DOCSLIB.ORG

KABAKCI-THESIS-2015.Pdf (4.811Mb)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
KABAKCI-THESIS-2015.Pdf (4.811Mb) Copyright by Ahmet Serkan KABAKCI 2015 The Thesis Committee for Ahmet Serkan Kabakci Certifies that this is the approved version of the following thesis: Multicomponent-Seismic Characterization of the Utica Shale APPROVED BY SUPERVISING COMMITTEE: Supervisor: William Fisher Bob A. Hardage David Mohrig Multicomponent-Seismic Characterization of the Utica Shale by Ahmet Serkan Kabakci, B.S. Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Geological Sciences The University of Texas at Austin May 2015 Dedication I dedicate this thesis to my family Nuran, Necmi and Hakan KABAKCI and Ozge Aktuna for their support, encouragement and endless love. Acknowledgements As an industry partner, Geokinetics and Geophysical Pursuit provided the 3C3D seismic data; Chesapeake Energy provided the digital well data. Landmark Graphics Corporation provided software for the 3C3D seismic interpretation via the Landmark University Grant Program. Some of the illustrations were prepared by the Bureau of Economic Geology graphics department. I would like to thank Dr. Bob A. Hardage and Dr. William Fisher for their thoughtful guidance. My gratitude is also to my committee member Dr. David Mohrig. I would like to offer my special thanks to Michael V. De Angelo for his great support in every steps of my research. His guidance was not only for research purposes but also for life experiences. His thoughts would always be remembered for all my career work. This study was also accomplished by thanks to the Turkish Petroleum Corporation for providing scholarship program and being sponsor for my graduate work in the University of Texas at Austin. Lastly, I would like to thank my friends for all their support and love during my research. v Abstract Multicomponent-Seismic Characterization of the Utica Shale Ahmet Serkan Kabakci, MSGeoSci The University of Texas at Austin, 2015 Supervisors: William Fisher, Bob A. Hardage Recent development of gas shales in North America yield worldwide interest in gas production from shale formations. The methodology used in this thesis was to demonstrate multicomponent seismic technology for the characterization of shale-gas systems. The study area covers the Utica Shale across the Appalachian Basin in Bradford County, Pennsylvania. Concepts documented in this thesis can be used for other shale-gas systems. Unlike most shale-gas system studies, S-wave modes were used in addition to P- wave data in this study to better characterize the Utica Shale. Fast S-converted shear (P- SV1) and slow S-converted-shear (P-SV2) volumes provide new seismic imaging options for shale-gas studies and enable expanded seismic attributes that can be used to characterize shale-gas systems. vi Table of Contents List of Tables ...........................................................................................................x List of Figures ........................................................................................................ xi CHAPTER 1 GEOLOGIC OVERVIEW OF THE UTICA SHALE ................................1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................1 Stratigraphy of the Utica Shale ................................................................................7 Depositional Environment of the Utica Shale .......................................................14 Tectonic Setting of the Utica Shale .......................................................................16 Total Petroleum System of the Utica Shale ...........................................................18 Biostratigraphic Setting of the Utica Shale ............................................................23 The Corynoides Americanus Zone ...............................................................23 The Orthograptus Ruedemanni Zone ............................................................23 The Climacograptus Spiniferus Zone ...........................................................23 The Geniculograptus Pygmaeus Zone ..........................................................24 vii CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH DATABASE ............................................................26 Introduction ............................................................................................................26 Well Data ...............................................................................................................26 Time-to-Depth Calibration Using Synthetic Seismograms ...................................28 3C3D Seismic Data ................................................................................................28 CHAPTER 3 INTERPRETATION OF MULTICOMPONENT SEISMIC DATA ............32 Introduction ............................................................................................................32 Seismic Data Quality .............................................................................................33 Frequency Spectra Analysis ...................................................................................36 P-P Depth Registration of Geologic Horizons .......................................................39 Time-to-Depth Calibration.....................................................................................41 Seed Horizons ........................................................................................................46 Equivalent P and S Horizons in Image Time Spaces .............................................49 Utica Shale Interval................................................................................................51 Utica Shale Structural Interpretation .....................................................................57 Amplitude Attributes across the Utica Shale Interval............................................64 Stratal Surfaces of the Utica Shale.........................................................................69 VP/VS Ratio Analysis for the Utica Shale ..............................................................71 Utica Shale S-Wave Anisotropy ............................................................................74 Trenton Limestone Structural Interpretation .........................................................76 Queenston Sandstone .............................................................................................80 CONCLUSION .........................................................................................................85 Appendix ................................................................................................................87 viii REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................89 ix List of Tables Table 1: Well data ..................................................................................................87 Table 2: Ranges of VP/VS (Domenico, 1984) ........................................................88 x List of Figures Figure 1: Distribution of Middle-Upper Ordovician Utica Shale in the Appalachian Basin (Ryder, 2008). ...........................................................................2 Figure 2: Correlation of the Utica Shale across the Appalachian Basin (Patchen et al., 2006). ..................................................................................................3 Figure 3: Cross Section of the Utica and Marcellus Shale in New York to Pennsylvania (modified by geology.com). .........................................4 Figure 4: Cross Section of the Utica and Marcellus Shale in Ohio to Pennsylvania (modified by geology.com). ................................................................4 Figure 5: Depth in feet to the base of the Utica Shale (Marcellus.psu.edu). ...........5 Figure 6: Thickness of the Utica Shale in the northern Appalachian Basin (Marcellus.psu.edu).............................................................................6 Figure 7: Stratigraphic column for the study area (Nyahay et al., 2007).................9 Figure 8: Utica Shale and its correlatives (Wickstrom et al., 1992). .....................10 Figure 9: Middle Ordovician chronostratigraphic cross section showing members of the Utica (Goldman et al., 1999, Smith and Leone, 2010). ..............12 Figure 10: Flat Creek Member in Florida, Montgomery Co. (Martin et al., 2008).13 Figure 11: Dolgeville member in Little Falls, NY (Martin et al., 2008). ..............13 Figure 12: Indian Castle member in Little Falls, NY (Martin et al., 2008). ..........14 Figure 13: Utica Shale paleomap (Scotese, 2003). ................................................15 Figure 14: Schematic diagram of development of foreland basin (Quinlan and Beaumont, 1984). ..............................................................................17 Figure 15: Depositional environment of organic rich mudrocks in New York (Smith and Leone, 2010). .............................................................................18 xi Figure 16: Distribution of weight percent total organic carbon (TOC) content in the Utica Shale (Ryder, 2008). ................................................................20 Figure 17: Vertical mineral trends for the Trenton (TR) to the Lorraine (LO) groups (modified from Thériault, 2012a). ....................................................22 Figure 18: Stratigraphic ranges of Utica Shale graptolites in the Mohawk Valley (Riva, 1969). .....................................................................................24
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]
  • 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]
  • Regional Drilling Activity and Production
    (Sections) 2.0 REGIONAL DRILLING ACTIVITY AND PRODUCTION Naming Convention: 2-digit state code/3-digit county code/5-character identifier Example: 37027_OC12 (Pennsylvania, Butler County, Outcrop Sample 12) For all other wells, the file naming convention leads with the API number. The leading API number/Project ID is then followed by the code for the file category or categories under which the data are classified. For a standard file containing information on a single well or sample, the following naming convention is used: Naming Convention: API number or Project ID_File Type Code(s)_Optional Description Example: 34003636910000_SRA_TOC_BP_Chemical_Plant_Well_4.xls As of July 9, 2014, there were 5696 files organized under this naming convention. In addition to these files, there were an additional 35 files that contain data for multiple wells. These files, which are often final results of data analyzed by service companies or consultants, can contain results for many different wells or samples. For these document types, the following naming convention is used: Naming Convention: 2-digit state code/000/MLTPL_File Type Codes_Optional Description Example: 34000MLTPL_SRA_TOC_XRD_OvertonEnergy.pdf Individual wells contained in the file are stored in a second table, which is linked by the file name, allowing the user to search by any of the individual API numbers/Project IDs contained within the multiple well file. As the data collected, generated, and interpreted by the research team became finalized, new file categories were created and populated with project results. In addition, a general file with all header data was created, allowing users to import project wells into various subsurface mapping programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Where in New York Are the Marcellus and Utica Shales??
