Wrightstone Burket Database and Mapping

Production – Long term production data is available for a relatively small database via state reporting agencies, but provide enough information that some early projections can be advanced. Analysis of the available production, combined with geologic mapping allow us to identify the Northern and Southwestern Core Areas within which the highest performing Burket/Geneseo wells are located. Figure 4 outlines these proposed core areas and provides peak daily production rates for many of the wells. Only 27 wells have at least one full year of production available and prediction of good decline curves from this limited public data set is not possible at this time.

The Southwest Core Area encompasses an area of 1.4 million acres and is the better of the two areas based on limited data. Five wells have at least one year of production data and average 1.5 BCFe in their first twelve months on line. Additional analysis of peak daily production confirms the general outline of this area. Wells surrounding the Southwest Core Area have significantly reduced production volumes and average 470 MMCFe in 12 months.

The Northern Core Area covers an area of about 800,000 acres, but is less proven and may not reach the production potential of the Southwest Area. Six (6) wells on production had average first year production of ~700 MMCF. Wells surrounding this Core Area produced less than 250 MMCF during the time period. Only two Burket wells have been permitted in this northern area since 2010, which may be a good indication that companies are not enamored of the production potential of the Burket in this area.

Burket Presentation... 2015 DUG East.

Economics and Resource Potential – Production rates from the Burket/Geneseo, while strong, lag significantly when compared to the Marcellus and Utica results. Economic analysis using a well cost of $5.5 million (4,800’ lateral), Marcellus type decline and gas price of $3.00/MCF (dry gas) indicate that only the “Core of the Core” is economic in today’s depressed market conditions.

Potential considerations exist that may significantly affect economic viability for the reservoir:

  • Flat decline - Analysis of the early Burket/Geneseo wells in the Southwest Core Area show production declines may be flatter than published Marcellus decline rates. In a recent presentation, Consol reported that their first Burket/Geneseo well, located in Washington County, PA had an EUR of 9 BCFe (1.8 BCFe/1000’) based on actual production, compared to predicted type decline curve estimates of 5.8 BCFe (1.2 BCF/1,000’).
  • Lower AFE Costs - Drilling and completion costs can likely be reduced via utilization of existing drilling pads and infrastructure.

Liquids/Wet Gas – Much of the Southwest Core Area has wet to very-rich wet gas and the economics of these wells can be significantly enhanced through liquids production and increased BTU.

  • Fracture growth upwards – Upward fracture growth into the overlying Middlesex and Rhinestreet Shales may add to the available productive capacity.
  • Maturation of the Play – Production from early wells in other resource shale plays pale in comparison to the later wells that were developed using practices that were fine-tuned to the specific reservoir. It is likely that similar increases will be realized in this play.
  • Fracture mechanics negatively affected - Significant downside may exist in delayed development of the Burket in the Southwest Core Area. Development and production of the underlying Marcellus would likely create a negative pressure sink leading to downward fracture growth into the drawdown Marcellus reservoir from the later completions in the Burket/Geneseo.

Technically recoverable reserves in the Core of the Core are projected to be 33 TCFe with another possible 58 TCFe if the remaining core areas prove viable. These numbers are likely to expand with increases in EURs through advances in completions and if the flatter decline is confirmed.

It is likely that most companies will continue to focus the bulk of their precious CAPEX on the more lucrative Marcellus and Utica reservoirs to get their best “bang for the buck” in the short term, but the Burket/Geneseo holds good potential for substantial additions to the Appalachian resource base.  

