2014 Marcellus and Utica Shale Databook - Vol. 3

Marcellus and Utica Shale Databook 2014
Volume 3: 2014 Sep-Dec Drilling Permit Maps; Waste Facilities Directory; Well Decline Rates
92 Detail Maps & Charts, Individual County Maps for Permits Issued Sep-Dec; Regulatory/Legal Update; Rig Counts; Well Counts & More!
January 2015 Edition

©Marcellus and Utica Shale Databook 2014 – Volume 3 Sample Pages
Table of Contents
Section I - Overview
Introduction & Methodology 6
Drilling Update Sep-Dec 2014 7-10
Too Much Production, Not Enough Pipelines 7
Daily Average Production by Shale Play (chart) 7
Daily Average Production NE vs All Other (chart) 7
Storage, Prices & Pipelines – Full Circle 8
Working Gas in Storage – Eastern US (chart) 8
Henry Hub vs Marcellus Gas Spot Price (chart) 8
Rig Counts – Growing in the Marcellus/Utica 9
Marcellus/Utica Rig Counts by Play (chart) 9
Well Counts – Back on the Upswing in the M/U 9
Marcellus/Utica Well Counts by Play (chart) 9
State Rig Counts – 3 Takeaways 10
Marcellus/Utica Rig Counts by State (chart) 10
Permit Counts – Databook Innovation 11
Permits by Driller 2013-14: PA, OH, WV (chart) 11-14
Marcellus/Utica Permits Issued – Trends (chart) 15
Permits by County 2013-14: PA, OH, WV (chart) 15-16
Regulatory/Legal Update: PA, OH, WV, NY, MD 17-21
Regulatory/Legal Update: SRBC, DRBC, EPA, FERC 22-23
Marcellus/Utica Latest Lease Offers (map) 24
Guide to Using the County Maps (chart) 25
Section II - Pennsylvania Permits
PA Gas Well Permits – Entire State (map) 26
Allegheny County (map) 27
Section II - Pennsylvania Permits (continued)
Armstrong County (map) 28
Beaver County (map) 29
Bradford County (map) 30
Butler County (map) 31
Cameron County (map) 32
Centre County (map) 33
Clarion County (map) 34
Clearfield County (map) 35
Clinton County (map) 36
Elk County (map) 37
Fayette County (map) 38
Forest County (map) 39
Greene County (map) 40
Indiana County (map) 41
Jefferson County (map) 42
Lawrence County (map) 43
Lycoming County (map) 44
McKean County (map) 45
Mercer County (map) 46
Potter County (map) 47
Sullivan County (map) 48
Susquehanna County (map) 49
Tioga County (map) 50
Venango County (map) 51
Washington County (map) 52
Westmoreland County (map) 53
Wyoming County (map) 54

Table of Contents
Section III - Ohio Permits
OH Gas Well Permits – Entire State (map) 55
Belmont County (map) 56
Carroll County (map) 57
Columbiana County (map) 58
Guernsey County (map) 59
Harrison County (map) 60
Jefferson County (map) 61
Monroe County (map) 62
Noble County (map) 63
Tuscarawas County (map) 64
Washington County (map) 65
Section IV - West Virginia Permits
WV Gas Well Permits – Entire State (map) 66
Barbour County (map) 67
Brooke County (map) 68
Doddridge County (map) 69
Gilmer County (map) 70
Harrison County (map) 71
Kanawha County (map) 72
Lewis County (map) 73
Marion County (map) 74
Marshall County (map) 75
Monongalia County (map) 76
Ohio County (map) 77
Preston County (map) 78
Ritchie County (map) 79
Taylor County (map) 80
Tyler County (map) 81
Upshur County (map) 82
Wetzel County (map) 83

