Still $90B to be made in Marcellus shale, report says


The Marcellus region is now the world's biggest natural gas shale play, and there’s still $90B to be made by tapping the area’s reserves, according to a study by Wood Mackenzie.

The energy consultant predicts that the top 20 operators in the Marcellus will earn nearly $86B over the life of the play after the costs of reaching the reserves; for comparison, it estimates ~$118B to be made by extracting the resources in North Dakota’s Bakken region, but most production there is higher-priced oil.

Major Marcellus shale producers include CHK, RRC, RDS.A, RDS.B, TLM, APC, ATLS, COG, CVX, CNX, EQT, EOG, XOM, WPX, XCO, CRZO, SWN, AR.

From other sites
Comments (13)
  • saratogahawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2538) | Send Message
     
    This probably far understates the earnings potential from the Marcellus.
    28 Aug 2014, 11:06 AM Reply Like
  • User 353732
    , contributor
    Comments (5166) | Send Message
     
    It is unlikely that this includes the Utica at all or even all the Marcellus in WVA.
    Since the reserve numbers for the Bakken/Three Forks keep rising quite likely that estimate is also too low.

     

    The Marcellus may turn out to be the most geo strategically significant gas and gas liquids accumulation in the world.It has dramatically changed the dynamics of gas flows in North America and has the potential, once enough LNG export licences are available, to do the same for Western Europe.
    28 Aug 2014, 11:34 AM Reply Like
  • saratogahawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2538) | Send Message
     
    I don't think they included any of the Marcellus extension into New York and most of the extension in Ohio that is yet undeveloped. Who really knows how big and productive it CAN be but certainly much bigger than its current revenue base. Also, the $90 billion is based on low nat gas prices. Drive those prices to world rates and the $$ go up as well.
    28 Aug 2014, 11:48 AM Reply Like
  • Moshe Ben-Reuven
    , contributor
    Comments (318) | Send Message
     
    "The biggest in the world"? "Still $90 B to be made"? Really? can we see some more numbers to substantiate?
    28 Aug 2014, 11:44 AM Reply Like
  • saratogahawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2538) | Send Message
     
    I see an estimate of 410 trillion cuft of reserves in the Marcellus in Intek's 2009 reserves estimate.
    28 Aug 2014, 11:53 AM Reply Like
  • dnpvd51
    , contributor
    Comments (2492) | Send Message
     
    At today's prices everyone in the Marcellus losing money.

     

    Look at the cash prices.
    28 Aug 2014, 01:34 PM Reply Like
  • Frenzy466
    , contributor
    Comments (39) | Send Message
     
    If they were losing money production would not keep rising month after month....
    28 Aug 2014, 09:10 PM Reply Like
  • dnpvd51
    , contributor
    Comments (2492) | Send Message
     
    Not if people keep loaning them more money.
    29 Aug 2014, 12:13 PM Reply Like
  • starboard
    , contributor
    Comments (93) | Send Message
     
    are they drilling to hold leases?
    31 Aug 2014, 08:20 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Bryant
    , contributor
    Comments (7233) | Send Message
     
    I would go with (NYSE:EOG). Safe play.
    29 Aug 2014, 12:19 AM Reply Like
  • zebra114
    , contributor
    Comments (247) | Send Message
     
    Each time the Marcellus is blown up in the press as being a whopper, it's because there are problems on the horizon. Old reports touted it as having reserves 5 times higher than they are today.

     

    My guess is that this article came out because of the news releases of how many more water supplies have been ruined due to drilling, or could it be because no one is willing to accept the radioactive waste from it. At any rate, I wouldn't be putting my money into it.
    29 Aug 2014, 06:31 AM Reply Like
  • starboard
    , contributor
    Comments (93) | Send Message
     
    Please define the radioactive waste. drinking water standards allow for the fact that all drinking water will have some radioactive content. does it exceed EPA guidelines? How does it compare with 10CFR 20
    Standards for nuclear plant discharges to the environment? is it illegal? please be specific.
    31 Aug 2014, 08:26 PM Reply Like
  • Onecent
    , contributor
    Comments (23) | Send Message
     
    Hey, Zebra, you need to post verifiable links to support your lame assertions.

     

    "Radioactive waste"? Please. Give us a break!!
    1 Sep 2014, 04:54 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs