Analysis of Well Log Data and a 2D Seismic Reflection Survey in t

Wright State University CORE Scholar Browse all Theses and Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 2017 Analysis of Well Log Data and a 2D Seismic Reflection Survey in the Vicinity of London, Ohio Mohammad Mohshin Wright State University Follow this and additional works at: https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/etd_all Part of the Earth Sciences Commons, and the Environmental Sciences Commons Repository Citation Mohshin, Mohammad, "Analysis of Well Log Data and a 2D Seismic Reflection Survey in the Vicinity of London, Ohio" (2017) Browse all Theses and Dissertations 1808 https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/etd_all/1808 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at CORE Scholar It has been accepted for inclusion in Browse all Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of CORE Scholar For more information, please contact library-corescholar@wright.edu Analysis of Well Log Data and a 2D Seismic Reflection Survey in the vicinity of London, Ohio A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science By Mohammad Mohshin B.Sc Engineering, Shah Jalal University of Science & Technology, 2011 2017 Wright State University Wright State University Graduate School Date…04/26/2017…… I HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION BY Mohammad Mohshin ENTITLED Analysis of Well Log Data and a 2D Seismic Reflection Survey in the vicinity of London, Ohio BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Master of Science Ernest C Hauser, Ph.D Thesis Director David F Dominic, Ph.D Chair, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences Committee on Final Examination Ernest C Hauser, Ph.D Doyle R Watts, Ph.D David F Dominic, Ph.D Robert E W Fyffe, Ph.D Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School ABSTRACT Mohshin, Mohammad M.S., Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Wright State University, 2017 Analysis of Well Log Data and a 2D Seismic Reflection Survey in the vicinity of London, Ohio During the summer of 2015 a 2D seismic line (WSU-2015), ~2.3km long, was collected by Wright State University along Watson Road, south of London, Ohio This seismic line is parallel to and approximately ¼ km south of ‘Line 6’ of Mayhew (1969), which is one of six analog, single-fold seismic lines within the area that he studied The focus of this research is to interpret the stratigraphy revealed by the new seismic line, especially to evaluate the existence or otherwise of a fault that Mayhew (1969) inferred in his interpretation An important step in this new interpretation was to construct a synthetic seismogram using sonic and density logs from nearby boreholes Mayhew’s (1969) interpretation of a fault was based largely upon an abrupt change of regional dip and an interpreted diffraction near the top of what he interpreted as the Conasauga Formation However, my interpretation is that the Conasauga Formation is unfaulted but does exhibit significant lateral facies changes The way these changes were expressed on the older, single-fold, analog seismic data may have contributed to Mayhew’s (1969) interpretation of a fault This result raises questions about four other faults that were interpreted by Mayhew (1969) and have been included on the geological map of Ohio iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………… ……… ….vi 1.0 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………… …….1 2.0 OBJECTIVE…………………………………………………………………………….3 3.0 STRATIGRAPHY a) Precambrian Basement……………………….………………………………… .5 b) Cambrian b.i) Mount Simon……………………………………………………… … b.ii) Conasauga …… ……………………………………………………… b.iii) Rome…………………………………………………………………… b.iv) Kerbel……………………………………………………………… …….7 b.v) Knox……………………………………………………………… ………8 c) Ordovician c.i) Wells Creek…………………………………………………………… ….9 c.ii) Black River Group………………………………………… …………… c.iii) Trenton…………………………………………………………………….9 c.iv) Utica Shale……………………………………………………………… 10 c.v) Cincinnatti Group……………………………………… ……………… 10 d) Silurian …………………………………………………………………………….11 4.0 METHODOLOGY a) Parameters for recording WSU-2015………………… ………………………….12 b) Processing Sequence of WSU-2015…………………………………… … ……13 c) Synthetic Seismogram Modeling………………………………………………… 14 5.0 RESULTS a) Comparison of synthetic seismogram to WSU-2015………………………………16 b) Description of formation tops on WSU-2015……………………… ……………22 c) Changes within Conasauga Formation………………… …………………… …24 d) Evaluating evidence for faults…………………………………………………… 27 6.0 CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………… .28 iv REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………… 29 v LIST OF FIGURES Figures Pages Location of the WSU-2015 Line……………………………………………… … Bedrock Geologic map of Ohio…………………………………………… …… Reduced to Pole Magnetic Anomaly Map of Ohio……………………… …….