DOCSLIB.ORG

Geochemical and Mineralogical Sampling of the Devonian Shales in the Broadtop Synclinorium, Appalachian Basin, in Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Geochemical and Mineralogical Sampling of the Devonian Shales in the Broadtop Synclinorium, Appalachian Basin, in Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania Geochemical and Mineralogical Sampling of the Devonian Shales in the Broadtop Synclinorium, Appalachian Basin, in Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania By Catherine B. Enomoto, James L. Coleman, Jr., Christopher S. Swezey, Patrick W. Niemeyer, and Frank T. Dulong Open-File Report 2015–1061 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2015 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner Suggested citation: Enomoto, C.B., Coleman, J.L., Jr., Swezey, C.S., Niemeyer, P.W., and Dulong, F.T., 2015, Geochemical and mineralogical sampling of the Devonian shales in the Broadtop synclinorium, Appalachian basin, in Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2015‒1061, 32 p., 5 pls., 1 appendix, http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151061. ISSN 2331-1258 (online). Contents Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Description of the Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 2 Stratigraphy ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Structural Geology .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Previous Work ......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Exploration and Production History of the Area....................................................................................................... 7 Sampling and Analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 7 Discussion of Data ...................................................................................................................................................... 9 Geochemistry .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 Mineralogy ............................................................................................................................................................ 15 Interpretation of Data ................................................................................................................................................ 17 Summary and Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 21 Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................................................................... 21 References Cited ...................................................................................................................................................... 22 Explanation of Column Headings for Appendix ......................................................................................................... 30 Plates (Available for download in PDF format from http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151061.) 1. Map of the study area showing distribution of Middle Devonian shales, locations of cross sections shown on plates 2 and 3, oil and gas fields, and locations of samples collected for this study. 2. Structural cross section 1 and structure map showing distribution of Middle Devonian shales in the study area. 3. Structural cross section 5 and structure map showing distribution of Middle Devonian shales in the study area. 4. Map of the study area showing distribution of Middle Devonian shales, locations of cross sections shown on plates 2 and 3, locations of samples collected for this study, and total organic carbon content of each sample. 5. Map of the study area showing distribution of Middle Devonian shales, locations of cross sections shown on plates 2 and 3, locations of samples collected for this study, and average reflectance of each sample. Figures 1. Stratigraphic column of the study area, southeastern West Virginia to south-central Pennsylvania .............. 3 2. Map of major structural features, the study area of this report, and natural gas fields ................................... 5 3. Bin-frequency plots of total organic carbon content of Mahantango Formation, Marcellus Shale, and Needmore Shale samples analyzed for this study ....................................................................................... 10 4. Bin-frequency plots of the average reflectance values of Mahantango Formation, Marcellus Shale, and Needmore Shale samples analyzed for this study ....................................................................................... 12 5. Box-and-whisker plot of no shear and shear versus average reflectance of Marcellus Shale outcrop samples analyzed for this study ................................................................................................................... 13 6. Box-and-whisker plot of no shear and shear versus total organic carbon content of Marcellus Shale samples analyzed for this study ................................................................................................................... 14 iii 7. Box-and-whisker plot of no shear and shear versus bulk-sample chlorite content of Marcellus Shale samples analyzed for this study ................................................................................................................... 14 8A. Box-and-whisker plot showing the semiquantitative mineralogy of Mahantango Formation outcrop samples analyzed for this study ................................................................................................................... 15 8B. Box-and-whisker plot showing the semiquantitative mineralogy of Marcellus Shale outcrop samples analyzed for this study ................................................................................................................................. 