2015 Marcellus and Utica Shale Databook - Vol. 1

Marcellus and Utica Shale Databook 2015
Volume 1: 2015 Jan-Apr Drilling Permit Maps; Directory of Active Drillers, Well & Property Valuation
Detail Maps & Charts, Individual County Maps for Permits Issued Jan-Apr; Regulatory/Legal Update; Permits by Driller and More!
May 2015 Edition

©Marcellus and Utica Shale Databook 2015 – Volume 1 Page 2
Table of Contents
Section I - Overview
Introduction & Methodology 6
Drilling Update Jan-Apr 2015 7-9
Marcellus/Utica Permits Plunge 7
Marcellus/Utica Permits Issued – Trends (chart) 7
Pennsylvania Regions (map) 7
NGLs & Pipelines Make the Difference 8
Henry Hub vs Marcellus Gas Spot Price (chart) 8
Rig Counts Plunge 9
US Rig Counts - Year to Year Comparison (chart) 9
Marcellus/Utica Rig Counts by State (chart) 9
Permit Counts – a Databook Innovation 10
Permits by Driller 2013-15: PA, OH, WV (chart) 10-13
Pennsylvania Geographical Regions (chart) 14
Permits by County 2013-15: PA, OH, WV (chart) 14-15
Regulatory/Legal Update: PA, OH, WV, NY, MD 16-20
Regulatory/Legal Update: SRBC, DRBC, EPA, FERC 21-22
Marcellus/Utica Latest Lease Offers (map) 23
Wet Gas/Dry Gas Boundary (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
Armstrong County (map) 28
Beaver County (map) 29
Bradford County (map) 30
Section II - Pennsylvania Permits (continued)
Butler County (map) 31
Cameron County (map) 32
Centre County (map) 33
Clarion County (map) 34
Clearfield County (map) 35
Clinton County (map) 36
Crawford County (map) 37
Elk County (map) 38
Fayette County (map) 39
Forest County (map) 40
Greene County (map) 41
Huntingdon County (map) 42
Indiana County (map) 43
Jefferson County (map) 44
Lawrence County (map) 45
Lycoming County (map) 46
McKean County (map) 47
Mercer County (map) 48
Potter County (map) 49
Sullivan County (map) 50
Susquehanna County (map) 51
Tioga County (map) 52
Venango County (map) 53
Warren County (map) 54
Washington County (map) 55
Westmoreland County (map) 56
Wyoming County (map) 57

Table of Contents
Section III - Ohio Permits
OH Gas Well Permits – Entire State (map) 58
Belmont County (map) 59
Carroll County (map) 60
Columbiana County (map) 61
Guernsey County (map) 62
Harrison County (map) 63
Jefferson County (map) 64
Monroe County (map) 65
Noble County (map) 66
Tuscarawas County (map) 67
Washington County (map) 68
Section IV - West Virginia Permits
WV Gas Well Permits – Entire State (map) 69
Barbour County (map) 70
Brooke County (map) 71
Doddridge County (map) 72
Gilmer County (map) 73
Harrison County (map) 74
Lewis County (map) 75
Marion County (map) 76
Marshall County (map) 77
Monongalia County (map) 78
Ohio County (map) 79
Preston County (map) 80
Ritchie County (map) 81
Taylor County (map) 82
Tyler County (map) 83
Upshur County (map) 84
Wetzel County (map) 85

Table of Contents
Section V – How to Value Property & Mineral Rights in Shale Plays
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.
Preface: Valuing Property, OGM Rights, Royalties 86
Leveling the Playing Field for Sellers 87
Appraisal Problem Overview 88
Methods of Appraisal 89
Appraisal Considerations for OGM Properties 90-91
Appraising a Unitized Parcel w/Royalties 92
Tools for Property Valuations 92
Tools for Property Valuations (chart) 93
Sales Comparison Approach & Conclusion 94
Mineral Rights Value & Oil Prices 95
Section VI – Pipelines 101 – Regulations & Maps
Types of Pipelines & Who Regulates Them 96
Agencies with Regulatory Oversight (chart) 97
Major Gas Pipelines – Eastern Marcellus (map) 98
Major Gas Pipelines – Western Marcellus (map) 99
Major Gas Pipelines – Utica (map) 100
Section VII – Directory of Active Drillers in the Marcellus/Utica
ABARTA Energy – Carrizo Oil & Gas 101
Chesapeake Energy – EM Energy 102
Energy Corp of America – Gastar Exploration 103
Great Plains Operating – Mountain V Oil & Gas 104
Moutaineer Keystone – Rice Energy 105
Ross & Wharton Gas – Triad Hunter 106
Triana Energy – XTO Energy 107

