DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessing the Petroleum Geology and Future Development of the Clendenin Gas Field in Kanawha County, West Virginia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessing the Petroleum Geology and Future Development of the Clendenin Gas Field in Kanawha County, West Virginia Assessing the Petroleum Geology and Future Development of the Clendenin Gas Field in Kanawha County, West Virginia By: Jonathan Prevatte August 2020 Director of Thesis: Donald W. Neal Major Department: Geological Sciences Petroleum is one of the main sources for energy production in the US and is therefore important for the continuation of economic growth. Future development of petroleum resources in the US to meet supply demands is equally important. Understanding the controls on petroleum production will help in determining where and how to development these resources for maximum production. West Virginia is home to many gas fields and is underlain by one of the more prominent gas producing shales, the Marcellus Shale. The Clendenin Gas Field in Kanawha County is one of the historical gas producing areas found in West Virginia. This assessment is focused on the Devonian strata throughout the field including the Marcellus Shale. Using available geophysical logs, production data, and historic well records obtained from the West Virginia Geologic and Economic Survey (WVGES), cross-sections, isopach maps, and structure contour maps were created to give a visual representation of the subsurface geology across the field. Construction of the cross-sections and maps in conjunction with production and well record data aided in the identification of controls influencing production throughout the field. Applying the findings of this assessment to future production may reduce costs and improve yields of future petroleum wells. Results of this study indicate several options should be considered when planning for future production wells within the field. Target areas include the areas to the east of the field where formations tend to thicken. Areas nearest fault zones and anticlines, where the formations potentially have more fractured and fissured zones which may allow for easier extraction were also noted as potential development sites. The Marcellus Shale is a recommended target for future production based on the amount of production recorded from non-Marcellus containing wells, which produced on average half of what wells produced from the Marcellus Shale. Lastly, all wells within the study areas were recorded as being vertical wells. Horizontal wells in neighboring counties produce nearly double the amount of gas compared to shallower units, according to data from the WVGES Pipeline reporting system. It is recommended that horizontal well construction be considered for future wells within this field. Assessing the Petroleum Geology and Future Development of the Clendenin Gas Field in Kanawha County, West Virginia A Thesis Presented To the Faculty of the Department of Geological Sciences East Carolina University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Geology by Jonathan M. Prevatte August, 2020 © Jonathan Prevatte, 2020 Assessing the Petroleum Geology and Future Development of the Clendenin Gas Field in Kanawha County, West Virginia By: Jonathan Prevatte August 6, 2020 Thesis Committee: DIRECTOR OF THESIS: _________________________ Dr. Donald Neal Department of Geological Sciences, ECU COMMITEE MEMBER: _________________________ Dr. Eric Horsman Department of Geological Sciences, ECU COMMITTEE MEMBER: _________________________ Dr. Alex Manda Department of Geological Sciences, ECU COMMITTEE MEMBER: _________________________ Dr. David Lagomasino Department of Coastal Studies, ECU Approved for the Department: _________________________ Dr. Stephen J. Culver Chairperson Department of Geological Sciences, ECU Dean of the Graduate School: _________________________ Dr. Paul J. Gemperline, Ph. D. Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................v CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER II: BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 5 Geologic Setting .......................................................................................................................... 5 Tectonic Setting ........................................................................................................................... 6 Structure ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Stratigraphy ................................................................................................................................. 8 CHAPTER III: METHODS .......................................................................................................... 12 Geophysical Well Log and Interpretation ................................................................................. 12 Stratigraphic Cross-Section Production .................................................................................... 14 Isopach and Structure Contour Map Production ....................................................................... 15 Well Production Analysis Methods ........................................................................................... 16 CHAPTER IV: RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 17 Cross Sections ........................................................................................................................... 17 Cross Section A-A’ ................................................................................................................... 19 Cross Section B-B’ .................................................................................................................... 22 Isopach Maps............................................................................................................................. 26 Structure Contour Maps ............................................................................................................ 44 Well Production Analysis .......................................................................................................... 59 Wells Containing Non-Marcellus Completion Intervals ........................................................... 59 Wells Containing Marcellus Completion Intervals ................................................................... 60 CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................... 64 References ..................................................................................................................................... 