Table of Contents
Section V – Directory of Marcellus & Utica Drilling Waste Facilities
Disclaimer: Select Analytics, LLC, dba “ShaleNavigator” and Marcellus Drilling News, are not liable for any direct or indirect damages suffered related
to the use of this Databook product arising from any errors, omissions, inaccuracies, or any other inadequacies of the Databook or the Recipient’s use of
the Databook. In no event will Select Analytics, LLC’s, dba “ShaleNavigator”’s or Marcellus Drilling News’ liability to the Recipient or anyone else exceed
the fee paid for the Databook product. Use of information provided in this report is at your own risk.
Editor’s Note: If you spot anything you believe is inaccurate or should be added, tell us! You may qualify for a free MDN or ShaleNavigator subscription.
Flowback and Brine 84
Drill Cuttings and Solid Waste 84
Strengths and Weaknesses of this List 85
Consolidated Map of Northeast Waste Facilities 86
List of Facilities by Geography – NY (chart) 87
List of Facilities by Geography – OH (chart) 87-89
List of Facilities by Geography – PA (chart) 89-91
List of Facilities by Geography – WV (chart) 91-92
List of Facilities by Type – Injection Well (chart) 93-95
List of Facilities by Type – Landfill (chart) 95-96
List of Facilities by Type – Recycle Cuttings (chart) 96-97
List of Facilities by Type – Storage (chart) 97
List of Facilities by Type – Recycle Water (chart) 97-98
Section VI – Marcellus Shale Well Decline Rates
Predictable Marcellus Well Decline Curves 99
Marcellus Production Trends in the Northern Tier of Pennsylvania 99
McKean County Production, Cumulative Production & Decline Curve Estimates (chart) 100
Wyoming County Production, Cumulative Production & Decline Curve Estimates (chart) 101
A Picture of the Marcellus Emerges 102
Your Mileage May Vary 102
Dry Gas Estimated Ultimate Recovery (chart) 102
Greene County Production, Cumulative Production & Decline Curve Estimate (chart) 103
What Factors Influence Production? 104
Flawed Assumptions 104
Technology’s Big Impact on Production 104
Production Averages by Time Producing (chart) 105
Summary 106

DRILLING UPDATE: SEP-DEC 2014
Too Much Production, Not Enough Pipelines
We begin this Drilling Update with a statement of the
obvious—the Marcellus/Utica production is prolific. It is
“too” prolific, if such a thing is possible. Because of the
enormous amount of gas that continues to be pumped in
the northeast, there’s not enough pipelines to shuttle the
gas to markets outside of the region where it might fetch a
better price.
As you can see in the chart on the right, as of December
2014 the Marcellus is producing an average 1.6 billion
cubic feet of natural gas each and every day. Truly
astonishing! Every month that number grows.
If you combine the average daily output of the Marcellus
and Utica, and compare it to all other major shale plays in
the U.S., the Marcellus/Utica is producing 40% of all the
natural gas now produced in this country. Nearly half!
The problem is, without enough pipelines in place to
move that gas to other regions, the northeast is drowning
in natural gas supply—and demand has not kept pace.
Consequently, as you’ll see on the next page, the huge
oversupply continues to depress prices for gas in the
northeast.
Note that by “northeast” we mean Pennsylvania, Ohio and
West Virginia. If you move just a few hundred miles—say
to New York City, New Jersey, Boston and up into New
England, they are NOT awash in natural gas. The
situation is improving—gradually—but more pipelines are
needed to these regions. There are also plans for more
pipelines to the southeast, south, and even pipelines to
the Midwest and southwest. Until some of those projects
become reality, we’ll continue to see low prices for natural
gas in the Marcellus/Utica region.

