5 Message from the Board 8 Technical Luncheons 18 Ontario Oil …...

$4.00OCTOBER 2016VOLUME 43, ISSUE 09Canadian Publication Mail Contract – 40070050

RETURN UNDELIVERABLE CANADIAN ADDRESSES TO:

CSPG – 110, 333 - 5 Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 3B6

5 Message from the Board

8 Technical Luncheons

18 Ontario Oil and Gas: 2. Cambrian and Ordovician Conventional Plays

REGISTRATION CLOSES OCTOBER 3RDINDIVIDUAL RATESDay-Rate - October 11 (1/2 Day)Day-Rate - October 12Day-Rate - October 13Member Registration Non-Member RegistrationRegular - Professer & StudentRegular - Professer & StudentSpeaker Registration

GROUP RATESBulk Registration Package (3 Registrations)Bulk Registration Package (5 Registrations)

$140.00$280.00$280.00$900.00$950.00$800.00$750.00$750.00

$2,400

$4,000

Location: Banff Conference Centre | Banff, AB

CLASTIC SEDIMENTOLOGY: NEW IDEAS & APPLICATIONS

SESSIONS INCLUDE:Slope and Basin

nnnnn nnnnnnn n nnnn nnnnn

Mud Matterssns snnnn n snsnn nnnn

Gateways to the Seaannnns snnsnna n nanann anaansnnn

Land Ho!nnnnn! annn n nnnnn nnann!a

Beach and Beyonddanna dnnnnnns n dnnnnn nnnn

Our understanding of Clastic Sedimentology has made huge leaps over recent decades. Clastic sediments make up almost 50% of the Earth’s surface, and the study of recent and ancient clastic rocks allows us to

recognize the processes that shape them. The goal of the conference is to showcase the latest thinking and ideas relating to these sediments.

CSPG OFFICE

#110, 333 – 5th Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 3B6 Tel: 403-264-5610 Web: www.cspg.orgPlease visit our website for all tickets sales and event/course registrations Office hours: Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm The CSPG Office is Closed the 1st and 3rd Friday of every month.

OFFICE CONTACTSMembership Inquiries Tel: 403-513-1234 Email: [email protected]

Advertising Inquiries: Kristy Casebeer Tel: 403-513-1233 Email: [email protected]

Sponsorship Opportunities: Lis Bjeld Tel: 403-513-1235 Email: [email protected]

Conference Inquiries: Lis Bjeld Tel: 403-513-1235, Email: [email protected]

CSPG Foundation: Kasandra AmaroTel: 403-513-1234 Email: [email protected] Inquiries: Eric Tang Tel: 403-513-1232 Email: [email protected]

Executive Director: Lis Bjeld Tel: 403-513-1235, Email: [email protected]

EDITORS/AUTHORSJason Frank Co-Editor | [email protected] Hobbs, Co-Editor | [email protected] submit RESERVOIR articles to the CSPG office. Submission deadline is the 23rd day of the month, two months prior to issue date. (e.g., January 23 for the March issue).To publish an article, the CSPG requires digital copies of the document. Text should be in Microsoft Word format and illustrations should be in TIFF format at 300 dpi., at final size.

CSPG COORDINATING EDITOREmma MacPherson, Communications Coordinator Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists Tel: 403-513-1230, [email protected] RESERVOIR is published 11 times per year by the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists. This includes a combined issue for the months of July and August. The purpose of the RESERVOIR is to publicize the Society’s many activities and to promote the geosciences. We look for both technical and non-technical material to publish.

The contents of this publication may not be reproduced either in part or in full without the consent of the publisher. Additional copies of the RESERVOIR are available at the CSPG office.

No official endorsement or sponsorship by the CSPG is implied for any advertisement, insert, or article that appears in the Reservoir unless otherwise noted. All submitted materials are reviewed by the editor. We reserve the right to edit all submissions, including letters to the Editor. Submissions must include your name, address, and membership number (if applicable).The material contained in this publication is intended for informational use only.

While reasonable care has been taken, authors and the CSPG make no guarantees that any of the equations, schematics, or devices discussed will perform as expected or that they will give the desired results. Some information contained herein may be inaccurate or may vary from standard measurements. The CSPG expressly disclaims any and all liability for the acts, omissions, or conduct of any third-party user of information contained in this publication. Under no circumstances shall the CSPG and its officers, directors, employees, and agents be liable for any injury, loss, damage, or expense arising in any manner whatsoever from the acts, omissions, or conduct of any third-party user.

Printed by McAra Printing, Calgary, Alberta.

FRONT COVER

Apricena Quarry, Italy. The Sannicandro limestone is Cretaceous in age and shows a great example of karstification. The vertical circulation pattern of the upper and lower vadose zone is seen on the quarry wall. Terra rossa paleosols have infilled the karst features. Above this, are two major unconformities (Cretaceous and Miocene) which are well exposed. Wayne Laturnas

OCTOBER 2016 – VOLUME 43, ISSUE 09

ARTICLES

Ontario Oil and Gas: 2. Cambrian and Ordovician Conventional Plays ................18

DEPARTMENTS

Message from the Board .............................................................................................. 5

Technical Luncheons ...................................................................................................8

Division Talks ..............................................................................................................12

Rock Shop ....................................................................................................................17

LETTER FROM THE EDITORS:

In the September Reservoir the "Photo of the Month" was incorrectly credited to Ryan Simpson. The photo was taken by Henry Williams and was also selected as the August photo in the 2016 GeoCalendar. We apologize for this oversight.

RESERVOIR ISSUE 09 • OCTOBER 2016 3

Knowledge has TO BE improved, CHALLENGED, AND INCREASED constantly,OR IT vanishes.Peter Drucker

g e o S C O U T | g D C Upstream knowledge solutions

Power your upstream decision-making with customer-driven data, integrated software and services from geoLOGIC.

At geoLOGIC, we help turn raw data into actionable knowledge. That’s a powerful tool to leverage all your decision making, whether it’s at head office or out in the field. From comprehensive oil and gas data to mapping and analysis, we’ve got you covered. Get all the knowledge you need, all in one place with geoLOGIC.

For more on our full suite of decision support tools, visit geoLOGIC.com

MOSAIC COMMUNICATIONS - 403-230-4224 EXT 107

JOB: GEO006 APPROVED BY:

DATE: 06/05/2015 CLIENT:

FILE NAME: GEO006 CSPG 8.375x10.875-Drucker-05June2015-EO-FO ACCT MGR:

FILE SIZE: 8.375x10.875 PROD MGR:

FILE AT: 100% ART DR:

CSPG BOARD

PRESIDENTGreg Lynch • Shell Canada Ltd. [email protected] Tel: 403.384.7704

PRESIDENT ELECTMark Cooper • Sherwood Geoconsulting Ltd. [email protected]

PAST PRESIDENTTony [email protected]

FINANCE DIRECTORScott Leroux • Long Run [email protected] Tel: 403.766.5862

FINANCE DIRECTOR ELECTShelley Leggitt • NAL Resources Ltd. [email protected]

DIRECTORMark [email protected]

DIRECTORJen Russel-Houston • Osum Oil Sands [email protected] Tel: 403.270.4768

DIRECTOREric Street • Jupiter [email protected] Tel: 587.747.2631

DIRECTORJohn Cody • Statoil Canada [email protected]

DIRECTORRyan Lemiski [email protected]

EXECUTIVE DIRECTORLis Bjeld • [email protected] Tel: 403.513.1235

DARWIN FOR PRESIDENT!By Greg Lynch

Charles Darwin (1809-82) was of course the great English naturalist and geologist, whose most famous publication “On the Origin of Species” is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology. If Darwin were around today he would be able to witness the impact of his monumental contributions to science, society, politics, religion, and culture, and also likely take some satisfaction from the broad consensus that has emerged whereby natural selection is recognized as the basic mechanism of evolution. Darwin's scientific discovery is the unifying theory of the life sciences, explaining the diversity of life, and bringing much joy (and employment) to legions of palaeontologists ever since.

I bring up Darwin because in perusing the business literature to prepare this column, I stumbled across a number of articles drawing parallels between Darwinism, evolutionary theory and the ups and downs of the business world. Evolutionary theory for business is seemingly a big deal, and receiving attention through conferences, publications, academia, business people, and granting agencies. It’s been suggested that Darwin would have made a great CEO, and today at many of the world's most successful companies, evolution is standard strategy. You’ve heard it all before, “survival of the fittest”, “natural selection”, “variation/inheritance”, “competition”, tenets of both business and natural sciences.

With this in mind, considering the stresses, challenges, and pressures that we have faced in the past year we have been forced to make changes, adapt, and evolve in order to survive. Having said that, just “surviving” is not what we have in mind, and we are making adjustments which will allow us to continue to “thrive” and occupy new and exciting niches, while solidifying our core program. Some of these adaptations are discussed below.

I am now ten months into my Presidency – yes time truly flies! Some have suggested to me that it was maybe a bit unlucky to step into the Presidency during one of the greatest downturns in the oil and gas sector, and

then look at me as though we are at the end Permian times. Well times are tough for sure, for instance while taking the consumer price index into account our balance sheet for the year is on par with lows of the 1980’s. But we survived that, and I actually gain a sense of achievement in tackling a challenge, doing the best one can do, and seeing it through in tough times. Early in 2015 with strategic plan in hand, and eye to our Mission Statement I realized that my focus for 2016 would be on identifying and maintaining key core activities, while diversifying into new areas, all the while implementing cost cutting measures out of necessity and reducing overhead.

Beginning with overhead reductions, I am happy to announce that CSPG is moving offices. Most members have become familiar with and appreciate our current location in downtown Calgary on Fifth Avenue adjacent to the Petroleum Club; it’s been a convenient centralized spot. The rent however is too expensive., particularly within the context of the current office vacancy rate in Calgary which has recently been as high as 25%. Although still under lease, we have managed to reach a new agreement with our landlord within their portfolio of available spaces, and so we are now moving two blocks down the street to ground floor space at the Aquitaine Tower, 540 5 Ave SW, and so still remain centralized with this new arrangement, at a substantial cost savings. Actually, it’s back to the future as this marks a return to the same location we occupied in 2000-05, so will also be familiar to some. We will be moved by Christmas time, ready for the New Year, and when you come by for information, meetings or technical sessions you will discover certain advantages – which on top of the ground floor storefront includes a larger in-office meeting room, as well as the magnificent 2nd floor CSPG geoLOGIC Classroom with 100 person capacity.