… Extracted Statistical wavelet from WSU-2015 seismic line……………… 15 Computed Impedance and Reflectivity Logs of Madison #7………… ……… 17 Tying Synthetic data to Seismic Domain for Madison #7 Well ………………… 19 Cross Correlation Window before 27 ms time shift ………………… … 20 Cross Correlation Window after time shift…………………………………… …21 Picked Horizons on WSU-2015 line……………………………… ………… ….23 10 Projecting of shot points 97 and 98 from Mayhew’s (1969) seismic line into WSU2015……………………………………………………………………………… 25 11 Two different Conasauga facies A and B in WSU-2015……………… ……… 26 vi Acknowledgement I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisors Dr Ernest Hauser and Dr Doyle R Watts for their continuous support of finalizing my thesis properly This thesis could not get completed without the help of my advisor’s review Dr Watts gave his valuable time to look at my draft sentence by sentence for most part of the thesis He identified a lot of grammatical mistakes in this draft Dr Hauser modified and rewrote the abstract and conclusion I also would like to appreciate another thesis committee member Dr David F Dominic, head of the EES department, for his careful review of the thesis I would like to thank Wright State University, Graduate Council and the EES Department for the two years Teaching Assistantship which lasted from 2014 to 2016 Without this financial support, I could not make my degree achievable Finally, I would like to wish the best to all my dear faculty, staff and students related to the EES Department They all have been very nice to me and their encouragement pushed me to step forward vii Introduction Over several decades, the Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences at Wright State University has acquired seismic data in Ohio and surrounding regions These data have been interpreted to clarify many aspects of subsurface stratigraphy in the region These details are important for correlating formation boundaries and identifying changes in formation thickness In some cases, a processed seismic line can delineate changes of the facies within a formation by changes in seismic wavelet amplitude Also, seismic reflection data can show features such as formation heterogeneity, oil and gas prospects, and structural features such as folds and faults Many faults have been identified and mapped in Ohio Some of those were identified and located using only analog and single-fold seismic reflection data Given the limits of these data, it is useful to re-evaluate these faults with new digital and multi-fold seismic reflection data, especially when considering the importance of nearby faults to the safe operation of waste water injection wells For his Ph.D dissertation at The Ohio State University, Mayhew (1969) collected and analyzed six analog, single-fold seismic lines in west-central Ohio Two of the lines were of poor quality and were not considered However, analysis of the other four lines led to the interpretation of five faults Two of the seismic lines (identified as numbers and 6) crossed through Madison County, Ohio, in an E-W direction and three faults with N-S strike direction were identified on these lines In particular, one of these faults can be evaluated using a new seismic line collected during the summer of 2015 This seismic line (WSU-2015) extends for ~2.3 km along Watson Road, south of London, Ohio (see Fig 1) It is parallel to and approximately ¼ km south of “Line 6” of Mayhew (1969) Details of the field recording and subsequent processing are given in a later section The closest deep well with geophysical well logs available is the Madison #7 (API: 3409720007000), which is located 6.4 km (4 miles) south of the seismic line (see Fig 1) Unfortunately, that well does not have a sonic log The nearest well with both sonic and density logs is the Fayette #11 well, which is 24 km (15 miles) south-east of the seismic line The focus of this study is to evaluate what this new seismic line reveals about the stratigraphy and structure in the region Importantly, it provides a way to re-evaluate the faults previously identified by Mayhew (1969), especially the one he identified on his “Line 6” Figure 5: Image from Hampson-Russell v10.1 showing logs for the Madison #7 well, including the imported Density and GR, transformed sonic (calculated from density log using Reversed Gardner’s equation) and computed impedance & reflectivity Formation tops are also identified This well is 6.4 km (4 miles) away from WSU-2015 line and surface elevation here is 1006 feet 17 Log Correlation and Horizons Picking in Seismic Section Formation tops were identified on the seismic section by comparing the distinctive character of the reflections in both the synthetic and composite traces from Madison #7 The first strong, continuous positive reflection (peak) from the top of the synthetic seismogram (Figure 6) is the top of the Trenton Formation The negative trough below this is interpreted as the Wells Creek Formation Below this, the positive reflection (peak) is the Knox Formation and below that, the distinctively negative response is interpreted to be the top of the Kerbel Formation Conasauga top is interpreted between the peak from the bottom of the Kerbel Formation and the zero