PERMITS BY DRILLER 2013-2014
Who’s Drilling & How Much?
In this section it we take a look at the number of permits issued by “trimesters” or Jan-Apr (1T), May-Aug (2T) and Sep-Dec (3T)—for each driller
active in either the Marcellus and/or Utica Shale. The numbers reflect a permit received by that driller for a distinct, unique well (not pad, but
individual well). That is, if the driller applied for and received a permit for any purpose—to begin drilling, to continue drilling, to frack, to re-drill,
etc.—that number is included. This chart shows intent—an indication of potential activity. We filter out multiple permits for the same well
and show only unique, distinct well locations. So a driller with a “46” for a given period means that driller received at least one permit for 46
different, distinct wells. Use this information to spot trends and get a high-level overview of activity for a particular driller—where, when, and
how much they are drilling now—or soon will be.
1T13 2T13 3T13 1T14 2T14 3T14 1T13 2T13 3T13 1T14 2T14 3T14 1T13 2T13 3T13 1T14 2T14 3T14
ABResources 5 3
AbartaOil & Gas 8
AlphaShale 4 1 9 8 1
AltaMesa 2 2
AmericanEnergy 8 8 33 63
AnadarkoPetroleum 20 60 41 3 5 36 3
AnteroResources 12 19 18 30 52 59 204 213 216 241 329 309
Apex Energy 4 2
ArringtonOil & Gas 1
AtlasResources 2 12 1 1 12 1 3 4
BEUSAEnergy 1
BP 3 2 4
BrammerEngineering 1 1 3
BRCOperating 11 2 4
CabotOil & Gas 46 53 63 63 47 45
CameronEnergy 1
Cambell Oil & Gas 1 2 1 3 2
Carrizo 8 11 20 1 2 4 15 15
Chesapeake Energy 250 137 77 329 211 131 92 96 63 82 72 50 67 119 87 96 95 50
Chevron 59 25 39 39 10 17 2 3 3 3 3 24 31 11 45
Chief Oil & Gas 36 53 74 35 68 15 4 4 2
CitrusEnergy 5 2 2
CNXGas/CONSOLEnergy 31 26 27 53 60 53 8 7 4 22 9 58 105 75 64 96 78
DACEnergy 1 1
Pennsylvania Ohio WestVirginia

REGULATORY/LEGAL UPDATE
Pennsylvania
Permitting and drilling in Pennsylvania is regulated by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
DEP in Transition
During the last four months of 2014, the State of PA elected a new governor, Tom Wolf. One of Wolf’s key campaign promises is to enact a 5%
severance tax on shale drilling in the state—something the industry has warned will mean a scaling back of drilling in the state. At the same
time, PA citizens re-elected a Republican-controlled House and Senate. A new severance tax is far from certain given Republican control of the
legislature, however, it’s not out of the question. All eyes are now on Wolf’s pick to run the DEP—a former Sec. of the Dept. of Conservation and
Natural Resources (DCNR), John Quigley. After leaving the Rendell administration, Quigley worked for the environmental activist organization
PennFuture. He also pens a “green” blog site to espouse his green views. The industry seems to be taking a wait and see attitude to his
nomination. Will he erect new barriers to drilling in the Keystone State? Will drillers be under intense, new scrutiny? Hard to say. Wolf has also
appointed the current president of PennFuture, Cindy Dunn, to head the DCNR. It appears with Wolf’s campaign statements and Dunn’s
appointment that any new drilling under state-owned lands is now dead—at least for the next four years during the Wolf administration. Wolf’s
election points out the high stakes involved with even one election. Wolf’s campaign received a large cash infusion from Californian
“environmentalist” and anti-fracking crusader billionaire Tom Steyer. It remains to be seen if Steyer’s money will buy influence in PA.
Record Fines & Record Number of Fines
The abrupt departure of DEP Sec. Chris Abruzzo in September, following a scandal involving off-color emails, didn’t seem to hamper the
department’s ability to mete out fines. A variety of older cases were closed with a number of fines, including a new record. September: NFG
Midstream was fined $250,000 for multiple violations of the Clean Streams Law and DEP regulations during construction of a pipeline in
Lycoming County in 2011-2012. September: MarkWest Energy was fined $151,000 for flaring violations over a six month period at their
Houston Gas Processing Plant in Washington County. October: The DEP levied its biggest fine (to date) on EQT--a whopping $4.53 million
for a leaky wastewater impoundment in Tioga County. EQT is fighting the fine saying it was sour grapes over another matter in which EQT took
the DEP to court. October: PVR Midstream (now part of Regency Energy Partners) was fined $306,000 for multiple violations of
the Clean Streams Law, Dam Safety and Encroachment Act and state regulations while building two pipelines in Lycoming and Tioga counties
in 2012-2013. December: Cabot Oil & Gas was fined $120,000 for a brine water tank explosion that occurred in January, in Susquehanna
County. December: Vantage Energy was fined $1 million for more than a dozen violations of environmental regulations stemming from a
landslide and illegal waste disposal in Greene County, earlier in the year. December: the Tennessee Gas Pipeline (TGP) was fined
$800,000 for violations in four different counties--Pike, Potter, Susquehanna and Wayne--during pipeline construction for the 300 Line
Project.
Two New Laws Affecting Drillers and Landowners
Just prior to leaving office, outgoing Gov. Tom Corbett signed into law two important new laws. The first law provides for monthly production
reporting by drillers starting March 31 of this year. Previously, production reports were filed every six months in PA. Second, drillers must now
provide “surrender” documents to landowners when a lease expires or is terminated. A surrender document is proof that the lease is no longer
in effect and the landowner is free to seek a new lease.