Since the recent downturn in oil & gas the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) estimates that 44,000 direct jobs have

(Continued on page 6...)


MESSAGE FROM THE BOARD

CORPORATE SPONSORS

SAMARIUMCSPG Foundation

DIAMONDAlberta Energy Regulator

TITANIUMgeoLOGIC systems ltd.Tourmaline Oil Corp.AGAT Laboratories

PLATINUMUniveristy of CalgaryWeatherford Canada Partnership

GOLDImperial Oil ResourcesLoring Tarcore Labs Ltd.Progress Energy Ltd.

SILVERRepsol Oil and Gas Canada Inc.MEG Energy Corp.Chinook ConsultingCore LaboratoriesShell Canada Energy

BRONZEGeomodeling Technology Corp.Schlumberger Canada Ltd.Nexen ULCSeitel Canada Ltd.Canada Brokerlink Inc.Husky Energy Inc.Belloy Petroleum ConsultingMJ SystemsCMC Research Institutes, Inc.CSEG FoundationMurphy Oil Company Ltd.Tony CadrinTuya Terra Geo Corp.

As of August 31, 2016

been lost, and that indirect job loss may be on the order of 110,000. There are other scenarios of course, and some debate the numbers, but the totals are frighteningly high in all cases. Indeed the pain of the oil price crash has mostly been expressed through job losses, and many people are going through a particularly tough time in their life, including many CSPG members. Unfortunately, the CSPG office staff has also been affected by this trend; we have had a decrease in staffing from seven to five, with also two additional departures for maternity leave, which leaves us with three remaining core staff members with consulting help to shoulder the load finishing out the year. We are also looking to additional volunteer help to fill the gap.

To assist those currently between jobs, or in transition, we have offered a free one year membership allowing individuals to stay connected, current, and positive. Free courses have been offered in collaboration with affiliate societies, and CSPG Division luncheons provide weekly free access to a whole range of high quality technical presentations where individuals can learn and network. These activities contribute toward critical training or Professional Development Hours (PDH), which will help CSPG members in maintaining their status with APEGA and other professional licensing bodies. Another way to add directly to PDHs, and build your resume would be through volunteering at the CSPG, which can be very rewarding on many levels, including meeting people, learning new skills, or implementing your plan or vision which may benefit the rest of the community. Networking and knowledge sharing is also available through our GeoMatch service which pairs mentors with mentees, along four categories; Young Geoscience Professionals, Women in Geoscience, In-Transition Geoscientists, and Newcomers to Canada. On top of this, additional geoCAFE events have now been planned bringing together mentors, mentees, and is open to all members. geoCAFE also contribute to PDH hours, at no cost. For more information on GeoMatch and geoCAFE go to our website or visit the office.

From feedback in recent CSPG member surveys, it is clear that our publications are highly valued by the members and remain a core priority. However, we have had to address the lack of advertising support for the Reservoir as well as e-newsletter. As a consequence the Board has made the

decision to commence publishing the Reservoir on a bimonthly basis, beginning in January, to reduce our losses. In due course, we would return to our regular publication schedule for the Reservoir once sponsorship can be found and is break-even or profitable in the books. Furthermore, if you joined us in September at the CSPG Technical Luncheon, you noticed the venue change to the Marriott. This venue is better scaled to the current participation levels, and will be our new TL ‘home’ for the winter and spring. Here also we would likely resume with our traditional spot at TELUS once attendance climbs.

The CSPG Christmas Social (BIG Thank You to geoLOGIC for sponsorship) will be December 13th at TELUS, and is being planned as a luncheon event paired for this year with our annual Honorary Address. The combined event will have more impact, and we have a great speaker lined up, Stanford’s Mark Zoback whose talk is entitled “Managing the Earthquake Risks Associated with Oil and Gas Development and CO2 Sequestration”. The planned outreach component for this event will feature the attendance of 100 students from Alberta Universities thanks to the generous sponsorship from the CSPG Foundation; the students will benefit from the opportunity to mingle at the Christmas Social and then take in a cutting-edge presentation – this is an event not to be missed, come out and meet old friends, feel the Christmas cheer, hear a great talk, and meet the students.

Despite the constraints mentioned above and the measures taken, the CSPG fall program is packed with high quality technical content that is accessible and relevant to members. By the time you read this, we will hopefully have hosted a successful Carbon Capture and Sequestration as well as Geothermal workshops in September, including a fieldtrip, we continue to have monthly Technical Luncheon meetings, and not a week goes by without a number of high quality CSPG Division talks and gatherings. Another major event in our calendar for October is of course the upcoming 2016 Gussow conference in Banff entitled “Clastic Sedimentology: New Ideas and Applications” with leading experts coming together to share current research findings and trends. The conference will be relevant to anyone working or exploring in clastic rocks, and provides a convenient training opportunity at a reasonable cost. Furthermore, indications are that the


MESSAGE FROM THE BOARDMESSAGE FROM THE BOARD

6 RESERVOIR ISSUE 09 • OCTOBER 2016

CORPORATE SUPPORTERS

I H SCrescent Point Energy TrustITG Investment ResearchPro Geo ConsultantsBirchcliff Energy Ltd.RIGSAT CommunicationsRPS Energy Canada Ltd.Bannatyne Wealth Advisory GroupCanadian Global Exploration ForumEncanaEV Cam Canada Inc.HalliburtonCabra Consulting Ltd.McDaniel & Associates Consultants Ltd.CAPLConocoPhillipsEarth Signal Processing Ltd.Mount Royal UniversityRichardson GMPSurge Energy Inc.Valeura EnergyCompass Directional ServicesIntegrated Sustainability Consultants Ltd.TAQA North Ltd.Navigator Resource ConsultingBaker Hughes CalgaryRoke Technologies Ltd.Signature Seismic Processing Inc.

As of August 31, 2016

demand to run advanced courses is on the rise, so look to the website or e-newsletter for upcoming offerings.

For this year the CSPG Board, Executive Committee, and Staff have embraced change in a manner which will allow us to evolve and flourish – they comprise an exceptional visionary group. CSPG Members have been engaged, supportive, patient, and have provided input and suggestions. Of course the 300+ volunteers provide the bulk of the total manpower, and all efforts big or small have made a difference. Sponsors are critical partners without whom we could not exist, and as we are started our new fiscal

year2017 this September, our top Partnering sponsors currently are Alberta Energy Regulator, geoLOGIC Systems Ltd., AGAT Laboratories, Tourmaline Oil Corp., the University of Calgary, Weatherford Canada Partnership, and CSPG Foundation. We have an additional 115 sponsors. To all of our sponsors, on behalf of all our members, we would like to express our gratitude.

Also, I can now truly appreciate and understand the wisdom of the nesting habits of past CSPG executives, who have built up reserves in good times, which if properly managed will see us through into the future for a long time to come – thanks to all.


VOLUNTEERS NEEDED!!

CSPG’s mentorship program GeoMatch is looking for volunteers to deliver talks to new-to-Canada geoscientists this fall in Calgary. Topics to be discussed vary and are to

introduce the newcomer geoscientist to the industry and the geology in the WCSB.

Potential topics include the following:

Local geographic coordinates in the provinces and territories

Mineral rights, drilling, exploration, development and EOR’s regulations and applications in Canada

Industry resources: geological data, geological studies and papers, service companies, etc.

Technical topics: the geology of the WCSB, the geology of special resources (oil sands, heavy oil, unconventional)

What it’s like to work for your company: areas, culture, communication style, safety rules, etc.

How the geological industry in Canada works/geological issues in Canada

If you are interested in running a 30-minute session please contact Nawras Akkad, [email protected].

MESSAGE FROM THE BOARD

TECHNICAL LUNCHEON


A subsurface sedimentological analysis of tide-dominated deposits in the bluesky formation (Early cretaceous), Peace River Area, West-central AlbertaSPEAKERDuncan MacKay | Sernius Energy

11:45am Tuesday, October 25, 2016 Marriot Hotel | Kensington Ballroom Calgary, Alberta

Please note: The cut-off date for ticket sales is 1:00 pm, five business days before event [Tuesday, October 18, 2016]. CSPG Member Ticket Price: $39.50 + GST. Non-Member Ticket Price: $47.50 + GST.

Each CSPG Technical Luncheon is 1 APEGA PDH credit. Tickets may be purchased online at www.cspg.org

ABSTRACTEnvironmental reconstructions of ancient tidal deposits commonly have large numbers of subtly different facies because of the complexity of tidal successions. Industry workers of tidally influenced and tide-dominated deposits are familiar with the necessity for relatively large and complex facies schemes in order to adequately interpret depositional processes and environments (e.g., many of the Early Cretaceous heavy oil deposits in Alberta are commonly described with more than 15 facies). However, the criteria used to define the facies and their corresponding subenvironments are commonly inconsistent and lack universal applicability. Defining a standard facies scheme and interpreting depositional processes and detailed depositional

environments from facies in tidal successions is particularly challenging for three reasons: (1) the successions consist of complexly interbedded sandstone and mudstone layers at a wide range of scales, which makes the delineation of simple facies very difficult; (2) spatial and temporal variations in the interplay of tidal, wave and fluvial energy are typically not unique to particular (sub-)environments; and (3) the morphology of tide-dominated environments is complicated, which makes it difficult to link facies and facies successions with the morphological elements and locations within the system.

