Mineralogical and TOC Trends in the Ohio Utica Shale Jake Harrington Dr. Julie Sheets, Dr. Dave Cole, Dr. Sue Welch, Mike Murphy, Alex Swift SEMCAL Overview • • • • • • Purpose Sample Selection Methodology Results Analysis The Future 500 nm D. Cole, SEMCAL, OSU Why the Utica? • Significant energy potential • Not much data yet available • To determine geochemical and mineralogical trends in Utica/Point Pleasant across Ohio Why Mineralogy and Total Organic Carbon (TOC)? • Possible relationship between minerals and TOC concentration • Comparable to other unconventional reservoirs Ohio Stratigraphy Ohio Geological Survey Sample Selection • Core obtained from ODNR • Part of Utica/Point Pleasant Formation • Depth Range: 1220 – 9564 ft • Longitudinal Range: 84.7°W to 81.4°W • 24 samples from 7 wells Utica Thickness Ohio Geological Survey Methodology X-Ray Diffraction Elemental Analysis • PANalytical XRD • Costech EA • Randomly oriented • Samples treated with powder samples hydrochloric acid to • Qualitative analysis dissolve all inorganic with intensity and 2θ carbon to identify mineral phases • DD Eberl’s Excel program RockJock used for quantification Location Data Barth and Wood Co. Wells TOC increasing with increasing depth TOC increasing with decreasing depth Location Data Location Data Mineralogical Data Mineralogical Trends Mineralogical Trends Summary by the Numbers • Average TOC across all samples is 1.70% • Highest TOC values are found in the east and at greater depths • Average TOC, west/east: 1.78/1.66 • Average wt% of clays, west/east: 45/37 • Average wt% of carbonates, west/east: 19/44 • Anything but consistent What’s Next? • Samples, samples, samples • Associating porosity with clay content, TOC • Checking trends with another shale gas play Acknowledgements • • • • • • Shell Exploration and Production Company Friends of Orton Hall Dr. Dave Cole Drs. Julie Sheets and Sue Welch Mike Murphy, Alex Swift, Brandon McAdams SEMCAL References Eberl, D.D., 2003 User's guide to RockJock-A program for determining quantitative mineralogy from powder X-ray diffraction data. Revised 11/30/09. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 03-78, p. 48. Ross, D. J. K. and R. M. Bustin, 2009, The importance of shale composition and pore structure upon gas storage potential of shale gas reservoirs, Marine and Petroleum Geology, vol. 26, no. 6, p. 916-927. Ryder, R., R. Burruss, and J. Hatch, 1998, Black shale source rocks and oil generation in the Cambrian and Ordovician of the central Appalachian basin, USA, Aapg Bulletin-American Association of Petroleum Geologists, vol. 82, no. 3, p. 412-441. Wicksron, L.H., Gray, J.D., and Seieglitz, R.D., 1992, Stratigraphy, structure, and production history of the Trenton Limestone (Ordovician) and adjacent strata in northwestern Ohio, Ohio Division of Geological Survey, no. 143, p. 78. Zhu, Y., E. Liu, A. Martinez, M. A. Payne, C. E. Harris, C. M. Sayers editor, and A. Jackson editor, 2011, Understanding geophysical responses of shale-gas plays, Leading Edge (Tulsa, OK), vol. 30, no. 3, p. 332-338.