Master of Science (MS), Bowling Green State University, 2019, Geology

Previous studies of the Upper Ordovician Trenton Limestone in northwestern Ohio interpreted an extensive subtidal carbonate platform on the northwest margin of Taconic foreland basin. This study focused on the subsurface facies analysis and paragenesis of the Trenton Limestone using eight different wells (3564, 20347, 2878, 2971, 2972, 2973, 3374, and 20239) in Hancock, Wood, and Wyandot counties. The wells were correlated using gamma-ray and density logs. Paragenesis was studied using petrography, SEM, EDAX, and cathodoluminescence. A total of 51 thin sections were used to study petrography, microfacies and diagenesis. Drill cores from two well sections (Core#3564 and Core# 3374) were used for lithofacies analysis. Cores 2878, 2971, and 2972 were used only for thin section analysis. The Trenton Limestone mainly consists of bioclastic carbonate (mudstone, wackestone, packstone, and grainstone) with minor amounts of siliciclastic shale. The dominant lithofacies, in order of importance, are heterolithic laminated carbonate mudstone and siliciclastic shale (lithofacies Cml) which are interpreted as tidalites, massive gray carbonate mudstone (Cmm), massive light gray carbonate mudstone with Stromatactis (Cms), massive bioclastic grainstone (Cgm) which are interpreted as storm layers, massive grainstone with lithoclasts (Cgm) which are interpreted as reworked beachrock, skeletal packstone (Cps), massive dolomicrite (Dmm) and massive dolograinstone (Dgm), alternation of planar laminated carbonate mudstone and wackestone (Cmw), alternation of skeletal packstone and skeletal mud/wackestone (Cpm), alternation of packstone and mudstone (Cmf), and carbonate wackestone (Cws). The presence of tidalites, mudcracks, lithoclasts, shell debris, and storm layers indicate that the Trenton Limestone in Northwestern Ohio was deposited in a peritidal carbonate ramp environment. Three lithofacies associations were the tempestite association lithofacies, back ramp lithofacies associat (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: James Evans PhD (Advisor); John Farver PhD (Committee Member); Jeffrey Snyder PhD (Committee Member) Subjects: Geology

Master of Science (MS), Wright State University, 2014, Earth and Environmental Sciences

Using well logs and AVO gradient analysis, I identify and characterize a package of reflectors associated with the Utica Shale from vibroseis data collected by Wright State University at the Gabor Gas Storage field near Canton, Ohio. I also correlate TOC measurements from wells to densities and velocities at the same depths. On the seismic data, I interpret prominent reflections from the top and bottom of the Utica Shale and an intra-Utica reflector of varying frequency content associated with a velocity/density low in well log data. I investigate the possibility that the lateral variation in frequency content and change in wavelet character of these reflections is influenced by velocity gradients, termed Wolf Ramps. A Matlab software script was written in order to approximate this behavior using synthetic wavelets, and the resulting model matched well with the seismic data. Additionally, I note a possible reverse fault within the Utica that could create fracture porosity and a migration pathway. To model the AVO response, an AVA volume was created from prestack data and reflection coefficients up to 30 degrees of incidence were calculated using the two-term Aki-Richards approximation. Large negative normal incidence reflection coefficients attenuated at higher angles of incidence (Class IV anomalies) were observed at the top of Utica reflector, a response consistent with a change from silica-rich nonsource shale to black source shale. Large positive normal incidence reflection coefficients decreasing at higher angles of incidence (Class I anomalies) were noted at the bottom of Utica reflector, consistent with a shift from low impedance source shale to higher impedance calcareous shale. To perform forward modeling, I used geophysical well logs and NS-EW vibroseis line data. Using Hampson Russell commercial software, acoustic impedance and reflectivity were computed from sonic and density logs. An average wavelet at the Utica two-way travel time was extracte (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: Doyle Watts Ph.D. (Advisor); Ernest Hauser Ph.D. (Committee Member); David Dominic Ph.D. (Committee Member) Subjects: Geology; Geophysics

PhD, University of Cincinnati, 2008, Arts and Sciences : Geology

The Upper Ordovician (450-460 Ma) Chazy, Black River and Trenton groups of eastern North America record the tectonic activation of a passive carbonate platform. Associated with tectonic collision and development of a peripheral-type foreland basin, the tectonic history is complicated by the occurrence of two basin-forming episodes. Although considered analogous by previous authors, a growing list of observations indicate that the stratigraphic record from both foreland basins and their coeval Great American Carbonate Bank (GACB) contain somewhat different, non-analogous, signatures. A number of key issues arise when comparing both tectonic episodes. These include: 1) non-analogous spatial-temporal scales whereby the northern (Vermontian) tectophase is much larger and of longer duration compared to the southern (Blountian) tectophase; 2) sedimentary provenance analyses show a more mafic contribution in the northern basin fill compared to that of the southern basin; 3) the position of K-bentonite swarms relative to basin filling phases is non-analogous; and 4) the location and timing of Ordovician volcanism/plutonism shows a pronounced change after the first tectophase. Thus, important research questions for this study include: A) How does the architecture of the foreland basin complex and adjacent GACB change spatially and temporally during each distinct tectophase?; B) Can provenance differences between tectophases be explained relative to tectonic events in the orogen?; C) What is the timing and significance of K-bentonite position and timing of plutonism/volcanism relative to foreland basin fill episodes?; 4) What inferences are gained from theoretical modeling of load geometries and foreland basin evolution when considered with empirical data from the Taconic Orogeny; and 5) Is a new model for the Taconic Orogeny needed to explain the growing list of incongruities? In order to investigate these questions, a refined, high-resolution, sequence stratigraphic fra (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: Dr. Carlton Brett PhD (Advisor); Dr. Warren Huff PhD (Committee Member); Dr. J.B. Maynard PhD (Committee Member); Dr. Thomas Algeo PhD (Committee Member); Dr. Brian Witzke PhD (Committee Member); Dr. Kees Dejong PhD (Committee Member) Subjects: Geology

Master of Science, The Ohio State University, 1975, Geological Sciences

Committee: Gunter Faure (Advisor) Subjects: