April 2016 Outcrop by The Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists

OUTCROP Newsletter of the Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists

Volume 65 • No. 4 • April 2016

2016 Summit Sponsors Gold Sponsors

Student Sponsor

Silver Sponsors

Bronze Sponsors

OUTCROP | April 2016

Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

OUTCROP The Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists

910 16th Street • Suite 1214 • Denver, CO 80202 • 303-573-8621 The Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists (RMAG) is a nonprofit organization whose purposes are to promote interest in geology and allied sciences and their practical application, to foster scientific research and to encourage fellowship and cooperation among its members. The Outcrop is a monthly publication of the RMAG.

2016 OFFICERS AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRESIDENT

TREASURER

John Ladd john.ladd@discoverynr.com

Tom Sperr tsperr@bayless-cos.com

PRESIDENT-ELECT

TREASURER-ELECT

Larry Rasmussen larryr@whiting.com 1st VICE PRESIDENT

Karen Dean deankaren@comcast.net SECRETARY

John Roesink jroesink@jaggedpeakenergy.com

Sarah Hawkins shawkins@usgs.gov

2nd VICE PRESIDENT

1st YEAR COUNSELOR

Kelly Foley foleykk@gmail.com

Rob Diedrich rdiedrich@sm-energy.com 2nd YEAR COUNSELOR

Jane Estes-Jackson Jane.estes-jackson@mcelvain.com

RMAG STAFF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Carrie Veatch, MA cveatch@rmag.org MEMBERSHIP & EVENTS MANAGER

Hannah Rogers hrogers@rmag.org ACCOUNTANT

Carol Dalton cdalton@rmag.org PROJECTS SPECIALIST

Marissa Stanger mstanger@rmag.org MANAGING EDITOR

Will Duggins will.duggins@i-og.net

ADVERTISING INFORMATION

ASSOCIATE EDITORS

Rates and sizes can be found on page 40. Advertising rates apply to either black and white or color ads. Submit color ads in RGB color to be compatible with web format. Borders are recommended for advertisements that comprise less than one half page. Digital files must be PC compatible submitted in png, jpg, tif, pdf or eps formats at a minimum of 300 dpi. If you have any questions, please call the RMAG office at 303-573-8621.

Holly Sell holly.sell@yahoo.com

Ad copy, signed contract and payment must be received before advertising insertion. Contact the RMAG office for details. DEADLINES: Ad submissions are the 1st of every month for the following month’s publication.

WEDNESDAY NOON LUNCHEON RESERVATIONS

RMAG Office: 303-573-8621 | Fax: 303-476-2241 | staff@rmag.org or www.rmag.org

Greg Guyer Greg.Guyer@halliburton.com Cheryl Fountain cwhitney@alumni.nmt.edu Ron Parker ron.parker@taskfronterra.com DESIGN/PRODUCTION

Nate Silva nate@nate-silva.com

The Outcrop is a monthly publication of the Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists

Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org 3 www.rmag.org 3

OUTCROP | April 2016

PTTC Presents: Workshops to Improve Your Skills Carbonate Depositional Systems, Sequence Stratigraphy & Well Logs

Thursday-Friday, May 19-20, 2016, 8:30 am – 4:30 pm Colorado School of Mines, Berthoud Hall room 243 Fee: $500, includes food at breaks, class notes, and PDH certificate Instructor: Dr. Rick Sarg, Colorado School of Mines Who Should Attend This course is intended for industry professionals who desire a firm foundation in carbonate rocks and their expression on well logs. Carbonate reservoirs contain approximately half of the world’s oil and gas, a better understanding of these complex rocks is highly desirable. Participants should have some background in sedimentology and stratigraphy. The course will be relevant for exploration and development geologists, geophysicists, and petroleum engineers. Content This two-day course will include a review of carbonate rocks and the sediments that make up these rocks, and the application to well log interpretation. Processes and products of various significant carbonate depositional environments will be described. The course will emphasize the classification of rock types, identification of constituent carbonate particles, sedimentary processes, and diagenesis and porosity development of these important sedimentary rocks. The approach will combine criteria for facies recognition with facies associations, threedimensional geometries, sedimentary structures, and sedimentary dynamics. The workshop covers a review of the different carbonate platform types (i.e., ramps, prograding banks, and rimmed platforms, both isolated and attached) and their different architectures. The workshop combines well log with rock and seismic data, and the concepts of sequence stratigraphy to develop interpretations that help predict carbonate hydrocarbon systems, and characterize carbonate reservoirs and seals. Exercises will illustrate these concepts and include well log examples integrated with rock and seismic data. Objectives By the end of the course, attendees should be able to do the following: • Demonstrate knowledge of the basics of carbonate stratigraphic interpretation using well logs. • Be able to develop criteria for predicting reservoir-prone and seal-prone facies. • Demonstrate knowledge of the different carbonate platform types and their encompassing facies tracts. • Recognize and appraise how other lithotypes contribute to carbonate systems and trap potential. • Apply carbonate depositional, diagenetic, and sequence principles to well logs in exploration and production settings.