crossing beneath it Correlation velocity, correlation time, and drift plots were produced To aid these interpretations, the P-wave velocity of the synthetic is shown in Figure (blue line); the reflection velocity of the seismic composite wavelet is also shown (yellow line) If both velocity curves nearly match, then the horizon picking is considered generally good The correlation time plot shows that the picks are well matched in synthetic seismograms for Madison #7 well Correlation drift indicates the variance when there is a change between the two velocities Figure shows that the synthetic from the well matches the seismic data Hence, the picks for these formation tops appear to be reliable The cross-correlation coefficient before time correlation was 0.060 (Figure 7) After applying a 27 ms time shift, the correlation coefficient rose to 0.550, which is deemed acceptable (Figure 8) These interpretations have some uncertainty The Madison #7 well is 6.4 km (4 miles) south-east of the WSU-2015 seismic line Some heterogeneity within formations is expected over this distance Also, this well did not have sonic log and the equivalent had to be created from the density data For all these reasons, the deepest formation picked was the Conasauga Formation This is reasonable because a focus of this study is to re-evaluate the interpretation of Mayhew (1969) of a fault based on characteristics of the Conasauga Formation 18 Figure 6: Comparison of the synthetic seismogram of the Madison #7 well to a portion of the WSU-2015 seismic line Red traces are composite traces of the seismic line and blue traces are synthetic and produced from well log data convolved with a zero phase wavelet extracted from the seismic line data Seismic Reference Datum (SRD) is 1000 feet Diagram produced using Hampson-Russell software 19 Figure 7: Plot of cross-correlation coefficient versus lag time (ms) Cross-correlation coefficient at zero lag (vertical blue line) is 0.060 This plot suggests that a time shift of 27 ms (vertical red line) should produce the maximum cross-correlation coefficient 20 Figure 8: Plot of cross-correlation coefficient versus lag time (ms) with a time-shift of 27 ms Cross-correlation coefficient at zero lag (vertical blue line) is 0.550 21 b) Description of formation tops on WSU-2015 Figure shows the seismic line, WSU-2015, with formation picks identified The uppermost strong, continuous reflection (peak) at 245 ms two-way travel time (TWTT) is interpreted as the top of Trenton Limestone This pick is based on the sharp increase in acoustical properties expected beneath the shale of the overlying Utica Formation or the Cincinnati Group Below the Trenton, the Black River Group and the Wells Creek Formation are expected to have decreased impedance and appear as a negative trough at 295 ms TWTT Resolution of the Wells Creek Formation in these seismic data is low due to the small thickness of approximately 21.3 meter (70 feet) The next strong continuous reflection (peak) is identified as the top of the Knox Formation, which is about 213 meter (700 feet) thick Top of the Kerbel is interpreted as a negative trough at 385 ms Although, the Top of the Conasauga Formation shows a decrease of density and velocity in the logs (Figure 5), the negative reflection is superimposed by the strong, positive reflection from the bottom of Kerbel Formation above it Hence, the Conasauga top is interpreted between the peak from the bottom of the Kerbel Formation and the zero crossing beneath it at about 395 ms 22 Figure 9: WSU-2015 line with Two Way Travel Time in ms on the vertical axis and CDP number on the horizontal axis (note that east is on the left and west is on the right) Colored lines show interpreted formations, which, from the top are: Trenton, Black River Group, Wells Creek, Knox, Kerbel and Conasauga 23 c) Changes within the Conasauga Formation The Conasauga Formation is known to have various lithofacies in central Ohio, with interpreted depositional environments ranging from tidal to deltaic systems This heterogeneity is expressed in lateral variations of seismic response on WSU-2015, as seen in Figure 10 and Figure 11 Figure 10 shows that beneath the top of the Conasauga on the western half of the seismic line, the response is a negative trough This is expected if shaly facies are present there On the eastern half of the seismic line, the response in the vicinity of 410 ms is a positive peak, suggesting that facies there are less shaly Figure 10 also shows the projected positions of shot points 97 and 98 from Mayhew’s (1969) seismic line #6 These are important because Mayhew (1969) interpreted a fault between these shot points at the level of the Conasauga Figure 11 shows details within a portion of the seismic line corresponding to the position of the fault interpreted by Mayhew (1969) These details indicate that facies within the Conasauga change from type A (less shale) in the vicinity of shot point 97 (east) to type B (more shale) in the vicinity of shot point 98 (west) Facies A spans 1.25 km (0.78 