Violations issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) can be found on the Compliance Report. Each violations has many columns of data, including whether it was broadly categorized as either “Administrative” or “Environmental Health and Safety” (EH&S). This is a distinction that has caused no shortage of confusion, to the point where I have argued that the distinction is actually meaningless.
But don’t take my word for it! Take the words of the DEP field agents who entered the various codes and comments. On the link below, I have made a quiz where I give you the code description or comment for ten different violations, and you use that information to decide whether you think they should be categorized as “Administrative” or “Environmental Health and Safety”. At worst, you have a 50/50 shot at getting each question right, and you only need five out of ten to pass.
Recently, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) Office of Oil and Gas Management changed a column on a variety of their data that they distribute. Now, instead of indicating whether or not a well is permitted or drilled into the Marcellus Shale, we are given data as to whether or not it is an unconventional well. This is a move likely designed to incorporate the Utica Shale, and perhaps other formations as well. PADEP defines unconventional wells as:
An unconventional gas well is a well that is drilled into an Unconventional formation, which is defined as a geologic shale formation below the base of the Elk Sandstone or its geologic equivalent where natural gas generally cannot be produced except by horizontal or vertical well bores stimulated by hydraulic fracturing.
Historically, of course, the lion’s share of unconventional wells in Pennsylvania have been drilled into the Marcellus Shale, although I have encountered the odd report about activity in the Utica. Interestingly, just across the state line in Ohio, the situation is more or less reversed; evidently operators in the Buckeye State find the Utica to be more enticing than the Marcellus. In Pennsylvania, these distinctions will unfortunately be lost for us moving forward because they will be lumped together as unconventional, but really, the process is the same and the associated concerns are too. We just won’t be able to effectively compare the two black shale formations to each other in Pennsylvania.
I always feel like changes in data are a good opportunity for a retrospective. Here, perhaps for the first time ever, is a single chart with permits, violations, and drilled wells, dating back to 2005:
Obviously, June 2012 is not yet over, and the data though the 25th represents only about 83% of what we would expect for month long totals. However, the decline in recent months is notable on all three fronts. Let’s zoom in, so to speak, and take a look at the last 12 complete months, and add some Excel generated trend lines while we are at it:
While there is obviously significant fluctuation on a month to month basis, the negative slope of the trend lines show that these three indicators of activity for unconventional wells in Pennsylvania are all well down over a one year period.
Here is the data spatially (with violations upload pending):
Notes: At the risk of being redundant from post to post, I always like to say a few a words about how I worked with the data, just in case you want to try this at home and your graph looks a little different. The permits require a bit of preparation, because there can be multiple items listed for the same well. While that data can be valuable, it’s not really what we are looking for in this analysis. I have resolved this by using the earliest permit action for any given well API number. The drilled wells are unchanged from the original, as each well appears on the downloaded dataset exactly once. The violations are also unchanged from the original in terms of the number of records used. This results in a number of actions greater than the official DEP count of violations, which are apparently tallied by the number of violation ID’s issued. As I have mentioned elsewhere there are numerous issues with the violation dataset, and my perception is that there was a period of time in which there was a lack of uniformity in how the data were entered, which is reflected in data trail left behind. So while using all records from the data download may inflate the number of of violations, to use only the unique violation ID’s will yield a number that is too small.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.png00Matt Kelso, BAhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngMatt Kelso, BA2012-06-26 14:57:322020-07-21 10:39:59Unconventional Gas Activity in Pennsylvania
Ever since the DEP responded to FracTracker’s request for oil and gas violation data in October 2010, I have been providing periodic updates of the data in a variety of meaningful ways, such as raw violations totals and violations per amount of gas produced. But for most purposes, the best analysis has always been in terms of violations per well.
Since that time, the data have improved considerably. Not only have significant issues been addressed with both datasets, but the violations and drilled wells are now both relatively easy to access online directly from the DEP. That does not mean, however, that the available datasets are perfect or straightforward. For example, the DEP seems to count violations by the number of violation ID numbers issued, but upon closer inspection, that’s not the full story, and as a result, I prefer to use the total number of entries on the compliance report instead. The situation for permits and wells used to be almost exactly the opposite, as those reports often list multiple actions for the same well.
