Utica\Point Pleasant-are they one and the same?

at a recent odnr unitization hearing a neighbor attended, it was stated that the driller was going to be targeting the point pleasant formation in S\E Ohio. Not being familiar with point pleasant, I started doing some internet searching to bone up on it only to end up befuddled.

Are they two separate or just one and the same?

Views: 5546

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by DESJR on August 21, 2016 at 1:32pm

Mike C unt, your useless content to the discussion was unwanted and unnecessary, but is typical of your hijacking of discussions of this and other threads.

We wont even mention (yes I will) your personal attacks to just about everyone who does not fit into your opinion circle. Instead of just agreeing to disagree, you got to continually drag your personal vendetta from topic to topic, adding nothing on topic, useful, or intelligent, and attack those who do contribute in a positive way to ANY discussion.

You sir are nothing but a twat-waffle barely worth my time to acknowledge a gnat such as yourself. 

you stink.

2kh5ftrhxwsvzPermalink Reply by 2kh5ftrhxwsvz on August 22, 2016 at 12:25am

I do?...you be sniffing

Permalink Reply by st. croix on August 26, 2016 at 7:59am
I bet ole mike is a liberal
Permalink Reply by Snort Widley on August 30, 2016 at 1:44pm
It wasn't till the industry started drilling wells and we're trying explain why northern Ohio wasn't working that geologists started to properly separate the formations. Initial maps lumped it together. Point Pleasant thins to 0' in northern Trumbull.
Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on August 31, 2016 at 5:54am

I see that the Point Pleasant in the Southeastern Quadrant of Ashtabula County (North of Trumbull County) is shown at 300' thick (per ODNR's Final Report Titled: 'The Utica-Point Pleasant Shale Play of Ohio').

Permalink Reply by Snort Widley on August 31, 2016 at 6:47am

I haven't seen the report but if that is what it says then it's wrong.  There is 0' of Point Pleasant in the BP Miller well.  I cored it and logged it.  I know JO.  It might be shock to some but government agencies sometimes make mistakes.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on August 31, 2016 at 6:55am

'......make mistakes.' and / or like other entities and individuals habitually spew boldface / outright lies.

So.......all any of us can do is 'go figure'.

Permalink Reply by Craig Cooper on August 31, 2016 at 8:15am

Joseph,

I believe the PP isopach map indicates ~120' - 160' thickness expected in SE Ashtabula.

Keep in mind that these are regional maps and, generally, are based on limited well (only) control so while they will show valid, reasonable & likely trends / thicknesses, their accuracy beyond the well data will possess a fair amount of uncertainty. In SE Ashtabula, e.g. the report's maps are based on 9 wells only.

So, IMO, you can use the maps to identify reasonable trends and provide general indicators of thicknesses, depths, etc. but not precise results for specific locations beyond the well control.

In addition to the uncertainty associated with sparse well control, uncertainty associated with PP's original depositional environment is also a factor here. It is believed that the PP was originally deposited in shallow water conditions that were often shallow enough to be impacted by storms, waves, et al. For that reason it is entirely possible to, locally, encounter areas that effectively have no PP.

Even so, I would expect to encounter PP at ~the depths & thicknesses indicated by the report's maps at some distance away from the BP well.

As for Snort's comments about government agencies making mistakes, of course that happens but, in this case, I believe the discrepancy is more likely to be due to uncertainties associated with sparse data than with 'true' mistakes.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on September 1, 2016 at 4:02am

Craig / All Readers,

See page 14 of 41 of the ODNR publication I referenced earlier.

It clearly indicates a total of 300' - 350' thickness for the Utica Point Pleasant. 

Since the Point Pleasant (part / portion of the entire 'Interval') is said to lie at it's base; I further interpret from your contribution / cited reference here that it pertains to only the Point Pleasant / PP as 120' - 160' thick in Southeast Ashtabula County (about half of the thickness of the whole combined Utica-Point Pleasant).

I, along with you (I further interpret) believe the referenced ODNR publication to be correct. 

As for 'uncertainties' :  Uncertainties ALWAYS exist in ANY exploratory endeavor as the entire purpose of ANY exploration is to BECOME certain about the realities in the 1st place.  Uncertainty is part of the true nature of the EXPLORATION BEAST so to speak.

All only as I interpret and only IMHOs.

Permalink Reply by Craig Cooper on September 1, 2016 at 4:39am

Joseph,

Apologies, we're looking at two different reports. The Utica Shale Appalachian Basin Exploration Consortium, coordinated by WVU published a more comprehensive & recent report (July 1, 2015) about the Utica & Point Pleasant. It is worthwhile reading through it, IMO. Their page 27 contains both a structure map & isopach map of the Point Pleasant.

WRT the ODNR report you reference, note that the map shown on p. 14 is of the Utica - Point Pleasant; i.e. is a composite map of both formations.

Regardless of which map is viewed, my earlier caveats apply: the sparse well control and original depositional environment(s) mean that "you can use the maps to identify reasonable trends and provide general indicators of thicknesses, depths, etc. but not precise results for specific locations beyond the well control". There is certainly room for encountering a situation like that described by Snort. When that happens, the maps will be / are updated and become more accurate.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on September 1, 2016 at 5:13am

Then we're on the same page as I see it Craig.

Regards,
J-O

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on September 1, 2016 at 6:39am

Also, Craig; where is that well Snort references anyway ?

Do you have any idea ?

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service