PDA

View Full Version : The New "Oil Patch" -- the old Rust Belt



Deepsepia
12-02-2011, 06:09 PM
Easily the most under-reported economic story of the year has been the continuing massive discoveries of oil and especially nat gas in the Dakotas and the Appalachians/Rust Belt. The amounts are huge, so big that the US is going to end up exporting nat gas, which presently sells at a fraction of the price you see in Europe. Not so long ago we were talking about building terminals for docking LNG tankers coming from other places -- now we're talking about building liquefaction facilities for shipping our nat gas overseas

Utica Shale - The Natural Gas Giant Below the Marcellus?

The Marcellus was the Opening Act


A rock layer below the Marcellus Shale is developing into another incredible source of natural gas.

The Marcellus Shale captured public attention when leasing and drilling activities began pumping billions of dollars into local economies and citizens began debating the environmental, social and economic impacts. All of this began suddenly in 2004 when Range Resources Corporation drilled the first Marcellus well using modern drilling technology.

Now, just a few years later, the Marcellus Shale is being developed into one of the world's largest natural gas fields. However, what we are seeing today from the Marcellus is only the first step in a sequence of natural gas plays. The second step is starting in the Utica Shale.

What is the Utica Shale?


The Utica Shale is a rock unit located a few thousand feet below the Marcellus Shale. It also has the potential to become an enormous natural gas resource. The Utica Shale is thicker than the Marcellus, it is more geographically extensive and it has already proven its ability to support commercial production.

It is impossible to say at this time how large the Utica Shale resource might be because it has not been thoroughly evaluated and little public information is available about its organic content, the thickness of organic-rich intervals and how it will respond to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. However, the results of early testing indicate that the Utica Shale will be a very significant resource.


Where is the Utica Shale?


The potential source rock portion of the Utica Shale is extensive. In the United States it underlies portions of Kentucky, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, West Virginia and Virginia. It is also present beneath parts of Lake Ontario, Lake Erie and part of Ontario, Canada. This geographic extent of potential Utica Shale source rock is shown on the map labeled as Figure 1 in the right column of this page. If the Utica is commercial throughout this extent it will be geographically larger than any natural gas field known today.

The Utica Shale is much deeper than the Marcellus. The Utica Shale elevation map shown as Figure 2 in the right column of this page has contour lines that show the elevation of the base of the Utica Shale in feet below sea level. In some parts of Pennsylvania the Utica Shale can be over two miles below sea level. However, the depth of the Utica Shale decreases to the west into Ohio and to the northwest under the Great Lakes and into Canada. In these areas the Utica Shale rises to less than 2000 feet below sea level. Beyond the potential source rock areas the Utica Shale rises to Earth's surface and can be seen in outcrop. An outcrop photo of the Utica Shale near the town of Donnaconna, Quebec, Canada is show in the right column of this page as Figure 3.

{snip}

Press releases from Chesapeake Energy reported several wells with peak rates of over five million cubic feet of natural gas per day along with hundreds to thousands of barrels of natural gas liquids. Optimism based upon these drilling results prompted Chesapeake to claim that their Utica Shale assets added over $15 billion in value to the company.

Having achieved successful results from recent drilling activities in eastern Ohio, Chesapeake is announcing the discovery of a major new liquids-rich play in the Utica Shale. Based on its proprietary geoscientific, petrophysical and engineering research during the past two years and the results of six horizontal and nine vertical wells it has drilled, Chesapeake believes that its industry-leading 1.25 million net leasehold acres in the Utica Shale play could be worth $15 - $20 billion in increased value to the company.[12]

As part of a $3.4 billion transaction between Chesapeake Energy, EnerVest and an unnamed foreign company, John Walker, CEO of EnerVest, claims that Utica Shale formation assets in ten counties of eastern Ohio were valued at about $15,000 per acre


more at: http://geology.com/articles/utica-shale/

Muddy
12-02-2011, 06:23 PM
I hate fracking, Man... I hope this isnt the case..

Deepsepia
12-02-2011, 06:28 PM
I hate fracking, Man... I hope this isnt the case..


Oh, there's definitely massive amounts of gas there. Why do you hate fracking? I've heard some complaints about it, but I dont know enough to know if they're reasonable or not.

One other thing is that these shales are much, much deeper than the Marcellus. Maybe fracking deeper is less of a nuisance? Much further from the water table, anyway.

I've never seen a fracking operation, but I do know that economically, the US has staged the most massive turnaround in energy in my lifetime. The funny thing is that it happened while folks were getting crazy over "drill here, drill now", but had nothing to do with it.

US is now about to become a net exporter of petroleum products, for the first time since 1949!