Seismic Interpretation for Geoscientists

Wednesday-Thursday June 1-2, 2016, 8:30 am – 5 pm Colorado School of Mines, Berthoud Hall rm. 243 Fee: $500, includes food at breaks, class notes, and PDH certificate Instructor: Dr. Bruce Trudgill, Colorado School of Mines

Tectonics of the Rocky Mountain Region

Wednesday, June 8, 2016, 8:30 am – 5 pm. Colorado School of Mines, Berthoud Hall rm. 243 Fee: $500, includes food at breaks, class notes, and PDH certificate Instructor: Dr. Bruce Trudgill, Colorado School of Mines Class Descriptions and Register Online: www.pttcrockies.org OUTCROP | April 2016

For more information, contact Mary Carr, 303.273.3107, mcarr@mines.edu 4 Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

OUTCROP Newsletter of the Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists

CONTENTS FEATURES

ASSOCIATION NEWS

28 Lead Story: The Science of Climate Change

2 RMAG 2016 Summit Sponsors

DEPARTMENTS 6 RMAG February 2016 Board of Directors Meeting

22 RMAG Foundation 23 Thank You Sponsors of 3D Seismic Symposium

8 Presidentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Letter

25 RMAG Golf Tournament 2016

20 RMAG Luncheon Programs: Professor Christine Siddoway

27 2016 Award of Excellence for Teaching of Earth Science

24 RMAG Luncheon Programs: John B. Curtis

33 RMAG/SEPM/DMNS Night at the Museum

37 Welcome New RMAG Members!

COVER PHOTO Photo by Sarah Barry/shutterstock.com

39 Rmag Foundation: 2016 Scholarship Winners

38 In The Pipeline 40 Calendar 40 Outcrop Advertising Rates 41 Advertiser Index

Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

OUTCROP | April 2016

PetroFecta® from RMAG FEBRUARY 2016 BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING Fluid Inclusion By Sarah Hawkins, Secretary Technologies shawkins@usgs.gov

is a unique approach combining XRF (PDQ-XRF ®), Trapped Fluid Analysis

1 and 2 man Mudlogging Gas Referencing™ Geosteering

(FIS ®), and High Resolution Photography ® ) like of the to entire wellbore from (RockEyeI’d Board of Directors, welcome Marissa and all of the newwell members to the organization. cuttings or core samples of any age. The luncheons were well attended again in FebAll analyses on speaker the same slots reruary and March. Onlyarea conducted few open main for 2016, then continuing education 1 gramand sample (upthe to 575 samples per well) committee willwith start planning speakers for 2017. an analytical cycle of four days. Contact Chris Eisinger (chris.eisinger@state.co.us) if Data provided on a DVD with you have suggestions for speakers. The 2016 RMAGpreviewer mentorship program has sursoftware. passed its goal of 5 mentor/mentee pairs, and it looks like the inaugural year for this program will be quite successful. The mentorship program officially launches later this month. Spring is just around the corner, so stay tuned ® Informationofabout for the announcement thePetroFecta 2016 On the Rocks field and other FIT services, trip schedule. The first excursion will be in early May, call 918.461.8984 and trips will follow throughout the summer months. or visit www.fittulsa.com Each field trip will cost professional members $20, and students and educators pay only $5. These field trips fill up fast, so be sure to register early!

Summit Mudlogging The February meeting for the RMAG Board of DiServices

rectors was held at 4:00 p.m on February 24. Tom Barber Sperr gave the financial Mike report, and the society conManager Serving the Rocky Mountain Region tinues to be in good financial standing. RMAG membership had a great month in January. The society 230 Airport Rd. Ph (435)657-0586 added is up alUnit D 41 new members in January, which Cell (435)640-1382 Heber50% City, Utah 84032 email: mbarber@summitmudlog.com most more than December! In addition to all www.summitmudlog.com of the new members, RMAG also has a new Projects Specialist, Marissa Stanger. On behalf of the RMAG

Neil H. Whitehead, III Consulting Geologist PhD

CPG-AIPG

PG WY

Rocky Mountain Basins Wellsite to Petroleum Systems ArcGIS 303-679-8573

fax 303-679-8574

31634 Black Widow Way

Conifer, CO

neil3@q.com 80433-9610

OUTCROP

SINCLAIR

PETROLEUM ENGINEERING,INC. www.rmag.org

www.sinclairengineering.com

 Unconventional Well Modeling Specialist  Shale, CBM, Tight Gas, Primary, Secondary  Reserve Reports, Property Evaluations  Production Forecasting John Sinclair,Ph.D.,P.E. Licensed in CO, UT, MT, & WY

Susan Spancers MCEP, RFC, AACEP, NICEP, CSA RFC, AACEP, NICEP, CSAof Mind” HelpingMCEP, You Create Financial “Peace

William W. Little, Ph.D. Senior Consulting Geologist

Website: http://littleww.wordpress.com

OUTCROP | April 2016

•  Field Studies •  Geological Mapping •  Sequence Stratigraphy •  Sedimentary Petrology •  GIS Applications •  Training Courses

john@sinclairengineering.com

Susan Spancers

W.W. Little Geological Consulting, LLC

20 South 5000 West Rexburg, Idaho 83440-3613 Cell: 208/201-6266 wwlittle@gmail.com

307-587-5502 (o) 307-431-6382 (c)

Helping You Create Financial “Peace of Mind”

303 766-9599

303 766-9599 Services Include: createfinancial financial security Services Include: How How to to create security Launch into retirement: create-protect-distribute Launch into retirement: create-protect-distribute Estate protection: Estate protection: Wills/Trusts-Probate-Incapacity Wills/Trusts-Probate-Incapacity Email: Spancers@Qadas.com Web: Email: Spancers@Qadas.com Web: www.susanspancers.com www.susanspancers.com Adv Svs offeredthrough through TLG, TLG Adv, Inc. Inc. SecSec andand Adv Svs offered TLG,Inc* Inc*and and TLG Adv, 26 West Dry Creek Circle #575, Littleton, CO 80120 26 West Dry Creek Circle #575, Littleton, CO 80120 303 797-9080 *Member NASD-SIPC 303 797-9080 *Member NASD-SIPC

Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

OUTCROP | April 2016

PRESIDENT’S LETTER By John Ladd

Oil: Looking ahead toward recovery

I felt an affinity for this old roadway when I came across it in Hawaii last fall. One day, it was a smooth, modern highway that allowed tourists to zip down from the rim of the Kilauea Caldera to the Pacific shore. The next day, it was just another layer in the volcanic stratigraphy. While it didn’t happen overnight, it does seem like it was only a few weeks’ time during 2014 when the oil industry went from boom to bust to freefall. I went from getting at least once-a–week calls from head hunters to weekly or even daily news of yet another friend or business acquaintance that has been laid off or was taking a forced, early retirement. But as you can see from the background of the photo, the Park Service has rebuilt their road on top of the lava flow, and just as that road has had a renaissance, so will the oil business. Someday.

»»CONTINUED ON PAGE 10

OUTCROP | April 2016

Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

CALL FOR PAPERS

ABSTRACT DEADLINE: April 15, 2016

PETROLEUM HISTORY INSTITUTE 2016 ANNUAL SYMPOSIUM

Casper, Wyoming “The Oil City” July 28-31, 2016 PRESENTATIONS – ORAL AND POSTER Friday, July 29th, 2016 Symposium Headquarters: the Ramkota Hotel and Conference Center, Casper Proceedings to be published in the 2016 volume of Oil-Industry History FIELD TRIP Saturday July, 30th, 2016 Stops will include Teapot Dome, site of the 1920’s Presidential scandal, and the giant Salt Creek Field, discovered 1889 For symposium details, see: www.petroleumhistory.org

Vol. 65, No. 4 |

ABSTRACTS BEING ACCEPTED NOW Please send abstracts to: Dr. William Brice - wbrice@pitt.edu www.rmag.org or call Marilyn Black 9 – 814-677-3152 ext. 105

OUTCROP | April 2016

President’s Letter

»»CONTINUED FROM PAGE 8

LOCATION we’ll lease it, permit it, gather it and sell it

ge 43

So instead of writing about doom and gloom this month, I thought I would try my hand at optimism. Maybe that’s too strong of a word, but the least I can do is write about some of the reasons why I think you might want to try and stick out the bust and prepare yourself for that inevitable recovery. But before I try to convince you of that, you should stop for a moment and look outside the window. I often read The Outcrop on my office computer, so my view is of 17th Street in downtown Denver. It’s full of cars, buses and trucks. They all share one thing in common; they all run on hydrocarbons. The oil business is not going away. Oil drilling may come to an almost complete halt, but only for a while. Production from existing wells will drop below the rate of demand and prices will go back up to where it is economic to drill. Demand hasn’t increased in response to a 70% drop in the price in 20 months and in fact, a slowing demand is one of the reasons the price crash has been so hard. But for the same reasons, demand

unity arch d her n the that up as enter. nued What nto a ct.

erdan, Myths of the ulletin,

your ideas - we make them happen LEASING - PERMITTING - DAMAGES - ROW

303-279-0789

tures, sal of , G.S., Years ogical

»»CONTINUED ON PAGE 11

Lario Oil & Gas Company Established 1927

WWW.LARIOOIL.COM

Proud sponsor of the Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists 44 OUTCROP | April 2016

December 2014

Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

PRESIDENT’S LETTER

»»CONTINUED FROM PAGE 10

won’t suffer much if the prices go back up. The people driving down 17th Street today that just paid $1.50/gallon will still be driving if they have to pay $4.00/gallon. We know that because they already have, in 2008 and 2013. They have no choice but to fill it up, no matter what the price. What follows are some random thoughts and observations on the nature of the business and oil markets and how they will affect your future career as a petroleum geologist. They might just possibly encourage you to try and stick it out. It’s all about the demographics: Just as every tight oil play has its own unique characteristics, so does every oil boom and bust, and this is a big one. You certainly have heard about the coming demographic crisis in the petroleum business. People have been talking and writing about it for the past decade. The geoscientists and engineers who got into the business in the 1970’s era boom are now reaching retirement age and getting ready to retire. The current bust is probably hastening this process, at least if my circle of aging acquaintances is a representative sample. Carolyn Wilson, of the American Geosciences Institute, has published several recent studies on the current and projected demographics of the geosciences profession. One astounding projection is that about one half of the geoscience workforce in 2014 will retire by 2022. In addition, the National Bureau of Labor Statistics projects a 16% increase in geoscience jobs by that year. The number of

»»CONTINUED ON PAGE 12

Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

Whiting: A Bigger and Better Team Visit us at www.Whiting.com

Fundamentally Better Whiting Petroleum Corporation is an independent exploration and production company. We are a leading crude oil producer in North Dakota and operate substantial assets in northern Colorado. At Whiting we are committed to economically attractive and environmentally responsible operations. Our hydraulic fracturing advancements, state of the art geoscience lab and expertise in exploration have made it possible for us to increase production and reserves while reducing emissions, minimizing surface impacts, and preserving precious water resources.