In the Peace River area, of west-central Alberta, the tidally dominated Bluesky Formation (Cretaceous) is a pervasively heterolithic deposit that provides an ideal core-based case study for examining problems of tidal lithofacies classification and environmental interpretation. Using well logs and core, the Bluesky Formation is divided into two valley-bounded sequences, informally referred to in this study as the “lower Bluesky unit” and the “upper Bluesky unit”. The lower Bluesky unit is composed of tide-dominated deltaic deposits. The upper Bluesky unit is composed of tide-dominated estuarine deposits. The lower Bluesky unit has abundant fluid-mud layers (comprising 5-40% of most facies), many of which are interpreted to have been deposited under conditions of moderate to high suspended-sediment concentration (1-1000 g L-1) and appreciable current speeds (> 0.2 ms-1). The upper Bluesky unit, by contrast, has more sparsely distributed mudstone layers (comprising 0-15% of most facies) deposited primarily during slackwater and under conditions of relatively low suspended-sediment concentrations (< 1 g L-1). Both units are composed predominantly of subtidal and lower intertidal channel-bar and tidal-flat deposits. However, the most seaward deposits of the deltaic lower Bluesky unit contain sandstone-dominated heterolithic delta-front and mouth-bar deposits, whereas the most seaward environments of the estuarine upper Bluesky unit contain monolithic tidal sand-ridge deposits.

A new and robust method for interpreting tidal facies is presented in this study. The approach uses a broadly applicable process-driven facies classification scheme that ensures a manageable number of facies. Recent improvements in the understanding of tidal systems and their facies models are incorporated into the method, most significantly highlighting the importance of mud, as well as the realization that the set of geomorphic elements that comprise tidal systems is relatively small despite their complex lithofacies.

BIOGRAPHYDr. Duncan Mackay completed his B.Sc. at the University of Waterloo and, after working several years full-time in the oil and gas industry, returned to academia at Queen’s University. Duncan completed a Ph.D. under the supervision of Dr. Robert Dalrymple, studying the sedimentology of tidal depositional systems. Duncan has worked in oil and gas industry for Shell Canada, Verano Energy (a Colombian-focused E&P company) and currently is working at Serinus Energy pursuing exploration opportunities in Eastern Europe and North Africa.

Webcast Sponsored by

Dr. Duncan MacKay


TECHNICAL LUNCHEON

Imaging of Micro-and Nano-Scale Wettability & Fluid Distribution in Unconventional Light Oil Reservoirs SPEAKERChris Clarkson | University of Calgary

11:45am Wednesday, November 16th, 2016 Marriot Hotel | Kensington Ballroom Calgary, Alberta

Please note: The cut-off date for ticket sales is 1:00 pm, five business days before event. [Tuesday, November 08, 2016]. CSPG Member Ticket Price: $39.50 + GST. Non-Member Ticket Price: $47.50 + GST.

Each CSPG Technical Luncheon is 1 APEGA PDH credit. Tickets may be purchased online at www.cspg.org

ABSTRACTRock composition and pore structure in unconventional light oil (ULO) reservoirs is known to vary at the micro-/nano-scale, yet fluid-rock interaction is typically only characterized at the macro-scale. While micro-/nano-scale variations in wettability and fluid distribution are expected to have an impact on fluid flow controls such as capillary pressure and relative permeability, techniques for quantifying this variability have remained elusive.

In this study, micro-scale variability in wettability and fluid distribution in a tight oil reservoir (Middle Bakken, Viewfield Saskatchewan) is investigated using an FEI Quanta FEG 250 environmental field emission scanning electron microscope (E-FESEM). Three approaches were identified:

1. Condensation of water through careful control of sample temperature and water vapor pressure in the sample chamber of the microscope. An innovative approach for assessing water droplet contact angle at the micro-scale is then applied to evaluate wettability variation. This technique is only applicable to the evaluation of distilled water wettability.

2. Cryogenically freezing the samples, then imaging of static rock-fluid relationships in preserved core samples, or in samples that have been subjected to prior fluid injection experiments. This technique has shown promise for assessment of preserved core fluid distribution or for providing “snapshots” of fluid distribution during displacement experiments.

3. Selective injection of native or non-native fluids through a micro-injection system, followed by imaging of rock-fluid interactions. This technique offers the greatest potential for selective fluid wettability experiments, including those involving hydraulic fracturing fluids for compatibility evaluation.

This study demonstrates that wettability heterogeneity in tight rock at the micro-scale can be significant, but may be quantified for use in pore-scale modeling of fluid flow using the E-FESEM.

BIOGRAPHYChristopher R. Clarkson is a professor and the AITF Shell/Encana Chair in Unconventional Gas and Light Oil research in the Department of Geoscience and an adjunct professor with the Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Calgary. His work focus in industry was on exploration for and development of unconventional gas (UG) and light oil (ULO) reservoirs. His research focus since coming to U of Calgary in 2009 has been on advanced reservoir characterization methods for UG-ULO, such as rate- and pressure-transient analysis,

flowback analysis, and core analysis. He is also interested in simulation of enhanced recovery processes in UG-ULO, and how these processes can be used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Clarkson leads an industry-sponsored consortium called “Tight Oil Consortium”, focused on these research topics for unconventional light oil reservoirs in Western Canada.

Clarkson holds a Ph.D. degree in geological engineering from the U. of British Columbia, Canada, and is the author of numerous articles in peer-reviewed scientific and engineering journals. Clarkson was an SPE Distinguished Lecturer for the 2009/2010 lecture season, and is the 2016 recipient of the Reservoir Description and Dynamics Award (Canadian Region) from the SPE.

Webcast Sponsored by

Chris Clarkson


The 2017 Mountjoy Conference, sponsored by SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology) and CSPG (Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists), will be held the week of June 26-30, 2017 in Austin, Texas, at the University of Texas Learning Commons and the Bureau of Economic Geology Core facility. With the theme “Characterization and Modeling of Carbonate Pore Systems,” the conference will showcase new approaches and results through oral and poster sessions as well as core workshops and fieldtrips.

The theme is broad, encompassing the:• stratigraphic, facies and diagenetic influences on varied pore systems;• petrographic, geochemical and visualization tools applied to enhanced characterization of pore systems, from nano- and micro-scale, to fractures and cavernous pores; and• new approaches for modeling the origin and distribution of pore systems.

Integrated case studies from academia and industry are of particular interest.

One of the highlights of the 1st Mountjoy meeting in 2015 was the opportunity for individual discussion and interaction between the attendees and the presenters. The 2017 Mountjoy Conference will continue to stress the importance of dedicated time for discussion and one-on-one networking throughout the program.

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE:Paul (Mitch) Harris [email protected] Rankey [email protected] McNeill [email protected] Hsieh [email protected] Arts [email protected] Tinker [email protected] Zahm [email protected]

Join us prior to the Honorary Address Luncheon for the geoLOGIC Holiday Social

Managing the Earthquakes Risk Associated with Oil & Gas Development and CO2 Sequestration

DECEMBER 13TH | TELUS CONVENTION CENTRE

No state has experienced more seismicity associated with oil and gas activities than Oklahoma. We have shown that the increases in

seismicity in Oklahoma are due to very large increases in the volume of produced water being injected into a deep saline aquifer laying

immediately above crystalline basement. In this talk I will review the seismicity associated with oil and gas development in the central and eastern U.S., outline steps that can be taken to significantly

reduce the risks associated with them.

Mark D. Zoback | Professor of Geophysics Stanford University

Member Price: 50.00 Non-Member Price: 55.00 *Price Includes Holiday Social

Wine & Appetizers: Honorary Address Luncheon:

10:30 - 11:30 am 11:30 - 1:00 pm


DIVISION TALKS

STRUCTURAL & INTERNATIONAL DIVISION

Impact Craters in Seismic Data: New Techniques and Past DiscoveriesSPEAKERAmanda Obodovsky

NOTE:This is one project that will be presented in two parts at the Structural Division and the International Division meetings.

Structural Division:October 6th, 2016 | 12:00 pm Schlumberger, Second Floor of the Palliser One Building, 125 9th Ave. Calgary T2G 0P6

International Division:October 19th, 2016 | 12:00 pm Nexen Theatre

STRUCTURAL DIVISION: Impact Craters in Seismic Data: New TechniquesOver the years many sub-surface impact craters have been discovered through acquiring and interpreting seismic data. These cryptoexplosion events occurred a long time ago by meteorite impact and have since been buried deep underground.

A cryptoexplosion event that has been previously discovered and published was used in order to test new seismic processing techniques. The goal of this part of the project has been to gain a better understanding of the complex structure seen in this type of formation.

This particular buried impact structure is located in the Alberta foothills, and is found in Cambrian sediments which are outside the economic zone of interest. This type of complex structure is an ideal candidate for new processing techniques such as diffraction imaging and structure preserving

interpolation, both of which help to resolve more details in structural areas. Both of these new techniques were used and results will be shown that improve the image and our knowledge of the structure.

INTERNATIONAL DIVISION: Past Discoveries of Impact StructuresSince the acquisition of seismic data in the 1960’s, impact structures have been seen in seismic data. While many of these unique structures are known to be located in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin, we also find these buried impact craters around the world.

In this presentation we will embark on a journey around the world and visit some impact structures seen in all corners of the world. From familiar locations such as Viewfield and Steen River located in Canada,

to far off corners of the world like Chixilub in the Yucatan Peninsula, or Tookoonooka in the Australian outback, we will seek a better understanding of what these structures are and the “impact” they have had on the oil and gas industry.

BIOGRAPHYAmanda obtained a B.Sc. Astrophysics in 2008, and an M.Sc. Astronomy (Planetary Science) in 2010 from the University of Western Ontario. Since 2013 she has been working as a seismic processor for Divestco. During this time she presented a poster at GeoConvention looking at impact structures in seismic data; the perfect union of her seismic processing work with her love of astronomy. Currently she is the diffraction imaging expert at Divestco, while working developing her skills as a geophysicist and expanding on her impact craters in seismic data project. She is a member of the CSEG.