DRILLING UPDATE: JAN-APR 2015
Marcellus/Utica Permits Plunge in 1T15
Let’s begin with what happened in the first four months
of 2015 with respect to the number of permits issued to
Marcellus and Utica Shale drillers. As you can see by the
chart on this page, the number of permits issued for
unique, individual wells in each state decreased. The
chart shows the number of permits issued by “trimester”
or four month periods starting with January 2013. The
number of wells where a driller filed for a permit to begin
drilling, or where the driller filed for a permit to continue
work on an existing well in Pennsylvania decreased to 785
“active” wells during the first four months of this year.
That’s the lowest number of wells being worked on since
we began tracking by trimesters in 2013.
Looking at the graph and the numbers, you can see that
both Ohio and West Virginia were “treading water” and
holding about even from the middle to the last part of
2014. But in 2015 that changed—in a pretty big way. The
number of active wells in both states decreased to almost
the same level as two years ago, in 1T13.
But the story, at least in the Pennsylvania Marcellus, is
nuanced. If you look at our Permits by County chart on
page 14, you’ll notice we’ve included a chart showing
which Marcellus counties belong to which Pennsylvania
regions. Most of the drilling that happens in PA happens
in either the “dry gas” northeast region, or the “wet gas”
southwest region. That’s not to say drilling doesn’t
happen elsewhere—it does. Only the southeast counties
have not experienced any horizontal shale drilling—every
other region has. But counties in the northeast and
southwest see the bulk of Marcellus (and Utica) drilling.
All of the northeast counties except Bradford saw
decreases in the number of permits in 1T14. While the
major counties of the southwest also saw a decrease, it
wasn’t nearly has much as those in the northeast. Why?

PERMITS BY DRILLER 2013-2015
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 1T15 1T13 2T13 3T13 1T14 2T14 3T14 1T15 1T13 2T13 3T13 1T14 2T14 3T14 1T15
ABResources 5 3
AbartaOil& Gas 8 1
AlphaShale 4 1 9 8 1
AltaMesa 2 2
AmericanEnergy 1 8 8 33 63 59 20
AnadarkoPetroleum 20 60 41 3 5 36 3 3
AnteroResources 12 19 18 30 52 59 35 204 213 216 241 329 309 146
ApexEnergy 4 2 4
ArringtonOil& Gas 1
AtlasResources 2 12 1 1 12 1 1 3 4
BEUSAEnergy 1
BP 3 2 4
BrammerEngineering 1 1 3
BRCOperating 11 2 4
BurnettOil 1
CabotOil& Gas 46 53 63 63 47 45 27
CameronEnergy 1
CambellOil& Gas 1 2 1 3 2
Carrizo 8 11 20 1 2 4 15 15
Chesapeake Energy 250 137 77 329 211 131 131 92 96 63 82 72 50 48 67 119 87 96 95 50 31
Chevron 59 25 39 39 10 17 25 2 3 3 3 3 24 31 11 45 37
ChiefOil& Gas 36 53 74 35 68 15 13 4 4 2
CitrusEnergy 5 2 2
CNXGas/CONSOLEnergy 31 26 27 53 60 53 37 8 7 4 22 9 18 58 105 75 64 96 78 61
Pennsylvania Ohio WestVirginia

REGULATORY/LEGAL UPDATE
Pennsylvania
Permitting and drilling in Pennsylvania is regulated by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
Gov. Tom Wolf’s Proposed Severance Tax
Pennsylvania elected a new governor who took office in January. Tom Wolf ran on—and made a centerpiece in his campaign—a new severance
tax for the state’s unconventional shale producers. The tax, as he advertises it, is 5% plus 4.7 cents per thousand cubic feet (Mcf). The tax
assumes an average sale price of $2.97 per Mcf. As you can see from the graph on page 8, in some locations like northeastern PA where more
than half of all natural gas is produced in the state, the price producers get is less than half that of the assumed $2.97/Mcf. Given the low price
of natural gas in the state and a tax pegged to a much higher price, plus the added 4.7 cents per Mcf, when you run the calculations many
economists peg the real rate at closer to 15%, not 5%--at least in the first few years. If a severance tax is instituted, the existing impact fee
currently collected (raising over $200 million per year) would automatically be phased out. Over the past month or so Wolf and his lieutenants
have ratcheted up the pressure on the PA legislature. Wolf is a Democrat and the legislature is Republican controlled. The state’s annual budget
is due to be adopted by June 30. Drilling is reported to be down 30% in the state already this year. A new tax could accelerate that trend. Will
Wolf get his severance tax? And if he does, will it threaten the Marcellus industry in PA? Stay tuned as this important issue plays out this year.
DEP Oil & Gas Technical Advisory Board Controversy
In an unprecedented move, Acting Secretary of the DEP, John Quigley, fired the entire DEP Oil & Gas Technical Advisory Board (TAB) and
appointed his own slate of candidates, including non-voting members from anti-drilling environmental organizations. Quigley argues it’s no big
deal since TAB board members don’t make legally binding decisions but instead offer advice and recommendations to the DEP. The oil and gas
industry counter argues that since the TAB is charged with reviewing and offering changes to the 1984 Oil & Gas Act (updates are required
under Act 13), their opinion and votes hold great sway and influence over PA’s drilling laws. Quigley’s action set a contentious tone right out of
the gate and his relations with the industry have been strained since. Although the industry has asked that the original members of TAB be
reinstated, Quigley refuses to do so. New changes offered by the new TAB members will mean yet another delay in adopting revisions to the
1984 law. Changes were ready to be implemented to the 1984 law at the end of 2014—but Tom Corbett, previous governor, lost his re-election
bid and in the mire and confusion of a changeover at the DEP with the abrupt departure of Chris Abruzzo (former Secretary of the DEP),
changes to the 1984 law were never implemented. It gave the Wolf administration an opportunity to put their own stamp on the industry.
Pipelines & Noise – New Regulations from the DEP on the Way?
In a sign that the PA DEP is becoming more aggressive with its regulatory powers, in late spring Gov. Wolf announced two new initiatives at the
DEP. One initiative is the creation of a “Task Force on Pipeline Infrastructure Development.” The task force will help craft new regulations and
guidelines for laying local gathering pipelines. The Task Force will be comprised of volunteers from government, communities where pipelines
are laid, the drilling industry and anti-drilling environmental organizations. The second initiative is a new set of noise ordinances (from the
state, not local municipalities). The new regulations don’t contain specific guidelines for all sites, but instead will require drillers to file site-
specific plans for each and every site, along with taking sound measurements before and during drilling operations—to ensure the neighbors are
not being unduly exposed to loud noises. The Marcellus Shale Coalition believes the new noise standard is “so vague and arbitrary that it fails as
a regulatory standard.” Watch for both of these issues to be a flashpoint in the ongoing tussle with the new Wolf administration.

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:
Cogan House – 3 (3). The first
number - “3” in this case - shows
the total number of permits
issued. The second number - “(3)”
in this case - indicates how many
wells the permits were issued for.
Usually a single well requires
several permits during drilling. In
this example there were 3 permits
issued, 1 each for 3 different wells.
#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. Most of the
time the driller’s name will
appear next to the red dot.
#3 – The boundary of each
county is indicated with a blue
outline.
#4 – Major gas pipelines are
indicated with red lines. The
name of the pipeline is located
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 – 2 (2)
Cascade – 1 (1)
Cogan House – 3 (3)
Cummings – 1 (1)
Eldred – 1 (1)
Gamble – 3 (3)
Hepburn – 5 (5)
Jackson – 4 (4)
Mifflin – 2 (2)
Penn – 1 (1)
Plunketts Creek – 1 (1)
By Operator:
Anadarko Petroleum – 2 (2)
Atlas – 1 (1)
Chief Oil & Gas – 1 (1)
EXCO Resources – 2 (2)
Inflection Energy – 6 (6)
Range Resources – 11 (11)
Southwestern Energy – 1 (1)

Columbiana County
Section III – Ohio Permits
By Municipality:
Fairfield– 14 (13)
Franklin – 2 (2)
By Operator:
Chesapeake Energy – 2 (2)
Hilcorp Energy – 14 (13)

Barbour County
Section IV – West Virginia Permits
Entire County: 58 (21)
By Operator:
CNX Gas – 57 (20)
Mountaineer Keystone – 1 (1)

Section V – Marcellus/Utica Well & Property Valuation
HOW TO VALUE PROPERTY & MINERAL RIGHTS IN SHALE PLAYS
Databook Preface: Valuing Property and Mineral Rights in the Marcellus/Utica Shale Plays
Valuing Property, OGM Rights & Royalties
One of the most challenging issues faced by landowners, appraisers, realtors, and
investors is valuing property and associated mineral rights in the midst of the shale
energy revolution we are witnessing. With information held “close to the vest” by
competing energy companies regarding well test results, geologic data, and restrictions
on lease specifics, those who have a vested interest in property value are seeking
information to answer questions like:
• What’s the going rate for an oil and gas minerals (OGM) lease in my area?
• What are the mineral rights worth on my property?
• I've started receiving royalty checks. What are my future royalty payments worth today?
Further complicating the issue is the multiple layers of shale that—in our opinion—will be accessed in the near future, often from the same well pads
that exist today. The advent of 8-10 wells on a single pad site and longer, deeper, horizontal lengths that we are starting to now see, also give great
pause to future value of property and mineral rights. For these reasons there is a substantial paradigm shift occurring in the way we think about
mineral rights valuation.
In an area as large as the Marcellus and Utica, tens of thousands of affected landowners are asking the same questions for small lots under an acre all
the way to landowner coalitions with hundreds of thousands of acres. In this special Databook section, we’ll get an inside look at how a mineral
rights appraisal is conducted, why it’s so important, and tools available to not only the appraiser, but to anyone willing to put the pieces of the puzzle
together to adequately estimate property and mineral rights in today’s fast-paced development environment.
Our thanks to Mike Coles, owner of Coles & Associates Appraisal. Mike has generously shared his insights with the Databook audience. Mike has
provided an update to last year’s primer on how professionals value property and mineral rights in shale plays like the Marcellus and Utica. As Mike
tells us in the opening update, valuing mineral rights continues to “mature.” Often buyers of mineral rights have an edge. How do sellers of mineral
rights (and property) level the playing field? Mike offers a solution. Following Mike’s update, we’ve included a copy of his primer from the 2014
Databook series. It’s just so too darned good not to repeat! Use Mike’s expert information to guide your own property valuation process.
We also have another Databook first: Eric Winegar, Managing Partner of the US Mineral Exchange, gives us his insights into recent valuation trends
in the Marcellus/Utica, along with his insight into how and why and the price of oil (yes, oil) influences natural gas lease activity and property values
in the northeast.
Jim Willis, Editor
Marcellus and Utica Shale Databook
May 2015

