Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Frank Nesmith on October 30, 2013 at 1:47pm

Doesn't look real promising for Beaver County just yet. All dry gas in the northern part. Prices are gonna have to go up for them to pick up again, I'm afraid.

Permalink Reply by Jason on October 30, 2013 at 4:34pm

Frank - we have more gas than Bradford County, PA - and they're still drilling up there. Pipelines are being run. Triple play of shale. THIS IS GOING TO BE HUGE!
Brother lives near Mingo Park, Washington county pa. All dry gas. He's in the 400 BCF/ sq mile area.
Rice or Range just signed his large property holding neighbors for $7,000/acre. He hasn't filled me in yet on who specifically but $7,000 is a fact!
Hang on. Cracker or no cracker - we're upcoming sooner rather than later.

Permalink Reply by Todd on October 30, 2013 at 5:01pm

The Utica/Point Pleasant by itself has 140 to 160 Bcf of dry gas per square mile. That's similar to the Dry Gas Sweet Spot of the Marcellus in NE PA as Jason said... All you need to do is look at the production up that way on the DEP website.
FYI: 1 Bcf = 1,000,000 mcf
Let's say 1 mcf is $4 for simplicity sakes.
Therefore, 1 Bcf = $4,000,000
So, 140 to 160 Bcf =
$560,000,000 to $640,000,000
worth of gas per sq mile at today's prices.
However, current technology can only extract 10 to 20%, so
$56,000,000 to $64,000,000 for the 10% recovery and
$102,000,000 to $128,000,000 for the 20% recovery per square mile (640 acres)!

Permalink Reply by Jason on October 30, 2013 at 5:05pm

Todd - I don't know if there's an area like SW PA/ northern WVa that has as much nat gas as we do.
Any ideas? That one slide is huge.

Also caught wind from a Williams employee that Range has indeed bought the rights to Hanover and southern Beaver County.
Super good news.

Permalink Reply by Tim Tarr on October 30, 2013 at 6:19pm

Todd,

Try 30% EUR

Alan W. Farquharson - Senior Vice President for Reservoir Engineering and Economics

For the resource potential that we're out, excluding the tighter spacing, we are probably in the 25% to 35% range, probably in the low-30s to the 35%. Then, as we added in the infill potential, we think that gets us up into the low- to mid-40s.

From:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1789792-range-resources-management-...

I thought it was 15% until I read Transcript for 3qtr released today.

Jason,

   That could be why maps didn't come out until now. Notice that Dec 31 2013 date on 'em

Permalink Reply by Tim Tarr on October 31, 2013 at 9:27am

oops, date on those GIP maps is Dec 2012 not 2013.

  Those numbers are going  higher. As recent as June 2013 RRC had 8.7 Bcfe well numbers, as of July that's changed to 12.3 Bcfe. They have good data as far as Marcellus and UD now. Probably will update GIP map numbers (fine tune) in December for those two.

  Now on that Utica/PP I expect those to change big time. But not for at least 2-3 years. Not even drilling new test well until 2014 sometime. It's all a HBP and infrastructure build now.

  Marcellus is going to pay for all this and at a profit to boot. In 3-5 years they'll be able to produce dry gas from Utica/PP and dry areas, along with wet gas from UD. Only producing enough liquids to get best pricing. No more glut of liquids.

  Now I wonder how much it would cost to expand these Cryogenic deethanizer's into a full blown LNG plant? 

Permalink Reply by Todd on November 1, 2013 at 4:46am

Tim,

My estimates were conservative for the Utica only to help everyone's perspective as to the magnitude of the gas in place.  I believe Mr. Farquharson's comments are results of Marcellus production.  However, hopefully, the higher extraction will apply to the Utica as well in the present and near future.  In addition, of course, the percentages will continue to increase as technology advances!  Also, there are most likely more economically producible shale reservoirs in the future.

Permalink Reply by Todd on November 1, 2013 at 6:58am

Tim,

From your statement:

"Notice that Dec 31 2013 date on 'em"...

Here's the copy and paste from the bottom of the GIS slides:

"Note: Townships where Range holds ~3,000 or more acres (as of 12/31/2012), and estimated as prospective, are highlighted. GIP – Range estimates."

Hence, their statement just refers to Township acreage information and not GIS information.  Hopefully, the GIS information is more up to date!

Permalink Reply by Todd on October 30, 2013 at 5:06pm

"She'll be comin 'round the mountain (of gas) when she comes..."

Permalink Reply by Todd on October 30, 2013 at 5:39pm

Wow - Congrats Jason!
Range is such a good producer. You will be HBP'ed soon per RRC!
I was thinking the same thing... Definitely close to the top for GIP per square mile.

Permalink Reply by Frank Nesmith on November 1, 2013 at 3:02am

Guess I need to learn to read these reports better. I got all sad when I read it. Thanks for the replies.

Permalink Reply by Todd on November 1, 2013 at 7:01am

LOL... Frank you're good!