DIVISION TALKS

PALAEONTOLOGY DIVISION

Morphology and function of the toothrow in a rodent knockout model and implications for mammalian tooth evolution SPEAKERChelsey Zurowski, University of Calgary

Time: 7:30 pmDate: October 21st 2016 Location: Mount Royal University, Room B108

ABSTRACTTooth morphology is the result of many complex tissue interactions within the developing tooth. Differences in cusp shape, size and orientation provide evidence of phylogeny, as well as alterations in feeding strategy and amount of intraoral processing. Regulatory genes are genes that pattern development, and many of them are active in the developing tooth. Determining and quantifying the effect of these regulatory genes on the morphology and function of mammalian dentition has implications for understanding the mechanisms that drove the amount of dental diversity that we see in both extinct and living mammals. We tested the hypothesis that changes in regulatory gene expression can lead to changes in morphology and function of the toothrow

using a rodent knockout model. These mice were genetically modified so that the regulatory gene bone morphogenetic protein 7 (BMP7) was not expressed in their neural crest cells, a cell type that contributes to elements of the teeth and skull, among many other structures. These BMP7 mutants have distinctive craniofacial morphology, which includes noticeably altered tooth morphology. Mutant molars have extra cusps, mostly on the first upper and lower molars, along with shorter and blunter cusps that are oriented differently on the tooth. To quantify differences in morphology, a landmark set was developed and geometric morphometric methods were applied to 3D models of the right upper and lower toothrows. Significant morphological differences between the control and BMP7 mutant mice were found for both the upper and lower toothrows. Additionally, mutant and control mice were found to have different wear facets, indicating that along with a change in morphology, there was also a change in function. This research shows that changes in the expression of BMP7 can lead to changes in the morphology and function of the toothrow and suggests that

BMP7 could have played a role in structuring the amount of dental diversity that we see in extinct and extant mammals.

BIOGRAPHYAfter receiving her Bachelor of Science Honors in Zoology at the University of Calgary, Chelsey started her Master’s project in the labs of Dr. Jessica Theodor and Dr. Heather Jamniczky. Her main research interest is in the evolution of the form and function of mammalian molars.

INFORMATIONThis event is presented jointly by the Alberta Palaeontological Society, the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Mount Royal University, and the Palaeontology Division of the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists. For details or to present a talk in the future, please contact CSPG Palaeontology Division Chair Jon Noad at [email protected] or APS Coordinator Harold Whittaker at 403-286-0349 or contact [email protected]. Visit the APS website for confirmation of event times and upcoming speakers: http://www.albertapaleo.org/



DIVISION TALKS

GEOMODELING DIVISION

Impact of Plurigaussian Parameter Options on Model Transition StatisticsSPEAKERDavid Garner, TerraMod Consulting, Calgary, [email protected]

CO-AUTHORS R. Mohan Srivastava, FSS Consultants, Toronto Jeffrey Yarus, Halliburton Landmark, Houston Jean-Marc Chautru, Geovariances, Fontainebleau

Time: 12:00 pm Wednesday, October 26, 2016 Husky Conference Room A, 3rd Floor, +30 level, South Tower, 707 8th Ave SW, Calgary, Alberta

ABSTRACTThis material was presented at GEOSTATS2016 - 10th International Geostatistics Congress in Valencia, Spain, September 5-9, 2016. The presentation will be delivered as a tutorial with explanation of a powerful, yet underutilized set of modeling techniques:

The plurigaussian simulation (PGS) method is increasingly being used by practitioners as a means to control the relationships of modeled facies, especially in studies where users want to control transition probabilities between facies. Facies transitions are calculated in wells as part of the statistical inference to set up the PGS workflow. From the transition tables a rule set is selected to define the truncations in the bi-Gaussian model. A variogram model is associated with each truncation set to govern the behavior of the transitions. Local facies proportions influence the probability of a facies transitioning into another. The interaction of combining the truncation rule set, variograms and proportions results in a complex 3D facies model intended to honour the transition table. The following experiment illustrates the relative importance

Figure 1. A slide that shows a graphical summary of vertical transition probabilities. The PGS approach directly gets the benefit of this information because this is an input to that workflow. Transition probabilities are a significant measure of continuity.

Figure 2. Choice of vertical variogram range based on fitting data has ambiguity. Honouring transition statistics in wells is an underutilized way to check model behavior and to optimize these parameters.

(Continued from page 14...)


DIVISION TALKS

of the main steps on the ability to honour the original transition statistics by checking the model outputs. The end goal is for the PGS practitioner to be able to improve the facies transitions in geomodels.

Using 17 wells with four facies each in one stratigraphic zone, a facies transition table is computed for reference. Use of facies proportions are compared for three main approaches: 1) apply a global vertical proportion curve (VPC); 2) combine the 2D mapped proportions from wells over the zones with the global VPC using conditional independence; 3) apply a coarse grid to define sparse local VPC’s from nearby wells followed by kriging proportions along model k-layers. Five initial truncation rule sets are defined and compared. The transition statistics table is interpreted to have a distinct two transition set (bi-Gaussian) behavior with one facies (f2) having no contacts with 2 others (f1 and f3). This allows the experiment to proceed with useful options. An ordered truncated Gaussian rule is used for a brief illustration of the basic method followed by four bi-Gaussian sets, two of which are a rotation of the truncation rules mask. Note variograms are swapped for the rotated sets. The rotation is to aid the illustration of the unique impact of the use of a non-zero correlation between the two underlying Gaussian random functions in each case. Variogram models for select cases are defined with one structure each and then with two structures. Transition statistics are calculated for all of the cases and summarized to help understand the impact of these significant parameters, workflow steps and interactions using the PGS method. Given the growth in use of the plurigaussian facies simulations, this practical comparative study helps give users a better understanding of the effect of the main PGS parameters, and provides guidance on how to make good use of the PGS parameters in order to better control the facies transition statistics in PGS realizations.

BIOGRAPHYDavid Garner is an internationally recognized expert in applied geostatistics

and geomodeling with over 25 major projects worldwide. He has held R&D positions with Halliburton and Statoil, was a geomodeling advisor with Chevron Canada Resources and characterization specialist for ConocoPhillips Canada. He ran TerraMod Consulting for 6 years, specializing in geostatistical studies world-wide and training.

Mr. Garner holds two geophysics degrees, a B.S from Washington and Lee University and an M.S. from Cornell University. In 2006 he received a Citation in Geostatistics from the University of Alberta. He has published over 25 papers and abstracts, was co-editor for Memoir 20, and guest co-editor for the Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology volume 63. Mr. Garner currently serves as a co-chair for the Geomodeling Technical Division of the CSPG. He previously served on the board of directors and was

general chair for the Gussow 2011 and 2014 conferences, “Advances in Applied Geomodeling for Hydrocarbon Reservoirs: Closing the Gap I and II”.

INFORMATIONThere is no charge for the division talk and we welcome non-members of the CSPG. Please bring your lunch. For details or to present a talk in the future, please contact Weishan Ren at [email protected].

Figure 3. This example illustrates an extreme limit of geological patterns through use of the correlation of facies contacts. Based on geological understanding, controls can be imposed and numerically

checked against facies stacking patterns in wells. Useful metrics (MSE, KLD) are to be discussed to help rank and choose key parameters to improve geological model verisimilitude.


DIVISION TALKS

ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION

Hydraulic Fracturing, Knowledge Gaps and Public Policy SPEAKERDr. Jennifer Winter, Ph.D University of Calgary

Time: 12:00 pm Monday October 31, 2016 Centennial Place, West Tower Bow River Room 250-5th Street SW, Calgary, AB

ABSTRACTHydraulic fracturing, or "fracking", is becoming an increasingly important method of producing oil and gas across Canada. With little history of the widespread use of this technique, regulatory approaches are vastly different between provinces: from moratoriums in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, to business as usual in the West. Questions have been raised across the country about the safety of fracking. Multiple sources of information have informed the differing regulatory approaches, including government review panels, environmental assessments and research papers from academia and non-

governmental organizations. This project reviews the existing science and engineering information available and produces an overview of the issues. It will look at the pros and cons of hydraulic fracturing, and present these in the context of policy choices. By providing an objective summary of research already developed throughout North America, we will be in a good position to consider why regulatory authorities and governments have been approving such a wide range of field practices and reporting obligations, and also why they have reached vastly different conclusions on the use of hydraulic fracturing.

BIOGRAPHY

Dr. Jennifer Winter (PhD, Calgary) is an Assistant Professor and Director of the Energy and Environmental Policy Area at The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary. Her research is focused on the effects of government regulation and policy on the development of natural resources and energy, and the consequences and trade-offs of energy development. Jennifer is one of The School’s most prolific authors. She has authored several School of Public Policy research papers, including three examining Canadian energy literacy, two on the safe transportation of crude oil, and a paper on the idea of “green jobs.” Other projects she is currently working

on are the prospects for Canadian LNG exports to Europe, and comparing provincial emission-reduction policies. Jennifer is actively engaged in increasing public understanding of energy and environmental issues, and was recognized for this with a 2014 Young Women in Energy Award. Prior to joining The School of Public Policy, Jennifer worked at Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, researching Canadian labour markets. Dr. Winter also serves on the Future Leaders Board of Directors of the World Petroleum Council Canada.

Dr. Jennifer Winter, Ph.D


Rock Shop

Independant Wellsite ConsultantsHighly Skilled Competent ConsultantsExtensive Industry Experience (18 yrs +)Wellsite & Remote Supervision & GeosteeringAll Types of Conventional & Unconventional WellsCore, Chip Samples & Thin Section StudiesInternational & Domestic

Email: [email protected] Tel: (403) 540-8496

1602 – 5th St N.E.

Calgary, AB. T2E 7W3 Phone: 403-233-7729

www.tihconsulting.com e-mail: [email protected]

T.I.H. Consulting Ltd. Geologic Well-Site

Supervision

Advertise HERE! Contact us today! Email: [email protected]

phone: 403.513.1233

Geological Consulting Services for 35 years Wellsight geological supervision and coring

Geo-steering, Petrographic and Sample Studies Conventional & Heavy Plays | SAGD Projects

Domestic and International Operations

Moh & Associates

Oilfield consultants Ltd. Since 1980

Moh Sahota, B.Sc (Hons), M.Sc. President Ph: 403.263.5440 Email: [email protected]

www.mohandassociates.com

PETROGRAPHY AND THIN-SECTION ANALYSIS / X-RAY

FLUORESCENCE - IN LAB AND PORTABLE / X-RAY DIFFRACTION /

CORE & SAMPLE STUDIES / RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION

LAB & ANALYTICS

[email protected] ProGeoConsultants.com 403-262-9229



TECHNICAL ARTICLE

ONTARIO OIL AND GAS: 2. Cambrian and Ordovician Conventional PlaysDorland, M.1; Colquhoun, I.2; Carter, T.R.2; Phillips, A.3 , Fortner, L.4; Clark, J.5; and Hamilton, D.2 1 Geological consultant, Woodstock, ON 2 Geological consultant, London, ON 3 Clinton-Medina Group Inc., Calgary, AB 4 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, London, ON 5 Ontario Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library, London, ON

IntroductionThis paper is the second of a four-part series. Part 1 summarized the exploration, production and geology of Ontario. This paper describes conventional oil and gas plays in the Cambrian and Ordovician strata of southern Ontario. Part 3 will describe conventional oil and gas plays in the Silurian and Devonian strata. Part 4 will provide a review of the unconventional resource potential of Ontario. The regional Paleozoic geology of southern Ontario was described in Part 1 of this series.

The Paleozoic sedimentary strata of southern Ontario straddle a regional arch, dipping down its flanks into the Michigan and Appalachian basins (Fig.1), forming a natural regional trap. Stratigraphic relationships of Cambrian and Ordovician strata which are the subject of this paper are described in Figure 2.

Ontario’s Cambrian and Ordovician strata have produced over 28 million bbl of oil and 73 bcf of natural gas from reservoirs at depths of less than 1200 metres. They are located in the heart of Canada’s most

populous and industrialized province, with well-developed infrastructure and a big appetite for hydrocarbons. Oil and gas development opportunities still remain, especially in these strata, the oldest, thickest and least explored of Ontario’s Paleozoic sedimentary rocks.

The Cambrian PlayGeology of Cambrian StrataUpper Cambrian siliciclastic and carbonate rocks are the oldest preserved Paleozoic strata in southern Ontario and lie directly on the Precambrian basement. They underlie approximately 48,000 km2 (Bailey and Cochrane, 1984), an area slightly less than 50 per cent of that underlain by younger Paleozoic strata. Thickness of the Cambrian section ranges from approximately 175 metres in the centre of Lake Erie to zero metres at the pinch-out edge (Fig.3).

During Upper Cambrian time, sediments were deposited throughout southern Ontario, onlapping and extending over

the Algonquin Arch as early Paleozoic seas transgressed the Precambrian surface (Johnson et al., 1992). Subsequent exposure and erosion during development of the regional pre-Upper Ordovician Knox Unconformity resulted in the removal of Lower Ordovician and much of the Cambrian strata from southern Ontario (Johnson et al., 1992). In the central part of

Figure 1. Regional geological relationships, showing Paleozoic basins and the Algonquin Arch.

Figure 2: Stratigraphic relations of Ordovician and Cambrian strata of southern Ontario showing oil and gas-bearing intervals. Column headings indicate county names for geographic reference, from west (Michigan Basin) to east (Appalachian Basin) across southern Ontario. Modified from Armstrong and Carter (2010).

Figure 3. Subcrop limits of Cambrian strata in the subsurface of southern Ontario and largest discovered pools. Modified from Trevail (1990), Lazorek and Carter (2008), and Ontario Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library (2015).


TECHNICAL ARTICLE

southern Ontario the Cambrian sediments were completely removed by erosion over the crest of the Algonquin Arch. The distribution of Cambrian strata around the edges of the Algonquin Arch with successively younger units overlapping one another to lie directly on the Precambrian basement indicates that the arch had a configuration very similar to the present during Upper Cambrian time (Sanford and Quillian,1959; Bailey, 2005).

West of about longitude 810, or the approximate location of London, Ontario, the basal sedimentary rocks consist of mainly quartz sandstone (Mount Simon Formation); overlain by sandstone, sandy and shaly dolomite (Eau Claire Formation); and then buff to grey-buff dolomite (Trempealeau Formation). East of about longitude 810, the basal sedimentary rocks consist of arkose and quartz sandstone (Potsdam Formation); overlain by dolomite, sandy dolomite, and sandstone (Theresa Formation); and then light buff, crystalline dolomite (Little Falls Formation). As the Cambrian strata approaches its pinch-out edge on the Algonquin Arch these units become less distinct and the formation terminology becomes less appropriate (Bailey and Cochrane, 1984), with formation top picks recorded as unsubdivided Cambrian in the Ontario petroleum well database

Geology of the Upper Ordovician Shadow Lake FormationIn the Early Ordovician, tropical seas withdrew from southern Ontario and a prolonged period of exposure and erosion of the underlying Cambrian strata down to the Precambrian basement occurred. This is referred to as the “Knox Unconformity” (Bailey and Cochrane, 1984; Coniglio et al., 1990). The Shadow Lake Formation is the basal unit of the Upper Ordovician Black River Group (Fig. 2). It represents the onset of sedimentation following the Knox Unconformity as the Upper Ordovician sea transgressed over the Precambrian/Cambrian erosional surface and washed the weathered detritus into paleotopographic depressions (Coniglio et al., 1990).

Lithology and thickness of the Shadow Lake Formation is variable due to local variations in sediment source, and paleotopographic

relief of the underlying Precambrian/Cambrian erosional surface (Sanford 1961; Trevail 1990). The depositional environment was nearshore marine, with facies including a mixture of regolith, aeolian, alluvial and shoreline deposits reworked by the transgression (Coniglio et al., 1990). Sediment was primarily derived from eroded Cambrian and Precambrian rocks. The Shadow Lake Formation is 2 to 3 metres thick throughout most of southern Ontario, locally reaching a maximum of 15 metres (Armstrong and Carter, 2010).

In the crestal portions of the Algonquin Arch where the Cambrian sandstone has been removed by erosion, the Shadow Lake Formation rests directly on the Precambrian basement (Fig. 3). The Shadow Lake Formation generally consists of a lower coarse sandstone grading up into interbedded silty or dolomitic or calcareous sandstone overlain by sandy and silty shale and shale with minor thin limestone or dolostone interbeds. The sandstones are highly variable in grain size, sorting, and cementation and may be locally porous and permeable. The overlying shales are often bright green with floating quartz sand grains and thin interbeds of greenish and grey thin limestone and dolostone (Caley and Liberty, 1950; Burgess, 1962; Liberty, 1955; Williams and Telford, 1986; Trevail, 1990; Coniglio et al, 1990; Armstrong and Carter, 2010).

Cambrian Reservoir Trap and SealReservoir rocks are porous sandstone and sandy dolostone of Cambrian or Shadow Lake Formations. Traps are fault-bounded structures as in the Clearville Pool, stratigraphic pinch-out as in the Gobles and Innerkip pools, or a combination of structural faulting and stratigraphic pinch-out as in the Willey Pool (Fig.4). Gross pay thickness is up to 9 metres with average porosity of 9 to 12% and permeability ranging from 1 to 300 mD. Reservoir depths range from 700 to 1,200 metres (Bailey and Cochrane, 1984). Hydrocarbon migration into the traps occurred regionally through the Cambrian sandstone and a porous alteration zone in the uppermost Precambrian (Sanford et al., 1985; Harper et al., 1995).

Vertical displacement along normal

faults has created structural traps by juxtaposition of porous Cambrian and Shadow Lake Formation strata against non-permeable lithologies (see Fig.4). At the Clearville Pool the reservoir is formed by porous sandstone and sandy dolostone in the crest of a tilted horst block sealed by overlying shales of the Shadow Lake Formation and laterally by non-porous Gull River Formation limestones. The Willey Field contains several uplifted structural fault blocks trapping oil in the Cambrian similar to the Clearville Pool, but with some stratigraphic influence as it is positioned near the Cambrian pinch-out edge. Some of the overlying Shadow Lake Formation sediments are also porous sandstones and form part of the reservoir. Shale of the upper Shadow Lake Formation provides the top seal.

The Arthur Pool located 65 kilometres north of the Innerkip Pool has produced 1.3 BCF of gas from porous strata at the Precambrian-Paleozoic unconformity. The reservoir geology is poorly understood due to a lack of records, but is believed to be comprised of porous Shadow Lake and Cambrian sandstones which are overlain by Shadow Lake Formation shale or Gull River Formation limestone.

Stratigraphic traps occur along the updip pinch-out edge of porous Cambrian and/or Shadow Lake Formation strata against the flanks of the Algonquin Arch (Fig. 3, 4). All

Figure 4. Figure 4. Cambrian play conceptual model. Top, structural trap associated with faulting as at the Clearville and Willey pools. Bottom, pinch-out style trap along Algonquin Arch as at Innerkip and Gobles pools. Modified from Bailey Geological Services Ltd., Cochrane, (1984) and Lazorek and Carter (2008).



TECHNICAL ARTICLE

commercial oil and gas pools discovered to date are on the Appalachian Basin side of the arch.

The stratigraphic trap containing the Gobles and Innerkip pools is formed by porous sandstones preserved within a subtle basement low that extends 40 kilometres north of the regional Cambrian pinch-out edge on the southern flank of the arch and averages 8 km in width. Carter et al (1996) attribute the basement low to the effects of fault displacements on the Precambrian surface. Shales and sandy shales of the Shadow Lake Formation provide the top seal and create conditions favorable for stratigraphic entrapment of hydrocarbons. The reservoir sandstone ranges from only a few metres to over 9 metres in thickness. Bailey (2003) has proposed that a significant portion of the gas-producing sandstones in the Innerkip Pool are not Cambrian but should be assigned to the Shadow Lake Formation, which is a major revelation impacting future exploration of Innerkip-style reservoirs.

The Gobles Pool was discovered in February, 1960 by the Paris Petroleum #1 well (Fig. 5). The discovery well was cable tool drilled to 2917 feet and encountered 4 bbl/day of oil and associated gas in the Cambrian at 2882-2899 feet. In July, 1960 the Robert McMaster & Sons Gobles #2 well drilled to the southwest (downdip) found 12 bbl/day oil with some gas. Figures 6, 7, and 8 show a log, core description, and thin section photomicrographs for type well Kewanee Gobles #37 in the Gobles Pool.

Cambrian Reservoir CharacteristicsCore analyses show average porosity of 9.2 to 11.8 % to a maximum of 20 % and average permeability of 1 to 67 mD and locally up to 300 mD for the major pools (Bailey and Cochrane, 1984). Within the known reservoirs the Cambrian units are generally porous and permeable throughout but mixed lithologies cause large fluctuations in porosity and permeability values. The presence of mixed grain sizes, filling of pores by clays, and cementation, has resulted in reduction of primary inter-particle porosity and permeability in the siliciclastic units. In the Innerkip pool primary porosity has been substantially reduced by authigenic and diagenetic

illite and chlorite clays and extensive quartz and K-feldspar overgrowths, and calcite, dolomite and anhydrite cements (Dorland, 2001). Formation of secondary intercrystalline porosity and permeability by dolomitization has occurred in the carbonate units, which also has been reduced by clays and cements.

Cambrian Exploration and Production HistoryExploration targeting the Cambrian and/or Shadow Lake Formation in southern Ontario has resulted in 20 discoveries. The first Cambrian gas reservoir, the Electric

Figure 5. Gobles Pool with oil leg in green and the type well location shown. Modified from Bailey and Cochrane (1984).

Figure 6. Interpreted gamma-ray neutron log for type well Kewanee Gobles #37. Core location is shown in black. TSGC-4 shows the location of the thin section photomicrographs.

Figure 7. Core description/log for type well Kewanee Gobles #37. Core #1 cut 22.5’ from 2892-2914.5’ and recovered 22’.

Figure 8. Thin section photos for core sample TSGC #4. (A) Large round quartz grains cemented by calcite (red) overlying granite/gneiss lithoclast. PPL. (B) Enlarged view from panel A showing calcite cement between quartz grains. PPL. (C) Same view as panel B but with cross polarized light. (D) General view of granite/gneiss lithoclast(?) from lower part of thin section.


TECHNICAL ARTICLE

pool, was discovered in 1948, followed by the Innerkip Pool in 1961. The Innerkip Pool is the largest gas pool in the play, with production starting in 1966. After 22 years of production only 6 wells were producing with cumulative gas production of 3.4 Bcf to the end of 1988. An additional 98 wells were drilled from 1989 to 2004 after discovery of the main sand channel to the north and north east of the initial producing area. Over 89 per cent of the Cambrian gas production in Ontario has been derived from the Innerkip gas pool, with cumulative production of 27.6 Bcf to the end of 2015.

Oil was first discovered in the Cambrian in 1923 but did not result in any commercial production. Discovery of the Gobles Pool (1.6 mmbo and 1.1 bcf gas) in 1960 stimulated exploration for Cambrian oil reservoirs, and was quickly followed by discovery of the Clearville Pool (1.5 mmbo) in 1962 and the Willey Pool (2.1 mmbo) in 1965. Over 93 per cent of the Cambrian oil production has been derived from these three pools, with cumulative production of over 5 million bbl to the end of 2015. Initial potential per well for Cambrian oil production is difficult to determine with certainty due to lack of records, but Bailey and Cochrane (1984) report individual wells producing up to 166 bbl/day from the Willey Pool.

Cambrian Exploration PotentialThe Cambrian play is largely underdeveloped with considerable potential for additional discoveries. Prospective areas could be any place where porous clastics are present at the Precambrian/Paleozoic unconformity since the unconformity acted as a major fluid conduit throughout its history (Sanford et al., 1985; Harper et al., 1995). Only 1150 wells have tested Cambrian targets in southern Ontario. Potential resources for the Cambrian play were estimated by Bailey and Cochrane (1984) at 131.3 million bbl oil and 222 Bcf of natural gas.

The relatively new concept that the Innerkip Pool produces gas from Shadow Lake Formation strata in addition to Cambrian is significant for future exploration of this type of reservoir. Now, exploration for another Innerkip or Gobles type reservoir is

not confined to areas where the Cambrian pinches out against the Precambrian basement. There are large prospective areas beyond the Cambrian subcrop pinch-out edge where the Shadow Lake Formation is present and where there has been limited exploration.

The Arthur gas pool is located on top of the Algonquin Arch, 65 kilometres north of the Innerkip pool. Well records are incomplete but production appears to be derived principally from the Shadow Lake Formation. This is an example of a reservoir at the unconformity far removed from Cambrian strata. The area north of the Innerkip Gas Pool has very few wells, but an intriguing number of gas shows in the Shadow Lake Formation. The untested areas could easily fit another Innerkip gas or Gobles pool. It is surprising that no known recent exploration effort has been directed at this play. Also, it is important to note that there is no water leg associated with the Innerkip, Gobles or Arthur pools so it should be easier to find economic reserves in this play.

Upper Ordovician Trenton-Black River Oil and Gas PlayAt the time of deposition of the regional limestones of the Black River and Trenton Groups there was no discernible expression of the Algonquin Arch in southern Ontario. The Black River Group was deposited on a carbonate ramp, shallowing gradationally from southwest to northeast with corresponding thinning of the group from a maximum of nearly 150 metres near Windsor, to zero at the erosional edge in eastern Ontario (Fig.9). The overlying Trenton Group is more complex, averaging 150 metres in thickness in most of the subsurface of southern Ontario (Fig.10). Where not dolomitized, these rocks have some of the lowest measured hydraulic conductivities of all the Paleozoic strata in southern Ontario. These strata occur 850 metres or more in the subsurface in the Windsor area, and subcrop east of Toronto.

The Trenton-Black River Group carbonates were deposited on a storm-dominated, shallow crinoidal ramp (Kobluk and Brookfield 1982). The depositional sequences represent deepening-upwards cycles of shallow marine sedimentation

(Aigner, 1985). They are overlain by thick shales of the Blue Mountain, Georgian Bay and Queenston Formations, and locally by shaly carbonates of the Collingwood Member of the Cobourg Formation (Fig.2), forming a regional seal for hydrocarbon migration and a barrier for water movement. Beneath Lake Erie, the combined thickness of these formations exceeds 500 metres, thinning from south to north and averaging 200 to 300 metres in most of southern Ontario. Both the Georgian Bay Formation and Queenston Formation contain interbeds of limestone.

The lowermost 10 to 50 metres of the Blue Mountain Formation, immediately overlying the Trenton Group, is dark grey to black and contains elevated levels of organic matter. Together with the underlying Collingwood, this Utica-equivalent interval is a potential unconventional source of oil and natural gas, to be discussed in the last paper of this series.

Geology of the Black River GroupThe Shadow Lake Formation, already described above, is the basal unit of the Black River Group, and represents the initiation of deposition of Upper Ordovician sediments in southern Ontario following a prolonged period of exposure and erosion represented by the Knox Unconformity. It is conformably and gradationally overlain by very fine-grained lime mudstones of the Gull River Formation in most of southern Ontario (Fig.2). There is commonly a thin, regionally-occurring bed of coarse dolomite in the Gull River, which may contain oil or natural gas, sometimes in commercial quantities. The Gull River coarsens upwards into the Coboconk Formation, which consists of fine to medium grained, bioturbated, fossiliferous limestones; mostly peloidal wackestones, packstones and grainstones.

Geology of the Trenton GroupThe bioclastic limestones of the Coboconk are sharply overlain by the shalier limestones of the Kirkfield Formation, which grade upwards into fossiliferous bioclastic limestones comprised of wackestones, packstones and grainstones. The overlying Sherman Fall Formation consists of a basal facies of shaly lime mudstone to wackestones grading upwards



TECHNICAL ARTICLE

into bioclastic lime grainstones. This upper unit is commonly termed the Sherman Fall “fragmental” by petroleum geologists. The uppermost unit of the Trenton Group is the Cobourg Formation, comprised of fossiliferous and argillaceous nodular limestone, with organic-rich partings. In the deep subsurface the uppermost few metres of the Cobourg Formation is dolomitized and is informally referred to as the “cap dolomite” (Armstrong and Carter, 2010).

Trenton-Black River ReservoirsThese structurally controlled oil fields are interpreted to have formed within a regional fault and fracture network that provided conduits for fluids that dolomitized the regional limestone and created the reservoirs. They are commonly referred to as hydrothermal dolomite (HTD) reservoirs (Hurley and Budros, 1990, Davies and Smith, 2006). A later pulse of hydrothermal fluid assisted with hydrocarbon maturation, migration and emplacement. The resulting linear fields have dimensions that range from 300 to 1000 metres wide and up to 15 km long in Ontario, and 0.5-2 km wide and 60 km long in the Albion-Scipio, Stoney Point and Napoleon oil fields within central and southeast Michigan. Similar reservoirs have been discovered in New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia in the Appalachian Basin.

These narrow reservoirs are expressed on seismic sections as a sag or structural low, which coincides with those areas of the reservoir that are well fractured, dolomitized and contain reservoir quality rock (Fig.12, 13). These structures have been interpreted as graben-like features created

by bounding faults, however an alternative explanation includes regional fault and fracture patterns with accompanying shears created by wrench-faulting during several phases of extensional tectonics in the Taconic and Alleghanian orogenies. The dominant NW-SE trends are attributed to wrench faulting associated with the Pennsylvanian Appalachian orogeny, overprinting the earlier fault and fracture patterns within southeastern Michigan and southern Ontario.

Reservoir development within the Trenton-Black River carbonates is usually within dolomitized grainstones that contain high matrix porosities, surrounded by fractured and dolomitized mudstones, wackestones and packstones (Fig.11). The reservoirs are laterally-extensive vertical “chimneys” of dolomite created by pervasive dolomitization with laterally extensive secondary porosity, along a linear trend of dolomite chimneys. Dolomite chimneys were created by hydrothermal dolomitization within negative flower structures and localized by en-echelon shearing along a main fault trace (Figure 12;). Less intense fracturing and dolomitization within relatively bioclastic-poor sediments created isolated dolomite chimneys or pod-like reservoir development.