16 8C. Box-and-whisker plot showing the semiquantitative mineralogy of Needmore Shale outcrop samples analyzed for this study ................................................................................................................................. 17 9. Histogram of production index (S1/(S1+S2)) for all 105 samples analyzed for this study ............................ 19 10. Ternary plot of quartz, clay, and carbonate mineral content of Marcellus Shale outcrop samples analyzed in this study .................................................................................................................................. 20 Tables 1. Total organic carbon content of samples analyzed for this study. .................................................................. 9 2. Average reflectance values of samples analyzed for this study. .................................................................. 11 Appendix (Available for download in Excel format from http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151061.) Table of data on samples collected for this study iv Conversion Factors Inch/Pound to International System of Units Multiply By To obtain Length foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m) mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km) Volume cubic foot (ft3) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3) International System of Units to Inch/Pound Multiply By To obtain Length meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi) Volume cubic meter (m3) 35.31 cubic foot (ft3) Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). v Geochemical and Mineralogical Sampling of the Devonian Shales in the Broadtop Synclinorium, Appalachian Basin, in Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania By Catherine B. Enomoto, James L. Coleman, Jr., Christopher S. Swezey, Patrick W. Niemeyer, and Frank T. Dulong Abstract Reconnaissance field mapping and outcrop sampling for geochemical and mineralogical analyses indicate that the Middle Devonian Marcellus Shale in the Broadtop synclinorium and nearby areas from southeastern West Virginia to south-central Pennsylvania has an organic content sufficiently high and a thermal maturity sufficiently moderate to be considered for a shale gas play. The organic matter-rich Marcellus Shale is present throughout most of the synclinorium, being absent only where it has been eroded from the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Geologic Cross Section C–C' Through the Appalachian Basin from Erie
    Geologic Cross Section C–C’ Through the Appalachian Basin From Erie County, North-Central Ohio, to the Valley and Ridge Province, Bedford County, South-Central Pennsylvania By Robert T. Ryder, Michael H. Trippi, Christopher S. Swezey, Robert D. Crangle, Jr., Rebecca S. Hope, Elisabeth L. Rowan, and Erika E. Lentz Scientific Investigations Map 3172 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 more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov 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 materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Ryder, R.T., Trippi, M.H., Swezey, C.S. Crangle, R.D., Jr., Hope, R.S., Rowan, E.L., and Lentz, E.E., 2012, Geologic cross section C–C’ through the Appalachian basin from Erie County, north-central Ohio, to the Valley and Ridge province, Bedford County, south-central Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3172, 2 sheets, 70-p.
    [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]
  • Outcrop Lithostratigraphy and Petrophysics of the Middle Devonian Marcellus Shale in West Virginia and Adjacent States
    Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports 2011 Outcrop Lithostratigraphy and Petrophysics of the Middle Devonian Marcellus Shale in West Virginia and Adjacent States Margaret E. Walker-Milani West Virginia University Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Recommended Citation Walker-Milani, Margaret E., "Outcrop Lithostratigraphy and Petrophysics of the Middle Devonian Marcellus Shale in West Virginia and Adjacent States" (2011). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 3327. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/3327 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Outcrop Lithostratigraphy and Petrophysics of the Middle Devonian Marcellus Shale in West Virginia and Adjacent States Margaret E. Walker-Milani THESIS submitted to the College of Arts and Sciences at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geology Richard Smosna, Ph.D., Chair Timothy Carr, Ph.D. John Renton, Ph.D. Kathy Bruner, Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • A2 and B2: Upper Devonian Kellwasser Extinction Events in New York and Pennsylvania: Offshore to Onshore Transect Across the F
    A2 AND B2: UPPER DEVONIAN KELLWASSER EXTINCTION EVENTS IN NEW YORK AND PENNSYLVANIA: OFFSHORE TO ONSHORE TRANSECT ACROSS THE FRASNIAN-FAMENNIAN BOUNDARY ON THE EASTERN MARGIN OF THE APPALACHIAN BASIN ANDREW M. BUSH AND J. ANDREW BEARD Geosciences & Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269 GORDON BAIRD Department of Geosciences, SUNY Fredonia, Fredonia, NY 14063 D. JEFFREY OVER Department of Geological Sciences, SUNY Geneseo, Geneseo, NY 14454 with contributions by KATHERINE TUSKES Department of Geological Sciences, Atmospheric, Ocean, and Earth Science, George Mason University, Manassas, VA 20110 SARAH K. BRISSON AND JALEIGH Q. PIER Geosciences & Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269 INTRODUCTION Earth-system perturbations caused a series of mass extinction events during the Devonian Period, including the Taghanic event in the Givetian, the Lower and Upper Kellwasser events in the Frasnian, and the Hangenberg event in the Famennian (House, 2002; Bambach, 2006). These extinctions occurred against the backdrop of orbitally forced sea-level fluctuations, the Acadian Orogeny (Averbuch et al., 2005), the expansion of plants and animals on land (Algeo et al., 1995), and ecological changes in the marine biosphere (Signor and Brett, 1984; Bambach, 1999). The Frasnian-Famennian boundary in particular represents a significant global crisis, considered one of the “big five” mass extinctions (Raup and Sepkoski, 1982) that led to the demise of the widespread and diverse Devonian
