Comment

Comment by RJS on February 28, 2013 at 11:01am

OK - I was asking based only on public information for a clarification.  I can't claim or trump with any inside information like you have. Publicly, they got what they expected, except for amount.

Comment by Jack Young on February 28, 2013 at 7:43am

Those maps showing what's oil, wet gas, dry gas etc are all pretty speculative once you get into areas with little prior drilling and production. I can tell you that the refineries were watching the Lippert well closely, and had been in touch with Range. It's a narrow band of the Utica that might have oil with enough gas drive to make it pay, and there were plenty of people in the industry hoping for that here. It was a bad well, but if people drill more in the area, they may do better. I wouldn't say nobody will drill there again, but nobody will pay much for the leases until there's more profit potential shown.

Comment by gary smith on February 28, 2013 at 6:24am

dating? now you've entered into a whole new area berk. HAHAHA

Comment by Berk on February 28, 2013 at 5:56am

RJS- I totally agree with you. Wet gas was found east of the volatile oil projection as expected. Yes it is low but Range has indicated something was done wrong and they are going to try to fix it. They did not say we are done this area sucks. There are more wells coming either currently being drilled or planned. Let's not stop dating because our first date eat her/his food with her/his mouth open.   

Comment by gary smith on February 28, 2013 at 4:08am

other than flow rate the numbers are good, imo.  i think they need to redo the frack. and you are right. west of the lippert is getting back into the volatile oil projections i've seen. i don't see halcon jumping ship. they are rsetting up to run 16 inch pipe from jamestown to franklin to a stripper. don't head for the zoloft yet.

Comment by RJS on February 28, 2013 at 3:59am

As a landowner in the unit, there is no doubt this is disappointing.  Maybe you all can clarify what you are saying, because some of it isn't making sense to me from the surface information:

1) Range drilled in a region that is squarely in the middle of the "wet gas" window, not the "volatile oil" or "oil" windows, on every map I can find.

2) Range has been announcing for months, even before they drilled, that they expected to hit "wet gas".

3) The Rex Brace 1H well has published numbers for a similar well of 1250 BTU and 60.1 API gravity with only NGLs, no oil being produced.  I haven't heard anyone saying this one was a disappointment, but maybe I missed it.

4) Range found "wet gas" when they drilled.

 

Was Range hoping against hope that they would hit oil? I certainly didn't expect to hear that they did hit oil based on everything that was published beforehand.  The thing that seems the most disappointing is the flow numbers.  The other ones don't seem that out of line from other published wells in the same window.  What am I missing?

Comment by rex roae on February 28, 2013 at 3:14am

Thank you Jack for being realistic.  This is a major disappointment and I'd rather it not be sugar coated.

Let's be real honest here.  Even if the flow rate was double what it currently is, it's likely drillers will be looking at more productive areas for the time being.   I also think the chances of us getting those $3k an acre signing bonuses are out the window for right now.   I don't like it anymore than anyone else but there's little point of pretending it's something it's not.

Comment by Depolarized Farmer on February 28, 2013 at 3:13am

Keep in mind that one of the hotest plays in the country is the Miss. Lime (Kansas / Oklahoma).  It is a shallow, low-pressure reservoir yielding lots of oil.  Many wells are less than 1,000' deep.  Many of the techniques / principles used to develop that formation may prove to be very useful in developing our deeper, higher pressure Point Pleasant acreage in NE Ohio / NW PA.  In some ways, our PP is really more of a carbonate than a shale.  The "oil in place" is not in doubt...  it's a matter of developing the right cost-effective methods to extract that OIP.  Let us be patient.

Comment by Jack Young on February 28, 2013 at 2:43am

The market price for liquids with a gravity above about 50 is much worse - Range wanted real oil there, and didn't get it. 63 can't be sold to a refinery, so it was clearly a disappointment to Range. The problem in the Utica seems to be that there's little gas drive once you get into the true oil leg of the field, and so those wells aren't economic even when they do find real oil. These results are very negative for Crawford County - of course Range will try to put a positive spin on things as they have so much acreage nearby, but you can only be so positive about one of the lowest flow rates reported anywhere in the Utica.

Comment by RJS on February 28, 2013 at 2:26am

From looking at the other wet gas wells, the 63 number isn't a problem.  It is kind of typical for wet gas.  It seems to me the only problem with the numbers is the flow rate they got from their frac.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 61
• 62
• 63
• 64
• 65
• …
• 151
• Next ›
• Page