DOCSLIB.ORG

Download the Poster

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download the Poster EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL STACKED SHALE-GAS RESERVOIRS ACROSS NORTHERN AND NORTH-CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA ABSTRACT Jessica Pierson Moore1, Susan E. Pool1, Philip A. Dinterman1, J. Eric Lewis1, Ray Boswell2 Three shale-gas units underlying northern and north-central West Virginia create opportunity for one horizontal well pad to produce from multiple zones. The Upper Ordovician Utica/Point Pleasant, Middle Devonian Marcellus, and Upper Devonian Burket/Geneseo 1 West Virginia Geological & Economic Survey, 2 U.S. DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory construction of fairway maps for each play. Current drilling activity focuses on the Marcellus, with more than 1,000 horizontal completions reported through mid-2015. Across northern West Virginia, the Marcellus is 40 to 60 ft. thick with a depth range between 5,000 and 8,000 ft. Total Organic Carbon (TOC) REGIONAL GEOLOGY is generally 10% or greater. Quartz content is relatively high (~60%) and clay content is low (~30%). Reservoir pressure estimates STRUCTURAL CROSS-SECTION FROM HARRISON CO., OHIO TO HARDY CO., WEST VIRGINIA range from 0.3 to 0.7 psi/ft and generally increase to the north. Volumetric assessment of the Marcellus in this area yields preliminary NW SE 81° 80° 79° 78° 1 2 3 4 5 original gas-in-place estimates of 9 to 24 Bcf/mi2. OH WV WV WV WV Pennsylvania Figure 2.—Location of seismic sections, wells, and major basement Harrison Co. Marshall Co. Marion Co. Preston Co. Hardy Co. 34-067-20103 47-051-00539 47-049-00244 47-077-00119 47-031-00021 UTICA SHALE PLAY GR 41 miles GR 36 miles GR 27 miles GR 32 miles GR Westmoreland The Burket /Geneseo interval is approximately 15 to 40 ft thick across the fairway. The underlying Tully Limestone and Mahantango Washington “Neither Utica nor Shale” Svetz sea level -Patchen and Carter, Utica Shale Play Book Ohio No.1 40° B 40° EXPLANATION to simultaneously complete both formations. This interval may be less conducive to fracture stimulation with relatively high clay AREA OF INTEREST Fayette Somerset Rome trough S SHALE ) U Marshall L t Greene A A' e (~60%) and low quartz content (~20%). TOC content in this section is generally less than 5%. Seventeen wells report a cumulative CEL Seismic line e R Burley URKET SHALE F B No.1 ( MA l - 2000 volume of 13.2 Bcf of gas and nearly 7,000 bbl of liquids through 2014. Maryland Thrust fault—Sawteeth on upper plate e C' v DUNKIRK SHALE Monongalia e Allegany L Target Reservoir = Point Pleasant Formation Wetzel Normal fault—From Shumaker (1996). Bar and ball on DEVONIAN Preston a e RHINESTREET SHALE Garrett downthrown side. Dashed where inferred Marion S Tyler C B' n Normal fault—This study. Bar and ball on downthrown a - 4000 >50 ft. salt in Salina Fm Harrison Mineral e Pleasants A' side. Dashed where inferred three months of production. Reservoir depths range from 10,000 to 12,000 ft and estimates suggest the area is highly over-pressured, M A Taylor w Normal fault—From Shumaker (1996). Red bar and ball o with gradients from 0.5 to 0.9 psi/ft. TOC content generally ranges from 1 to 4% and organic-rich shale beds are often thinly l Doddridge e shows downthrown side from this study. Dashed where MIDDLESEX SHALE Ritchie B Barbour inferred Grant h interbedded with more carbonate-rich strata. Clay content is typically around 50% in the Utica/Point Pleasant interval; Tucker t - 6000 p Well location e 39° 39° carbonate constitutes 20 to 30% and quartz content is 10 to 20%. Gilmer Lewis D Upshur Virginia “UTI CA SHAL West Virginia Randolph SILURIAN - 8000 E” Allegheny structural front WVGES MAP WV24 (1987) MARCELLUS SHALE PLAY 0 50 MILES USGS Map I-2791 Figure 2. 