GUIDE TO USING THE COUNTY MAPS
#1 – The municipality or
operator name is followed by two
sets of numbers, with the second
number in parentheses. Example:
Eldred – 7 (6). The first number -
“7” in this case - shows the total
number of permits issued. The
second number - “(6)” in this case
- indicates how many wells the
permits were issued for. Usually a
single well requires several
permits during drilling, to allow
the driller to continue to the next
stage.
#2 – A red dot indicates where a
well pad is located. Each well pad
can have from one to ten wells on
it. Typically a pad will contain 2-4
wells. Because of the size of the
maps (vastly reduced to show an
entire county), sometimes the red
dots will be “on top of each other”
and sometimes will not be labeled
with a driller’s name.
#3 – The boundary of each
county is indicated with a blue
outline.
#4 – Major gas pipelines are
indicated with red lines and the
name of the pipeline somewhere
along the line.
#5 – The location for pipeline
compressor stations is indicated
by a green triangle–the name is
next to it.

Lycoming County
Section II – Pennsylvania Permits
By Municipality:
Anthony – 1 (1)
Cascade – 1 (1)
Cogan House – 7 (7)
Cummings – 9 (9)
Eldred – 7 (6)
Gamble – 4 (4)
Hepburn – 1 (1)
Jackson – 2 (2)
Lewis – 5 (5)
McHenry – 23 (23)
McIntyre – 5 (5)
Mifflin – 2 (2)
Pine – 1 (1)
By Operator:
Anadarko Petroleum – 30 (30)
Inflection Energy – 8 (7)
PA General Energy – 14 (14)
Range Resources – 12 (12)
Southwestern Energy – 4 (4)

Noble County
Section III – Ohio Permits
By Municipality:
Beaver – 7 (7)
Jefferson – 2 (2)
Marion – 20 (18)
Seneca – 20 (20)
By Operator:
Antero Resources – 21 (19)
CNX Gas – 5 (5)
Eclipse Resources – 10 (10)
Gulfport Energy – 3 (3)
PDC Energy – 8 (8)
Triad Hunter – 2 (2)

Upshur County
Section IV – West Virginia Permits
Entire County: 61 (19)
By Operator:
CNX Gas – 34 (5)
Mountain V Oil & Gas – 27 (14)

Section V – Directory of Frack Waste Facilities
DIRECTORY OF MARCELLUS & UTICA DRILLING WASTE FACILITIES
A Comprehensive List of Facilities Most-Used to Dispose of Frack Wastewater & Drill Cuttings
We are excited to bring you an updated version of what we believe to be the most comprehensive list of waste disposal facilities for frack waste in
existence for the Marcellus and Utica Shale region. In the lists that follow you will see waste disposal options listed by type of disposal: centralized
treatment plants, injection wells and landfills, primarily. We also show a few other options—long-term storage and cuttings recycling. Each facility's
address is given along with the county where it's located.
Flowback and Brine
Wastewater from shale drilling is a by-product of drilling and comprised primarily of two components. The first is “flowback”–the water, sand and
chemical mixture used during the drilling and hydraulic fracturing process that returns to the surface. An average 20% of fracking fluid pumped into
a borehole comes back to the surface. The second component of wastewater is naturally occurring “brine,” also known as “produced water.” An
interesting fact not known by many outside of the drilling industry is that there is a lot of water deep in the earth--far below the water aquifers we use
for our drinking water. These water sources from a mile or more down produce naturally occurring water heavy with minerals—like sodium chloride,
calcium chloride, magnesium chloride—various kinds of salt compounds. This mineral laden water is called brine because the water is very salty—far
more salty than ocean water by comparison. The brine, often called “produced water” needs to be disposed of along with flowback water. Produced
water comes to the surface weeks, months, and in some cases years after a well is drilled. Produced water/brine does not contain the chemicals found
in flowback—but the minerals and chemicals present in brine are potent nonetheless, and brine, along with flowback, must be properly recycled or
disposed of.
Many drillers now recycle part or even all of the flowback and produced water that comes from the wells they drill. Sometimes wastewater recycling
is done right at the drill site, and sometimes it’s done at regional sites set up by the driller to service all of their well drilling activities in a given area.
However, some drillers are not prepared to handle the extra activity of flowback and brine recycling themselves (due to size of the company,
geographic constraints, etc.).
For those drillers who do not recycle on site or at their own regional facilities, there are several methods for disposing of flowback and brine. The two
primary methods are to ship it to a centralized recycling facility owned by a third party, set up for that purpose, or ship it to an underground injection
well where it is permanently pumped deep into the earth. In some cases flowback and brine can be stored until it is eventually disposed of either by
recycling or injection well. Some brine is processed to strip out the salts leaving the water usable for spreading on roads in summertime as a dust
suppressant. The salts in brine can be further processed to be used as ice treatments for roadways during wintertime.
Drill Cuttings and Solid Waste
In addition to wastewater (flowback and brine), as the drill bit chews through the earth, all of the rock and soil and semi-liquid drilling mud pumped
down the borehole comes out and must disposed of. As drillers cut through various rock layers, some of those rocks contain low levels of naturally
occurring radioactivity. Most of the time the radiation is so low it's undetectable. On occasion “drill cuttings,” as this mix of rock and dirt and drilling
mud is called, trips a radiation alarm. In those cases the drill cuttings must be disposed of in a specially permitted landfill—or treated before
Continued on next page…