1700 Broadway | Suite 2300 | Denver, Colorado 80290-2300 P: 303.837.1661 | F: 303.851.4923

OUTCROP | April 2016

President’s Letter next decade. Obviously this number will vary greatly depending on what happens to oil and other commodity prices, but if you are currently in your 20’s or 30’s, the odds are very much in your favor that in a few years, even if the oil prices are only neutral, that you will be in high demand. And better yet, all those exploration manager and senior technical positions currently held by ageing baby boomers will be up for grabs. What if this is the perfect storm? I hear lots about how the shale boom in the United States caused the current glut and price crash. According to the EIA, domestic production has gone from 5.4 to 8.7 MMBOPD since 2009. Adding nearly 3 ½ million barrels to the daily world production has certainly effected the supply/demand balance as current production is only about 1 million barrel above the daily demand. But is this really capable of causing oil prices to be only 25% of what they were less than two years ago? After all, world oil demand increased during the same time period by 5 million barrels

»»CONTINUED FROM PAGE 11

bachelor’s degrees awarded in geosciences in the US has been increasing as the price of oil has gone up, from the high 2000’s annually in the middle of the last decade to the high 3000’s in 2014. However, this is dwarfed by the over 7000 annual degrees granted during the boom years of the early 1980’s, and I suspect the number of majors is currently plummeting along with the oil price. The NBLS projected, in 2014, a shortage of 135,000 geoscientists during the KES T

OSCIENCE L GE , LL RE

Thomas E. Hoak, Ph.D. Consulting Geoscientist Kestrel Geoscience, LLC

Structural Geology Seismic Interpretation Magnetic and Gravity Interpretation Basin Analysis and Restoration Regional Desk Studies Integrated Exploration Prospect Generation Presentation Graphics

OUTCROP | April 2016

Littleton, CO USA

Phone: (303) 933-5805 Cell: (720) 375-3015 kestrelco@comcast.net kestrelgeoscience.com

»»CONTINUED ON PAGE 13

Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

PRESIDENT’S LETTER

»»CONTINUED FROM PAGE 12

daily, from almost 88 to almost 93 MMBOPD. Of course there are other factors like Iran, which promises to add a million barrels of daily production, now that sanctions have been lifted. Also global demand is softening and perhaps even weakening, due to the downturn in China. It is reasonable to assume that demand will stop rising by a million barrels a day annually, at least for 2016. Still, none of this explains such a huge price drop. For that, the main culprits seem to be the Saudis and the Russians, who have responded to the drop in prices by increasing, not decreasing production. Russia set a post-Soviet record of 10.8 million daily in December just as the Saudis reached an all-time record or 10.5 million. It was the Saudis’ statement on Thanksgiving Day in 2014 that they would continue to increase production no matter what happened to prices because they were primarily interested in defending their market share, which really sent prices into a free fall. Holman Jenkins, writing in January in the Wall Street Journal, pointed out that the two countries production rates may really be more about the Sunni-Shiite conflict than a fight for market share. After all, the Russians are the main financial and military backer of the Shiites, while the Saudis are the financial backers of the Sunnis in places like Iraq, Syria and Yemen. But for how long can this go on? Sure the Saudis can pump oil from Ghawar Field and make a profit at $25/barrel, but the estimates that I have seen for the minimum price they need to pay for all the social costs of running the country and keeping the citizenry happy is more like $80/barrel. They spent Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

OUTCROP | April 2016

PRESIDENT’S LETTER

»»CONTINUED FROM PAGE 13

Stay in the Zone

Premier geonavigation/geosteering services since 1995

Maximize Target Penetration Maximize Production Avoid Costly Redrills Senior geosteering staff on call 24/7 to keep you in-zone and respond to structural stratigraphic changes www.horizontalsi.com Denver, Colorado

KC Oren 303.249.9965

Carrollton, Texas 972.416.1626

POSITIONED FOR GROWTH With a proud legacy and an exciting future, QEP Resources is an industry leader in crude oil and natural gas exploration and production. We’re focused on some of the most prolific natural resource plays in the continental United States. These include two world-class crude oil provinces – the Williston Basin and Permian Basin; two prominent liquids-rich gas plays – the Pinedale Anticline and the Uinta Basin; and a premier dry gas asset – the Haynesville Shale.

Headquartered in Denver, Colorado, QEP Resources, Inc. (NYSE: QEP) is an S&P MidCap 400 Index member company. Learn more at www.qepres.com.

many billions from their sovereign wealth fund last year to make up the difference, but they can’t keep doing that for long. As for Russia, all those bombs they are dropping on Syria cost a lot of money, and their main source of hard currency is from oil and other commodities. Putin has maintained a decent level of popularity in his country because the average person’s standard of living has been increasing since he first took office, which is largely a result of the rise in oil prices throughout his time in power. But how long can Russia continue to spend money on military ventures in Ukraine, Syria and the Caucasus region while enduring an ever decreasing margin on their oil sales? Won’t this start having a negative impact on their economy as a whole and cause a decrease in the average person’s standard of living, and won’t this cut into Putin’s popularity and power base? In the US, production through 2015 held fairly steady despite the dramatic drop in the rig count. This was mainly because low prices forced operators into focusing on increased efficiency of completions and drilling only in the sweet spots in unconventional plays. Increased efficiency bodes well for the future of these plays, but can anyone really make much money even in the sweet spots at $25/barrel? A reasonable conclusion is that none of this can last. Despite all the debate, when prices started to fall, about whether this would be a “v” shaped bust like 2009 or a “u” shaped bust like the mid 80’s, maybe both sides were wrong and really it will be

»»CONTINUED ON PAGE 15

OUTCROP | April 2016

Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

PRESIDENT’S LETTER

»»CONTINUED FROM PAGE 14

more like a “V” shaped bust, falling for longer and lower than anyone imagined even a year ago, but once most of the factors allowing the glut to continue to build end, the price could come raging back. When will that be? Your guess is as good as mine and it seems hard to believe it will happen before 2017, but a 15 year, career crushing down cycle like we had in the 1980’s and 1990’s seems highly unlikely. Gasoline prices: Here is more evidence that things are way out of balance. Records for the average retail price of a gallon of gasoline in the US go back for about 100 years. If you adjust the prices for inflation and express them in terms of 2016 dollars, the price of a gallon has almost always been between two and four dollars per gallon. Times when it has been outside this band have always been brief. Think of 2008 when prices broke above $4/ gallon during the summer before they crashed back down in the fall. I paid $1.47/gallon to fill up my car this week. Technology: Ask a geologist and a geophysicist who started their careers in the 1970’s how long the mid-1980’s bust lasted and you might get two very different answers. The geologist might tell you 15 years, because that is the length of time that there was a surplus of supply, low prices and a less than stellar job market. However it was also the time period when utilization of 3D seismic became widespread, especially on the Gulf Coast. What had once been rather risky structural prospect could now be accurately imaged so one knew

Experience Integrity Professionalism

We, at Decollement, pride ourselves with some of the most experienced Geologists in the �ield. Our Geologists have on Experience average, ten years of Integrity experience. WeProfessionalism have been operational since 1979 in all of the Rocky Mountain basins. We have We, at Decollement, pride ourselves with some of the most assisted hundreds of clients thousands of wells. have on experienced Geologists in theon�ield. Our Geologists average, ten years of experience. We have been operational since 1979 in all of the Rocky Mountain basins. We have www.decollementconsulting.com | 303-578-6875 assisted hundreds of clients on thousands of wells.

Décollement Consulting Décollement Inc. Consulting

www.decollementconsulting.com | 303-578-6875

Inc.

»»CONTINUED ON PAGE 16

Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

OUTCROP | April 2016

President’s Letter

before drilling the exact geometry of the trap. With bright-spot technology, there was even a direct hydrocarbon indicator, perhaps for the first time. Take a risky play and use new technology to greatly reduce the dry hole risk, and suddenly it is economic to drill at much lower prices. That is one of the reasons why a lot of people I know who lost jobs in Denver found work in Houston and why the geophysicists all seemed to find work. Many companies drilling in shale plays have responded to the low price environment by improving efficiency and reducing the dollars it takes to develop a barrel of reserves. Part of this has

OUTCROP | April 2016

been through squeezing service companies hard, but part of it has been through improving frac design, drilling quicker, and understanding the reservoir better so that only the best parts of the play are developed. It still may not support development at $25/ barrel, but several plays, such as the Wolfberry in the Permian Basin, can be profitably produced at $40/barrel. It is hard to see the price staying below $40 for too long. Interest rates: One of the unique features of this bust is that it happened just after we discovered vast new quantities of technologically recoverable resources in the US. Sure, most

»»CONTINUED FROM PAGE 15

»»CONTINUED ON PAGE 17

Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

PRESIDENT’S LETTER

»»CONTINUED FROM PAGE 16

of them are not economic to drill at late February prices, when I am writing this article. But at even $40/barrel, many of the best areas become attractive, and even more areas are economic at $60. The point is that the economic development of most shale plays is not dependent on the +$100/barrel prices that we were seeing for a few years up to the summer of 2014. More importantly, there is no dry hole risks associated with developing these resources. EUR’s do fluctuate, so in some marginal areas some wells will be economic and some will be sub economic. But with increasing amounts of production data from previously drilled wells, our ability to predict typical reserves for different parts of each unconventional reservoir should continue to get more precise and more accurate. As reserve risk continues to decrease, these types of plays will become increasingly attractive investment opportunities for investors looking for higher yield than US Treasuries (only 1.7% for 10 year notes at closing price on February 25). Which leads me to… The $200 billion sitting on the sidelines waiting for asset prices to come down: I can’t remember how many times I have come across that figure in the business press, but it has been a lot. There is a huge sum of private equity that wants to get into the shale plays because the returns should be much higher than treasuries. The only thing that has kept it on the sidelines is the high price for reserves and undeveloped acreage. However, as bankruptcies

Developing Our Nation’s Greatest Resource — It’s People 105 S. Fourth St., Artesia, NM 88210 (575) 748-1471

Supporting: Education, Employment Opportunities, Community Development, and Wise Resource Management

»»CONTINUED ON PAGE 18

Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

OUTCROP | April 2016

President’s Letter

OUTCROP | April 2016

Despite very conservative budget forecasts, the amounts we are receiving from sponsorships, advertising and symposia are all well below what we expected. Some sources of income are doing well, including dues renewal. Luncheons continue to be well attended and the core workshops last fall were also a success. Perhaps the much lower price point, the shorter time commitment and the good networking opportunities continue to make these kinds of events attractive to members. We are looking at ways to make future symposia more economical to fit the times. You will no doubt see some changes starting with the Fall Symposium, the details of which are currently being worked out. Although our organization is financially healthy, we still need to be sure that what we offer our members fits the current demand. If fewer members are employed full time and if most companies cut way back on their education budgets, then we will need to adjust our programs to fit these leaner times. Stay tuned.

and the amount of properties on the market increases, prices will surely drop and these funds will start buying. But financiers don’t know how to map reservoirs, drill wells and build and maintain production facilities. They will need us.

What does this all mean for RMAG? We came into this downturn with a big financial cushion and we anticipated a big drop in revenue this year causing a significant deficit. However, I don’t think any of us thought the price drop, the cutbacks and layoffs would be this severe.

»»CONTINUED FROM PAGE 17

Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

OUTCROP | April 2016

RMAG LUNCHEON PROGRAMS Speaker: Professor Christine Siddoway — April 6, 2016

Sandstone Injectites of the Colorado Front Range: Age, regional extent, emplacement mechanism, and significance as a fluid migration pathway By Professor Christine Siddoway

OUTCROP | April 2016

to the dike margin. Our ongoing petrography further documents variability in grain shape, size, and sorting of predominant quartz and accessory minerals, which include K-feldspar, plagioclase, micas, magnetite, and zircon. Abrupt variations suggest a lack of thorough mixing of multiple types of sediment during sediment injection. In the Colorado system, the large magnitude of the injectites is notable, particularly under the

The array of granite-hosted sandstone dikes in the Colorado Front Range was one of the first geological structures to capture the attention of Rocky Mountain geologists (G.H. Stone, 1896), however it remained an irresolvable conundrum for more than a century due to the indeterminate age of emplacement and lack of lithological correlation. The age is now established as Neoproterozoic (originating between 800–680 Ma) based on results of detrital zircon provenance analysis (Siddoway and Gehrels, 2014), and distal sites are documented in the Sawatch and Williams Fork Ranges. The informal name Tava Sandstone has been introduced. In light of the age and regional extent, abundant new research questions emerge that are beginning to illuminate our understanding of the ancient paleoenvironment of Colorado and continental regions of the supercontinent Rodinia. To begin with, the sedimentological characteristics are of high importance from the standpoint of injection mechanism and origins of fluid overpressure. Macroscopically, the injected sandstone is generally massive and marked by isolated rounded quartz granules and pebbles supported within a matrix of rounded to subangular medium-fine to very-fine quartz sand. Rounded quartz pebbles and cobbles up to 7 cm may be present, together with angular fragments of wall rock, and, rarely, clay clasts. Commonly, elongate wall rock fragments display a fabric that is subparallel

»»CONTINUED ON PAGE 22

Professor Christine Siddoway is a structural geologist and faculty member at Colorado College, whose research in the Rockies spans crustal environments as broad as meltpresent deformation in Proterozoic gneisses and distributed brittle deformation in Garden of the Gods. Her unconventional application of uranium-lead geochronology led to a recent breakthrough on the age of a regional array of sandstone dikes in the southern Front Range. The age of the Colorado injectites had been a persistent problem because the dikes are hosted by crystalline basement. Outside USA, Dr. Siddoway’s primary research focus is the crustal growth and tectonic evolution of West Antarctica. She has led six research expeditions to Marie Byrd Land, twice participated in international research programs, and currently is funded for an ambitious collaborative investigation that uses potential fields geophysics and ice penetrating radar to explore a sector of the West Antarctic rift system that has long been concealed by the Ross Ice Shelf. Dr. Siddoway is a Fellow of the Geological Society of America.

Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

OUTCROP | April 2016

RMAG Luncheon programs rifting, Pennsylvanian Ancestral Rocky Mountains orogeny, Laramide orogeny). This lecture will review the character and extent of the dikes and parent bodies, and then provide an in-depth look at little-known pristine localities that have escaped a brittle deformational overprint, on the basis of which new hypotheses about the context for hydraulic fracturing and sediment remobilization. To conclude, the presentation will examine the Neoproterozoic stage in Colorado’s geotectonic evolution that has long been obscured: a phase of intracratonic extension preceding Rodinia breakup.

circumstances of the crystalline rock as host. Dike widths range from <3mm to > 7 meters, with a majority distributed over a distance of 75 km within the hanging wall and in close proximity to the Ute Pass fault. There is new recognition that very large, fault-bounded sand bodies, exceeding 3 km3 in dimension, almost certainly represent the source sands that were fluidized, remobilized and injected, that since have been in-faulted within granite. Such properties contribute to the recognition of sandstone injectites as premier fluid migration pathways and reservoir rocks in younger

hydrocarbon-producing regions such as the the Great Valley Sequence and Monterey Formation in California, and in grabens of the North Sea. In scale, even the vestigial Tava Sandstone system that exists today (having avoided multiple events of Phanerozoic erosion and destruction) compares favorably to segments of the Cretaceous-Tertiary systems of the world. In the Tava sandstone, complex patterns indicative of reducing and oxidizing conditions for iron, and varying porosity, suggest a dynamic fluid history and a role for the injectites as migration pathways, likely in the sequential orogenic events that have visited the region (Cambrian