71 APPENDIX A: Formation and Members Subsea Elevation and Thicknesses ..............................73 APPENDIX B: Well Production Tables .......................................................................................85 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Map of West Virginia Counties....................................................................................... 1 Figure 2: Physiographic Province map of West Virginia. .............................................................. 2 Figure 3: Generalized stratigraphic Chart of West Virginia. .......................................................... 4 Figure 4: Approximate location of the Appalachian Foreland Basin ............................................. 5 Figure 5: General view of the Rome Trough and basement faults. ................................................ 7 Figure 6: General depicting the Warfield Anticline, Rome Trough, and East-Margin Fault ......... 8 Figure 7: Example of API Well Identification Number. ............................................................... 13 Figure 8: Example of typical geophysical log .............................................................................. 14 Figure 9: Well Location Map with Cross Sections. ...................................................................... 18 Figure 10: Cross Section A-A’ ....................................................................................................... 8 Figure 11: Cross Section B-B’. ..................................................................................................... 24 Figure 12: Ohio Shale Isopach Map. ............................................................................................ 27 Figure 13: Java Formation Isopach Map. ..................................................................................... 29 Figure 14: West Falls Formation Isopach Map. ............................................................................ 31 Figure 15: Angola Shale Isopach Map.......................................................................................... 32 Figure 16: Rhinestreet Shale Isopach Map. .................................................................................. 33 Figure 17: Sonyea Formation Isopach Map. ................................................................................. 35 Figure 18: Cashaqua Shale Isopach Map. ..................................................................................... 36 Figure 19: Middlesex Shale Isopach Map. ................................................................................... 37 Figure 20: Genesee Formation Isopach Map. ............................................................................... 39 Figure 21: West River Shale Isopach Map. .................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FISHING for DUNKLEOSTEUS You’Re Definitely Gonna Need a Bigger Boat by Mark Peter
    OOhhiioo GGeeoollooggyy EEXXTTRRAA July 31, 2019 FISHING FOR DUNKLEOSTEUS You’re definitely gonna need a bigger boat by Mark Peter At an estimated maximum length of 6 to 8.8 meters (20–29 sediments that eroded from the Acadian Mountains, combined feet), Dunkleosteus terrelli (Fig. 1) would have been a match for with abundant organic matter from newly evolved land plants even the Hollywood-sized great white shark from the and marine plankton, settled in the basin as dark organic movie Jaws. Surfers, scuba divers, and swimmers can relax, muds. Over millions of years, accumulation of additional however, because Dunkleosteus has been extinct for nearly 360 overlying sediments compacted the muds into black shale rock. million years. Dunkleosteus was a placoderm, a type of armored The rocks that formed from the Late Devonian seafloor fish, that lived during the Late Devonian Period from about sediments (along with fossils of Dunkleosteus) arrived at their 375–359 million years ago. Fossil remains of the large present location of 41 degrees north latitude after several species Dunkleosteus terrelli are present in the Cleveland hundred million years of slow plate tectonic movement as the Member of the Ohio Shale, which contains rocks that are North American Plate moved northward. approximately 360–359 million years old. Figure 1. A reconstruction of a fully-grown Dunkleosteus terrelli, assuming a length of 29 feet, with angler for scale. Modified from illustration by Hugo Salais of Metazoa Studio. Dunkleosteus cruised Late Devonian seas and oceans as an Figure 2. Paleogeographic reconstruction of eastern North America during apex predator, much like the great white shark of today.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • The Upper Devonian Rhinestreet Black Shale of Western New
    THE UPPER DEVONIAN RHINESTREET BLACK SHALE OF WESTERN NEW YORK STATE- EVOLUTION OF A HYDROCARBON SYSTEM GARY G. LASH Department of Geosciences State University College Fredonia, NY 14063 USA and DAVID R. BLOOD Chesapeake Appalachia L.L.C. Charleston, WV INTRODUCTION Organic-rich, low permeability, sometimes fractured, shale deposits, once ignored by drillers seeking more readily understood plays and faster returns on their investments, are boosting the fortunes of midsized producers across the United States and becoming an increasingly important resource base. This burgeon ing interest is driven largely by increased natural gas prices, improved completion technologies and a lack of conventional reservoir targets. However, there is no universal model applicable to each and every unconventional or continuous-type reservoir. Indeed, most vary in terms of basic stratigraphic facies distribution, mineralogy (i.e., quartz content and clay type and content), fracture parameters (length, orthogonal spacing, connectivity, anisotropy), porosity and permeability, and rock mechanical properties. There clearly is a need to further our understanding of these economically important deposits. This field trip focuses on the evolution of the heavily fractured Upper Devonian Rhinestreet black shale, which has served not only as a hydrocarbon source rock, but also as its own seal and reservoir, the essence of the unconventional reservoir. Specifically, we address the Rhine street shale in terms of the hydrocarbon system, which comprises three basic elements (Demaison and Huizinga, 1994). The first component, charge, is the hydrocarbon volume available for entrapment and is dependent upon source rock richness and volume. Migration, the second parameter, can be thought of in terms of the lateral movement of hydrocarbons via permeable carrier beds versus vertical migration via faults and, more to the point of the Rhinestreet shale, fractures.
