1. Mineralogical and TOC Trends in the Ohio Utica Shale Jake Harrington Dr. Julie Sheets, Dr. Dave Cole, Dr. Sue Welch, Mike Murphy, Alex Swift SEMCAL

2. Overview Purpose Sample Selection Methodology Results Analysis The Future D. Cole, SEMCAL, OSU 500 nm

3. 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

4. Ohio Stratigraphy Ohio Geological Survey

5. 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

6. Utica Thickness Ohio Geological Survey

7. 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

8. Location Data

9. Barth and Wood Co. Wells TOC increasing with increasing depth TOC increasing with decreasing depth

10. Location Data

12. Mineralogical Data

13. Mineralogical Trends

15. 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

16. What’s Next? Samples, samples, samples Associating porosity with clay content, TOC Checking trends with another shale gas play

17. 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.