Natural Gas Closes at Five-Month High on Bigger-Than-Forecast Supply Drop

Full article here.

 

Natural gas futures rose to the highest price in more than five months after a government report showed that U.S. inventories fell more than forecast last week as cold weather boosted demand for the heating fuel.

<snip>

Natural gas for February delivery advanced 13.4 cents to $4.695 per million British thermal on the New York Mercantile Exchange, the highest settlement price since Aug. 4.

<snip>

Last week’s storage drop was bigger than the five-year average decline of 133 billion cubic feet, department data showed. A surplus to the five-year average fell to 1.9 percent from 5.8 percent the previous week. A surplus to year-earlier supplies widened to 2.8 percent from 2.4 percent.

Gas inventories may fall to 1.7 trillion cubic feet by the end of the winter heating season, down from the previous estimate of 2 trillion, Barclays Capital said in the report yesterday.

<snip>

“With more cold weather still in the forecast for the eastern U.S., we continue to see potential for nearby natural gas futures to run to $5,” said Tim Evans, an energy analyst at Citi Futures Perspective in New York.


Views: 649

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by little ole 1st grade teacher on January 20, 2011 at 19:24

$6-8 per MMBtu sounds good to me.....NOW, if only my land would get a LEASE  again.  Any company out there interested?????   My land is located in Shelby County, Texas. 

Permalink Reply by adubu on January 21, 2011 at 1:02
teacher--where in Shelby?
Permalink Reply by little ole 1st grade teacher on January 21, 2011 at 11:29
Ad
Permalink Reply by little ole 1st grade teacher on January 22, 2011 at 19:53

Adubu, My land is in the C.C. Tutt Survey, A726.

Permalink Reply by adubu on January 24, 2011 at 9:09
teacher---- lot of activity around but what hurts is XTO report Roadrunner #1H DRY HOLE recently in North west part of Survey
Permalink Reply by jffree1 on January 24, 2011 at 10:17
adubu, you should check your source.  My production spreadsheet says Roadrunners #1H has produced 1.55 BCF since March.  It is not a dry hole.  There seems to be some confusion somewhere.
Permalink Reply by adubu on January 24, 2011 at 11:36
jffree1---I know to never dispute you but, something weird on the RRC web site map. Roadrunners #1H API 419-31506 on the map click on well icon and drilling premit says "DRY HOLE" however the odd thing is show spud and completion of only 7 day I doubt you can drill 12,000 feet in only 7 days. Something not recorded correctly. Check on the RRC Map and see how you read it?????????? reply back please
Permalink Reply by jffree1 on January 24, 2011 at 12:19

I'm going off of memory now, adubu, but I think they had to dry hole the first permit in order to get another one.  They had mechanical issues with the first hole and abandoned, if my memory serves me correctly.

The first hole was 419-31506 (dry hole) plat: http://webapps.rrc.state.tx.us/dpimages/img/700000-799999//PR000070...

The second permit was called a re-entry and the well was re-named Roadrunners DU #1HR, 419-31517, plat:

http://webapps.rrc.state.tx.us/dpimages/img/700000-799999//PR000072...

 

So, technically, I will concede that 30506 was a dry hole.  It was sidetracked or something from the original hole and for some reason required a new permit number.  But they made a well in that location so... don't be scarin' folks, LOL!!

Permalink Reply by adubu on January 24, 2011 at 12:35
hell---it scared me also---Never seen a Dry H Shale well---there has been some not very good that may never pay out but Dry--No---- Knew something was wrong--- wish RRC web site would correct it on the map---Thanks jffree1-- We all feel better---The Teacher will get re-leased some day then I bet
Permalink Reply by jffree1 on January 24, 2011 at 14:51
I went back and platted the coordinates for both surface locations and it looks like they moved over a few feet from the first hole and drilled a new one.  The only notes I saw on the permits were that, when they filed the second permit, there was a problem letter stating that there was already a well #1H in that unit with the same bottom hole location.  So, it looks like they had to P&A the first hole to get the permit for the second hole.
Permalink Reply by dominator on April 26, 2012 at 12:25

I saw the collapse coming back around this time

Permalink Reply by P.G. on January 21, 2011 at 2:31
I wonder when NG was @ $13 if folks thought they would be getting so excited over $5 gas?

RSS

Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com

Top Content 

1 Mammoth Minerals

Mammoth Minerals
2 Natural Gas Giant Chesapeake Begins Layoffs

Natural Gas Giant Chesapeake Begins Layoffs
3 Leasing

Leasing
4 Permian Gas Processing Plans Hint at Impending Rebound in Production

Permian Gas Processing Plans Hint at Impending Rebound in Production
5 Texas Smackover Lithium Play

Texas Smackover Lithium Play
6 Haynesville gas production faces summer headwinds as activity hits 3-year low

Haynesville gas production faces summer headwinds as activity hits 3-year low

Not a member? Get our email.

Groups



© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service