Section V – Marcellus/Utica Well & Property Valuation
HOW TO VALUE PROPERTY & MINERAL RIGHTS IN SHALE PLAYS
Mike Coles: Valuing Property and Mineral Rights in the Marcellus/Utica Shale Plays
Methods of Appraisal
With the goal of estimating value of a particular property, appraisals are conducted for a variety of reasons such as tax planning, real estate
conveyances (transfers or sales, for example), or to simply establish value for another reason. Banks also require appraisals as part of loan and
mortgage reviews. With shale-area properties in different stages of maturity—some producing, some leased but not producing, some held by
production, and others non-leased or with leases expired—the proper appraisal methodology must be used for each type.
An appraiser has three standard methods of valuation:
• Cost Approach: Replacement cost new less depreciation plus the land value.
• Income Approach: The Income Approach in its simplest form is stated as the formula V=I÷R; where V=value; I=Income; and R=the Rate. As
with the other approaches, the property’s Value is what we’re estimating. Income is received from rent, lease payments, etc. The Rate represents
the rate of return an investor should reasonably expect to receive based on the risk of the investment. The higher the investor’s expected rate of
return, the lower the property’s value, and vice versa.
• Sales Comparison Approach: Recently sold similar transactions are identified along with the appropriate unit of economic measure. The sold
price per unit (e.g. the standard for land is per-acre) is then adjusted based on positive and negative attributes comparing the subject to the
comparable sale properties. The end result is an adjusted sale price per unit that indicates the value per unit of the subject. The value per unit is
multiplied by the number of units to indicate the subject’s value.
The Cost Approach is primarily applicable for new construction and estimating depreciation. The Cost Approach is not applicable for land
valuation or OGM valuation. From the two remaining approaches, the appraiser chooses to one or both depending on the circumstance.
The applicability of the Income Approach is less relevant in the leasing stage and the only approach to value a ‘royalty estate’.
The Sales Comparison Approach is the most commonly used method before any royalty payments are received. The best example of this are
auctions of OGM (with and without the land or “Surface Estate”). The data developed to inform potential buyers are a major portion of the items an
appraiser needs in order to estimate OGM value. Properly done, the auction also serves to inform the seller. Those attending the auction typically bid
on the property as a single purchase price. The market quickly determines the price paid per acre for comparison purposes. Considerable work must
be put into the development of data for this approach. The subject and each comparable sale needs to be properly identified along with the attributes
(positive and negative) that affect value.

Section VI – Pipeline Infrastructure
PIPELINES 101 - REGULATIONS
A Guide to Who Regulates What with Respect to Natural Gas Pipelines
Lack of pipeline infrastructure is still, four years since our first Databook edition, a common complaint among drilling companies. Landowners
continue to see significant activity in pipeline right of way (ROW) surveys and contracts, for both transmission and gathering lines, particularly if
they are in or near active drilling units. Pipeline ROWs introduce another lease payment opportunity for landowners as companies pursue capacity
through a proposed pipeline tie-in.
Gathering vs. Transmission Pipelines
Small diameter gathering pipelines connect individual wells and groups of wells to the larger-diameter transmission pipeline network.
Compressors function to move piped gas through the network. Gathering pipelines are typically under 18 inches in diameter.
Transmission lines carry natural gas over long distances, often over state lines. They carry already-processed gas to and from compressor stations
and to distribution and storage facilities. Transmission lines can be up to 42 inches in diameter.
This Databook shows only transmission pipelines and not gathering pipelines which are constantly under construction. The value in seeing
transmission pipelines is that at some point, gathering lines will have to connect to a transmission line in order to get the gas to market. So seeing
where those opportunities lie is key to seeing where drillers may want to drill next. It makes sense to drill where you can get your product to market!
Who Regulates Pipelines?
The construction and ongoing operation of transmission pipelines that cross state lines (“interstate” pipelines) are regulated by FERC—the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission. The pipelines detailed on the following pages are interstate pipelines regulated by FERC.
The construction and ongoing operation of gathering pipelines is regulated either by state public utility commissions (the agency varies depending on
the state), and in some cases, gathering lines are regulated at the local municipal level via zoning ordinances (see our handy chart on the next page).
Other Infrastructure Components
Compressor station locations continue to increase along proposed pipeline networks. Gas processing and treatment plants have saw a huge uptick in
construction in 2013-2014. That pace has slowed as planned plants are now online. There are still some expansions happening at existing plants
where new “trains” are added. Natural gas storage facilities are also part of the equation with new facilities planned and existing facilities expanded to
accommodate the increased production in the region. Ethane cracker plants, which act as a catalyst for petrochemical plants to be constructed, are
still very much alive in the northeast. While the Shell cracker plant for Beaver County, PA is still not 100% confirmed, it’s looking more likely it will
get built every day. There have been numerous positive developments in just the past few months. Another such facility planned for Wood County,
WV by the Brazilian company Odebrecht has been put on hold. A third cracker plant was announced for Belmont County, OH in April. The plant, if
built, will be built by PTT Global Chemical, Thailand’s largest integrated petrochemical and refining company, and financed by Marubeni
Corporation, a Japan-based company. Any cracker plant built will have the power to attract upward of $20 billion of economic activity.