I have not checked the permits report lately but as I began this analysis, I was surprised to discover that the drilled wells list has been cleaned up considerably, as each unique eight digit well API number appears on the list exactly once. Now I may be the only one excited about this, but it is a notable milestone in the evolution of the data in my humble opinion, because it removes an element of interpretation which can have a significant impact on the result of the analysis. And as an added bonus, it makes the analysis much easier, too.
So let’s take a look at violations per well (VpW) from January 1, 2005 through June 12, 2012:
Violations per well by year in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale.
Keep in mind that if we were talking about raw totals of violations and wells, it would of course be significant that we are less than half way through the year. As a ratio, however, that’s not the case, and there is no reason to expect the VpW for 2012 to change substantially up or down based on seasonality. Looking at the the trend, however, there is plenty of reason to expect the final score to be lower, as the rate of violations per well has been declining sharply in recent years. In fact, the current 2012 rate of 0.51 violations per year is less than half of the 1.14 violations per Marcellus well that we saw in 2009. Certainly, that’s an encouraging trend, if it can be attributed to changes in practices in the field, and not just changes how violations are administered, coinciding with changes in the executive branch of the state government.
One of those changes made by the new administration was an effort to route the violations process through Harrisburg. It was a move that raised considerable suspicion among some people, as it had the appearance of moving the oversight process a good bit closer to elected and appointed officials. But on the other hand, it was clear that the three DEP offices which handled oil and gas violations were not on the same page:
2010 Violations per Well by DEP issuing region.
Violations issued from the North Central Regional Office (NCRO) were roughly three times that coming from either the North West Regional Office (NWRO) or the South West Regional Office (SWRO). As the role of the regional office is supposedly diminished in determining what is and is not a violation, we will take a look at the 2012 data on a county by county basis:
Marcellus Shale violations per well (VpW) by county from 1-1-12 through 6-12-12. Counties outlined in yellow contained at least one drilled well during the period.
Compared to the map above, it seems like the strong association with VpW score and regional office affiliation is starting to break down. For those who are are curious, you can see all of the data for each county dating back to 2005 by clicking on the blue “i” tool, then any map outline.
But because the VpW scores can be so exaggerated for counties with just a handful of Marcellus Shale wells, let’s take a look at the five counties with the most wells, all of which were in the North Central Regional Office jurisdiction except for Washington, which was in the South West Regional Office:
Violations per Well for the 5 counties in PA with the most Marcellus Shale wells, as of 6-12-2012.
Last year was the first time since 2007 that Washington County did not have the lowest VpW score out of the five counties with the most wells. In this subset, trends are down across the board since 2009, and now the counties that are major players in the Marcellus are all much closer together.
When it was learned that the plan at the DEP was to have Secretary Krancer approve each Marcellus violation, the prediction that the number of violations relative to the activity of the industry would decrease was widespread. Even though the specific plan was scuttled, the expected result came to pass anyway. And yet, the validated hypothesis does not amount to proof of political meddling; the possibility that the data reflect improved practices in the field would also net the same result.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.png00Matt Kelso, BAhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngMatt Kelso, BA2012-06-19 14:49:552020-07-21 10:39:39Long Term Trends in PA’s Marcellus: Violations per Well
In addition to her mapping of bans in New York State, FracTracker’s Karen Edelstein is also keeping up with the movements against high volume hydraulic fracturing worldwide. See below for her most recent map:
Global bans, moratoria, and movements regarding hydraulic fracturing for natural gas
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/global_fracking_reactions_6-8-12.jpg11591500FracTracker Alliancehttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngFracTracker Alliance2012-06-08 15:41:312020-07-21 10:39:39Global Reactions to Hydraulic Fracturing
A captivating view of gas drilling’s impact from an economic standpoint. Click on the image for more information by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette about how 7 counties in Southwest PA may use the funds they receive from PA’s impact fee.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/20120607impact_fees_1200.png11131200FracTracker Alliancehttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngFracTracker Alliance2012-06-07 14:10:552020-07-21 10:39:39Marcellus Impact Graphic by Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Ever wonder what we do with all the gas we’ve been producing?