miles) of WSU-2015) and facies B spans 1.1 km (0.68 miles) Importantly, this detailed view shows no evidence of a fault 24 Figure 10: Seismic line WSU-2015 (east on left; west on right) The positions of shot points from the seismic line #6 of Mayhew (1969) are projected onto this line (SP 97 and SP 98) Line #6 is 0.25 km (0.15 mile) north of WSU-2015 The red rectangle focuses attention on the seismic character between these positions at the level of the Conosauga Formation 25 Figure 11: The portion of WSU-2015 at the level of the Conasauga Formation within the red rectangle on Fig 10 The changing seismic character supports the interpretation of two facies within the Conasauga: facies A (more shaly) in the east and facies B (less shaly) in the west Note that facies A underlies Mayhew’s shot point 97 whereas facies B underlies shot point 98 26 d) Evaluating evidence for faults There is no fault identified on the Paleozoic section of the processed seismic data with no evidence of either displacement of reflectors or associated diffractions WSU-2015 line location area is flat and stable shelf Paleozoic reflectors show no dipping Between shot points 97 and 98 of seismic line surveyed by Dr Mayhew and his associates, there was a fault identified which is here being reviewed in this dissertation The dip of the fault was not specified while the throw of the fault was mentioned as 100 feet approximately at the top of Pre-Mount Simon The eastern side of the fault block was suggested as down thrown (Mayhew, 1969) No strong geologic data were provided to substantiate the presence of the fault other than the analog seismic reflection data Within Conasauga lithology, there was a diffraction recorded on line by Mayhew (1969) from the fault location Except the Conasauga formation, at the other two lithology (Trenton and Precambrian Unconformity Surface), the fault was identified based on the regional gradient (Mayhew, 1969) So, the fault was justified primarily based on the diffraction seen within the Conasauga Line (Mayhew, 1969) is approximately quarter km north to WSU-2015 line while assuming Conasauga lithology doesn’t change distinctly at N-S strike direction Shot points 97 and 98 between which the fault was detected by Mayhew (1969), were spaced by 1.4 km approximately and fall into the similar zone parallel to the WSU-2015 line (Figure 10, 11); thus, referring that those shot points (97, 98) should belong to different facies Thereby, a diffraction seen on the recording data of line (Mayhew, 1969) could be due to the response from two different facies 27 Conclusion In this study, seismic line WSU-2015 was collected to explore the presence and nature of a fault previously interpreted by Mayhew (1969 His interpretation was based on single-fold analog seismic data in Madison County, Ohio This new seismic line is parallel to and only 0.25 km south of Mayhew’s line Even so, these data did not reveal such a fault The previous interpretation was primarily based on an interpreted diffraction within the Conasauga Formation on the single-fold seismogram having a large station spacing Analysis of the new seismic data suggests that facies vary laterally within the Conasauga Formation This variation likely confused the interpretation of the earlier single-fold data The Paleozoic stratigraphy (formation tops) of the new seismic line was determined using a synthetic seismogram produced from the Madison #7 (API: 34097200070000) well Using the synthetic seismogram, the well log data were tied to the new seismic data The cross-correlation coefficient was increased from 0.060 to 0.550 by introducing a time shift of 0.27 ms This result is satisfactory for identifying the Paleozoic reflections on the seismic section This new seismic line lies within the area of the Grenville Province east of the trace of the Grenville Front as defined by the regional potential field data and scattered bore holes However, only weak, discontinuous and variably dipping reflections are seen at travel times greater than the base of the Mt Simon (~0.5s TWT) Therefore, the seismic line reveals little about Grenville structures and these were not discussed The results of this study indicate that the other four faults (5 total) interpreted in the previous study (Mayhew, 1969) should also be reexamined 28 References Banjade, B., 2010, Subsurface Facies Analysis of the Cambrian Consauga Formation and Kerbel Formation in East-Central Ohio, MS Thesis, Bowling Green State University, p.1-126 Bergstrom, S.M., and Mitchell, C.E., 1990, The Utica Shale in northern Ohio and its relationships to the Utica Shale of the northern Appalachian basin and lithologically similar rocks in the central Great Lakes region: Appalachian Basin Industrial Associates, v 17, p 2-39 Burchette, T.P., Wright, V.P., 1992, Carbonate Ramp Depositional Systems, Sedimentary Geology, v.79, Issue 1, p 3-57 Calvert, L W., 1962, Sub – Trenton Rocks from Lee County, Virginia to Fayette County, Ohio: Ohio Division of Geological Survey, Report 45 Chuks, E N., 2008, Subsurface