Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on January 10, 2012 at 5:44pm

Lack of major pipeline capacity is not a factor in northeast TC. 

"Empire Pipeline - Tioga County Extension Project

As of November 22, 2011, all facilities associated with this project were in-service. The new, 15-mile pipeline will bring abundant supplies of domestic, clean-burning natural gas from locally produced Marcellus Shale and Trenton-Black River gas wells to consumers in this region and beyond.

The Tioga County Extension Project included the construction of approximately 15 miles of a 24-inch pipeline, beginning near the New York/Pennsylvania State Line just west of John Hill Road in Jackson Township, P.A., and ending near the Millennium Pipeline Compressor Station on Quackenbush Hill, just north of West Road in Corning Township, N.Y. ... "
http://www.natfuel.com/empire/tioga/default.aspx

And last summer/fall SWEPI installed a trunk gathering line in Jackson and Rutland Twps.  There may be others, but this is the one that crosses a road I regularly use.  Yet, according to the 2011 DEP Permits spreadsheet, not a single permit was issued in Rutland Twp last year. Go figure! 

Also, East did have the old T/BR leases pretty well held when SWEPI took over (with single horizontal wells) and SWEPI is doing 6-well pads here.

Permalink Reply by Betty on January 11, 2012 at 3:50am

But Shell is working on building up the infrastructure to handle the gas.  Recently approved was zoning for two compressor stations in Delmar Township and I've heard that Duncan Township is expecting a water treatment plant, compressor station and approving a trailer site (16) to accommodate the workers.  

Permalink Reply by Brian Day on January 11, 2012 at 4:11am

If you study how the BR/T pockets of gas and oil are formed on the internet, you begin to discover that they are often fault related.  These pockets are not a universal blanket as is the Marcellus and the Utica.  The Utica in Tioga County is at a similar depth as the Marcellus is in the northeastern and southwestern parts of Pa. where wetter gas was found.  Depth is only one factor in the formation of wet gas and oil, but it adds hope that the Utica will be important in Tioga County.  The BR/T will be an individual crapshoot probably for only a few landowners in localized pockets, but it may bring good royalties from high gas production, wet gas, or oil for those lucky enough to particapate.

I think perhaps heavier equipment is required to drill down and horizontally in the BR/T pockets, equipment which may currently be in scarce supply.  Also, how does a company transport wet gas for processing to a cracking plant if the pipelines are all full of dry gas?  Why remove wet gas at all if the cracking plants are not readily available yet?  Must some or all of the dry gas be removed from upper formations before wet gas or oil is extracted?  I wouldn't think so, but I certainly do not know the answer.  One last question is, are there enough leases held that actually contain uncontestable legal right to formations below the Marcellus, or below the Onendaga which the DEP has some unit size/ spacing control over should it choose to excersize it?

Permalink Reply by Brian V. on January 11, 2012 at 6:05am

The T/BR formation is a pocket gas play that produces quickly. If the formation is entered correctly the well can double or triple Marcellus well production initially. They die off quickly though. The hit rate for T/BR wells is much lower than Marcellus wells. In the 60-65% range. Oriskany and Onendaga are similar also.

I have not heard of to many people even requesting or getting horizon leases. Horizons being what the industry terms as depth. Most all leases are all inclusive cover all formations. There are definately multiple producable formations in Tioga County. I guess it really comes down to if you are above a pocket or not. I would guess that if any of the seismic data that has been collected over the past 5-6 years showed any chance of producable oil or liquids at least one of these companies would have tried to tap it already. Does anyone know if any test wells have been permited into the Utica here in Tioga.

 

I was looking at a gas well location map of Tioga count recently and noticed some areas being completely avoided for the most part. I wonder why that might be. 

Permalink Reply by Brian Day on January 11, 2012 at 6:21am

I had some minor thought as to why a gasco would withhold information about wet gas or oil.  If land must be purchased for extra refinement, processing, or transport facilities in an area, it would be best to purchas or lease such land cheaply before any information about its use is public knowledge.  Can wet gas be transported easily to a facility in West Virginia or SW Pa, or would another facility in New York or someplace closer be practical?  Do you build additional pipelines?  This is very speculative thinking but something to keep an eye out for in the future.

On the pattern of well placement, it would be interesting if the newer wells formed any kind of a boundry around given areas.  It would be interesting to see what wells hit faults as well.

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on January 11, 2012 at 7:25am

One reason for avoiding an area is that the Marcellus isn't thick enough to be profitable. (At least with present technology.)  Another is an existing storage area and/or a lot of old unmapped conventional wells.  (Not worth the additional risk.)  And, DCNR land that hasn't been put out for bids. (So far, private mineral rights owners don't seem to have pushed to exercise their rights.) 

Permalink Reply by Brian Day on January 11, 2012 at 8:16am

Oh, some of us pushed and shouted, but it fell on deaf ears probably stuffed with money.  Can you describe those rights that still exist?

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on January 11, 2012 at 9:50am

?  The state doesn't own the mineral rights for 80-85% of State Park land. 

Permalink Reply by Brian Day on January 11, 2012 at 10:27am

I think that I misunderstood what private land owners you were talking about.  I guess that you are saying that the actual owners of the mineral rights for the State Park land have not expressed their wishes as far as leasing goes.  Sorry if I missed that clarification.

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on January 11, 2012 at 11:49am

No problem.  I just didn't understand your reply.  Same holds for state forest and game land, but I didn't find actual percentages.  Don't know, but I'd think for the more popular state lands it would be hard to find an o/g company to lease the rights ... not good PR.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page