In 2011, the United States consumed about 24.4 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas, a 2.4 percent increase from 2010. From that total, just over 2 Tcf was used to fuel operations necessary to get the product to market, including production and recovery efforts as well as transportation of the product through pipelines. The remainder of the natural gas, about 22.3 Tcf, made its way to consumers.
Residential, commercial, and vehicle fuel usage have all been relatively flat over the past dozen years, save for a slight dip between 2005 and 2007, when the wellhead price of gas was around $6 to $8 per thousand cubic feet (Mcf). On the other hand, the amount used for electric power has increased 46 percent, while industrial usage has fallen 17 percent over the same period of time.
Much of this variation may be due to external factors, such as changes in industrial production or the fact that price of coal roughly doubled over the same time frame. And as a whole, the United States must have made significant progress in increased residential efficiency, because although there are 32 million more people now than in 2000, the residential sector actually saw a slight decrease in overall natural gas consumption.
But has the recent surge in domestic drilling activity reduced our dependence of foreign oil? Although oil imports were about one third less in 2011 than the 2005 peak, many experts think that is due to a combination of high prices (due mainly to Asian demand) and the less-than-robust US economy making fill-ups at the pump more painful, and therefore, less frequent.
Consider that in the United States, the way we use natural gas and petroleum are really quite different. While many developing nations have millions of natural gas vehicles, the United States had fewer than 120,000 compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG) powered vehicles in 2010, explaining why vehicle fuel is barely a factor in the chart above. Compare that to petroleum, below, where gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel account for nearly three quarters of all petroleum usage:
Consumers can hardly be faulted for not buying natural gas powered vehicles: according to an interactive map on the US Department of Energy site, there are exactly seven CNG filling stations within a 100 mile radius of downtown Pittsburgh, and no LNG stations within that area.
So natural gas is not yet a major factor in replacing our primary use of petroleum, which is really to move people and things around. That could change though, if production remains high and prices remain low. That last part might be what has prevented a movement toward natural gas vehicles: currently, the price of CNG is about $2.13 per gallon equivalent, but if gas prices go back up to around $8 per Mcf (from the current $2.78) then gas may not seem like such a good deal again. One can only presume that fluctuations such as those factor into why the investments for CNG and LNG infrastructure is so limited.
The Haynesville Shale is a gas rich formation that underlies parts of Louisiana, Texas, and Arkansas. Technically a mudstone, it was deposited in the Upper Jurassic epoch, about 150 million years ago. As the chart below demonstrates, the Haynesville Shale is a major player in terms of shale gas extraction in the United States:
Unfortunately, the exact production values were not released along with this chart, but the Haynesville is clearly competitive with both the Barnett Shale and the Marcellus Shale, and may in fact outproduce both of them. So let’s take a look at the Haynesville, and with it, a look at the data distribution of the three states where it is located.
Haynesville Shale activity. Please click the grey compass rose and double carat (^) to hide those menus. For more information, click the blue “i” tool, then any map feature.
Arkansas
Arkansas has 64 wells drilled into the Haynesville formation, only a handful of which were drilled in the 21st Century. In fact, many of the wells listed are quite old, dating to the 1940’s. Taken together, the small number of wells and the age of those wells makes it clear that Arkansas is not much of a factor in the total output of the Haynesville Shale. In fact, the Haynesville wells in Louisiana stop well south of the border with the Natural State.
