Marcellus (PA) & Utica (OH) – update through March 2017

This interactive presentation contains the latest gas (and a little oil) production data from all 8862 horizontal wells in Pennsylvania and Ohio since 2010, through March. Data for West Virginia is also included, but deselected in most views, as it contains only data through Dec 2016 (use the “Basin” selection to include this state).

The region posted another quarter with year-on-year growth, as total gas production rose above 18 Bcf/d, setting a new record. New completions have recently been at the lowest level in more than 5 years however, although drilling seems to have picked up again compared with the low point in the first half of 2016 (see the spud/first flow statuses in the “Well status” tab).

As the production rate profiles show in the “Well quality” tab, where wells are grouped by the quarter in which they started, there have again been significant gains in early production.

Chesapeake is with about 3 Bcf/d operated production capacity the clear leader in this area, although Cabot, is narrowing the gap (see the “Top operators” tab). The latter has all its production in the highly prolific Susquehanna county in northeast Pennsylvania.

The new ‘Advanced Insights’ presentation is displayed below:



This “Ultimate Return” overview shows the relationship between gas production rates, and cumulative gas production, averaged for all horizontal wells that started production in a certain quarter.

This gives another view on how initial gas production rates have moved higher over the last year. If you use the operator selection at the bottom of the view to only select Cabot, you’ll see that its production profiles are quite a bit better than average.

Actually, as the 4th tab shows (“Productivity ranking”), this operator has the best performing wells, as measured by the average cumulative gas production after 2 years on production. At 4.7 Bcf, this is double the production compared to the average output of wells operated by Chesapeake.

Next week I plan to have a post on the Niobrara region again.

Production data is subject to revisions. For this presentation, I used data gathered from the following sources:

  • Ohio Department of Natural Resources
  • Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
  • West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
  • West Virginia Geological & Economical Survey



The above presentations have many interactive features:

  • You can click through the blocks on the top to see the slides.
  • Each slide has filters that can be set, e.g. to select individual or groups of operators. You can first click “all” to deselect all items. You have to click the “apply” button at the bottom to enforce the changes. After that, click anywhere on the presentation.
  • Tooltips are shown by just hovering the mouse over parts of the presentation.
  • You can move the map around, and zoom in/out.
  • By clicking on the legend you can highlight selected items.
  • Note that filters have to be set for each tab separately.
  • The operator who currently owns the well is designated by “operator (current)”. The operator who operated a well in a past month is designated by “operator (actual)”. This distinction is useful when the ownership of a well changed over time.
  • If you have any questions on how to use the interactivity, or how to analyze specific questions, please don’t hesitate to ask.