ODNR Production Report

  Hello all, O called the ODNR at about 9:45 AM they are in the process of a meeting about it now. They had a few discrepancies in the data and had to verify what they were looking at. HOWEVER I WAS TOLD IT WILL BE POSTED TODAY !

 In other news http://www.zanesvilletimesrecorder.com/article/20120402/NEWS01/2040... 

These companies have done two-dimensional and three-dimensional seismic surveys, paying literally $40,000 per square mile," Arnold said. "Their maps are much more accurate and very proprietary."

Views: 6346

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by June G. Blackwell on April 2, 2012 at 4:01am

 I have attached the 2011 "ODNR Utica Production Report." This is what the ODNR website had to say about production:

OIL
The reported volumes of oil are lower than estimated, but higher than conventional wells. Oil production may be incidental to gas production in much of the Utica play.  Reported oil volumes likely include condensate volumes.
GAS   
Reported gas volumes likely include both “dry” and “wet” gas. Markets and pipeline capacity are somewhat limited so production is likely choked back.  Once processing plants are up and running, the produced “wet” gas volumes will dramatically increase.  Gas production is significant, even with the early production numbers.  The Buell Well (832724 Kenneth Buell 8H) gas production equals 2 percent of the state’s total gas production.  Total gas production is based on production from about 49,000 conventional wells.

Attachments:
Permalink Reply by TM on April 2, 2012 at 4:04am

I thought the oil numbers seemed to be on the low end. Cant tell much from these numbers other than the fact the wells are choked back apparently on production.

Permalink Reply by Kat bird on April 2, 2012 at 12:58pm

Today the Columbus Dispatch-Kasich touts the potential of shale gas for Ohio . Sorry  you will have to Google it Iam just leaning to use a computer. Talk about teach a old dog new tricks.But I have made may mind up I going too learn to use that sucker.

Permalink Reply by craig on April 2, 2012 at 3:51pm

Welcome to the GoMarcellusShale discussions Kat bird. Keep at the ole computer and you will do just fine. Remember one important thing.......there is lots of false and misleading info out there, everywhere on the web. You must sift through everything thoroughly and use your own wisdom.

Post away!

Permalink Reply by Dan on April 2, 2012 at 7:23am

I did some extrapolations on those numbers using the drainage areas and current commodity pricing and have it posted over on this thread.

Permalink Reply by Bluflame on April 2, 2012 at 10:02am

Hi Dan,

  Great job! I also did an excel extrapolation and came up with similar numbers using a somewhat different methodology.  The big wild card is NGL's, which ODNR stated are included in the natural gas quantities. Assuming that NGL's are priced ~60% of oil price/barrel, they could significantly increase the total return.

  This is good news for everybody concerned! 

Bluflame

Permalink Reply by Billy Park Whyde on April 2, 2012 at 7:29am

Personally I think these numbers are not very accurate. 

Permalink Reply by TM on April 2, 2012 at 10:42am

True Drill. I believe these wells are being choked way back by these companies right now too. The pipelines and the infrastructure are not in place to handle really high volumes right now. Once pipeline and refining plants are built these numbers should go way up I assume. Either that or this utica shale play is not near as big as what it was hyped up to be. Time will tell I guess once more wells are drilled.

Permalink Reply by Erik V. on April 2, 2012 at 1:43pm

I think these numbers are much more realistic than what Chesapeake released earlier.  They are also more in line with the flow numbers that the ODNR released.  Not surprising that Chesapeake released initial production numbers on four well that were likely inflated so they could attract more joint venture partners.  Can't say that it didn't work.  I think too many people looked at the initial production reports and used that as a basis for what these wells would continue to produce but with an 80% decline in the first year I don't think the numbers look all that bad.  Look at any Clinton or Berea well's initial production numbers on wells drilled on your property and you'll realize those wells never came close to producing that much, or at least your royalty check indicated they didn't.  We have a while (maybe years) to find out exactly what this Utica production is really going to be and it appears that there will be a great disparity between each well.  Fortunately for us any of them will make us a nice income, but perhaps not the wealth we have been expecting.

Permalink Reply by JR on April 2, 2012 at 2:20pm

My last royalty check for my clinton well was $29, for 3 months.  It's hard to get much worse than that.  Everything is looking up from my angle!

Permalink Reply by JR on April 2, 2012 at 2:24pm

PS, the ODNR site clearly states the wells are choked back thanks to not overwhelming the wells, in fear of causing permanent damage.  And, thanks to not having infrastructure in place.  They expect these numbers to increase dramatically.

Permalink Reply by bo boboski on April 2, 2012 at 10:31pm

IMO ,I agree JR, releasing those figures from choked off wells can only benefit the O&G co.s by reducing the cost of leasing the remaining acres around here. They drilled alot of the 1st wells on land that was leased @ very low $$$ from old existing leases. not so much because that's where they thought the best producers would be. The buell well was allowed to flow more maybe because there are pipelines close? We will have to wait till the processing plants are built & pipelines are in,and most of the land is leased before they open em up & show what really is down there! They may have shyed away from even drilling where they know the best producing wells will be for all of the reasons above.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service