    [Show full text]
  • Subsurface Facies Analysis of the Devonian Berea Sandstone in Southeastern Ohio
    SUBSURFACE FACIES ANALYSIS OF THE DEVONIAN BEREA SANDSTONE IN SOUTHEASTERN OHIO William T. Garnes A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE December 2014 Committee: James Evans, Advisor Jeffrey Snyder Charles Onasch ii ABSTRACT James Evans, Advisor The Devonian Berea Sandstone is an internally complex, heterogeneous unit that appears prominently both in outcrop and subsurface in Ohio. While the unit is clearly deltaic in outcrops in northeastern Ohio, its depositional setting is more problematic in southeastern Ohio where it is only found in the subsurface. The goal of this project was to search for evidence of a barrier island/inlet channel depositional environment for the Berea Sandstone to assess whether the Berea Sandstone was deposited under conditions in southeastern Ohio unique from northeastern Ohio. This project involved looking at cores from 5 wells: 3426 (Athens Co.), 3425 (Meigs Co.), 3253 (Athens Co.), 3252 (Athens Co.), and 3251 (Athens Co.) In cores, the Berea Sandstone ranges from 2 to 10 m (8-32 ft) thick, with an average thickness of 6.3 m (20.7 ft). Core descriptions involved hand specimens, thin section descriptions, and core photography. In addition to these 5 wells, the gamma ray logs from 13 wells were used to interpret the architecture and lithologies of the Berea Sandstone in Athens Co. and Meigs Co. as well as surrounding Vinton, Washington, and Morgan counties. Analysis from this study shows evidence of deltaic lobe progradation, abandonment, and re-working. Evidence of interdistributary bays with shallow sub-tidal environments, as well as large sand bodies, is also present.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to the Geology of Northeastern Ohio
    SDMS US EPA REGION V -1 SOME IMAGES WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE ILLEGIBLE DUE TO BAD SOURCE DOCUMENTS. GUIDE TO THE GEOLOGY of NORTHEASTERN OHIO Edited by P. O. BANKS & RODNEY M. FELDMANN 1970 Northern Ohio Geological Society ELYP.i.A PU&UC LIBRARt as, BEDROCK GEOLOGY OF NORTHEASTERN OHIO PENNSYLVANIAN SYSTEM MISSISSIPPIAN SYSTEM DEVONIAN SYSTEM \V&fe'£:i£:VS:#: CANTON viSlSWSSWM FIGURr I Geologic map of northeastern Ohio. Individual formations within each time unit are not dis- -guished, and glacial deposits have been omitted. Because the bedding planes are nearly ••.crizontal, the map patterns of the contacts closely resemble the topographic contours at those z evations. The older and deeper units are most extensively exposed where the major rivers rave cut into them, while the younger units are preserved in the intervening higher areas. CO «< in Dev. Mississippian r-c Penn. a> 3 CO CD BRADF. KINOERHOOK MERAMEC —1 OSAGE CHESTER POTTSVIUE ro to r-» c-> e-> e= e-i GO n « -n V) CO V* o ^_ ^ 0. = -^ eo CO 3 c= « ^> <C3 at ta B> ^ °» eu ra to a O9 eo ^ a* s 1= ca \ *** CO ^ CO to CM v» o' CO to CO 3 =3 13- *•» \ ¥\ A. FIGURE 1. Columnar section ol the major stratigraphic units in northeastern Ohio showing their relative positions in the standard geologic time scale. The Devonian-Mississippian boundary is not known with certainty to lie within the Cleveland Shale. The base of the Mississippian in the northern part of the state is transitional with the Bradford Series of the Devonian System and may lie within the Cleveland Shale (Weller er a/., 1948).