Commentary - Oh, how the Marcellus and Utica have changed our perceptions and market driven economics! Here we have another possible super-giant natural gas field (>30 TCF) in an area with well-developed pipeline infrastructure and near to the largest markets in North America and yet few companies are rushing to develop it. We apparently are cursed by our own success…

Figure 3 - Net Thickness map of organic-rich shale with producing horizontal Burket/Geneseo wells

Figure2 - Stratigraphy

Figure 1 - Activitly map of current (April 2015) horizontal Burket/Geneseo wells


Figure 4 - Core Areas for Burket/Geneseo with peak daily production rate (MCFePD)

Peak MCFePD & Cumulative produced
  • Cumulative 6 & 12 month production
  • Production summary of all Burket wells
  • Mapping
    • Net Thickness
      • Gamma Ray Foot (GRFT) combines net thickness and rock quality
        • Hydrocarbon zones mapped 

​​burket upper devonian genesee geneseo burkett shale appalachian fracking geology geologic consulting natural gaswrightstone mapping database toc wet gas


Energy news from the Appalachian Basin has been dominated for the last decade by the natural gas monster that is the Marcellus Shale. Singlehandedly, this super-giant natural gas reservoir has transformed the North American energy markets with its vast reserve potential and production rates. Recently, the deeper Utica Shale has been getting a lot of notice with its consistent high production rates in the wet gas window of Ohio and some attention grabbing high initial production rates in the dry gas windows in eastern Ohio, extending into Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

A third resource shale play, the Burket/Geneseo Shale, is being developed in much of the same geographic areas as the current Marcellus Shale development. This reservoir has not produced the same eye-popping production numbers as the other “Big 2” shales to date, but the play is still in its early field development stage and it is certainly likely that operators will improve and fine-tune their completion and drilling techniques as the play moves into the full development stage. This reservoir will never challenge the Marcellus or Utica in its productivity or size of resource potential, although total reserves may be significant.

It is likely that the play will benefit from several advantages, including its “stacked pay” potential, liquids-rich production in some areas and possible flat decline rates.

As of mid-April, 2015 a total of 85 Burket/Geneseo horizontal wells have been completed as productive with an additional 99 wells either in the drilling phase or awaiting completion. Nineteen (19) companies have drilled Burket tests in the two identified core areas, however, most are concentrated in the southwest part of the play (Figure 1). EQT Production has been the leader in development of this resource with more than 60 wells either completed or in the process of drilling/completion, with an additional 40 Burket wells planned for 2015

Geology – The Upper Devonian Burket/Geneseo Shale is the organic-rich mudstone that lies immediately above the Tully Limestone (Figure 2) and 50 to more than 800’ above the Marcellus. The correct scientific name for this shale is Burket (with on "t") across West Virginia and most of Pennsylvania, while Geneseo is accepted terminology in northwest Pennsylvania and New York. Many companies refer to this unit as "Upper Devonian"  or incorrectly as the Burkett (with two "t's". It is possible that many of the Texas players have transferred their usage and spelling of the Barnett to the Burket.

The thickness of the shale expands from only a few feet in western West Virginia to more than 150’ in its depo-center in central Pennsylvania. Drilling depths increase from less than 4,500’ in NW PA to more than 7,500’ in the center of the Basin. Net thickness of the organic-rich portion of the Burket is shown on Figure 3. Two “sweet spots” of better quality reservoir are mapped, with most of the current productive wells located within these southwest and northern pods of increased reservoir quality.

The key geologic controls on production are projected to be similar to that controlling the Marcellus Shale with rock quality (porosity/permeability) directly related to Total Organic Carbon % (TOC). There is no reliable hard data available publicly on pressure gradients at this time, but early indications and personal communication indicate that the unit is significantly over-pressured, enhancing production capabilities. As with the Marcellus, structural complexity is a key negative to production performance and complicates geo-steering. Additionally, since the Burket/Geneseo is significantly thinner than the Marcellus, additional geo-steering challenges are presented to the operator to stay in the sweet zone of high TOC and rotary steerable drilling may be the optimal solution.

1438 Towne Square Dr.      Allison Park, PA 15101             

Office: 412-367-7406         Mobile: 412-337-9572

gwrightstone@gwrightstone.com                                 wrightstoneenergy.com