0 50 KILOMETERS TION 81° 80° 79° 78° - 10000 A ORM RESERVOIR THICKNESS ORGANIC CONTENT ORDOVICIAN F - 12000 POINT PLEASANT Approximate location of Burley No. 1 well Seismic Stratigraphic Extensional and Thrust Age West Formation or Group Name East Lithology Packages Orogenic Events Sheets Perm. Lower Upper Post-Pottsville rocks, undivided Pottsville Group and Middle post-Pottsville rocks Alleghanian orogeny A A' Penn. Lower Pottsville Group A A’ Upper Greenbrier Limestone and Mauch Chunk Group Greenbrier Limestone eastern Allegheny Plateau western Allegheny Plateau Miss. Lower Rome trough Berea Sandstone, Sunbury Shale, and Price Formation Time Burley No. 1 synthetic seismogram projection Time Venango Group (seconds) Arches Fork anticline Wolf Summit anticline Chestnut Ridge anticline extension Ligonier syncline Etam anticline Deer Park anticline George's Creek syncline (seconds) Venango Group (Formation) Hampshire Formation and Riceville Formation 0.100 Pottsville Group and post-Pottsville rocks 0.100 0.200 Greenbrier Limestone 0.200 Chagrin 0.300 0.300 Shale Venango Group 0.400 0.400 Bradford Group Bradford Group Pottsville Group and post-Pottsville rocks Huron Mbr. of Greenland Gap Group 0.500 0.500 the Ohio Shale Greenbrier Limestone Upper Salina sheet 0.600 Bradford Group 0.600 Acadian orogeny 0.700 Venango Group 0.700 Java Formation 0.800 0.800 Bradford Group Angola Shale Member 0.900 0.900 Devonian West Falls 1.000 Elk Group 1.000 Elk Group GNSO Formation Rhinestreet Shale Member Brallier Formation Elk Group 1.100 1.100 Elk Group Sonyea Formation 1.200 1.200 Hamilton Group Hamilton Group ORGANIC POROSITY THERMAL MATURITY & RESERVOIR PRESSURE 1.300 1.300 Salina Group Genesee Formation Harrell Shale 1.400 Salina Group M1.400 RCL 1.500 1.500 Middle Tully Limestone, Hamilton Group, Marcellus Shale, and Onondaga Limestone Juniata Formation 1.600 Juniata Formation 1.600 Hamilton Group Lower Oriskany Sandstone and Helderberg Group 1.700 1.700 1.800 Reedsville Shale Reedsville Shale 1.800 Upper Salina Group (includes salt beds) Salina Group, Tonoloway Limestone, 1.900 Trenton Limestone 1.900 and Wills Creek Formation and Wills Creek Formation 2.000 2.000 Trenton Limestone Salina Group 2.100 2.100 Paleozoic Lockport Dolomite and Keefer Sandstone McKenzie Limestone and Keefer Sandstone 2.200 Beekmantown Group 2.200 2.300 Beekmantown Group 2.300 Silurian Rose Hill Formation 2.400 2.400 Lower 2.500 2.500 Reedsville- Tuscarora Sandstone 2.600 Knox Group and pre-Knox rocks Knox Group and 2.600 Taconic orogeny Martinsburg 2.700 pre-Knox rocks 2.700 Juniata Formation Juniata Formation sheet 2.800 2.800 Oswego Sandstone 2.900 2.900 Upper 3.000 3.000 PNPL 3.100 3.100 Reedsville Shale (Utica Shale at base) Reedsville Shale Grenvillian basement 3.200 3.200 3.300 Grenvillian basement 3.300 Trenton Limestone Trenton Limestone Black River Limestone 3.400 3.400 Middle 3.500 3.500 Ordovician Knox unconformity Beekmantown Group Beekmantown Group 3.600 3.600 ? 3.700 3.700 Passive continental Lower Rome- 3.800 3.800 Waynesboro 3.900 3.900 Upper sandstone member of the Copper Ridge Dolomite of the Knox Group by Rome trough sheet 4.000 4.000 Upper extension Copper Ridge Dolomite of the Knox Group 4.100 4.100 Knox Group and 4.200 4.200 Middle pre-Knox rocks 4.300 4.300 Conasauga Group and Rome Formation Cambrian 4.400 4.400 Lower 4.500 EXPLANATION 4.500 4.600 4.600 Normal fault—Several faults suggest compressional Back thrusts Autochthonous 4.700 reactivation 4.700 Grenvillian Major detachment zone at base of thrust Grenvillian basement Grenvillian ZONES OF OVERPRESSURE NATURAL FRACTURE NETWORKS 4.800 Foreland-vergent imbricate thrust faults sheet 4.800 basement basement 4.900 4.900 5.000 5.000 Proterozoic The U.S. Geological Survey purchased the license for the digital data used in this investigation from Seismic Exchange Inc. (SEI). If further access to these data is needed, please contact SEI. Figure 3.