That's a 100% increase!!! SO FAR AHEAD of the Bakken rig increase it doesn't even compare.
Two times as much as last year! Wowoee!
And let's not forget Marcellus: Average production of natural gas there rose by 72% between October 2011 and October 2012 to 6.8 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d), accounting for 26% of all U.S. natural shale gas production!
By any industry measure, the Utica is in the early stages of development, said Walker, Enervest CEO. The Barnett shale in North Texas has produced commercially for at least 10 years. To date, more than 16,000 wells have been drilled in the Barnett and the reservoir has made nearly 11 trillion cubic feet (Tcf). In contrast, across the Utica play, 438 wells have been permitted and 173 wells have spudded, and total production is less than 10 billion cubic feet (Bcf). However, the resource potential of the Utica is outstanding, said Walker. The Barnett is estimated to contain 20 Tcf of resource potential, and the Utica is half again as large as that, at some 30 Tcf.
Yes that is correct BUT what you wrote is not correct.
This is what you always seem to do. You find some info in the news that by itself is correct and then you use that to draw incorrect conclusions giving it the appearance of credibility since the news article is right there in the news....
So herre is the news:
" The growth in active oil-directed rigs has more than offset the declines in active gas-directed rigs. According to Baker Hughes, about 86%, or 24 out of 28 active rigs in the Utica play, were directed toward drilling for shale oil during the last week in October, whereas a year ago only 15% of rigs were targeting shale oil in Utica.
The 28 active rigs in that area represent 2% of all active rigs in the United States, according to data from the Baker Hughes..."
Not only is the Marcellus not growing...and the Bakken is up around 187 rigs...the size of the number of rigs in the Utica is TINY compared to the Bakken.
So, quantify it all for us in economic terms and Compare the Utica to The Bakken.....and you will see again just how skewed your post is and that it again tells only part of the story.
On this comment:
"SO FAR AHEAD of the Bakken rig increase it doesn't even compare."
That is actually a correct comment the way you wrote it BUT, it is also deceptive since the production growth in ND has been breaking records each month and growing steadily while the rig count peaked at around 215-ish and then fell to around 190-ish in ND......while the Marcellus fell off drastically, and while the Utica gained rigs during the last year. So utica went from about 12 rigs to about 24 rigs....wow. It is still kinda in its infancy compared to the Bakken....right?
translate that into DOLLARS based on PRODUCTION INCREASES for each and you will see a very different picture than your comment portrays.
I would add the Utica so far has been a big disappointment as far less oil than hoped. Given the discount of ngls to oil and the economic sensitivity with no way to effectively hedge Utica is no longer a hot area.
Maybe some one will find real whole oil and turn it around. But it was a huge disappointment for Chesapeake which hoped to get oily there.
The relatively small rig count is very likely to fall if some one does not find oil. Just as drilling activity in M is slowing down. Falling train loadings of fracturing sand and such to M confirm the decline.