Mineralogical and TOC Trends in the Ohio Utica

ShaleJake Harrington

Dr. Julie Sheets, Dr. Dave Cole, Dr. Sue Welch, Mike Murphy, Alex Swift

SEMCAL

Overview

• Purpose• Sample Selection• Methodology• Results• Analysis• The Future

D. Cole, SEMCAL, OSU

500 nm

Why the Utica?• Significant energy potential• Not much data yet available• To determine geochemical and mineralogical trends in

Utica/Point Pleasant across Ohio

Why Mineralogy and Total Organic Carbon (TOC)?

• Possible relationship between minerals and TOC concentration

• Comparable to other unconventional reservoirs

Ohio Stratigraphy

Ohio Geological Survey

Sample Selection• Core obtained from

ODNR• Part of Utica/Point

Pleasant Formation• Depth Range: 1220 –

9564 ft• Longitudinal Range:

84.7°W to 81.4°W• 24 samples from 7 wells

Utica Thickness

Ohio Geological Survey

Methodology

• PANalytical XRD• Randomly oriented

powder samples• Qualitative analysis

with intensity and 2θ to identify mineral phases

• DD Eberl’s Excel program RockJock used for quantification

X-Ray Diffraction Elemental Analysis• Costech EA• Samples treated with

hydrochloric acid to dissolve all inorganic carbon

Location Data

Barth and Wood Co. Wells TOC increasing with increasing depth

TOC increasing with decreasing depth

Location Data

Location Data

Mineralogical Data

Mineralogical Trends

Mineralogical Trends

Summary by the Numbers

• Average TOC across all samples is 1.70%• Highest TOC values are found in the east and

at greater depths • Average TOC, west/east: 1.78/1.66• Average wt% of clays, west/east: 45/37• Average wt% of carbonates, west/east: 19/44• Anything but consistent

What’s Next?

• Samples, samples, samples• Associating porosity with clay content, TOC• Checking trends with another shale gas play

References

• Shell Exploration and Production Company• Friends of Orton Hall• Dr. Dave Cole• Drs. Julie Sheets and Sue Welch• Mike Murphy, Alex Swift, Brandon McAdams• SEMCAL

Acknowledgements

Eberl, D.D., 2003 User's guide to RockJock-A program for determining quantitative mineralogy from powder X-ray diffraction data. Revised 11/30/09. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 03-78, p. 48.Ross, D. J. K. and R. M. Bustin, 2009, The importance of shale composition and pore structure upon gas storage potential of shale gas reservoirs, Marine and Petroleum Geology, vol. 26, no. 6, p. 916-927.Ryder, R., R. Burruss, and J. Hatch, 1998, Black shale source rocks and oil generation in the Cambrian and Ordovician of the central Appalachian basin, USA, Aapg Bulletin-American Association of Petroleum Geologists, vol. 82, no. 3, p. 412-441.Wicksron, L.H., Gray, J.D., and Seieglitz, R.D., 1992, Stratigraphy, structure, and production history of the Trenton Limestone (Ordovician) and adjacent strata in northwestern Ohio, Ohio Division of Geological Survey, no. 143, p. 78.Zhu, Y., E. Liu, A. Martinez, M. A. Payne, C. E. Harris, C. M. Sayers editor, and A. Jackson editor, 2011, Understanding geophysical responses of shale-gas plays, Leading Edge (Tulsa, OK), vol. 30, no. 3, p. 332-338.

Questions?