Section V – Directory of Frack Waste Facilities
DIRECTORY OF MARCELLUS & UTICA DRILLING WASTE FACILITIES
List of Waste Facilities Sorted by State-County-City (1 of 6)
DISPOSAL METHOD OPERATOR/FACILITY NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP COUNTY PHONE
LANDFILL HYLAND FACILITY ASSOCIATION 6653HERDMAN RD ANGELICA NY 14709 ALLEGANY 5854667271
LANDFILL CHEMUNGCOUNTY LANDFILL 1486COUNTY RD 60 LOWMAN NY 14861 CHEMUNG 5857975941
LANDFILL ALLIED WASTE SYSTEMS 5600NIAGARA FALL BLVD NIAGARA FALLS NY 14304 NIAGARA 7162853344
STORAGE ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTS & SERVICES OF VERMONT 532STATE FAIR BLVD SYRACUSE NY 13209 ONONDAGA 3154516666
LANDFILL HAKES C&D LANDFILL 4376MANNINGRIDGE RD PAINTED POST NY 14870 STEUBEN 6079376044
INJECTION WELL MONROE PARNTERS - MONROE #1 HILLDOMRD CONNEAUT OH 44030 ASHTABULA 4123953921
WASTEWATER RECYCLE PETROWATER INC 1972FOOTVILLE-RICHMOND RD JEFFERSON OH 44047 ASHTABULA 4405639475
INJECTION WELL PETROWATER INC - DIETRICH #1 2201STATE RTE 167 JEFFERSON OH 44047 ASHTABULA 4409949089
INJECTION WELL RHOA #3(SWIW #8) 5035STATE RT. 46 JEFFERSON OH 44047 ASHTABULA 3305101282
INJECTION WELL D&L ENERGY - PAROBEK #2(SWIW #12) US 6 NEW LYME OH 44047 ASHTABULA
INJECTION WELL AMERICAN ENERGY - RENSHAW / BRADNAN #1DISPOSAL 1548OHIO 7 PIERPOINT OH 44082 ASHTABULA 4408624041
INJECTION WELL B&B OILFIELD SERVICES - MILLER & CO #3(SWIW #28) 6794STATE RTE 86 WINDSOR OH 44099 ASHTABULA 3305275377
INJECTION WELL CARPER WELL SERVICE - GINSBURGDISPOSAL WELL #1 LADD BRIDGE RD ALBANY OH 45710 ATHENS 4123953921
INJECTION WELL K & H PARTNERS LLC #1(SWIW #8) 28333WEST BELPRE PIKE COOLVILLE OH 45723 ATHENS 3044880701
INJECTION WELL HAHN 2DISPOSAL 21500RIVER ROAD GUYSVILLE OH 45735 ATHENS 7405411596
INJECTION WELL DAVID R HILL, INC - GEORGETOWN MARINE #1SWIW 1COUNTY RD 214 BELLAIRE OH 43906 BELLAIRE 3303630239
INJECTION WELL CNX GAS - BUCKEYE UIC BARNESVILLE #1(SWIW#2) WALKER RD, TOWNSHIP HWY 165 BARNESVILLE OH 43713 BELMONT 7404259180
INJECTION WELL DOWNRIGHT BRINE DISPOSAL - STEPHENSON #1-D CUTLER RD SHERRODSVILLE OH 44675 CARROLL 3305446566
INJECTION WELL PREFERRED FLUIDS MGMT - ADAMS #1(SWIW #10) 23986AIRPORT RD COSHOCTON OH 43812 COSHOCTON 7405754482
INJECTION WELL PREFERRED FLUIDS MGMT - ADAMS #2(SWIW #11) 23986AIRPORT RD COSHOCTON OH 43812 COSHOCTON 7405754482
WASTEWATER RECYCLE CENTRAL OHIO OIL, INC 795MARION ROAD COLUMBUS OH 43207 FRANKLIN 6144431014
RECYCLE CUTTINGS OHIO SOIL RECYCLING, LLC 2101INTEGRITY DR S COLUMBUS OH 43209 FRANKLIN 6144447645
INJECTION WELL HUFFMAN-BOWERS, INC - ROJ#1-A OLIVER RD, PO BOX 538 CHESIRE OH 45620 GALLIA 7406211127
INJECTION WELL DAVID R HILL INC - DEVCO UNIT #1(SWIW #11) 57901CLAYSVILLE RD CAMBRIDGE OH 43725 GUERNSEY 7406382068
INJECTION WELL SILCOR OILFIELD SERVICES - SOS-D #1(SWIW #12) 61514SOUTHGATE PARKWAY CAMBRIDGE OH 43725 GUERNSEY 3307591822
INJECTION WELL SELECT ENERGY SERVICES - SLIFKO SWIW#10 10176BANNER RD PLEASANT CITY OH 43772 GUERNSEY 9406681818
WASTEWATER RECYCLE TUCKOSH RECYCLINGFACILITY 6507QUINCE RD SE AMSTERDAM OH 43903 JEFFERSON 4059354385
LANDFILL APEX SANITARY LANDFILL 11COUNTY RD 78 AMSTERDAM OH 43903 JEFFERSON 7405434389
INJECTION WELL B&J DRILLING- DANVILLE FEED & SUPPLY (SWIW #9) 14052HUMBERT RD HOWARD OH 43028 KNOX 7403922941
INJECTION WELL ELKHEAD GAS & OIL - CHAPIN WELL #7(SWIW #8) 9170RUTLIDGE RD HOWARD OH 43028 KNOX 7404039664
WASTEWATER RECYCLE CHEMTRON - PLANT 1 35850SCHNEIDER CT AVON OH 44011 LORAIN 8006765091
LANDFILL VIENNA JUNCTION LANDFILL 6233 HAGMAN RD TOLEDO OH 48133 LUCAS 4197269465
INJECTION WELL BRINEAWAY, INC - JENKINS #1 19220US RT 62 BELOIT OH 44609 MAHONING 3309382172
LANDFILL CARBON LIMESTONE LANDFILL - BFI 8100SOUTH STATE LINE RD LOWELLVILLE OH 44436 MAHONING 3305368013

DECLINE CURVE DEVELOPMENT: GEOLOGY AND PRODUCTION PRACTICES
Ladlee & Karabin: The influence of geology, well variability & technology on Marcellus decline curves
Predictable Marcellus Well Decline Curves
Over the last several years, decline curve analysis for producing horizontal wells in Pennsylvania has come
into sharper view. The sharper view is entirely attributable to the availability of more well production data. Given
the ability to track wells for longer periods of time, it now appears most wells in the Marcellus Play do follow a
relatively standard modified hyperbolic/exponential decline curve. The modified curve basically accounts for the
sharp initial decline in production (hyperbolic) and the conversion to relatively consistent (exponential) decline
over a much longer period of time. Once a well has cleaned up and gas flows normalizes, the modified curve
appears to estimate production very accurately, especially over the near term. Understanding the predictability of
a Marcellus well decline curve can help bring focus to a couple of key areas beyond production such as potential
geologic differences within the play and projection of predictable landowner royalty income streams and wealth
management strategies; well production variability; and the impact of changes in production technology.
Marcellus Production Trends in the Northern Tier of Pennsylvania
With more data available across Pennsylvania, estimates of geologic production differences begin to emerge within the decline curve calculations.
Looking to Marcellus production trends along the northern tier of Pennsylvania, a fair amount of shale development has occurred from McKean
County east to Wyoming County. Starting in McKean County we find the average EUR, on about 30 wells in production, to be about 3.16 billion cubic
feet, or “Bcf” (see figure 1). Moving to the east, the 34 producing Potter County wells have a slightly higher EUR with an average of roughly 3.5 Bcf.
Tioga County has significantly more producing wells reporting production at 490 with an estimated EUR of approximately 4.5 Bcf for Marcellus
production. With the recent announcement of the significant Utica discovery in Tioga County, changes based on target formation
may be in store for Tioga and counties to the west. Continuing the path across the northern border, Bradford County has the most producing
horizontal wells at 852, and a significantly higher average EUR, currently estimated at about 8.8 Bcf. Many reports of massive wells have come from
Susquehanna County and perhaps it is not a surprise the 656 horizontal wells reporting production have an average EUR of nearly 12 Bcf. While
drilling in Wyoming has not been as extensive as its neighbors, the 133 wells that are reporting production clearly are producing big results, with an
estimated EUR of 16.4 Bcf over 30 years (see figure 2). While the Wyoming results are spectacular, it is important to note only roughly the top 1/3 of
Wyoming County will likely produce commercial quantities of natural gas from the Marcellus. The presence of the Lackawanna Syncline
seems to mark the rough edge of the productive Marcellus zone.

Figure 1: McKean County Production, Cumulative Production & Decline Curve Estimates
DECLINE CURVE DEVELOPMENT: GEOLOGY AND PRODUCTION PRACTICES
Ladlee & Karabin: The influence of geology, well variability & technology on Marcellus decline curves

Marcellus and Utica Shale Databook 2014
Volume 1: 2014 Drilling Permits (Jan-Apr); 2013 Trends by State & County, Drilling Contacts, Property Valuations
Publish Date: May 2014
Volume 2: 2014 Drilling Permits (May-Aug), List of Pipeline/Infrastructure Projects, Frac Sand Primer
Publish Date: Sep 2014
Volume 3: 2014 Drilling Permits (Sep-Dec), Waste Facility List, Marcellus Well Decline Rates, Permits by Driller
Publish Date: January 2015
Purchase Options:
Buy each 2014 volume individually for
$175, or buy all three for $525 $350
Buy the 2012 & 2013 series
(6 volumes) for $175
Site licenses/volume discounts also available,
contact us for details
To purchase, contact:
Marcellus Drilling News
Web: marcellusdrilling.com/databook
Email: databook@marcellusdrilling.com
Phone: (607) 238-2500

2014 Marcellus and Utica Shale Databook - Vol. 3

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Similar to 2014 Marcellus and Utica Shale Databook - Vol. 3

More from Marcellus Drilling News

Recently uploaded

2014 Marcellus and Utica Shale Databook - Vol. 3