--Correlation chart of Paleozoic and Proterozoic rocks in the study area and associated thrust sheets. Also shown are times of major extensional and orogenic events. Colors refer to seismic Marcellus Shale AMPLITUDE Kulander and Ryder, 2005 (USGS Map I-2791) 0 5 10 15 20 MILES Pressure Estimates Received from Operators -800 -400 0 400 800 APPROXIMATE SCALE Classes QUARTZOSE SEDIMENTS 0.25 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.35 WV HORIZONTAL WELL LOCATIONS 0.35 - 0.4 DUAL MARCELLUS/ UPPER DEVONIAN WELL PAD DUAL MARCELLUS/ UTICA WELL PAD 0.4 - 0.45 Marcellus XRD 0.45 - 0.5 Harrison Co @ 7170 . TOC = 4.71% WETZEL COUNTY, WV MARSHALL COUNTY, WV 0.5 - 0.55 Title ¶ 49-244 40.0 0.55 - 0.6 30.0 0.6 - 0.65 0.65 - 0.7 20.0 Stacked Shale Well Locations 0.7 - 0.71 max 10.0 Utica Well Locations Point Pleasant XRD Upper Devonian Well Locations Marion-244 @ 12,940 Data Extent 0.0 Lash and Engelder (2009) Marcellus Completed Well Locations TOC = 0.47% Marcellus Permitted Well Locations MARCELLUS 35 30 25 0 5 10 20 Marshall County, WV Miles 15 Gastar Well Pads 10 Marcellus XRD 5 0 Harrison Co @ 7221 TOC = 8.03% 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 Geneseo/Burket XRD 20.0 Wetzel Co WV-7 @ 6493.5 10.0 Point Pleasant XRD TOC= 2.6% avg. 0.0 Marion-244 @ 13,045 40 Dow, 1977 TOC = 3.46% 30 30 20 EQT Shiben Pad 25 10 Wetzel County, WV SEM Image of well-developed organic porosity in the Point Pleasant Formation (core 74NY5). Thermal maturity of the 20 15 0 samples is above 3.0% Ro. The Point Pleasant Formation notably lacks intergranular porosity; a majority of pores are located 10 within organic material. As the reservoir matures, the pore networks become more robust and interconnected.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fractured Shale Gas Potential in New York
    FRACTURED SHALE GAS POTENTIAL IN NEW YORK David G. HILL and Tracy E. LOMBARDI TICORA Geosciences, Inc., Arvada, Colorado, USA John P. MARTIN New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Albany, New York, USA ABSTRACT In 1821, a shallow well drilled in the Devonian age shale ushered in a new era for the United States when natural gas was produced, transported and sold to local establishments in the town of Fredonia, New York. Following this discovery, hundreds of shallow shale wells were drilled along the Lake Erie shoreline and eventually several shale gas fields were established southeastward from the lake in the late 1800’s. Since the mid 1900’s, approximately 100 wells have been drilled in New York to test the fractured shale potential of the Devonian and Silurian age shales. With so few wells drilled over the past century, the true potential of fractured shale reservoirs has not been thoroughly assessed, and there may be a substantial resource. While the resource for shale gas in New York is large, ranging from 163-313 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) and the history of production dates back over 180 years, it has not been a major contributor to natural gas production in New York. A review of the history and research conducted on the shales shows that the resource in New York is poorly understood and has not been adequately tested. Other shales such as the Silurian and Ordovician Utica Shale may also hold promise as new commercial shale gas reservoirs. Experience developing shale gas plays in the past 20 years has demonstrated that every shale play is unique.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of the Devonian Marcellus Shale—Valley and Ridge Province
    Geology of the Devonian Marcellus Shale—Valley and Ridge Province, Virginia and West Virginia— A Field Trip Guidebook for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Eastern Section Meeting, September 28–29, 2011 Open-File Report 2012–1194 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Geology of the Devonian Marcellus Shale—Valley and Ridge Province, Virginia and West Virginia— A Field Trip Guidebook for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Eastern Section Meeting, September 28–29, 2011 By Catherine B. Enomoto1, James L. Coleman, Jr.1, John T. Haynes2, Steven J. Whitmeyer2, Ronald R. McDowell3, J. Eric Lewis3, Tyler P. Spear3, and Christopher S. Swezey1 1U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA 20192 2 James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA 22807 3 West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Morgantown, WV 26508 Open-File Report 2012–1194 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Ken Salazar, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Study of the Mississippian Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin, and Devonian Marcellus Shale, Appalachian Basin
