Devon has posted a comparison of 4 shale plays.

It includes numbers on the Haynesville, Marcellus, Barnett, and Fayetteville plays. The slide compares 24 Range wells in the Marcellus to public production information from the others.

Looks like the decline rates are similar until you get beyond the first year Then itl ooks like the Marcellus may have slightly better long term returns; though I look forward to your thoughts.

Views: 306

Tags: decline, rates


You need to be a member of to add comments!


Comment by 1mp on December 10, 2009 at 12:12pm
Won't work for me either. Would love to read it. mp
Comment by Stormin Steve on August 4, 2009 at 5:51am
Hmmm. Well, here goes. Range's comparison chart took a lot of work. I know this becasue I have personally done the same type of work (in several different plays and basins) so I have an appreciation for what goes into this not-so-simple chart. However, it looks to me like the so-called "type curves" are based not only upon historical data, but also a healthy dose of future prediction and some creative curve-shaping, based upon the fact that there are very few wells in any of these plays that are more than 58 months old (the max on the chart) - that takes us back to mid-2004. Some of the best wells in any of these plays are no more than 24 months old. Blah, blah, blah. My point is this: take this chart with a grain of salt, because it appears to me to be a management presentation attempting to tout Range's Marcellus play (lowest F&D, highest ROR). Most of the latest-technology wells in all these plays are too young to forecast out that far so as to know what the average long-term performance will do. You have to be careful when constructing type curves on young wells in reservoirs that exhibit extreme hyperbolic behavior because after a few years you can be way off. Not to take anything away from Range - at least they have the huevos to share some of their data, which is very hard to get in the Appalachian Basin. All of the resource plays have their technical/financial strengths & weaknesses - everybody's finding their niche somewhere. Just my opinion, so take it and a dime and buy a donut. Going back to bed - couldn't sleep and now tired of rambling. Later Folks!
Comment by Skip Peel - Independent Landman on July 25, 2009 at 8:54am
JNP. The Haynesville decline is greater than the Barnett. The approximate difference is as follows:

Barnett: 56%/Yr.1 - 27%/Yr.2 - 18%/Yr.3 - 12%/Yr.4 - 8%/Yr.5

Haynesville: 81%/Yr.1 - 34%/Yr2 - 22%/Yr.3 - 17%/Yr.4 - 13%/Yr.5
Comment by JeffNParis on July 25, 2009 at 8:45am
I found a royalty calculator based on Barnett Shale's production and projected decline curve....has anyone used this and do you think this is an accurate projection for the Haynesville?
Comment by sesport on July 23, 2009 at 7:57pm
If you click on the link to the left, Supplemental Tables, there's also more interesting "stuff." Thanks for the link, Keith. :0)
Comment by Les B on July 23, 2009 at 6:15pm
Keith, one of the reasons for the better Marcellus economics is a much higher netback gas price based on its prime location.
Comment by VSC DeSoto South on July 23, 2009 at 2:44pm
This link is not working. When I go straight to Range's site to the same file, it fails there also though, so it must be their site. I will try again this evening.
Comment by Grillin' - MmmMmm on July 23, 2009 at 1:42pm
This is Range's compilation, not Devon's. Guess which play Range is big in?? Yup, the Marcellus!

The marcellus is based on 24 wells they have from SW Pennsylvania with 120 days or more production history. All others are based on industry data, whichever that is. I've seen lots of that!
Comment by Skip Peel - Independent Landman on July 23, 2009 at 11:46am
It is functioning now, thanks. Interesting comparison.
Comment by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on July 23, 2009 at 11:44am
now try it

© 2019   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service