For a regional comparison, in southern Ontario, reservoir facies are best developed within the bioclastic grainstones of the Sherman Fall Formation and within the Coboconk Formation, whereas fractured mudstones and wackestones with accompanying vugular porosity

Figure 9. Isopach map (metres) of the Black River Group. Data from Ontario Geological Survey (2011).

Figure 10. Isopach (metres) of the Trenton Group. Data from Ontario Geological Survey (2011).

Figure 11. Typical dolomite fabric in a Trenton-Black River reservoir.

Figure 12. Isometric representation of a pull-apart basin (modified from Dooley and McClay, 1997) showing sag or “graben” structure.

Figure 13. Conceptual model of a Trenton-Black River reservoir. Modified from Colquhoun (2012).


TECHNICAL ARTICLE

characterizes reservoir development of Albion-Scipio, Stoney Point and Napoleon fields in central and southeastern Michigan.

Trapped hydrocarbons may have been sourced from the overlying Upper Ordovician shales and migrated at depth along fractures into the Cobourg and Sherman Fall Formations (Sanford 1961). Alternatively, the hydrocarbons originated from the Ordovician carbonate rocks themselves. The Cobourg Formation contains up to 3% organic carbon content and has been exposed to high enough temperatures to generate hydrocarbons (Colquhoun 1991; Obermajer et al, 1996, 1999). Trapping mechanisms include the overlying Upper Ordovician shales (200-300 m thick), a thin cap dolostone atop the Cobourg (1-5m thick), and tight regional limestones along the lateral edges of the reservoirs. Hydrothermal dolomite textures may also provide local permeability barriers between shear planes within individual dolomite chimneys.

Reservoir characteristicsThere are a total of 71 Trenton-Black River oil and gas pools in southern Ontario with recorded production. Most pools are oil reservoirs that contain solution gas but there are several gas pools as well. The top 14 oil pools (upper 20%) produced between 700,000 bbl and 6.2 million bbl of oil. Initial production rates as high as 500 bbl/day have been were reported. The top 19 gas pools (upper 25%), including solution gas production and gas producing fields, range between 370 mmcf and 14.1 bcf gas.

Core analyses demonstrate wide ranges in matrix porosity from 3 to 15% with accompanying vugular and fracture porosity, which can range from 18% to >45% for large open fractures. Permeability estimates range between tens and several hundred millidarcies within specific portions of the reservoir and as high as 10 Darcies when large open fractures are encountered, which greatly enhance initial productivity rates. Homogeneous reservoir quality grainstones exhibit average porosities of 8% with an average permeability of 150 millidarcies. Well productivity is variable depending upon the number of open fractures encountered by the well bore, which increases local permeability.

Oil is sweet, 40o API and accompanied by solution gas. Typical water saturation within normal hydrodynamic regimes for Trenton-Black River reservoirs vary between 15 and 40%, irreducible water saturation commonly ranges between 15 and 25%. These reservoirs may contain prolific water production located much higher within the stratigraphic column, sometimes accompanied by small to large quantities of oil depending on location of the well within the structure. Typical initial decline rates for a producing well are estimated at 15-25% per year (Fig.14).

Dolomitization, hydrothermal alteration and emplacement of hydrocarbonsThe controlling structures of the dolomite chimneys are interpreted to be wrench faults from extensional tectonics. Within southwestern Ontario extensional faulting occurred as early as upper Ordovician and was active up to middle Devonian time, during both the Taconic and Appalachian orogenies.

The first stage of reservoir development included dolomitization of the host limestone and creation of secondary porosity and permeability, or at least a major part of it, by warm basinal fluids. These warm fluids migrated through the Cambrian sandstones by hydrostatic pressures influenced by basin-wide circulation of brines, up along faults and fractures into the overlying carbonates and progressively dolomitized the limestone. Dolomitization also occurred along preferred pathways within porous bioclastic-rich carbonates. Timing on the dolomitization event is likely prior to maximum subsidence of the basin (>300 Ma), following initial development of the pull-apart structures during upper Ordovician time ~440 Ma, and predating hydrocarbon migration (Colquhoun, 1991).

Subsequent to dolomitization, further alteration by hydrothermal fluids resulted in stacked reservoirs in some places and segregated reservoirs in others. The timing of this event was estimated using Lopatin basin modeling techniques to be ~250 Ma or during late Permian (Colquhoun 1991). Several tectonic events occurred over a short time frame including a structural overprinting event during Pennsylvanian time.

During these later stages of tectonic adjustment, the diagenetic seal became partially breached and rejuvenated and/or newly formed faults and fractures developed lower within the structures allowing formation waters and hydrocarbons to migrate into higher stratigraphic positions. In several trends the interior of the reservoir became tight from over-dolomitization and the hydrocarbons migrated to a higher stratigraphic position. The timing of this last stage is currently unknown but occurred during unloading and cooling of the basin.

History of the Trenton-Black River PlayTrenton and Black River Group carbonates of the Michigan and Appalachian basins have been prolific oil and gas producers since the late 1800's with the discovery of gas in the Trenton Group carbonates east of Findlay, Ohio and oil outside of Lima, Ohio in 1894 and 1895, respectively. The giant Lima-Indiana field that was developed following these discoveries produced more than 500,000 bbl of oil and approximately 1 Tcf of gas during the late 1800's and into the early 1900's (Keith and Wickstrom, 1992; Caprarotta et al. 1988) and was the first giant oil and gas field discovered in North America. Approximately 100,000 wells have been drilled in this field. The reservoir is a stratigraphic trap in regional dolomites on the crest of the Cincinnati and Findlay arches.

Discovery of the first oil and gas reservoir demonstrably linked to faulting and dolomitization did not occur until 1917 with completion of the first gas well in the Dover oil and gas pool in southern Ontario. The next big discovery did not occur until 1936, when the first well was drilled in the

Figure 14: Production profile for a typical Trenton-Black River oil well.



TECHNICAL ARTICLE

Deerfield oil pool located in Monroe County in Michigan. Deerfield is located along the Lucas-Monroe monocline that is an extension of the Bowling Green fault zone.

The Albion-Scipio field, the best-known pool of the Trenton-Black River HTD play type, was discovered in 1957, largely by serendipity. The pool has been developed by 734 oil wells with cumulative production of approximately 150 million bbl of oil (American Oil&Gas Historical Society, 2016). The first wells in the field were completed as flowing wells with initial potential of hundreds to thousands of bbl per day.

During the 1950's and 1960's a number of relatively minor discoveries were made in Ontario. The modern phase of exploration and development occurred in 1983-2004 with 39 new pool discoveries containing 93% of the oil reserves and 62% of the natural gas. The largest of the Ontario Trenton-Black River pools found in this time was the Goldsmith-Lakeshore field (Fig. 15) with cumulative production of 6.2 million bbl oil. The field is 15 km long and 300 to 1000 metres in width, extending beneath Lake Erie where it has been accessed by horizontal wells drilled from onshore locations. In 2009 the Napoleon pool was discovered in Michigan, and to date is the last significant discovery .

Exploration methods and success ratesTraditional exploration methods include 2-D seismic used to identify a structural low or sag feature atop the Trenton. Over the years operators began using more

robust seismic methods such as Mega Bin 3-D seismic surveys or 2-D swaths, which simulates a 3-D survey but for less cost. The 3-D seismic survey allows the operator to more easily identify the dolomite chimney characteristics within the hydrothermal dolomite play.

Much of southern Ontario between London and Niagara Falls has not been evaluated for potential structures using seismic or drilling of deep wells. It is recommended to begin exploration using high resolution magnetic surveys (HRAM) and lineament analysis to identify major fault trends, followed with several 2-D seismic lines to confirm faults and define a linear trend. A conventional exploratory well should be drilled to confirm the location of productive intervals. Successful exploratory drilling should be followed up with a 3-D seismic survey over the entire linear trend to guide development drilling.

Drilling in the Ordovician play by Consumers' Gas, Pembina Exploration, Ram Petroleum and Paragon Petroleum Corporation (and its predecessors) during the 80's and '90's claimed a 67% success rate for exploration wells and over 80% for development wells. Their successor, Talisman Energy, posted development success numbers above 90%. Dundee Energy LLP acquired Talisman’s Ontario assets in 2010 and is the current operator of the majority of the Trenton-Black River oil and gas pools in southern Ontario.

Trenton-Black River Exploration PotentialThe Ordovician play area occupies approximately 120,000 km2. Potential recoverable resources are estimated to be 40 million bbl of oil, of which 23 million bbl has been produced. Potential gas resources are estimated to 281 bcf, with only 41 bcf recovered (Golder Associates 2005). Total number of wells drilled for Ordovician oil and gas targets in SW Ontario are estimated at ~1700. There has been no recent exploration activity in this play in Ontario.

Trenton-Black River oil and gas pools are prolific producers. Very large parts of southern Ontario have never been explored for this type of reservoir. The regional occurrence of small gas pools and

shows of natural gas indicate significant undiscovered potential.

SummaryLike most plays in Ontario the Cambrian and Ordovician plays have a long history of successful exploitation and have made significant contributions to Ontario’s production of oil and natural gas. Estimates of potential remaining resources suggest there are still significant discoveries to be made, especially when oil and gas prices have recovered. The size and quality of the discovered pools and the large unexplored area should provide sufficient incentive for additional exploration, and the excellent data resources available at the Ontario Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library should reduce the risk.

ReferencesAigner, T. (1985). Storm depositional systems: Dynamic stratigraphy in modern and ancient shallow marine sequences; Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences, 3, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 174p.

American Oil&Gas Historical Society, 2016. Michigan’s “Golden Gulch” oil, accessed at http://aoghs.org/petroleum-pioneers/michigan-oil-and-gas/

Armstrong, D.A., and Carter, T.R., 2010. The subsurface Paleozoic stratigraphy of southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 7, 301 p.