    DOE/NETL-2011/1478 A Comparative Study of the Mississippian Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin, and Devonian Marcellus Shale, Appalachian Basin U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe upon privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors greatly thank Daniel J. Soeder (U.S. Department of Energy) who kindly reviewed the manuscript. His criticisms, suggestions, and support significantly improved the content, and we are deeply grateful. Cover. Top left: The Barnett Shale exposed on the Llano uplift near San Saba, Texas. Top right: The Marcellus Shale exposed in the Valley and Ridge Province near Keyser, West Virginia. Photographs by Kathy R. Bruner, U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Bottom: Horizontal Marcellus Shale well in Greene County, Pennsylvania producing gas at 10 million cubic feet per day at about 3,000 pounds per square inch.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4 GEOLOGY
    Chapter 4 GEOLOGY CHAPTER 4 GEOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................... 4‐1 4.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 4‐2 4.2 BLACK SHALES ................................................................................................................................................. 4‐3 4.3 UTICA SHALE ................................................................................................................................................... 4‐6 4.3.2 Thermal Maturity and Fairways ...................................................................................................... 4‐14 4.3.3 Potential for Gas Production ............................................................................................................ 4‐14 4.4 MARCELLUS FORMATION ................................................................................................................................. 4‐15 4.4.1 Total Organic Carbon ....................................................................................................................... 4‐17 4.4.2 Thermal Maturity and Fairways ...................................................................................................... 4‐17 4.4.3 Potential for Gas Production ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Marcellus/Utica Shale
    Marcellus/Utica Shale Presented by Jeff Wlahofsky Jay Meglich George Adams Discussion Topics • Common Industry Terms and Definitions • Video of Horizontal Drilling Process • Overview of Geology Differences Between Marcellus and Utica Shale • Background Regarding Marcellus Activity in PA • Current State of the Shale Gas Industry • Planning Opportunities for Income Deferral or Capital Gain Tax Treatment 2 Industry Terms and Definitions • Abandoned Well – A well no longer in use; a dry hole that, in most states, must be properly plugged • Bonus – Usually, the bonus is the money paid by the lessee for the execution of an oil and gas lease by the landowner. Another form is called an oil or royalty bonus. This may be in the form of an overriding royalty reserved to the landowner in addition to the usual one‐eighth or 12.5% royalty. • Christmas Tree – An assembly of valves mounted on the casing head through which a well is produced. The Christmas tree also contains valves for testing the well and for shutting it in if necessary. The “Christmas Tree” includes blow‐out preventer valves. 3 Industry Terms and Definitions (cont’d) • Completion – To finish a well so that it is ready to produce oil or gas. After reaching total depth (T.D.), casing is run and cemented; casing is perforated opposite the producing zone, tubing is run, and control and flow valves are installed at the wellhead. Well completions vary according to the kind of well, depth, and the formation from which the well is to produce 4 Industry Terms and Definitions (cont’d) • Delay Rentals – These are amounts paid to the lessor for the privilege of deferring the commencement of a well on the lease.
    [Show full text]
  • Further Paleomagnetic Evidence for Oroclinal Rotation in the Central Folded Appalachians from the Bloomsburg and the Mauch Chunk Formations
    TECTONICS, VOL. 7, NO. 4, PAGES 749-759, AUGUST 1988 FURTHER PALEOMAGNETIC EVIDENCE FOR OROCLINAL ROTATION IN THE CENTRAL FOLDED APPALACHIANS FROM THE BLOOMSBURG AND THE MAUCH CHUNK FORMATIONS Dennis V. Kent Lamont-DohertyGeological Observatory and Departmentof GeologicalSciences ColumbiaUniversity, Palisades, New York Abstract.Renewed paleomagnetic investigations of red fromthe Bloomsburg, Mauch Chunk, and revised results bedsof theUpper Silurian Bloomsburg and the Lower recentlyreported for theUpper Devonian Catskill Formation Carboniferous Mauch Chunk Formations were undertaken togetherindicate 22.8•>+_11.9 oof relativerotation, accounting with theobjective of obtainingevidence regarding the for approximatelyhalf thepresent change in structuraltrend possibilityof oroclinalbending as contributing to thearcuate aroundthe Pennsylvania salient. The oroclinalrotation can be structuraltrend of thePennsylvania salient. These formations regardedas a tightenS.*'.3 o/'a lessarcuate depositional package cropout on both limbs of thesalient and earlier, but less thatdeveloped across a basementreentrant, to achievea definitivepaleomagnetic studies on these units indicate that curvaturecloser to that of the earlierzigzag continental margin earlyacquired magnetizations can be recovered. Oriented outline. sampleswere obtained from nine sites on the southern limb of thesalient and eight sites from the northern limb in the INTRODUCTION Bloomsburg.The naturalremanent magnetizations are multivectorial,dominated by a component(B) with a A testof the oroclinehypothesis
    [Show full text]
  • Lexington Quadrangle Virginia
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES GEOLOGY OF THE LEXINGTON QUADRANGLE VIRGINIA KENNETH F. BICK REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS I VIRGINIA DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES Jomes L. Colver Commissioner of Minerol Resources ond Stote Geologist CHARLOTTESVI LLE, VI RGI N IA 1960 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES GEOLOGY OF THE LEXINGTON QUADRANGLE VIRGINIA KENNETH F. BICK REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS I VIRGINIA DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES Jomes L. Colver Commissioner of Minerol Resources ond Stote Geologist CHARLOTTESVI LLE, VI RGI N IA 1960 Couuowwoer,rn op Vtncrwre DopenrupNr op Puncnesrs exo Supptv Rrculroxn 1960 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Richmond. Virginia MenvrN M. SurHnnr,eNn, Director BOARD Vrcron W. Stnwenr, Petersburg, Chairtnan G. Ar,vrn MessnNnunc, Hampton, Viee'Chairman A. Pr,urvrnr BmnNn, Orange C. S. Cenrnn, Bristol ANpnpw A. Fenr,pv, Danville WonrnrrvcroN FauLKNEn, Glasgow SvoNpv F. Slter,r,, Roanoke EnwrN H. Wrr,r,, Richmond Wrr,r,renr P. Wooor,nv. Norfolk CONTENTS Pece Abstract. '"*i"#:;;;;: . : ::: , : ::.:::::::::..::::::. :.::.::::::: ::,r Z Geography 8 Purpose. 4 Previous Work. Present Work and Acknowledgements. 5 Geologic Formations. 6 Introduction. 6 Precambrian System. 6 Pedlar formation 6 Precambrian and Cambrian Systems. 6 Discussion. 6 Swift Run formation 8 Catoctin greenstone. I Unieoiformation...... ......... I Hampton(Harpers)formation. .......... I Erwin (Antietam) quartzite. Cambrian System . I0 Shady (Tomstown) dolomite 10 Rome (Waynesboro) formation.... ll Elbrook formation. 12 Conococheague limestone. l3 Ordovician System. ......., 14 Chepultepeclimestone. .......... 14 Beekmantown formatron. 14 New Market limestone. 15 Lincolnshire limestone. 16 Edinburg formation. 16 Martinsburg shale... 17 SilurianSystem. ......... 18 Clinchsandstone..... .......... 18 Clinton formation.
    [Show full text]
  • IC-29 Geology and Ground Water Resources of Walker County, Georgia
    IC 29 GEORGIA STATE DIVISION OF CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT OF MINES, MINING AND GEOLOGY GARLAND PEYTON, Director THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Information Circular 29 GEOLOGY AND GROUND-WATER RESOURCES OF WALKER COUNTY, GEORGIA By Charles W. Cressler U.S. Geological Survey Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey ATLANTA 1964 CONTENTS Page Abstract _______________________________________________ -··---------------------------- _____________________ ----------------·----- _____________ __________________________ __ 3 In trodu ction ------------------------------------------ ________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Purpose and scope ------------------------------"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Previous inv es tigati o ns ____ _____ ________ _______ __________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5 Geo Io gy _________________________________________________________________ --- ___________________ -- ___________ ------------- __________________ ---- _________________ ---- _______ 5 Ph ys i ogr a p hy ______________________________________________________ ---------------------------------------- __________________ -------------------------------- 5 Geo Io gi c his tory __________________________ _ __ ___ ___ _______ _____________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------- 5 Stratigraphy -·· __________________
    [Show full text]
  • Stratigraphic Framework of Cambrian and Ordovician Rocks in The
    Stratigraphic Framework of Cambrian and Ordovician Rocks in the Central Appalachian Basin from Medina County, Ohio, through Southwestern and South-Central Pennsylvania to Hampshire County, West Virginia U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1839-K Chapter K Stratigraphic Framework of Cambrian and Ordovician Rocks in the Central Appalachian Basin from Medina County, Ohio, through Southwestern and South-Central Pennsylvania to Hampshire County, West Virginia By ROBERT T. RYDER, ANITA G. HARRIS, and JOHN E. REPETSKI Stratigraphic framework of the Cambrian and Ordovician sequence in part of the central Appalachian basin and the structure of underlying block-faulted basement rocks U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1839 EVOLUTION OF SEDIMENTARY BASINS-APPALACHIAN BASIN U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MANUEL LUJAN, Jr., Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1992 For sale by Book and Open-File Report Sales U.S. Geological Survey Federal Center, Box 25286 Denver, CO 80225 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Ryder, Robert T. Stratigraphic framework of Cambrian and Ordovician rocks in the central Appalachian Basin from Medina County, Ohio, through southwestern and south-central Pennsylvania to Hampshire County, West Virginia / by Robert T. Ryder, Anita C. Harris, and John E. Repetski. p. cm. (Evolution of sedimentary basins Appalachian Basin ; ch. K) (U.S. Geological Survey bulletin ; 1839-K) Includes bibliographical references. Supt. of Docs, no.: I 19.3:1839-K 1. Geology, Stratigraphic Cambrian.