    [Show full text]
  • (Late Devonian) Boundary Within the Foreknobs Formation, Maryland and West Virginia
    The Frasnian-Famennian (Late Devonian) boundary within the Foreknobs Formation, Maryland and West Virginia GEORGE R. McGHEE, JR. Department of Geological Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627 ABSTRACT The approximate position of the Frasnian-Famennian (Late De- vonian) boundary is determined within the Foreknobs Formation along the Allegheny Front in Maryland and West Virginia by utiliz- ing the time ranges of the articulate brachiopods Athryis angelica Hall, Cyrtospirifer sulcifer (Hall), and members of the Atrypidae. INTRODUCTION The age of strata previously called the "Chemung Formation" along the Allegheny Front in Maryland and West Virginia (Fig. 1) has been of interest to Devonian wokers for some time. Recent at- tempts to resolve this problem include the works of Dennison (1970, 1971) and Curry (1975). New paleontological contribu- tions to the resolution of time relations within the Greenland Gap Group ("Chemung Formation") are the object of this paper, which is an outgrowth of a much larger ecological analysis of Late Devo- nian benthic marine fauna as preserved in the central Appalachians (McGhee, 1975, 1976). STRATIGRAPHIC SETTING The following is a condensation and summary of the evolution of Upper Devonian stratigraphic nomenclatural usage in the study Figure 1. Location map of study area, showing positions of the mea- area; for a more complete and thorough discussion, the reader is sured sections used in this study (after Dennison, 1970). referred to Dennison (1970) and Kirchgessner (1973). The Chemung Formation was originally designated by James lower Cohocton Stage." Elsewhere, concerning the upper limit of Hall (1839) from Chemung Narrows in south-central New York.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Integrated Noble Gas and Hydrocarbon Geochemistry to Constrain the Source of Hydrocarbon Gases in Shallow Aquifers in the Northern Appalachian Basin
    Using integrated noble gas and hydrocarbon geochemistry to constrain the source of hydrocarbon gases in shallow aquifers in the northern Appalachian Basin Authors: DARRAH, Thomas1*, VENGOSH, Avner1, JACKSON, Robert1,2, WARNER, Nathaniel1, Walsh, T.3, and POREDA, Robert3 (1) Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, [email protected]; (2) Nicholas School of the Environment and Center on Global Change, Duke University, Box 90338, Durham, NC 27708; (3) Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of Rochester, 227 Hutchison Hall, Rochester, NY 14627 *Corresponding author email: [email protected] I. Abstract III. Geological Background IV. Dissolved Gas and Inorganic Tracers Rising demands for domestic energy sources, mandates for cleaner burning fuels for The Appalachian Basin is an archetypal energy-producing foreland basin that has evolved in electricity generation, and the approach of peak global hydrocarbon production are driving the response to complex tectonic processes and climatic conditions since the Paleozoic (e.g., Faill, 1997). In transformation from coal to natural gas from unconventional energy resources. This transit has been the NAB, the Paleozoic sedimentary rocks were deposited during the Taconic and Acadian orogenies and aided by recent advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies, which have deformed in the subsequent Alleghanian orogeny (Ettensohn and Brett, 2002). Today the complex substantially increased
    [Show full text]
  • Marcellus Shale,” Hamilton Group [email protected] 2045 Morse Rd., Bldg
    Matthew S. Erenpreiss Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey Mapping the Regional Organic Thickness of the “Marcellus Shale,” Hamilton Group [email protected] 2045 Morse Rd., Bldg. C-2, Columbus, OH 43229-6693 ABSTRACT • Regional and statewide isopach maps Shale” in each county and township, where available; this newly compiled data and observing the “Marcellus ASHTABULA REFERENCES WILLIAMS FULTON LUCAS OTTAWA LAKE GEAUGA WOOD Lash, G.G., and Engelder, Terry, 2011, Thickness HENRY TRUMBULL have been developed for the Middle Devonian “Marcellus this approach allowed for an even distribution of control Shale” upper and lower units, net organic thickness SANDUSKY CUYAHOGA DEFIANCE ERIE LORAIN trends and sequence stratigraphy of the Middle PORTAGE HURON SUMMIT Devonian Marcellus Formation, Appalachian Basin— PAULDING SENECA MEDINA Shale” for use in assessing Ohio’s shale gas potential. points and more consistent correlations. This correlation was calculated and contoured. Additional data was also PUTNAM HANCOCK MAHONING Implications for Acadian foreland basin evolution: VAN WERT WYANDOT CRAWFORD RICHLAND ASHLAND WAYNE AAPG Bulletin, v. 95, no. 1, p. 61–103. Existing stratigraphic analyses of Devonian shales in Ohio expansion of the Hamilton Group, “Marcellus Shale,” collected from the state geological surveys of New York, ALLEN STARK COLUMBIANA Ohio Division of Geological Survey, 1988, Analysis of HARDIN MERCER CARROLL stratigraphic and production relationships of Devonian MARION AUGLAIZE HOLMES MORROW TUSCARAWAS shale gas reservoirs in Ohio–Final report October were used as the starting dataset, which was expanded and Onondaga Limestone was based on U.S. Geological Pennsylvania, and West Virginia to create a new regional LOGAN KNOX SHELBY UNION JEFFERSON COSHOCTON HARRISON DELAWARE 1985–November 1988 (prepared for Gas Research DARKE A’ Institute): Ohio Department of Natural Resources, CHAMPAIGN LICKING with additional geophysical logs that span the “Marcellus Survey cross sections published in Bulletin 1909.
