The Utica looks more and more that it's going to be a "bust" with regard to oil, at least compared to the Eagle Ford, Permian, and the Bakken. Platts, April 19, 2013, is reporting:
While acreage sales in Ohio's Utica Shale seem to indicate a less optimistic outlook for oil production in the region, the play still has plenty of natural gas and liquids to offer, analysts said.
Chesapeake Energy, the largest producer in the play, recently announced an increased natural gas net production target for the end of this year at 330,000 Mcf equivalent/d, a 340% increase from current levels.
But the company is also selling about 94,205 acres in the play, according to Meagher Advisors, an acquisition and divestitures firm involved in the potential transaction. The acreage is in Portage and Stark counties, which is part of the oily window, according to Meagher's website.
Chesapeake Energy spokesman Jim Gipson declined to comment. A handful of other companies, such as Devon Energy, have also recently put Utica acreage up for sale, providing a mixed message of how fruitful production has been.
"We are seeing the same thing we saw in Eagle Ford; there are areas where lots of oil is in place but there is not enough reservoir energy to produce high rates that bring oil to the surface," a regional analyst said. "The wet gas window is what is working, there is plenty of condensate being produced but we are not seeing wells that are 75% oil."
The Utica could turn out to be more of a gassy play with natural gas liquids rather than the oily play that Chesapeake might have billed it as a couple years ago, the analyst said.
March 1, 2013: Gulfport Energy, Utica, Darla wells, fracking, 4Q12 earnings
August 31, 2012: Could the Utica out-perform the Eagle Ford?
April 3, 2012, from "anon 1":
CHK has reported on 7 producing Utica wells. 5 produced in 2011. I provided links to the Ohio DNR info in a comment yesterday.April 2, 2012, from "anon 1":
CHK, TOTAL, and EnerVest are very optimistic about the Utica.
The Ohio gov't data is not very informative, as their commentary reveals. CHK has a motive to not tell competitors much. It hasn't. The data is intentionally uninformative, but totally accurate.
Various completion techniques have been tried. Some worked well. Some not.
Big sales or JVs may be from $15,000 (TOTAL's price) to $25,000 by fall, if EnerVest is right (they don't give a price). But, that is for the good stuff. There is a lot of fringe.
Leasing is ongoing at up to $6,000 and 20% for the best land.
CHK estimates that total industry cost for midstream (pipes and processing) for the wet gas area only will be $10,000,000,000.
Lots of good dry gas and lots of oil too. Little data on either.
Very little talk about the Utica outside Ohio. But, it is huge, like the Three Forks. Much is dry gas.
Lots of other layers, including Marcellus.
Scroll for maps:
CHK totally dominates the play so far. Totally.
Most players are big. CHK, Devon, Anadarko, XOM, BP, Shell, Carrizzo, EnerVest (legacy assets) ... Some local players. A few others.
Utica is just part of a huge basin. It will be very big. Lots to come.
It is much gassier than the WB. Some of the best gas plays in the world.
Finally they begin to catch on (reference to CITI's talking paper, I believe):
Spearfish. New data. Also graphs in the presentation.
Data, but not clarity, on the Utica. Ohio gives data from the prior year. Next year may have meaningful data. The most useful thing is probably the Ohio DNR wording. It applies generally, not just to the Utica. They neglect to mention that the operator may not want to educate competitors yet, so may delay completions and choke back production until 2012.