New York Paper - Subsurface Conditions on Portion of Arches Fork Anticline (with Discussion)

The American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers
Kenneth Cottingham
Organization:
The American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers
Pages:
8
File Size:
255 KB
Publication Date:
Jan 1, 1923

Abstract

The area described herein is situated on what is known as the Arches Fork anticline in Roane and Calhoun Counties, W. Va. When the area was first mapped, it was felt that well records would give a more intimate idea of conditions, both structural and lithologic, than could be expected from surface horizons. The surface formations are chiefly members of the Monongahela series, though northward the hilltop outcrops are those of the Dunkard. Neither series offen a key horizon sufficiently definite to be satisfactory, although the structure as determined from well records was later checked against two of the more persistent surface sandstones. In mapping the subsurface structure, the top of the Big Lime (Green-brier) was employed as the key horizon. The average depth to the top of the Big Lime varies from 1600 to 2000 ft. (487 to 609 m.), while the average thickness as indicated by well records is 113 ft. (34 m.). The oil-producing formation is the Big Injun, lying just below the Big Lime. In two instances, well records show the Lime and Injun separated by a few feet of "break." The Big Injun is recorded as having a variable thickness. Seven logs report it as missing and one gives it the maximum thickness of 105 ft. (32 m.), while the entire average for thickness is 19 ft. (6 m.). Relation of Structure to Thickness of Big Injun The seven wells reporting the Big Injun as absent were located near the anticlinal axis. Moreover, the general tendency is a thickening of the Injun on the flanks of the anticline, increasing with distance from the axis. Manifestly, this apparent anomaly has no stratigraphic basis, as the actual thickness of the Big Injun and the overlying Big Lime was determined by original deposition which no amount of subsequent folding could appreciably alter. Fig. 1 is a skeleton map of structure based on the top of the Big Lime; Fig. 2 is a cross-section showing the thickness of the Big Injun.
Citation

APA: Kenneth Cottingham  (1923)  New York Paper - Subsurface Conditions on Portion of Arches Fork Anticline (with Discussion)

MLA: Kenneth Cottingham New York Paper - Subsurface Conditions on Portion of Arches Fork Anticline (with Discussion). The American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, 1923.

Export
Purchase this Article for $25.00

Create a Guest account to purchase this file
- or -
Log in to your existing Guest account