    [Show full text]
  • Geoloaic District. Subsequent Stratigraphic Studies in This Area
    DEVONIAN STRATA AND PALEOENVIRONMENTS: CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY REGION: NEW YORK STATE GORDON C. BAIRD and GARY G. LASH Department of Geosciences State University of New York College at Fredonia Fredonia, New York 14063 INTRODUCTION The history of the study of the Paleozoic stratigraphic divisions in New York State spans, at least, two centuries, and it records the early development of important concepts centrally germane to the study of sedimentary basins worldwide (see Tesmer, 1989). The works of James Hall, John Clarke, HenryS. Williams, Joseph Barrell, and George Chadwick are well known to most sedimentary workers, as are those of numerous subsequent workers. In particular, the sedimentary sequences of the Allegheny Plateau Region (••southern Tier" region) served as important sources of information for refinement of the fac ies concept ar.d for the widespread recognition of the westwardly prograding Catskill Delta Complex which is the primary Paleozoic story recorded in Southern Tier bedrock deposits (see Chadwick, 1924, 1933; Cooper, et al., 1942; Caster, 1934; Woodrow, 1985). ---- The first significant geologic work relating to the Chautauqua County region was presented in James Hall's (1843) Survey of the Fourth Geoloaic District. Subsequent stratigraphic studies in this area inclu e Clarke (1903), Chadwick (1923, 1924), Caster (1934), Pepper and de Witt (1950, 1951) and de Witt and Colton (1953). In northwest Pennsylvania, significant synthetic contributions include I.C. White (1881), Butts (1906-1908), Chadwick (1925), Caster ·(1934), Pepper et al. (1954). In Ohio, deposits equivalent to parts of the New York and -­ Pennsylvania Upper Devonian section (Chagrin Shale) have been the subject of recent paleoenvironmental studies (see Weidner and Feldmann, 1983; Schwimmer and Feldmann, 1990).
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibit 5 Town of Barton Geology and Seismicity Report Sections
    GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY REPORT SNYDER E1-A WELL TOWN OF BARTON TIOGA COUNTY, NEW YORK Prepared for: Couch White, LLP 540 Broadway P.O. Box 22222 Albany, New York 12201 Prepared by: Continental Placer Inc. II Winners Circle Albany, New York 12205 July 25, 2017 Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Depositional Sequences and General Stratigraphic Sequence ................................................ 2 2.1.1 Upper Devonian Lithologies ........................................................................................................ 4 2.1.2 Marcellus-Hamilton ..................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.3 Tristates-Onondaga ...................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.4 Helderberg .................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.5 Oneida-Clinton-Salina ................................................................................................................. 4 2.1.6 Black River-Trenton-Utica-Frankfort .......................................................................................... 5 2.1.7 Potsdam-Beekmantown ..............................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Upper Devonian Depositional and Biotic Events in Western New York
    MIDDLE- UPPER DEVONIAN DEPOSITIONAL AND BIOTIC EVENTS IN WESTERN NEW YORK Gordon C. Baird, Dept. of Geosciences, SUNY-Fredonia, Fredonia, NY 14063; D. Jeffrey Over, Dept. of Geological Sciences, SUNY-Geneseo, Geneseo, NY 14454; William T. Kirch gasser, Dept. of Geology, SUNY-Potsdam, Potsdam, NY 13676; Carlton E. Brett, Dept. of Geology, Univ. of Cincinnati, 500 Geology/Physics Bldg., Cincinnati, OH 45221 INTRODUCTION The Middle and Late Devonian succession in the Buffalo area includes numerous dark gray and black shale units recording dysoxic to near anoxic marine substrate conditions near the northern margin of the subsiding Appalachian foreland basin. Contrary to common perception, this basin was often not stagnant; evidence of current activity and episodic oxygenation events are characteristic of many units. In fact, lag deposits of detrital pyrite roofed by black shale, erosional runnels, and cross stratified deposits of tractional styliolinid grainstone present a counter intuitive image of episodic, moderate to high energy events within the basin. We will discuss current-generated features observed at field stops in the context of proposed models for their genesis, and we will also examine several key Late Devonian bioevents recorded in the Upper Devonian stratigraphic succession. In particular, two stops will showcase strata associated with key Late Devonian extinction events including the Frasnian-Famennian global crisis. Key discoveries made in the preparation of this field trip publication, not recorded in earlier literature,
    [Show full text]