Folks worried about the economy-- all this energy spend is adding a lot of dollars and we need them

PorkChopSandwiches
12-02-2011, 06:31 PM
He's from the coal miner areas, he likes burning coal

redred
12-02-2011, 06:35 PM
I hate fracking, Man... I hope this isnt the case..

we had this case in the UK

Fracking tests near Blackpool 'likely cause' of tremors http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-15550458

and a protest has just finished Three fracking protesters come down from Lancashire rig http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-15998841 they're planning to start a new site 20 miles ish away from bristol

Muddy
12-02-2011, 06:35 PM
Oh, there's definitely massive amounts of gas there. Why do you hate fracking? I've heard some complaints about it, but I dont know enough to know if they're reasonable or not.

One other thing is that these shales are much, much deeper than the Marcellus. Maybe fracking deeper is less of a nuisance? Much further from the water table, anyway.

I've never seen a fracking operation, but I do know that economically, the US has staged the most massive turnaround in energy in my lifetime. The funny thing is that it happened while folks were getting crazy over "drill here, drill now", but had nothing to do with it.

US is now about to become a net exporter of petroleum products, for the first time since 1949!

Folks worried about the economy-- all this energy spend is adding a lot of dollars and we need them


I've just heard it contaminates ground water and we really don't know what other damage we could be doing...

Deepsepia
12-02-2011, 06:36 PM
I've just heard it contaminates ground water and we really don't know what other damage we could be doing...

Yeah, there are reports of that, and some interesting worries about earthquakes.

I don't know enough to say.

I would think that, the deeper the field, the less likely you are to impact groundwater, so the Utica would be better than the Marcellus.

Muddy
12-02-2011, 06:40 PM
Yeah, there are reports of that, and some interesting worries about earthquakes.

I don't know enough to say.

I would think that, the deeper the field, the less likely you are to impact groundwater, so the Utica would be better than the Marcellus.

I find it a little unsettling to be doing any more than digging holes...

Deepsepia
12-02-2011, 06:46 PM
I find it a little unsettling to be doing any more than digging holes...

Well, I'm definitely on the "green" side of the fence-- but you've got to look at these things in terms of "better" and "worse" -- there is no "perfect".

"Worse" is clearly mountaintop removal coal mining, just trashes an entire ecosystem, permanently. Same with tar sands, like in Alberta. Really dirty, really fouls an ecosystem.

I see the threat to groundwater as worrisome, but I'm not sure exactly what it is. Groundwater is usually very shallow . . . The Utica shale is thousands of feet below. Maybe this is enough of a buffer?

Would be good to know, because energy self-sufficiency is a very good thing, and nat gas is way better than coal.

Deepsepia
12-02-2011, 06:55 PM
To get a sense of how much this is worth



Our analysis of M&A activity in the liquids-rich section of the Utica shale play in eastern Ohio shows mineral rights valuations soaring. A selection of 2011 deals indicates an average value of US$4,563/acre, up from standard mineral rights offers in the region of just US$10-25/acre a year or two earlier. We see valuations continuing to rise as investors favour liquid-rich over gas-rich shale plays.


If you're say, a farmer with 200 acres, who used to have mineral rights worth basically zero, now what you've got is worth $900,000. That's pretty nice

Muddy
12-02-2011, 07:00 PM
To get a sense of how much this is worth



If you're say, a farmer with 200 acres, who used to have mineral rights worth basically zero, now what you've got is worth $900,000. That's pretty nice

The other thing for me is that we are always trying to secure energy in this country.. Why cant we just not sell this stuff and become more energy dependent for the next couple hundred years..?

Deepsepia
12-02-2011, 07:08 PM
The other thing for me is that we are always trying to secure energy in this country.. Why cant we just not sell this stuff and become more energy dependent for the next couple hundred years..?

Well, to do that we'd have to reduce consumption -- which very few people are willing to do.

We'd also have to invest in renewable energy, and you can see how popular Obama's green energy program was.

Actually, despite all the noise over Solyndra, the program achieved its goal. Manufacturers have invested massively in silicon production, and the prices have fallen dramatically. They're still a little high compared to other forms of electricity (especially because nat gas is so cheap right now), but you can always expect improvements in silicon manufacturing efficiency. Costs of solar need to fall by about %50 or so to be really competitive at this point;.

JoeyB
12-02-2011, 09:36 PM
I hate fracking, Man... I hope this isnt the case..


Oh, there's definitely massive amounts of gas there. Why do you hate fracking? I've heard some complaints about it, but I dont know enough to know if they're reasonable or not.


Yeah, there are reports of that, and some interesting worries about earthquakes.

I don't know enough to say.