In terms of their data, the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission provides access to data that many other states do not, including well stimulation data. Unfortunately, the data export feature seems to be a bit buggy, but luckily, the Haynesville data is practically unchanged from when I downloaded the data in 2010. Much of the dataset has location information in decimal degrees–the standard latitude and longitude format of the digital age. Many of the wells are only available in the archaic and arcane Public Land Survey System, which is still the legal way to describe locations in many western states. Louisiana
In all likelihood, the Pelican State contains the largest share of recoverable gas from the Haynesville formation. This assertion is based on activity rather than production: 2,400 Haynesville wells have been permitted since 2006, of which 2,194 have been spudded, and 1,985 have been completed.
The data released by Louisiana’s Department of Natural Resources has a certain elegance to it, in that the dates for permits, spuds, and original well completion can all be found on the same spreadsheet. What’s more, the same dataset contains location information in the preferred decimal degree format for the top and bottom of the wells, meaning that it is possible to map the lateral portion. Texas
With almost 100,000 producing gas wells in 2010, Texas accounts for one fifth of all such wells in the United States. The heart of the Haynesville Shale continues into the Lone Star State from the western border of Louisiana.
And yet, there are no wells in Texas on the map above. Why? I can tell you that as of the writing of this, there are 816 Haynesville wells in Texas, according to the well search tool of the agency which oversees the oil and gas industry, the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC). I can quickly find production values, and even the lease number, and in other queries, there are even scans of original paperwork available online, digitally, and free of charge. What they don’t provide is location data. This omission seems to be consistent with the following statement on the RRC site:
The on-line research queries are intended for use by individuals needing specific information from the Railroad Commission. The use of automated tools to retrieve volumes of data can cause severe degradation of the Railroad Commission’s systems. If the query system detects that data is being retrieved using an automated tool, the Commission will end the session for that user.
The first sentence contains the philosophy, while the second statement frankly comes across as a lame excuse in 2012, especially for a state with such substantial activity and a healthy severance tax. It seems inconsistent to dedicate so much server space to scans of images without informing you where the location is–it’s a convoluted approach to data transparency, if ever there were one.
Perhaps my interest in mapping is a source of bias, but to me, the location of the well is the single most important data point. How can you determine what the potential impact of a well would be if you don’t even know where it is?
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.png00Matt Kelso, BAhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngMatt Kelso, BA2012-05-17 15:09:012020-07-21 10:39:38A Look at the Haynesville Shale
Usually, I try to let readers know the state of affairs related to oil and gas extraction by taking a hard look at publicly available data. Sometimes, however, it seems like the simplest questions have an answer that starts off with, “Well, it’s complicated…” Such is the case when it comes to fines issued by the the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (PADEP) Office of Oil and Gas Management. Luckily PADEP releases data about fines issued to operators in its compliance report, but unfortunately, it can be confusing to interpret. Let’s take a closer look:
The first point of confusion is the compliance report itself. Specifically, there are more rows of data than there are violations, as counted by PADEP. The answer seems to be that PADEP counts the number of unique violation ID numbers, however sometimes (but not always), the same Violation ID will be used for multiple rows of data on the violation report. When I downloaded Marcellus violation data from January 1, 2005 through May 2, 2012, there were 4,293 rows of violation data, but only 3,689 unique violation ID’s.
Distribution of Violation ID frequency on the PADEP Marcellus Shale compliance report, January 1, 2005 through May 2, 2012.
If a violations are counted by unique Violation ID numbers, what then are we to make of the other 604 items on the list? They all have violation numbers, but share them with between one and three other incidents. My perception is that this is one of those decisions made in the field that has unanticipated consequences with respect to database maintenance. That is just a guess though–I’ve contacted PADEP for clarification on this point, and will be sure to relay that information when I receive it.
The second confusing aspect of the fines data is fairly similar in nature, in that identical fine amounts will often appear for multiple violations (or rows of violation data, as the case may be). This is an ostensibly reasonable thing to do; if PADEP can deal with a suite of related violations all at once, why not do so? But it does beg the question of whether the full fine is posted for each item on the compliance report, or whether it has been prorated between them.
I believe the former case to be correct. Take for example, the recent announcement of a fine issued by PADEP to Ultra Resources for improper storage of flowback water at a Potter County site. The announcement mentions a $40,000 fine, but the data reflects three fines assessed to Ultra for that amount on March 23, 2012 for three incidents with unique Violation ID numbers.