    Where in New York are the Marcellus and Utica Shales?? How do they get to the gas resource and how do they get the gas out of the ground? What are the concerns about this entire process and what can/should we do about it? Schlumberger, Inc Depth and extent of the Marcellus Shale Marcellus, NY type section Source – dSGEIS, 2009 East-West Geologic Section of the Marcellus Shale Across Southern New York Thickening of Oatka Creek Thinning of Oatka Creek Lash and Engelder, 2009 and Union Springs members North-South Geologic Section Across New York State Source – dSGEIS, 2009 Source – dSGEIS, 2009 Medina SS Central/ Western NY Marcellus Stratigraphy Oatka Creek Cherry Valley Union Springs Oil and Gas wells are not new in Pennsylvania and New York……. …and there are different regulations in and within each state. Multiple steel casings with high-strength cement to isolate well from surrounding aquifers and bedrock units. What is different about Marcellus/Utica shale gas development? East-northeast trending J1 fractures more closely spaced and cross-cut by less well- developed, northwest-trending J2 fractures Dual porosity gas reservoir where fractures drain rapidly and matrix drain slowly Drill horizontal wells to the north-northwest, or south- southeast that cross and Free gas and adsorbed drain densely developed J1 gas in matrix fractures Connect matrix porosity to the wellbore by intersecting multiple J1 fractures Marcellus Shale Gas Development Horizontal Drilling in Black Shale with High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing 3,500 ft 3,500 4,000 ft Meyer (2009) Meyer (2009) Microseismic Monitoring of Hydraulic Fracturing “Typical” Drillpad Design Water-source pond Drill cuttings pond Drilling Phase – drillrig, pumps, supplies, frack tanks (a month or two) Hydro-fracking Phase – (a week or two) Injection pumps, supplies, and many frack tanks for fresh and flowback waters Where do you get the water for fracking? Inter- basin Trans- fer Each source has its own set of concerns…….
    [Show full text]
  • XRF Workshop Book
    Workshop Materials (1 of 2) Table of Contents Workshop Materials (book 1 of 2) Page Agenda 1 Welcome Presentation (Steve Kaczmarek) 3 Lectures Introduction to the Chemistry of Rocks and Minerals (Peter Voice) 7 Geology of Michigan (Bill Harrison) 22 XRF Theory (Steve Kaczmarek) 44 Student Research Posters Silurian A-1 Carbonate (Matt Hemenway) 56 Silurian Burnt Bluff Group (Mohamed Al Musawi) 58 Classroom Activities Powder Problem 60 Fossil Free For All 69 Bridge to Nowhere 76 Get to Know Your Pet Rock 90 Forensic XRF 92 Alien Agua 96 Appendices (book 2 of 2) Appendix A: MGRRE Factsheet 105 Appendix B: Michigan Natural Resources Statistics 107 Appendix C: CoreKids Outreach Program 126 Appendix D: Graphing & Statistical Analysis Activity 138 Appendix E: K-12 Science Performance Expectations 144 Appendix F: Workshop Evaluation Form 179 Workshop Facilitators Bridging the Gap between Geology & Chemistry Sponsored by the Western Michigan University, the Michigan Geological Repository for Research and Education, and the U.S. National Science Foundation This workshop is for educators interested in learning more about the chemistry of geologic materials. Wednesday, August 9, 2017 (8 am - 5 pm) Tentative Agenda 8:00-8:20: Welcome (Steve Kaczmarek) Agenda, Safety, & Introductions 8:20-8:50: Introduction to Geological Materials (Peter Voice) An introduction to rocks, minerals, and their elemental chemistry 8:50-9:00: Questions/Discussion 9:00-9:30: Introduction to MI Basin Geology (Bill Harrison) An introduction to the common rock types and economic
    [Show 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources: an Assessment of 137 Shale Formations in 41 Countries Outside the United States
    Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources: An Assessment of 137 Shale Formations in 41 Countries Outside the United States June 2013 Independent Statistics & Analysis U.S. Department of Energy www.eia.gov Washington, DC 20585 June 2013 This report was prepared by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the statistical and analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy. By law, EIA’s data, analyses, and forecasts are independent of approval by any other officer or employee of the United States Government. The views in this report therefore should not be construed as representing those of the Department of Energy or other Federal agencies. U.S. Energy Information Administration | Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources 1 June 2013 Executive Summary This report provides an initial assessment of shale oil resources and updates a prior assessment of shale gas resources issued in April 2011. It assesses 137 shale formations in 41 countries outside the United States, expanding on the 69 shale formations within 32 countries considered in the prior report. The earlier assessment, also prepared by Advanced Resources International (ARI), was released as part of a U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) report titled World Shale Gas Resources: An Initial Assessment of 14 Regions outside the United States.1 There were two reasons for pursuing an updated assessment of shale resources so soon after the prior report. First, geologic research and well drilling results not available for use in the 2011 report allow for a more informed evaluation of the shale formations covered in that report as well as other shale formations that it did not assess.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic and Market Impacts of Abundant International Shale Gas Resources
    Economic and Market Impacts of Abundant International Shale Gas Resources Economic and Market Impacts of Abundant International Shale Gas Resources Prepared By: Vello A. Kuuskraa, President ADVANCED RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Arlington, VA Prepared for: CSIS Energy and National Security Program Sponsored by: Center for Strategic and International Studies May 5, 2011 Washington, DC 1 JAF028311.PPT May 2, 2011 Economic and Market Impacts of Abundant International Shale Gas Resources The Paradigm Shift in International Natural Gas Supplies Driven by new understandings of the size and productivity of shale gas (and unconventional gas), a “paradigm shift” is underway on natural gas supplies. This “paradigm shift” began a decade ago in the U.S., with only modest fanfare, but has grown in momentum and importance with continued improvements in technology and technical understanding. • It began with the discovery of low-cost coalbed methane in the San Juan Basin and the highly productive tight gas sand at Jonah and Pinedale. • The emergence of the Barnett and the other major U.S. shale gas plays further established the “game changing” importance of unconventional natural gas. Now, with the recognition that large shale gas resources exist worldwide, this paradigm shift is likely to reach far beyond our border. 2 JAF028311.PPT May 2, 2011 Economic and Market Impacts of Abundant International Shale Gas Resources Unconventional Gas Is Now the Dominant Source of U.S. Natural Gas Production Growth in unconventional gas production, now providing over 60% of U.S. natural gas supply, has more than replaced declines in conventional onshore and offshore production. Year 2000 JAF2011_028.XLS 70 60 53 Bcfd 50 40 30 24 Bcfd 20 16 Bcfd 13 Bcfd Dry Production Gas (Bcfd) 10 0 TOTAL Gas Offshore Gas Conventional Onshore Gas* Unconventional *Includes onshore associated, non-associated and Alaska.
    [Show full text]
  • Pander Society Newsletter
    Pander Society Newsletter Compiled and edited by M.C. Perri, M. Matteucci and C. Spalletta DIPARTIMENTO DI SCIENZE BIOLOGICHE, GEOLOGICHE E AMBIENTALI, ALMA MATER STUDIORUM - UNIVERSITÀ DI BOLOGNA, BOLOGNA, ITALY Number 45 December 2013 Webmaster Mark Purnell, University of Leicester Chief Panderer’s Remarks December, 2013 Dear Pander Society people, Welcome to the 2013 edition of the Pander Society Newsletter, my fourth attempt at providing news and a list of conodont publications for the past year! The slowness in producing this newsletter is my fault, I will try to close the next early in 2014. Conodont research continues to be thriving but there were more than half (143 on 239) non- responses to my request for brief reports on research activities. We have again enjoyed formal and informal meetings of the Society. A definitely informal mini- meeting of the Society was organized in association with the 34th International Geological Congress in Brisbane on 6 August 2012 during which Stig M. Bergström was awarded with the 2012 ICS Digby McLaren Award for his contributions to stratigraphy. The only official Pander Society meeting was one held in Dayton, Ohio, in association with the Annual Meeting of the North-Central Section of the Geological Society of America in April 2012. A report on it was published in the previous Newsletter n° 44. A sad news was the passing of Brian Frederick Glenister on June. He, together with Carl Rexroad organized the first symposium held by the society in 1968 at Iowa City. Thank you for sending in your contributions. Thanks also to Suzanna Garcia-Lopez, John Repetski and Wang Cheng-Yuan for deliberating on nominations for the Society's medals.
