Geochemical Characterization of the Utica Shale Play Using XRF-Based Chemostratigraphy in Ohio
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Stephen F. Austin State University SFA ScholarWorks Electronic Theses and Dissertations Spring 5-4-2021 Geochemical Characterization of the Utica Shale Play using XRF- Based Chemostratigraphy in Ohio Barbara Kemeh [email protected] Julie M. Bloxson Stephen F Austin State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/etds Part of the Geology Commons Tell us how this article helped you. Repository Citation Kemeh, Barbara and Bloxson, Julie M., "Geochemical Characterization of the Utica Shale Play using XRF- Based Chemostratigraphy in Ohio" (2021). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 383. https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/etds/383 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by SFA ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of SFA ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Geochemical Characterization of the Utica Shale Play using XRF-Based Chemostratigraphy in Ohio Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. This thesis is available at SFA ScholarWorks: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/etds/383 GEOCHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE UTICA SHALE PLAY USING XRF-BASED CHEMOSTRATIGRAPHY IN OHIO By BARBARA M. KEMEH, Bachelor of Science Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Stephen F. Austin State University In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Science STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE UNIVERSITY May, 2021 GEOCHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE UTICA SHALE PLAY USING XRF-BASED CHEMOSTRATIGRAPHY IN OHIO By BARBARA M. KEMEH, Bachelor of Science APPROVED: Dr. Julie Bloxson, Thesis Director Dr. R. LaRell Nielson, Committee Member Dr. Kevin Stafford, Committee Member Dr. Robert Friedfeld, Committee Member Pauline M. Sampson, Ph.D Dean of Research and Graduate Studies ABSTRACT The Utica shale is an extensive gas shale play within the Appalachian Basin, expanding from Quebec through New York, into Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio. Currently a target for gas exploration, it is also the source rock for much of the Paleozoic reservoirs throughout the basin. However, the Utica-Point Pleasant lithology varies significantly across the Appalachian Basin which can make it challenging to characterize. The Utica shale Play consists of the Trenton/Lexington Limestones, Point Pleasant Formation and Utica shale. The Point Pleasant Formation and Utica shale are often grouped together, especially in Ohio because they are difficult to visually distinguish from each other and their contact is not always marked by a change in log values. Here we show that chemostratigraphy reflects changes in depositional and facies characteristics of the Utica shale and Point Pleasant Formation. For this study, two cores were analyzed using a handheld x-ray fluorescence (HH- XRF) spectrometer along with core descriptions, x-ray diffraction (XRD) and total organic carbon (TOC) data to interpret the depositional environment. Hierarchical clustering technique was used to identify five chemofacies which reflect the geochemical variability present in both cores. Six chemozones were identified and correlated using the chemofacies coupled with stratigraphic plots of selected major elements, trace metals and TOC. Detrital iii influx analysis revealed that the Utica-Point Pleasant interval in both cores were deposited in different water depths resulting in different amounts of terrigenous input. Paleoredox conditions revealed the Farley core was deposited in oxygenated bottom waters which account for the depletion of trace metals throughout the core. In the Tracker core, analysis showed that bottom-water conditions at the time of deposition varied between anoxic and euxinic. The Tracker core shares similar bottom-water conditions present in the Sebree Trough in Kentucky and is believed to have been deposited in an extension of the trough into northeast Ohio. The Farley core appears to have been deposited outside this trough and likely in the Utica-Point Pleasant basin. Overall the study supports the existence of different depocenters across the area with different conditions at the time of deposition. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my family for their unwavering support and encouragement throughout graduate school. My advisor, Dr. Julie Bloxson, for her guidance with this research. My committee members, Dr. Nielson, Dr. Stafford and Dr. Friedfeld for their collaboration and review of my thesis. Thank you to the Horace H. Collins Core Repository of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) - Division of Geological Survey in Delaware, Ohio for giving me access to the cores used in this research. This work also received financial support from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Grants-in-Aid and the Department of Geology at Stephen F. Austin State University. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................... v LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... viii LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... xi LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................ xii INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND REGIONAL GEOLOGY .................................................. 6 REGIONAL STRATIGRAPHY .............................................................................................. 11 Trenton/Lexington Limestone: ...................................................................................... 12 Point Pleasant Formation: ............................................................................................. 13 Utica shale: .................................................................................................................... 13 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 15 Chemostratigraphy ........................................................................................................ 16 Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (HCA) ........................................................................... 16 RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION .................................................................................... 19 Core description ............................................................................................................ 19 Trenton/Lexington Limestone: .................................................................................. 19 Point Pleasant Formation: .......................................................................................... 20 Utica shale: ................................................................................................................ 21 Mineralogy and TOC .................................................................................................... 21 XRF Analysis ................................................................................................................ 22 Major Element Geochemistry .................................................................................... 23 Trace Element Geochemistry .................................................................................... 26 Cross-Plot Analyses ................................................................................................... 32 vi HCA-derived Chemofacies ........................................................................................... 35 Chemostratigraphy ........................................................................................................ 39 Chemozones............................................................................................................... 40 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 46 Depositional Environment............................................................................................. 46 Detrital Input Analysis............................................................................................... 46 Paleoredox Conditions and Organic Matter Preservation from Trace Metals ........... 52 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 62 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 64 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 70 VITA ........................................................................................................................................... 125 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Depositional reconstruction and tectonic elements present during Utica-Point Pleasant deposition. Water depths and amounts of terrigenous