Section VI – Pipeline Infrastructure
MAJOR GAS PIPELINES
Eastern Marcellus

Section VII – Directory of Active Drillers
DIRECTORY OF ACTIVE DRILLERS
Contact Details for the 84 Active Drillers in the Marcellus/Utica Shale
DRILLER NAME ADDRESS CITY ST ZIP PHONE WEB
ABARTA Energy 200 Alpha Dr Pittsburgh PA 15238 (412) 963-6443 http://www.abartaenergy.com
Alpha Shale Resources (Rice Energy) 400 Woodcliff Dr Canonsburg PA 15317 (724) 746-6720 http://www.riceenergy.com
American Energy Partners 301 NW 63rd, Ste 600 Oklahoma City OK 73116 (405) 418-8000 http://www.americanenergypartners.com
Anadarko Petroleum 1201 Lake Robbins Dr The Woodlands TX 77380 (832) 636-1000 http://www.anadarko.com
33 W Third St Williamsport PA 17701 (570) 323-4157
Antero Resources 1625 17th St, Ste 300 Denver CO 80202 (303) 357-7310 http://www.anteroresources.com
121 N Main St, Ste 310 Greensburg PA 15601 (724) 837-1338
109-A Doctors Dr Bridgeport WV 26330 (304) 848-0270
Apex Energy 6041 Wallace Rd Ext, Ste 100 Wexford PA 15090 (724) 719-2611 http://www.apexenergyllc.com
Arrington Oil & Gas 500 W Wall St, #300 Midland TX 79701 (432) 682-6685 https://goo.gl/pzDEfO
Atlas Energy 1000 Commerce Dr, Ste 410 Pittsburgh PA 15275 (800) 251-0171 http://www.atlasresourcepartners.com
BP 501 Westlake Park Blvd Houston TX 77079 (281) 366-2000 http://www.bp.com
28301 Ferry Rd Warrenville IL 60555 (800) 333-3991
Brammer Engineering 400 Texas St, Ste 600 Shreveport LA 71101 (318) 429-2345 http://www.brammer.com
Burnett Oil Co 801 Cherry St, Unit 9, Ste 1500 Fort Worth TX 76102 (817) 332-5108 http://www.burnettoil.com
375 Southpointe Blvd Canonsburg PA 15317 (724) 503-1370
Cabot Oil & Gas 840 Gessner Rd, Ste 1400 Houston TX 77024 (281) 589-4600 http://www.cabotog.com
5 Penn Center W, Ste 401 Pittsburgh PA 15276 (412) 249-3850
8279 PA-29 Montrose PA 18801 (570) 278-3518
Campbell Oil & Gas (Penn Natural Resources) 6760 Portwest Dr Houston TX 77024 (713) 751-0419 http://www.pennatural.com
Carrizo Oil & Gas 500 Dallas St, Ste 2300 Houston TX 77002 (713) 328-1000 http://www.crzo.net
651 Wheeling Ave, Ste 5 Cambridge OH 43725 (740) 432-5463
2 E Market St Clearfield PA 16830 (814) 765-2233
12231 SR 706 Montrose PA 18801 (570) 278-7450

Marcellus and Utica Shale Databook 2015
Volume 1: 2015 Drilling Permits (Jan-Apr); Drilling Contacts, Regional Pipelines, Property Valuations
Publish Date: May 2015
Volume 2: 2015 Drilling Permits (May-Aug), List of Pipeline/Infrastructure Projects, Frac Sand/Railroads
Publish Date: Sep 2015
Volume 3: 2015 Drilling Permits (Sep-Dec), Waste Facility List, Calculating Well Decline Rates
Publish Date: January 2016
Purchase Options:
Buy each 2015 volume individually for
$175, or buy all three for $525 $350
Buy the 2014 series
(3 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

2015 Marcellus and Utica Shale Databook - Vol. 1

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to 2015 Marcellus and Utica Shale Databook - Vol. 1

Similar to 2015 Marcellus and Utica Shale Databook - Vol. 1 (16)

More from Marcellus Drilling News

More from Marcellus Drilling News (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

2015 Marcellus and Utica Shale Databook - Vol. 1