    [Show full text]
  • Figure 3A. Major Geologic Formations in West Virginia. Allegheney And
    82° 81° 80° 79° 78° EXPLANATION West Virginia county boundaries A West Virginia Geology by map unit Quaternary Modern Reservoirs Qal Alluvium Permian or Pennsylvanian Period LTP d Dunkard Group LTP c Conemaugh Group LTP m Monongahela Group 0 25 50 MILES LTP a Allegheny Formation PENNSYLVANIA LTP pv Pottsville Group 0 25 50 KILOMETERS LTP k Kanawha Formation 40° LTP nr New River Formation LTP p Pocahontas Formation Mississippian Period Mmc Mauch Chunk Group Mbp Bluestone and Princeton Formations Ce Obrr Omc Mh Hinton Formation Obps Dmn Bluefield Formation Dbh Otbr Mbf MARYLAND LTP pv Osp Mg Greenbrier Group Smc Axis of Obs Mmp Maccrady and Pocono, undivided Burning Springs LTP a Mmc St Ce Mmcc Maccrady Formation anticline LTP d Om Dh Cwy Mp Pocono Group Qal Dhs Ch Devonian Period Mp Dohl LTP c Dmu Middle and Upper Devonian, undivided Obps Cw Dhs Hampshire Formation LTP m Dmn OHIO Ct Dch Chemung Group Omc Obs Dch Dbh Dbh Brailler and Harrell, undivided Stw Cwy LTP pv Ca Db Brallier Formation Obrr Cc 39° CPCc Dh Harrell Shale St Dmb Millboro Shale Mmc Dhs Dmt Mahantango Formation Do LTP d Ojo Dm Marcellus Formation Dmn Onondaga Group Om Lower Devonian, undivided LTP k Dhl Dohl Do Oriskany Sandstone Dmt Ot Dhl Helderberg Group LTP m VIRGINIA Qal Obr Silurian Period Dch Smc Om Stw Tonoloway, Wills Creek, and Williamsport Formations LTP c Dmb Sct Lower Silurian, undivided LTP a Smc McKenzie Formation and Clinton Group Dhl Stw Ojo Mbf Db St Tuscarora Sandstone Ordovician Period Ojo Juniata and Oswego Formations Dohl Mg Om Martinsburg Formation LTP nr Otbr Ordovician--Trenton and Black River, undivided 38° Mmcc Ot Trenton Group LTP k WEST VIRGINIA Obr Black River Group Omc Ordovician, middle calcareous units Mp Db Osp St.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogeologic Characterization of Thomas Spring, Jefferson County, Alabama
    HYDROGEOLOGIC CHARACTERIZATION OF THOMAS SPRING, JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF ALABAMA Berry H. (Nick) Tew, Jr. State Geologist HYDROGEOLOGIC CHARACTERIZATION OF THOMAS SPRING, JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA By Marlon R. Cook, Dorina Murgulet, and Alana L. Rogers Partial funding for this project was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Tuscaloosa, Alabama 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 Physiographic, stratigraphic, and hydrogeologic settings ..................................................... 2 Land use/land cover ............................................................................................................... 5 Spring discharge, physical properties, and chemical composition ........................................ 6 Nutrients........................................................................................................................... 12 Nitrate ........................................................................................................................ 12 Phosphorus................................................................................................................. 13 Metallic constituents ........................................................................................................ 13 Organic constituents........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1839-G, H
    Stratigraphic Framework of Cambrian and Ordovician Rocks in the Central Appalachian Basin from Morrow County, Ohio, to Pendleton County, West Virginia Depositional Environment of the Fincastle Conglomerate near Roanoke, Virginia U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1839-G, H i i i I ' i ' i ' X- »-v l^,:^ Stratigraphic Framework of Cambrian and Ordovician Rocks in the Central Appalachian Basin from Morrow County, Ohio, to Pendleton County, West Virginia By ROBERT T. RYDER Depositional Environment of the Fincastle Conglomerate near Roanoke, Virginia By CHRYSA M. CULLATHER Chapters G and H are issued as a single volume and are not available separately U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1839-G, H EVOLUTION OF SEDIMENTARY BASINS-APPALACHIAN BASIN U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MANUEL LUJAN, Jr., Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DALLAS L. PECK, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1992 For sale by Book and Open-File Report Sales U.S. Geological Survey Federal Center, Box 25425 Denver, CO 80225 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data (revised for vol. G-H) Evoluation of sedimentary basins Appalachian basin. (U.S. Geological Survey bulletin ; 1839 A-D, G-H) Includes bibliographies. Supt. of Docs. no.:19.3:1839-G Contents: Horses in fensters of the Pulaski thrust sheet, southwestern Virginia / by Arthur P. Schultz [etc.] Stratigraphic framework of Cam­ brian and Ordovician rocks in central Appalachian basin from Morrow County, Ohio, to Pendleton County, West Virginia / by Robert T.
    [Show full text]