    [Show full text]
  • A Cambrian Meraspid Cluster: Evidence of Trilobite Egg Deposition in a Nest Site
    PALAIOS, 2019, v. 34, 254–260 Research Article DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/palo.2018.102 A CAMBRIAN MERASPID CLUSTER: EVIDENCE OF TRILOBITE EGG DEPOSITION IN A NEST SITE 1 2 DAVID R. SCHWIMMER AND WILLIAM M. MONTANTE 1Department of Earth and Space Sciences, Columbus State University, Columbus, Georgia 31907-5645, USA 2Tellus Science Museum, 100 Tellus Drive, Cartersville, Georgia, 30120 USA email: [email protected] ABSTRACT: Recent evidence confirms that trilobites were oviparous; however, their subsequent embryonic development has not been determined. A ~ 6cm2 claystone specimen from the upper Cambrian (Paibian) Conasauga Formation in western Georgia contains a cluster of .100 meraspid trilobites, many complete with librigenae. The juvenile trilobites, identified as Aphelaspis sp., are mostly 1.5 to 2.0 mm total length and co-occur in multiple axial orientations on a single bedding plane. This observation, together with the attached free cheeks, indicates that the association is not a result of current sorting. The majority of juveniles with determinable thoracic segment counts are of meraspid degree 5, suggesting that they hatched penecontemporaneously following a single egg deposition event. Additionally, they are tightly assembled, with a few strays, suggesting that the larvae either remained on the egg deposition site or selectively reassembled as affiliative, feeding, or protective behavior. Gregarious behavior by trilobites (‘‘trilobite clusters’’) has been reported frequently, but previously encompassed only holaspid adults or mixed-age assemblages. This is the first report of juvenile trilobite clustering and one of the few reported clusters involving Cambrian trilobites. Numerous explanations for trilobite clustering behavior have been posited; here it is proposed that larval clustering follows egg deposition at a nest site, and that larval aggregation may be a homing response to their nest.
    [Show full text]
  • Synoptic Taxonomy of Major Fossil Groups
    APPENDIX Synoptic Taxonomy of Major Fossil Groups Important fossil taxa are listed down to the lowest practical taxonomic level; in most cases, this will be the ordinal or subordinallevel. Abbreviated stratigraphic units in parentheses (e.g., UCamb-Ree) indicate maximum range known for the group; units followed by question marks are isolated occurrences followed generally by an interval with no known representatives. Taxa with ranges to "Ree" are extant. Data are extracted principally from Harland et al. (1967), Moore et al. (1956 et seq.), Sepkoski (1982), Romer (1966), Colbert (1980), Moy-Thomas and Miles (1971), Taylor (1981), and Brasier (1980). KINGDOM MONERA Class Ciliata (cont.) Order Spirotrichia (Tintinnida) (UOrd-Rec) DIVISION CYANOPHYTA ?Class [mertae sedis Order Chitinozoa (Proterozoic?, LOrd-UDev) Class Cyanophyceae Class Actinopoda Order Chroococcales (Archean-Rec) Subclass Radiolaria Order Nostocales (Archean-Ree) Order Polycystina Order Spongiostromales (Archean-Ree) Suborder Spumellaria (MCamb-Rec) Order Stigonematales (LDev-Rec) Suborder Nasselaria (Dev-Ree) Three minor orders KINGDOM ANIMALIA KINGDOM PROTISTA PHYLUM PORIFERA PHYLUM PROTOZOA Class Hexactinellida Order Amphidiscophora (Miss-Ree) Class Rhizopodea Order Hexactinosida (MTrias-Rec) Order Foraminiferida* Order Lyssacinosida (LCamb-Rec) Suborder Allogromiina (UCamb-Ree) Order Lychniscosida (UTrias-Rec) Suborder Textulariina (LCamb-Ree) Class Demospongia Suborder Fusulinina (Ord-Perm) Order Monaxonida (MCamb-Ree) Suborder Miliolina (Sil-Ree) Order Lithistida
    [Show full text]