The implication is that if you go through the dataset and add up the value of all the fines, the result will almost certainly be wildly inflated. The same is true for the number of fines that have been assessed. However, there is something linking the three records together in the Ultra example: they all share the same Enforcement ID number. So perhaps that is the key? Let’s take a look at the total number and value of Marcellus fines assessed, with the data organized in three different ways:
Aggregated number and value of Marcellus related fines in PA from 1-1-2005 to 5-2-2012, by method.
Given that the three Ultra violations in the example above all had unique Violation ID numbers but shared the same Enforcement ID, my expectation was that aggregating the data by unique Enforcement IDs would yield the smallest (and most accurate) statewide totals. Clearly, that hypothesis needs to be relegated to the scrap heap, based on the table above.
And to be honest, I don’t have a better hypothesis on deck. I have also asked PADEP for clarity on this point, and will be happy to share that information when I receive a reply. But for now, I’m not even sure if it is possible to tease the correct answers from the data that have been provided. Which is a shame, because if we knew a reliable methodology for doing so, it would be possible to explore the topic in much more interesting detail, finding answers for questions like: Which company gets fined the most? What’s the ratio of violations to fines assessed? How many days pass between a violation being issued and a fine? (For this last one, I can tell you that the maximum amount of time so far is 755 days–I just can’t provide a reliable distribution of the results).
I like to give the DEP credit where it is due: they are making tremendous progress in their dissemination of oil and gas data. Two years ago, there were no compliance, production, or waste reports. Drilled well data was available, but much of it didn’t have location data, and you had to copy and paste from web tables to a spreadsheet, which didn’t always work very well. And some of the location data for permits were miles away from the actual well site with the corresponding API number. PADEP has come a very long way in the reliability and accessibility of their oil and gas data. Here’s hoping that trend continues.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.png00Matt Kelso, BAhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngMatt Kelso, BA2012-05-09 14:10:102020-07-21 10:39:38Pennsylvania Marcellus Fines Data
The roster of companies that drill into Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale is a long one: there are 70 different operators listed on the Marcellus Spud Report at the PADEP website. Here is a list of each operator, complete with annual totals since 2005:
Marcellus Shale wells drilled by operator by year, through May 2, 2012
With the chart below, you can view the same data in a different way:
Percentage of each operator’s drilling activity by year. Please click the above image for a full sized view.
This graph is particularly useful for highlighting new operators, as well as those that are no longer drilling wells. When I show data trends for operators over time, I typically get multiple comments about mergers, acquisitions, and subsidiaries within the industry. Such comments are welcome, and yet any attempt to account for them on my end will almost certainly be incomplete, and therefore potentially misleading. For that reason, I have elected not to aggregate operators in any way, tempting though it may be to combine “Exco Resources PA Inc” and “Exco Resources PA Llc”.
Here are a few more observations about the data:
Atlas Resources drilled an industry-high 117 Marcellus Shale wells in 2009. The company is still active, but not on the same scale, drilling just 11 wells last year, and only four wells in the first four months of 2012.
The DEP has apparently made some retroactive changes to the operators for wells drilled in previous years. In this violations analysis from November, for example, Dominion Exploration and Production has 17 wells between 2006 and 2011. Now, the only Dominion well is for Dominion Trans Inc. The balance of Dominion wells was likely transferred to either Consol Gas Co or CNX Gas Co Llc, both subsidiaries of Consol Energy, which purchased Dominion’s Marcellus holdings in 2010.
Whatever prompted the DEP to reassign Dominion wells to other operators apparently didn’t apply for Shell’s 2010 acquisition of East Resources. Or at least it didn’t apply for all of East’s wells–in November, East was credited as being the operator for 342 wells, while they currently are on record for 298. Shell, which does business as SWEPI on this list, had no wells until 2011 on the November list, whereas now, they are listed as the operator for 21 wells that were spudded between 2008 and 2010.
