Ohio's Utica shale is shaping up as a gas-rich, not oil-rich play

http://www.ohio.com/blogs/drilling/ohio-utica-shale-1.291290/ohio-s...

The data appears to show that the Utica shale will be dominated by natural gas more than oil. The oil volumes were lower than had been projected, and that’s likely a disappointment to analysts and energy companies.

"It’s shaping up largely as a natural-gas play," said Tom Stewart, executive vice president of the Ohio Oil and Gas Association. "I’m not disappointed or discouraged by the numbers. … But this is a process that takes time to develop."

It is possible that large quantities of oil may still be found in sections of the Utica shale in Ohio, he said.

Views: 15326

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by gary SWF on June 19, 2013 at 12:52pm

ITG Analysts Map of the Utica....I am told they have no land involved in Utica, rather just do analysis......interesting 

Attachments:
Permalink Reply by ShaleBuster007 on June 19, 2013 at 3:56pm

Isn't this exerpt from Dan Jarvie inline with what the so called experts are telling all of you in the western oil window?

“The Parshall field has proven to be a major field covering more than 3840 km2 (950,000 ac). The North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources projects estimated recoverable oil at 3.331 _ 108 m3 (2.1 billion bbl), representing less than 1.5% of OIP (Johnson, 2009).

However, this area of the Williston Basinwas largely ignored because it was thought that it was too immature for petroleum generation and the Middle Member was too tight to serve as a conduit and reservoir for migrated hydrocarbons. Upper Bakken Shale in this area is classically characterized as immature to earliest oil window thermal maturity (%Roe from Tmax of 0.58–0.65). The lower%Roe fromTmax (0.58) is from whole rock that contains both oil and kerogen, whereas the upper value (0.65% Roe) is from extracted rock, which is only kerogen and more accurate. This also demonstrates that some oil carryover into the Rock-Eval S2 peak also exists, even in the presence of high API gravity oil. When normalized to TOC, extracted oil from S2 retained in the Bakken Shale exceeds 100 mg/g, thereby occupying most of the sorptive sites in the organic matter, meaning free oil in Rock-Eval S1 is largely movable oil (Jarvie et al., 2011).”

Attachments:
Permalink Reply by Jim on June 19, 2013 at 8:05pm

From the Barnett Shale.

Go to page 481 and notice the oil (bbl oil/ac-ft) classified as Immature.  Central Ohio has similar S1, S2 and Ro% values per ODNR Maps. If you come to a page that is titled Multiple Choices, click on the top link.

http://wwgeochem.com/resources/Jarvie+et+al.+AAPG+Bulletin+-+Unconv...

Permalink Reply by ShaleBuster007 on June 19, 2013 at 8:28pm
Jim,
What I gathered from that info is that through all the different windows, nothing in the Barnett compares to the 98 boe/per acre/per foot like the Utica does...am I missing something?
Permalink Reply by Jim on June 19, 2013 at 10:00pm

007,

What I get from this, is that Central Ohio's thermal maturity is classified as Immature and there is so much negative information about the west being to immature for oil.  The Barnett Shale's Immature thermal maturity does have oil potential which (I'm not a geologist) indicate that there is great oil potential for Central Ohio.  Probably not in the Utica, but in other deeper formations.  

Permalink Reply by ShaleBuster007 on June 19, 2013 at 10:35pm
Jim,
Not sure I'm understanding your logic here...the great State of Ohio's most recent Ro% map has 90% of Central Ohio in the mature zone i.e above .60...with most in the .80 and above zone. Jarvie makes it perfectly clear that area's in the Bakken that were once considered "immature" are producing boatloads of oil from "juxtaposed shale" (hybrid shale)...the same type of lithology that the Utica contains.
Attachments:
Permalink Reply by Jim on June 19, 2013 at 11:21pm

007,

Exactly what I mean.  State of Ohio has reliable maps and ITG from another discussion on GMS has Central Ohio listed as 'Immature".   I have often heard that thermal maturity classified as immature would equal no hydrcarbons.  That is obviously not the case. 

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on June 19, 2013 at 4:48pm

I wonder who hired and paid the analysts (ITG) to generate their report and map ?

Could it be............pause............S    A   T   A   N   ? ? ?

How does everyone always put it - follow the money.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on June 20, 2013 at 9:56am

Geez !

Not even one LOL !

Is this one liner too old to get a chuckle already ?

You folks remember SNL's 'Church Lady' skit by Dana Carvey don't you ?

Looks like I'm not going anywhere as a 'stand-up' either !

Permalink Reply by ShaleBuster007 on June 20, 2013 at 10:32am
Jim,
We're on the same page, however I wouldn't put a lot of merrit to ODNR's existing maps from the stand point that the core's and cuttings they used were 20-50 years old. With that being said, since Mr. Wickstrom left ODNR and started his own consulting business he stated in the below slide presentation that old vs. new cutting can have a dramatic effect on the outcome on the results...as much as 178% on TOC and a 547% difference on S1 results...all increasing. Slide 33-35.
Permalink Reply by ShaleBuster007 on June 20, 2013 at 12:58pm

Sorry...file to large to upload. Here are the 3 slides I previously mentioned. Sorry for the quality. If you would like to see the entire presentation just google the below wordage:

Geology and Activity of the Utica-Point Pleasant of Ohio; #10490 (2013)

Attachments:
Permalink Reply by Jim on June 20, 2013 at 3:33pm

007,

WOW!  That's unbelievable information! 

007, you have posted so much good information on this discussion, it is very encougraging for landowners in this part of the State.

Thanks

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service