Fracking is a profoundly dangerous and destructive process that is going to produce massive fallouts for the environment. I won't comment further because everyone always goes apeshit when I post liberal things. But Deep...do some research on your own...also, take note that the fracking industry got in bed with 'friendly' politicians so that the exact make up of the soupy mix of hundreds of chemicals they inject into the earth does not have to be disclosed.

As for the earthquakes...there is no scientific proof of that...but then again, lots of people in Arkansas and other areas that have seen a boom in fracking and a sudden increase in earthquakes are convinced it is the cause. I can't say. However, the fracking itself is dangerous for other reasons. Also, look into all the burning tap water events. Fun!

Deepsepia
12-02-2011, 10:33 PM
Fracking is a profoundly dangerous and destructive process that is going to produce massive fallouts for the environment. I won't comment further because everyone always goes apeshit when I post liberal things. But Deep...do some research on your own...also, take note that the fracking industry got in bed with 'friendly' politicians so that the exact make up of the soupy mix of hundreds of chemicals they inject into the earth does not have to be disclosed.



I have an open mind on this. The thing is, I don't know much about geology or aquifers so I hear one side say "it's poison" and the other side say "it's safe" . . . Leaves me wondering.

There are places in the Appalachians with very few people, and a lot of shale-- I think there's a trade off which says "we'll accept some environmental compromise here".

You're right, it's something I ought to research further.

Muddy
12-02-2011, 11:12 PM
The Appalachians are beautiful... It's sucks to destroy them....

JoeyB
12-02-2011, 11:22 PM
I have an open mind on this. The thing is, I don't know much about geology or aquifers so I hear one side say "it's poison" and the other side say "it's safe" . . . Leaves me wondering.

There are places in the Appalachians with very few people, and a lot of shale-- I think there's a trade off which says "we'll accept some environmental compromise here".

You're right, it's something I ought to research further.

Those who are profiting from it are saying it is safe. It's not. It's one of the most dangerous things happening in this country right now, and movements are afoot to put an end to it.


The Appalachians are beautiful... It's sucks to destroy them....

But mountaintop removal mining is harmless right? I mean, won't the mountains just grow back in a few years?

Deepsepia
12-02-2011, 11:36 PM
[COLOR="blue"]But mountaintop removal mining is harmless right? I mean, won't the mountains just grow back in a few years?

Well that's just it-- I've seen that. That trashes everything. Its not just what they tear off the mountaintop -- its that they dump the tailings in creeks and streams, and the river turns to crap.

Pony
12-02-2011, 11:44 PM
I see the threat to groundwater as worrisome, but I'm not sure exactly what it is. Groundwater is usually very shallow . . . The Utica shale is thousands of feet below. Maybe this is enough of a buffer?

Would be good to know, because energy self-sufficiency is a very good thing, and nat gas is way better than coal.

I would think so.

JoeyB
12-03-2011, 07:05 AM
Well that's just it-- I've seen that. That trashes everything. Its not just what they tear off the mountaintop -- its that they dump the tailings in creeks and streams, and the river turns to crap.

Well the rivers often, as you say, turn to crap around any mining operation. Mountaintop removal mining is just one of the most profoundly disturbing operations out there though.

Muddy
12-03-2011, 05:00 PM
You dont mountain top remove to get natural gas though..

JoeyB
12-03-2011, 08:51 PM
You dont mountain top remove to get natural gas though..

No, we're discussing a different bit of stupidity.

Fracking is bad though.

FBD
12-04-2011, 04:55 PM
Fracking is a profoundly dangerous and destructive process that is going to produce massive fallouts for the environment. I won't comment further because everyone always goes apeshit when I post liberal things. But Deep...do some research on your own...also, take note that the fracking industry got in bed with 'friendly' politicians so that the exact make up of the soupy mix of hundreds of chemicals they inject into the earth does not have to be disclosed.

As for the earthquakes...there is no scientific proof of that...but then again, lots of people in Arkansas and other areas that have seen a boom in fracking and a sudden increase in earthquakes are convinced it is the cause. I can't say. However, the fracking itself is dangerous for other reasons. Also, look into all the burning tap water events. Fun!

:lol: yeah, like the lady who had one oh, about 30 yards from her water well :roll: n1!

sorry Joey, until we have viable fusion reactors and zp magnetic generators and such, we're going to be using shitty dirty energy - and even if its "clean, green" like solar it still utilizes a crapload of toxic shit in the making or has other severe flaws like peaktime wind that make the shit far less viable.

Sad that we've got ways out of our financial mess screaming us in the face and some people simply want no part of it because "its a little dirty."

JoeyB
12-04-2011, 08:53 PM
Sad that we've got ways out of our financial mess screaming us in the face and some people simply want no part of it because "its a little dirty."

But the problem is fracking is that it is not merely a little dirty.