gsa presentation

Report
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.

similar documents