    [Show full text]
  • Appalachian Bedrock Geology
    Bedrock References (updated November 21, 1998) Alger, W.C., 1986, Petrography of the Upper Devonian sequence east of Elkins, West Virginia: Unpublished M.S. Thesis, West Virginia Univeristy, Morgantown, WV, 168 p. On file(Y/N):y Read?(Y/N):n X-ref(Y/N):n/a Applicability(0,low,m,high):m-h Arkle, T., 1974, Stratigraphy of the Pennsylvanian and Permian systems of the central Appalachians: Geological Society of America Special Paper 148, p. 5-29. Avary, K.L., ed., 1979, Devonian clastics in West Virginia and Maryland, Field Trip Guide, Oct. 3-5, 1979: West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, 100 p. (Guidebook for Eastern Section meeting of AAPG) (this is the original field trip across sections on US 33, Call No. W 551.72 D498 in Colson Library, WV Collection) Barrell, S.M., 1986, Stratigraphy and depositional environments of Upper Devonian rocks in east central West Virginia and adjacent Virginia: Unpublished M.S. Thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 113 p. On file(Y/N):y Read?(Y/N):n X-ref(Y/N):n/a Applicability(0,low,m,high):m-h Barrell, S.M., and Dennison, J.M., 1986, Northwest-southeast stratigraphic cross-section of Devonian Catsill Delta in east-central West Virginia and adjacent Virginia: Appalachian Basin Industrial Associates, Program Fall Meeting October 16-17, 1986, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, v. 11, p. 7-32. Beardsley, R.W. and Cable, M.S., 1983, Overview of the evolution ofthe Appalachian basin: Northeastern Geology, v. 5, p. 137-145. On file(Y/N):y Read?(Y/N):n X-ref(Y/N):n/a Applicability(0,low,m,high):l-m Berger, P.S., Perry, W.J., and Wheeler, R.L., 1979, Three-stage model of brittle deformation in central Appalachians: Southeastern Geology, v.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Appalachia's Utica/Point Pleasant and Marcellus Formations
    Analysis of Appalachia’s Utica/Point Pleasant and Marcellus Formations’ Geology on Estimated Ultimate Recovery Nicholas Cuaresma and Brittany Martin 2019, Marietta College Cuaresma and Martin 2 Abstract: The purpose of this study was to identify the optimum horizontal wellbore azimuths in the Ordovician Utica/Point Pleasant Formation and Devonian Marcellus Formation unconventional petroleum plays in three locations in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, from data contributed by Knobloch Petroleum of Marietta, Ohio. The assumption was that the stress state in the crust determined both the orientations of natural hydraulic fractures formed during the Pennsylvanian Alleghanian orogeny would control the orientation of the fractures formed during present day hydraulic fracturing of horizontal wells. Therefore, the orientation of the horizontal wellbores with respect to fracture orientations would affect the estimated ultimate recovery of petroleum. Multivariable regression analyses, with estimated ultimate recovery as the dependent variable and amount of water used during hydraulic fracturing, amount of sand used as a fracture proppant, and the horizontal wellbore azimuth as the independent variables, were run using data from 1400 wells. A brief overview of the geology of the Appalachian basin, the basin in which both the Utica/Point Pleasant and Marcellus formations were deposited, along with an explanation of the conditions under which natural hydraulic fracturing occurs were included in the study. The study concluded that the amount of water used during hydraulic fracturing in Ohio has the largest effect on the estimated ultimate recovery and the amount of sand used as a fracture proppant in Pennsylvania and West Virginia a numerically large effect on the estimated ultimate recovery, whereas the orientation (azimuth) of the wellbore appears to have an insignificant effect.
    [Show full text]