Bailey Geological Services, and Cochrane, R.O. 1984 Evaluation of the conventional and potential oil and gas reserves of the Cambrian of Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey Open File Report 5499, 72 p.

Bailey, S.M.B. 2003. A geological model for the Innerkip gas pool, Oxford County, Blandford/Blenheim townships, Ontario; Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference of the Ontario Petroleum Institute, 30p.

Bailey, S.M.B. 2005. A comparison of Cambrian reservoir rocks onlapping the S.E. and N.W. sides of the Algonquin Arch in SW Ontario: A regional correlation project; Proceedings of the 44th Annual Conference of the Ontario Petroleum Institute, 20p.

Burgess, R.J. 1962. Cambrian hydrocarbon

Figure 15: Goldsmith-Lakeshore oil field in Romney Twp., Kent County and Mersea Twp., Essex County (Golder Associates, 2005)

traps on the north-west rim of the Appalachian Basin; Proceedings of the 1st Annual Conference of the Ontario Petroleum Institute, 24p.

Caley, J.F. and Liberty, B.A. 1950. Orillia-Brechin and Beaverton, Ontario; Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 50-11, 7p.

Caprarotta, D.W., Schrider, L.A., Natoli, M.A., and Sawyer, W.K. (1988). A case study for exploration and development of the Trenton reservoir in northwest Ohio; in B.D. Keith (ed.), The Trenton Group (Upper Ordovician Series) of Eastern North America; American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Studies in Geology #29, p. 191-205.

Carter, T.R., Trevail, R.A., and Easton, R.M., 1996. Basement controls on some hydrocarbon traps in southern Ontario, Canada; in Basement and basins of eastern North America; Geological Society of America, Special Paper 308, p.95-107.

Colquhoun, I. 2012. Middle Ordovician Trenton-Black River Group carbonate play in southwestern Ontario ; Ontario Oil&Gas 2012, p.56-62.

Colquhoun, I.M. (1991). Paragenetic history of the Ordovician Trenton Group carbonates, southwestern Ontario; Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, Brock University, 250p.

Coniglio, M., Melchin, M.J. and Brookfield, M.E. 1990. Stratigraphy, sedimentology and biostratigraphy of Ordovician rocks of the Peterborough-Lake Simcoe area of southern Ontario; American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Eastern Section, Fieldtrip No.3 Guidebook, 82p.

Davies, G.R., and Smith, L.B., 2006. Structurally controlled hydrothermal dolomite facies: An overview; American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 90, no. 11, p. 1641-1690.

Dooley, T. and McClay, K. (1997). Analogue modeling of pull-apart basins; American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 81, p. 1804-1826.

Dorland, M.J. 2001. Petrography and Diagenesis of Cambro-Ordovician Reservoir Rocks from the Innerkip Gas Pool

and Gobles Oil Pool, Southwestern Ontario; Unpublished B.Sc. thesis, University of Western Ontario, 88p.

Golder Associates Ltd. (2005). Hydrocarbon resource assessment of the Trenton-Black River Hydrothermal Dolomite Play in Ontario; Ontario Oil, Gas, and Salt Resources Library, 35 pages, 27 figures, 8 tables, 11 cross-sections, 7 pool maps, 4 appendices.

Harper, D.A., Longstaffe, F.J., Wadleigh, M.A. and McNutt, R.H. 1995. Secondary K-feldspar at the Precambrian-Paleozoic unconformity, southwestern Ontario; Canadian Journal of Earth of Earth Sciences v.32, p. 1432-1450.

Hurley, N.F., and R. Budros, 1990. Albion-Scipio and Stoney Point fields-U.S.A., Michigan Basin, in: Beaumont, E.A., and Foster N.H. (eds.) Treatise of Petroleum Geology Atlas of Oil & Gas Fields, Stratigraphic Traps I; American Association of Petroleum Geologists, p. 1-32.

Johnson, MD., Armstrong, D.K., Sanford, B.V., Telford, P.G., and Rutka, M.A. 1992. Paleozoic and Mesozoic geology of Ontario, in Geology of Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey Special Volume 4, Part 2, p. 906-1008.

Pounder, J.A. (1964) Cambrian of Ontario; Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference of the Ontario Petroleum Institute, 24p.

Keith, B.D., and Wickstrom, L.H., 1992. Lima-Indiana trend – Cincinnati and Findlay arches, Ohio and Indiana, USA; in Beaumont, E.A., and Foster, N.H. (eds), Atlas of oil and gas fields, Stratigraphic traps III; American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Treatise of Petroleum Geology, p.347-367.

Kobluk, D.R., and Brookfield, M.E. (1982). Lower Paleozoic carbonate rocks and paleoenvironments in southern Ontario; IAS, Eleventh International Congress on Sedimentology, Excursion Guidebook 12A, 62 p.

Lazorek, M., and Carter, T.R., 2008. The oil and gas plays of Ontario. Ontario Petroleum Institute; Ontario Oil&Gas June 2008 June 2008, p.18-27.

Liberty, B.A. 1955. Paleozoic geology of the Lake Simcoe area, Ontario; Geological

Survey of Canada, Memoir 355, 201p.

Obermajer, M., Fowler, M.G., Goodarzi, F., and Snowdon, L.R., 1996. Assessing thermal Maturity of Paleozoic rocks from reflectance of chitinozoa as constrained by geochemical indicators: an example from southern Ontario, Canada; Marine and Petroleum Geology, v.13, no.8, p.907-919.and Petroleum Potential of the Paleozoic Strata in Southwestern Ontario

Obermajer, M., Fowler, M.G., and Snowdon, L.R., 1999. Depositional environment and oil generation in Ordovician source rocks from southwestern Ontario, Canada: Organic geochemical and petrological approach; American Association of Petroleum Geologists, v.83, no.9, p.1426-1453.

Ontario Geological Survey, 2011. Regional structure and isopach maps of potential hydrocarbon-bearing strata for southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release—Data 276.

Ontario Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library, 2015. Oil and gas pools and pipelines of southern Ontario.

Sanford, B.V. 1961. Subsurface stratigraphy of Ordovician rocks in southwestern Ontario; Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 60-26, 54p.

Sanford, B.V. and Quillian, R.G. 1959. Subsurface stratigraphy of Upper Cambrian rocks in southwestern Ontario; Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 58-12, 17p.

Sanford, B.V., Thompson, F.J. and McFall, G.H. 1985. Plate Tectonics – a possible controlling mechanism in the development of hydrocarbon traps in southwestern Ontario; Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology v.33, p.52-71.

Trevail, R.A. 1990. Cambro-Ordovician shallow water sediments, London area, southwestern Ontario, in Geology of Southwestern Ontario, A Core Workshop (ed. T.R.Carter), p.29-51; American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 1990 Eastern Section Meeting, London, Ontario.

Williams, D.A. and Telford, P.G. 1986. Paleozoic geology of the Ottawa area; Geological Association of Canada, Fieldtrip Guidebook 8, 25p.


TECHNICAL ARTICLE


Why Should You Attend: To improve your industry knowledge and enhance job performance by learning how your contribution fits into the overall business process. You will also be able to communicate more effectively in the industry with respect to understanding how the engineering and geoscience disciplines fit together and the language that goes with it.

Who Should Attend: Anyone working in the industry and dealing with engineers and geologists, use information from engineers or geologists ,or who are peripheral to the industry and need an overview of the whole process. Engineers, geologists, geoscientists, geophysicists, technical assistants, work-term students, accountants, legal and contracts, analysts, human resources personnel, economists, service company personnel, lease holders, regulatory staff.

SPE and CSPG have co-created a bootcamp style training course for anyone who wants to better understand petroleum focused engineering and geosciences.

This course introduces tools and techniques used by engineers and geologists to identify oil and gas plays. It describes how wells are drilled and explains how the production cycle is completed.

At the end of this course you will have a better understanding of these disciplines and how they integrate with the work you do. Day 1 and 2 focus on geosciences and day 3 and 4 cover basic petroleum engineering.

SPE/CSPG Introduction to Petroleum Engineering and Geosciences

COURSE INSTRUCTORS

Roger Hough, P. Eng

Saad Ibrahim, P. Eng

Art Irwin, Msc. P. Geo

Jon Noad, P. Geo

Special Introductory Offer 4 Days: CAD 1000

2 Days - 1 Discipline: CAD 700 (geoscience or engineering)

REGISTER TODAY www.spe.org/training/courses/IPE.php

Registration Includes:

4 days of instruction by industry professionals, plus

course materials

The Stanley Slipper Medal is CSPG’s Highest honour. The gold medal is presented annually for outstanding contributions to oil and gas exploration in Canada. The contributions of the winner of this award should encompass a number of activities related to aspects of petroleum exploration. Such activities include: initiating and/or leading exploration programs, significant discoveries on new or existing exploration trends, teaching and/or training of explorationists, and involvement in and leadership within geological societies and professional organizations.

The committee is currently calling on the CSPG membership to provide additional nominations for this prestigious award. The award winner must be a CSPG mem-ber and should be able to attend the awards presentation to be held in the spring of 2017.

Please include an updated biography and letters in support of your nominee. It is recommended that potential nominations be vetted with the Committee Chair early in the process in order to avoid, if possible, duplicate nominations for the same person.

Nominations should be mailed, faxed or emailed before October 15 to:

CSPG Stanley Slipper Committee – Clint Tippett 110, 333 – 5 Ave SW Calgary, AB T2P 3B6

Email: [email protected]

“This pioneer and explorer in geology, engineering and natural gas technology bequeathed a fundamental knowledge, years ahead of his time and was considered by many a virtual Leonardo da

Vinci of the Petroleum Industry. Slipper, our First President, deserved the honour (unbeknownst to him) of our highest award in the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists”

- Aubrey Kerr

2015 Stanley Slipper Recipient

Dick Walls

Stanley Slipper Medal

Date post:	11-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

5 Message from the Board 8 Technical Luncheons 18 Ontario Oil …...

Documents