrizo does with it. Why it was worth so much. I don't think they are in the Disposal well business, or the compressor station business. Those are usually owned and operated by others. If part of that ground floods now and then, it's even harder to figure out.

Permalink Reply by Philip Brutz on February 5, 2015 at 1:58pm

I wonder how it is going to affect our property taxes?

Permalink Reply by bo boboski on February 5, 2015 at 2:26pm

I figure there was some kind of deal made. Maybe they bought back the minerals also. Then; it would be worth $15,000. per acre. We may never know.

Permalink Reply by bo boboski on February 3, 2015 at 10:57pm

That would be pretty handy . a big lake also would be handy. I seem to remember seeing most of that acreage flooded before. In one of those 100 year floods we seem to get every 15 years or so.?

Permalink Reply by bo boboski on February 3, 2015 at 11:06pm

If it doesn't flood; it may be a good spot for a compressor station,Although it seems they like to put them on top of hills. In case of a leak,I suppose.

Permalink Reply by catt on February 3, 2015 at 10:45am

Wow...good for them!

Permalink Reply by David Allen Lilly on February 5, 2015 at 6:31am

I mentioned in another thread earlier today how quickly things can change in this industry and how difficult it can be to predict these changes from very far out.

Today I found this piece on the energy section of Real Clear Politics:

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/02/05/adversity-stirs-innovation-at-hy...

In the article it talks not only of this new fracking technology but of something of even more interest to me, re-fracking existing wells.

From the article:

"The oil recovery from refracking has often been two to three times what was extracted in the first go-around, said Harold Brannon, vice president of pressure pumping technology at Baker Hughes.

“The return on investment is much better to go back into an existing well,” compared to drilling a new one, Brannon said. “It might be $12 million to drill and complete a Bakken well, whereas we can refrack it for $2 million to $3 million. And it has a slower decline rate.” "

That is good news for anyone who is already drilled and in production from an existing well.

As well it appears that Jordan is readying itself to go to war with ISIS, and that will likely raise oil prices, not that I am rooting for any of it because it is better for the country and its economy when oil prices are lower.

Anyhoo, things change quickly in this business and often times few of us have any knowledge of what is coming until it is upon us.

Anybody have anything on Antero buying out Eclipse ?

Permalink Reply by Kathi Albertson on February 5, 2015 at 6:57am

Do you think the refracking applies to verticle wells as well as the horizontals?

Permalink Reply by David Allen Lilly on February 5, 2015 at 9:09am

I don't think so, but I don't know for sure. Someone told me several years ago that the oil was still down there but that there was a loss of siphon or loss of pressure that was preventing them from bringing it to the top.

This conversation was strictly in regards to horizontal fracking and I believe so is the article I linked, which is where I got my quote.

I suspect that vertical production is very small in comparison to horizontal.

Permalink Reply by Jan on February 6, 2015 at 3:25am

I believe the Hall's were held by production under an old lease.  That lease was assumed by Carizzo - so no bonus $ was paid.  So...what they kept was their 12.5% lease.

Permalink Reply by bo boboski on February 6, 2015 at 8:47am

I see. there are two old wells on that tract. Still; 1 mil. for 96 acres of farm ground is still odd.

Permalink Reply by Philip Brutz on February 6, 2015 at 7:02am

http://m.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/blog/energy/2015/02/eqt-writes-...

Thursday, February 5, 2015, 6:21pm EST

EQT writes off its Utica Shale holdings in Ohio

Sam Kusic

Pittsburgh Business Times

EQT Corp. (NYSE: EQT) has thrown in the towel on its Ohio Utica Shale holdings, writing off the value of its undeveloped acreage there.

The acreage is predominately in Guernsey County, which sits toward the western side of the Utica. As a result of the decision, the company on Thursday said it was incurring a $162 million impairment. The impairment, along with another related to Permian basin assets, let to a net loss in the fourth quarter.

During EQT's earning conference call, executives said they wrote off the acreage because the estimated ultimate recovery of the acreage was "significantly below expectations." Estimated ultimate recovery is an estimate of the amount of gas that is likely to be recovered over the life of a well or property.

EQT announced in April that it had halted a 21-well program in the Ohio Utica Shale after some of the first wells it had drilled there failed to meet expectations. At the time, executives said the company would complete five wells it began drilling the prior year, and evaluate the results before deciding whether to proceed.

"Based on all that of data, we'll start to make some decisions about do we move forward in this play, or do we not move forward," said Steve Schlotterbeck, president of the company's exploration and production division, at the time.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 25
• 26
• 27
• 28
• 29
• …
• 57
• Next ›
• Page