Facies Analysis of the Rose Run Sandstone Formation in South Eastern Ohio, MS Thesis, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, p 1-100 Donaldson, A.C., Heald, M.T., Renton, J.J., and Warshauer, S.M., 1975, Depositional environment of Rome trough rocks, Mingo County well, West Virginia [abs.] American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v 59 Donaldson, A.C., Heald, M.T., and Warshauer, S.M., 1988, Cambrian rocks of the Rome trough in West Virginia A core workshop presented at the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Eastern Section meeting, Charleston, West Virginia, September 13, 1988 Charleston, W.Va., Appalachian Geological Society, p 6-18 Drahovzal, J A., Harris, D.C., Wickstrom, L.H., Walker, D., Baranoski, M.T., Keith, B and Furer, L.C., 1992, The East Continent rift basin: a new discovery: Special Report 52, Department of Natural Resources: Indiana Geological Survey, p 1-10 Hansen, M C., 1997, The Geology of Ohio-The Ordovician: Ohio Geology, Fall 1997 29 Hansen, M C., 1998, The geology of Ohio—the Cambrian, ODNR Geofacts, p 1-2 Holland, M S., 1993, Sequence stratigraphy of a carbonate-clastic ramp: The Cincinnatian Series (Upper Ordovician) in its type area: GSA Bulletin, v 105 (3), p 305-322 Huck, W S., 2013, Controls on Natural Fractures in the Upper Lexington Limestone and Point Pleasant Formation: Central-Ohio, MS Thesis, Bowling Green State University, p 1110 Janssens, A., 1973, Stratigraphy of the Cambrian and Lower Ordovician rocks in Ohio Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Division of Geological Survey, Bulletin 64, p 1-200 Mayhew, H G., 1969, Seismic Reflection Study of the Subsurface Structure in Western and Central Ohio, PhD Dissertation, Ohio State University, p 1-75 Ohio Division of Geological Survey, 2006, Bedrock Geologic Map of Ohio: Ohio Division of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey Map BG-1, scale 1: 2,000,000 Patchen, D., Hickman, J., Harris, D., Drahovzal, J., Lake, P., Smith, L., Nyahay, R., Schulze, R., Riley, R., Baranoski, M., Wickstrom, L., Laughrey, C., Kostelnik, J., Harper, J., Avary, K., Bocan, J., Hohn, M., McDowell, R., 2006, Geologic Play Book for Trenton-Black River Appalachian Exploration: Final Report June 28, 2006 Richard, H B., Wolfe, J P and Potter, E P., 1997, Pre-Mount Simon Basins of Western Ohio, in Ojakangas, W R., Dickas, B A and Green, C J., eds., Middle Proterozoic to Cambrian Rifting, Central North America: The Geological Society of America, Special Paper 312, p 243-251 Riley, R.A., Harper, J.A., Baranoski, M.T., Laughrey, C.D., and Carlton, R.W., 1993, Measuring and predicting reservoir heterogeneity in complex deposystems: the Late Cambrian Rose Run Sandstone of eastern Ohio and western Pennsylvanian: Report Prepared for U.S Department of Energy, Contract No DE-AC22-90BC14657, 257 p 30 Riley, R A., Wicks, J., and Thomas, J., 2002, Cambrian-Ordovician Knox Production in Ohio: Three Case Studies of Structural-Stratigraphic Traps American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v.86, 541p Ryder, R.T., Swezey, C.S., Crangle, R.D., Trippi, M.H., 2008, Geologic Cross Section E-E’ through the Appalachian Basin from the Findlay Arch, Wood County, Ohio, to the Valley and Ridge Province, Pendleton County, West Virginia United States Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Map 2985, 53p Saeed, A and Evans, J., 2012, Subsurface Facies Analysis of the Late Cambrian Mt Simon Sandstone in Western Ohio (Midcontinent North America), Open Journal of Geology, Vol No 2, 2012, p 1-167 Tobin, R C., 1982, A model for cyclic deposition in the Cincinnatian Series of southwestern Ohio, northern Kentucky, and southeastern Indiana, Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Univ of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, 483p Wickstrom, L., 2013, Geology and Activity of the Utica-Point Pleasant of Ohio, Search and Discovery Article #10490 (Poster Presentation), AAPG Annual Meeting, April 2007 Wickstrom, L H., Gray, J.D and Stieglitz, R.D., 1992, Stratigraphy, structure, and production history of the Trenton Limestone (Ordovician) and adjacent strata in northwestern Ohio: Ohio Division of Geological Survey Report of Investigations, v.143, p 78 Wickstrom, L., Venteris, E., Harper, J., McDonald, J., Slucher, E and 25 others, 2010, Characterization of geologic sequestration opportunities in the MRCSP region, ODNR Open File Report-1, p 59-66 31 ... seismogram having a large station spacing Analysis of the new seismic data suggests that facies vary laterally within the Conasauga Formation This variation likely confused the interpretation of the... No strong geologic data were provided to substantiate the presence of the fault other than the analog seismic reflection data Within Conasauga lithology, there was a diffraction recorded on line... diffraction near the top of what he interpreted as the Conasauga Formation However, my interpretation is that the Conasauga Formation is unfaulted but does exhibit significant lateral facies changes