Geology and Activity Update of the Ohio Utica-Point Pleasant Play


Published on

A PowerPoint presentation full of interesting maps and details about Utica Shale geology and drilling in Ohio, created by Larry Wickstrom and others from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). Wickstrom is the lead geologist for Ohio, and less than two months after this presentation was released, he was fired. The controversy revolves around the "best places to drill" map which can be found on page 28 of the document.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Geology and Activity Update of the Ohio Utica-Point Pleasant Play

  1. 1. Geology and Activity Update of the Ohio Utica-Point Pleasant Play Larry Wickstrom, Matt Erenpreiss, Ron Riley, Chris Perry, and Dean Martin Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Geological Survey
  2. 2. Drilling and producing from organic-rich shalesrepresents a large paradigm shift for the oil-and-gas industry. From Kostelnick (2010), modified from Schmoker and Oscarson (1995). Prior to the late 1990s these shales were thought of principally as the source of oil and gas that would then migrate slowly over time into “conventional” reservoirs.
  3. 3. Facies map of Trenton/Point Pleasant Time
  4. 4. The presence, thickness, fracability, and source-rock-richness of the Point Pleasant Formation in Ohio are what make this state the center of this play. FRACABILITY COSHOCTON COUNTY BARTH #3 TOC = 4.85 • Low density shale TOC = 2.78 • AVG TOC = 2.78 • High TOC = 4.85 • High carbonate % • Responds to HCL • Interbedded limestone and black shale J. Wicks, written commun., 2011
  5. 5. Barth 2 randomly-oriented powder mount with corundum as Barth 2 normalized to 100% internal standard. Mineral modes estimated using computer program RockJock. Low totals may indicate presence of amorphous material. Mineral Weight % NON-CLAYS Quartz 10.5Kspar (ordered Microcline) 4.4 Plagioclase (albite, var. cleavelandite) 3.0 Calcite 38.5 Dolomite 5.0 Pyrite 0.7 Fluorapatite 2.8 Rutile 0.1 Total non-clays 65.0 CLAYS Kaolinite (ordered) 5.5 Preliminary semi-quantitative powder XRD Illite (2M1; SG4) 4.6 data indicate higher clay content than Muscovite (2M1) 10.9 QEMSCAN data with “clay-carbonate grain boundaries” grouped together with calcite. Total clays 20.9 Provided by the OSU Subsurface Energy Materials TOTAL 85.9 Characterization and Analysis Laboratory (SEMCAL)
  6. 6. We have known for years that the Utica-Point Pleasant was the primary source for mostCambrian-Silurian conventional reservoirs in Ohio RESERVOIR OIL GAS BOE (mmbo) (mmmcf) (mmbo) Trenton-Black River 380 1,000 546 Clinton-Medina 180 5,000 1,013 Knox Sands & Dol 50 360 110 TOTAL 610 6,360 1,669 So, we know it has already produced lots of hydrocarbons. Now the question remains—how much is in this source/ reservoir to produce? J. Wicks, written commun., 2011
  7. 7. Jarvie and others (2001)
  8. 8. Jarvie and others (2001)
  9. 9. Jarvie and others (2001)
  10. 10. Reed, Brown, and Zumberge (2011)
  11. 11. Reed, Brown, and Zumberge (2011)
  12. 12. All Wells with Utica-Point PleasantSource Rock Analyses
  13. 13. Ohio Geological Survey CO2 #1Belden Brick Unit, Tuscarawas Co. The following maps are based on the maximum value, per parameter, per well.
  14. 14. Please Note
  15. 15. Preliminary Map of Maximum TOC Value per Well 3/15/12
  16. 16. Preliminary Map of Maximum S1 Value per Well 3/15/12
  17. 17. Preliminary Map of Maximum S2 Value per Well 3/15/12
  18. 18. Preliminary Map of Equivalent RoAverage per Well 4/2/12
  19. 19. Preliminary Map of Equivalent Ro Average per WellOverlain on Trenton Structure Contours 4/2/12
  20. 20. Preliminary Map of Equivalent Ro Average per Well Overlainon Trenton Structure Contours + Significant Wells and IPs 4/2/12
  21. 21. Preliminary Map Defining a Core Productive AreaBased on TOC, S1, S2, and Ro Data 4/2/12
  22. 22. Map of Core Area Potential Calculation withIncorporated and Federal Lands Removed 4/2/12
  23. 23. Utica-Point Pleasant CorePlay Area in Ohiowith S1 Maximum Color Ramp Superimposed Play core area defined by TOC, S1, S2, and Ro 3/15/12
  24. 24. Map of Equivalent Ro Average Overlain with Cambrianthrough Silurian Oil and Gas Fields 4/2/12
  25. 25. Utica-Point Pleasant Play Core Area—Equivalent Ro Average ColorRamp Overlain with Cambrian through Silurian Oil and Gas Fields 4/2/12
  26. 26. Activity Bodino (2011)Modified from M. Bodino, November 2011, DUG East presentation
  27. 27. Activity through 2-27-12
  28. 28. Current Horizontal Well Permit and Completion Activity Overlain on EquivalentRo Average Color Ramp and Defined Core Area Activity through 2-27-12
  29. 29. Chesapeake NewsRelease, October 20119.5 MMCFG per day.1,425 bbl per day of naturalgas liquids and oil.First Ohio Utica-PP well inproduction. Annualproduction report due toODNR by March 31.Gas Show @ 8,250 ft inUtica.Lateral length ~6,400 ft.ISIP 6,287 psi.18 stage frac.649,479 bbl injected.Logs and completion datanow available.
  30. 30. Source: North Dakota Industrial Commission, Oil and Gas Division.View of a portion of the Bakken horizontal drilling intensity.
  31. 31. View of current horizontal permits in a portion of Carroll & JeffersonCounties, from Ohio Geological Survey Oil and Gas Interactive Web Map.
  32. 32. EIA, 2010Estimated area of the Eagle Ford is about20,000 square miles, equating to about12.8 million acres. (UTSA, 2011) Estimated area of the Utica-Point Pleasant core play area is about 17,000 square miles, equating to about 11 million acres.
  33. 33. Recent Industrial Investments in Ohio as aResult of the Utica and Marcellus Shale Plays
  34. 34. Bodino, Michael, 2011, Got Utica? A Utipedia of Producers’ Acreage and Drilling Plans: Developing Unconventional Gas East AnnualConference, 3rd, Pittsburgh, Pa., Nov. 15–17, 2011 [Proceedings].Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2010, Eagle Ford Shale Play, Western Gulf Basin, South Texas: U.S. Energy InformationAdministration, map, last accessed at <>.Jarvie, D.M., Claxton, Brenda, Henk, Bo, and Breyer, John, 2001, Oil and Shale Gas from Barnett Shale, Ft. Worth Basin, Texas:American Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Convention, Denver, Colo., June 3–6, 2001 [Proceedings], last accessed at<$2C+-+AAPG+2001+Barnett+Presentation.pdf>.Kostelnick, Jaime, 2010, Geochemistry of the Marcellus Shale—A Primer on Organic Geochemistry: Pennsylvania Geology, v. 40, no.1, p. 3–13, last accessed at <>.Patchen, D.G., Hickman, J.B., Harris, D.C., Drahovzal, J.A., Lake, P.D., Smith, L.B., Nyahay, R., Schulze, R., Riley, R.A.,Baranoski, M.T., Wickstrom, L.H., Laughrey, C.D., Kostelnik, J., Harper, J.A., Avary, K.L., Bocan, J., Hohn, M.E., and McDowell, R.,2006, A Geologic Play Book for Trenton-Black River Appalachian Basin Exploration: U.S. Department of Energy Report, Morgantown,WV, DOE Award Number DE-FC26-03NT41856, last accessed at <>.Reed, Jackie, Brown, Stephen, Zumberge, John, 2011, Hydrocarbon Potential in the Utica-Point Pleasant in Eastern Ohio:Developing Unconventional Gas East Annual Conference, 3rd, Pittsburgh, Pa., Nov. 15–17, 2011 [Proceedings].Schmoker, J.W., and Oscarson, S.A., 1995, Descriptions of Continuous-type (unconventional) Plays of the U.S. Geological Survey1995 National Assessment of the United States Oil and Gas Resources: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-75B, 43 p.University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA), 2011, Economic Impact of the Eagle Ford Shale: University of Texas at San AntonioInstitute for Economic Development, Center for Community and Business Research, p. 5, last accessed at <>.
  35. 35. Ohio Rocks! specialty license plates should be available by the endof summer 2012. Proceeds will go towards support of graduate-level research on Ohio geology.