With 545 wells drilled through the first 123 days of 2012, the industry is on pace to drill 1,617 Marcellus wells in Pennsylvania this year, down from 1,937 wells last year.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.png00Matt Kelso, BAhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngMatt Kelso, BA2012-05-04 15:13:592020-07-21 10:39:37Drilled Wells by Operator Over Time in PA’s Marcellus
Ohio is on the western edge of two enormous black shale formations in Appalachian Basin: the 390 million year old Devonian Period Marcellus Shale and the Utica Shale, formed from deposits in the Ordovician Period about 460 million years ago. Image source: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) has made it easy to find shale gas data from these two formations.
This is provided that you are only interested in horizontal wells. ODNR sums up their opinion of the importance of horizontal wells thusly:
Effective immediately, the vertical permits (stratigraphic test well permits) have been removed from this listing. In the initial phases of both Marcellus and Utica exploration, they were listed to reflect exploratory activity. They are no longer necessary with the increase of horizontal permitting activity. As always, they are available through the Oil and Gas On-line Well Search (1).
To me, this seems like an arbitrary line in the sand for the ODNR to take, but then again, each state has its own quirks with dissemination of their oil and gas data. In Pennsylvania, for example, there is no way to determine a well’s source formation without a file review, other than whether or not the well is drilled into the Marcellus. And in New York, the entire debate is couched around the phrase “High Volume Horizontal Hydraulic Fracturing”, a specificity unmatched elsewhere in the basin, that includes well stimulations using more than 80,000 gallons of fluid. In many respects, the ways in which the states release their data are datapoints unto themselves, but then, that is the subject of a different post altogether.
So let’s take a look at the trends in Ohio for the deep shale gas formations:
Ohio shale gas permits, including Marcellus (blue) and Utica (red). Please note that Marcellus wells include horizontal and vertical permits, while Utica includes only permits for horizontal wells. Please click the gray compass rose and double carat (^) to hide those menus.
Horizontal Marcellus Shale permits issued in Ohio through 4-9-2012
Clearly, there is not nearly as much activity as there is in Pennsylvania or even West Virginia. Altogether, there have been 13 horizontal Marcellus permits issued in the Buckeye State, the most recent of which was nearly ten months ago. Seven of the permitted locations have been drilled so far.
Here’s the data from the Utica Shale:
Horizontal Utica Shale permits issued in Ohio through 4-9-2012
Altogether, there have been permits issued for 194 horizontal Utica wells, 60 of which have been drilled so far. Moreover, it seems to be in a period of rapid expansion; a distribution is reminiscent of the Marcellus in Pennsylvania in 2006 to 2007 (see link above).
Only nine of the sixty drilled wells were in production in 2011, four of which produced some oil from early completion and flowback phases, but no natural gas as of yet. None of the horizontal Utica wells were in production for the entire year in 2011.
Here are the statewide totals from the horizontal Utica wells:
Statewide production values from horizontal Utica Shale wells in Ohio in 2011
It is worth noting that over 59 percent of the gas production came from one well publicized Harrison County gas well–its 1.5 billion cubic feet of production is reported to be the source of 2 percent of the entire state’s gas production.
While that is an impressive quantity of gas from one well, it might be the oil production that is raising eyebrows in the industry. As this post is being written, oil prices are at $104 per barrel, and natural gas is trading at $1.92 per thousand cubic feet (Mcf). While there really isn’t much data to go on to determine if the results are typical, if there continues to be oil associated with the Utica gas to that extent, we may see more drilling rigs focused on the older formation, and fewer on the Marcellus.
The well database is here. There are some limitations on the utility of this database, however, as users cannot use formation as a search parameter, and searches are limited to 1,000 records. Upon request though, the ODNR did send me a DVD full of data. The information is available, it just takes some fortitude to slog through it.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.png00Matt Kelso, BAhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngMatt Kelso, BA2012-04-20 12:19:572020-07-21 10:39:36Shale Gas Trends in Ohio: Abandoning Marcellus, Embracing Utica
