Comment

Comment by Jack Young on March 1, 2013 at 10:00am

Higher gravity condensate is certainly marketable, but that market is depressed due to oversupply, so it doesn't give the same boost to dry gas revenues that it used to. They can sell the stuff, but it's not like getting oil along with your gas!

Comment by gary smith on March 1, 2013 at 6:56am

i would think that because the higher gravity numbers mean a more liquid/gaseous level that they would flow easier from the shale.

Comment by Samuel J. Orr on March 1, 2013 at 5:58am

Jack: I think biggest concern is the point you raised earlier. If the SG is 63, does this mean the NGLs are worthless and/ or unrecoverable. I am just speculating that NGLs with very high SGs may be difficult or impossible to recover with current technology, and if recoverable have little if any value. Please reply because my assumptions betray the level of my ignorance!

Comment by Jack Young on March 1, 2013 at 5:27am

It's unlikely that Range would get anything radically wrong given all their experience with shales - the idea that the frac didn't go well was never mentioned until this week. More likely they are just trying to be positive, and assuming that if production was poor, they must have done something wrong. Some areas do require a bit of testing before the right completion approach is found, while in others the potential just isn't there at current prices no matter what you do. It will take a few more tests in this part of the Utica to know what the story is for Crawford County.

Comment by Samuel J. Orr on February 28, 2013 at 4:31pm

To Jack Young: You seem to know a lot about geology and also the technical issues in well drilling. Is it possible that something went wrong with the drilling or the fracking on the Lippert well that is fixable. if so what might these things be? What would Range do to fix each of these problems if they are found to exist. In the alternative, how likely is the poor result likely to mean that the well is a dud. Assuredly my questions require speculations. But informed and reasonably thought out speculations could be of interest and of value. To others who may acquire more information about Lippert, I would ask that they post it. There are a lot of smart people who post to this site. As for me, I am good at asking questions but must rely on others for answers.

Comment by Berk on February 28, 2013 at 3:08pm

markkot-newspaper article from last summer. No permit as of yet due some type of Hawk and nesting go back a couple weeks on here we had a discussion on it.

http://meadvilletribune.com/x471604555/States-gas-boom-comes-to-tow...

 

Comment by markkot on February 28, 2013 at 3:04pm

Do you know the approx. location in Greenwood twp, Berk?   Closest intersection, etc.....  I haven't seen anything on the DEP permit site.  thx.

Comment by Berk on February 28, 2013 at 12:12pm

Range has had one planned for in Greenwood twp., but there has been some type issue with a Hawk. 

Comment by markkot on February 28, 2013 at 11:33am

If that's truly their goal, I'd like to see them move more towards the Byler and Staab wells.  According to the perceived maps, that would put them more towards the volatile oil and oil fairways, where they should find them more profitable and hopefully validate the maps that are available.

Comment by Jack Young on February 28, 2013 at 11:22am

The Point Pleasant disappears to the north, so Crawford County has been considered a bit of a wild card by most people. If you look at Range's map, they show the wet gas area getting much wider around the Lippert well, which I think highlights their uncertainty. It's just unfortunate that the price for liquids other than oil has slumped so badly in recent times. Wet gas isn't as economic as it was a couple years ago - they really do want the oil. Let's see if Range does permit an offset, and if they do, which way they move with any new test sites. I wouldn't be surprised if they jumped over closer to the Ohio line.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 60
• 61
• 62
• 63
• 64
• …
• 151
• Next ›
• Page