»»CONTINUED FROM PAGE 20

RMAG FOUNDATION

2013-14 +

SCHOLARSHIPS CONTRIBUTIONS

McKenna Fund

Babcock Fund

Stone/Holberg Fund

CSU Fund Bolyard Fund

Veterans Fund

Colorado School of Mines

Colorado College

SCHOLARSHIPS CU Boulder

Rocky Mtn region Universities awarded to veterans attending Rocky Mtn Region Universities

University of WY Fund

AAPG - Imperial Barrel

Morrison Natural History

AAPG Student Leadership

PTTC Futures in Energy

Friend of Dinosaur Ridge

Denver Public Schools

Rocky Mtn Section Rocky Mtn Section

Inner City School attendance Rocky Mtn Section

Golden Pick Award RMAG

Guidebook contribution AAPG Sectional meeting Rockbuster Ball awards

Studying Rocky Mtn Structural Geology Golden

Foster

Studying Rocky Mtn Geology

RMAG Student Summit sponsor CO Science Teacher of the Year CO State Science Fair winners

CONTRIBUTIONS

mineral sets

Contibutions can be made at https://www.rmag.org/i4a/ams/publicLogin.cfm for RMAG members RMAG Foundation | 910 16th Street Mall, Suite 1214 | Denver, CO 80202

OUTCROP | April 2016

Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

Thank you sponsors!

Focusing Our Energy Black Diamond Sponsor

Diamond Sponsors

Platinum Sponsors

Program Sponsors

Cookie Sponsor Breckenridge Geophysical

Pen Sponsor Global Geophysical Services

Tricon Geophysics Black Hawk Investment, LLC. MSRP Consulting

Awards Sponsors MacKay Consulting Catamount Exploration MEQ Geo Inc.

Gold Sponsors Anschutz Exploration Bill Barrett Corporation Breckenridge Geophysical Cougar Land Services

Excel Geophysical Services Fairﬁeld Nodal Halliburton Liberty Oilﬁeld Services, LLC.

Seismic Exchange Inc. Sigma3 Sterling Seismic Services Wireless Seismic, Inc.

Silver Sponsors Border to Border Exploration Catamount Exploration, LLC Centennial Resources Development, LLC DESCO Environmental Consultants Exploration Geoconsultants, Inc. No. 4 | Company, www.rmag.org GVol. & H 65, Production LLC

Geokinetics Green River Energy Resources Hardin International Processing, Inc. Harper Consulting, LLC Interactive Earth Sciences Corp. iReservoir 23

MacKay Consulting, Inc. MEQ Geo Inc. Mighty Seismic, LLC. NanoSeis R3 Exploration Corporation April 2016 Ryan OUTCROP Exploration, |Inc.

RMAG LUNCHEON PROGRAMS Speaker: John B. Curtis — May 4, 2016

Sunny Days in the Cretaceous: Evaluation of Niobrara and Mowry Formation Petroleum Systems in the Powder River, Denver and Central Basins of the Rocky Mountains, Colorado and Wyoming, USA By John B. Curtis1,2 John E. Zumberge2, Stephen W. Brown2

Potential Niobrara and Mowry formation source rocks and produced oils from multiple Cretaceous reservoirs were characterized for seven Rocky Mountain basins to evaluate generation and migration of shale oil from these petroleum systems. This is a subset of a comprehensive study of 14 Rocky Mountain basins. Total organic carbon, Rock-EvalTM pyrolysis and

vitrinite reflectance analyses of rock samples were coupled with a detailed characterization of the produced oils, including saturate and aromatic carbon isotope compositions and sterane and terpane biomarkers. Light oils/condensates (with no surviving sterane and terpane biomarkers) were extensively characterized

»»CONTINUED ON PAGE 26

John Curtis is Professor Emeritus of Geology and Geological Engineering and Director, Potential Gas Agency at the Colorado School of Mines. He received a B.A. (1970) and M.Sc. (1972) in geology from Miami University and a Ph.D. (1989) in geology from The Ohio State University. He is a licensed Professional Geologist (Wyoming). Dr. Curtis was a Minuteman Missile Launch Officer and Instructor Launch Officer in the United States Air Force from 1972-1975. Dr. Curtis has been at the Colorado School of Mines since July 1990. He had 15 years prior experience in the petroleum industry with Texaco, SAIC, Columbia Gas, and Brown & Ruth Laboratories/ OUTCROP | April 2016

Baker-Hughes. He serves on and has chaired several professional society and natural gas industry committees, which previously included the Supply Panel, Research Coordination Council, and the Science and Technology Committee of the Gas Technology Institute (Gas Research Institute). He co-chaired the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Committee on Unconventional Petroleum Systems from 1999-2004 and was a member of the AAPG Committee on Resource Evaluation from 1994 – 2014. Curtis was an Associate Editor of the AAPG Bulletin from 1998 – 2010. He has published studies and given numerous invited talks concerning hydrocarbon source rocks, exploration for unconventional reservoirs, and the size and distribution of U.S. and Canadian 24

natural gas resources and comparisons of resource assessment methodologies. As Director of the Potential Gas Agency, he directs a team of 100 geologists, geophysicists and petroleum engineers for the Potential Gas Committee’s biennial assessment of remaining U.S. natural gas resources. Prior to beginning transitional retirement, he taught petroleum geology, petroleum geochemistry and petroleum design at the Colorado School of Mines. Dr. Curtis has worked with GeoMark Research, Ltd. in a consulting capacity since 1996. He is currently responsible for their Rocky Mountain petroleum system/ resource potential studies in the U.S. and Canada. 1. Colorado School of Mines 2. GeoMark Research, Ltd. Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

June 8, 2016 City Park Golf Course

RMAG Golf Tournament 2016 Only one Morning Flight! Registration opens April 4th. Please visit www.rmag.org for more information. Half Day 7:30am shotgun Breakfast and lunch will be provided.

Golf Chair - Brandon Sejera bs@decollementconsulting.com 303-842-4104 Past Golf Chair Advisor - Gerald Brummett gb@westlandandlegal.com 303-918-6425

email: staďŹ&#x20AC;@rmag.org

phone: 303.573.8621

910 65, 16thNo. Street Denver, CO, 80202 Vol. 4 | #1214, www.rmag.org

fax: 303.476.2241 25

web: www.rmag.org

follow: @rmagdenver OUTCROP | April 2016

RMAG Luncheon programs

with a new analytical and interpretive technique, GC-Triple Quad MS, aka QQQ. Systematic variations in source rock quality and thermal maturity for both formations were noted and mapped in the seven basins. These variations are

THE BOOK CLIFFS, UTAH: A CASE STUDY IN COASTAL SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY

maturity. Some of the sub-family 1.3 oils that are of moderate maturity appear to have another marine shale source, perhaps the Pierre and Carlile/ Greenhorn formations. In the Powder River Basin, Mowry-sourced oils occur mostly in the eastern half while Niobrara oils are more central. Light oils/ condensates produced from Cretaceous reservoirs in the Denver Basin correspond to the ‘Wattenberg Thermal Anomaly’. Just to the west and north, low/moderate mature Niobrara oils are present. In the NW corner of the Denver Basin, where both Mowry and Niobrara-sourced oils are present, the deeper Mowry oils are somewhat more mature. Low/moderate mature Mowry oils exist in both Laramie and North Park Basins while Niobrara oils only occur in the North Park Basin. Characterization of the oils allowed calibration of the source rock data and prediction of hydrocarbon generation. Comparison of oil and source rock maturity as vitrinite reflectance equivalent (VRE) aided in determining probable oil migration extent and direction.

due to differences in depositional environments, water-column anoxia and Laramide evolution of the studied basins. Determination of differences in depositional environments between the Niobrara and Mowry was based solely on biomarker interpretations. The Niobrara is an effective source rock due predominantly to enhanced productivity in the water column, in contrast to the Mowry, where enhanced preservation played the major role. Three oil families were identified: • Mowry Family 1.1 member oils are mostly present in reservoirs in the Lower Cretaceous Muddy Formation, stratigraphically just below the Mowry source. Conversely, Niobrara Family 1.2 member oils mostly occur in the Upper Cretaceous Niobrara Formation and Upper Cretaceous sands. • Many of the Cretaceous sub-family 1.3 oils occur in both Upper and Lower Cretaceous reservoirs and are slightly separated (statistically) from either the Mowry or Niobrara sub-families because many were generated at a higher level of thermal

»»CONTINUED FROM PAGE 24

Daub & Associates, Inc. SPECIALIZING IN PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, HYDROLOGICAL, GEOTECHNICAL AND PERMITTING SERVICES

Gerald J. Daub, P.G., C.P.G.   

W.W. Little Geological Consulting, LLC 2016 Schedule 15-19 August 29 Aug – 2 Sept By arrangement

$3500 Professional/$2500 Student

OUTCROP | April 2016

  

Information and registration: http://littleww.wordpress.com wwlittle@gmail.com

President

gjdaub@daubandassociates.com www.daubandassociates.com

Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

2016 Award of Excellence for

Teaching of Earth Science Sponsored by the Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists

THE WINNER RECEIVES A Plaque and a $1,000 Cash Award If you teach earth science in K-12 and think you qualify, contact the RMAG office at (303) 573-8621 for an application. Deadline is May 6. Previous winners were also selected to receive the Teacher of the Year Award from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists at the national and regional level.

The RMAG is a professional organization representing over 2000 earth scientists working in the Denver and Rocky Mountain area. In its capacity as the leading geologic organization in the Rocky Mountain area, each year the RMAG Foundation provides funding for an annual award presented to a teacher in recognition of his or her commendable efforts in introducing young minds to the earth sciences.

Check out the RMAG website at www.rmag.org.

Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

OUTCROP | April 2016

THE SCIENCE OF

CLIMATE CHANGE By Monty Hoffman The earth is 4.5 billion years old. The existence of multi-celled animals with hard parts which can be preserved as fossils in the rock record dates to the beginning of the Cambrian and the Phanerozoic, 540 million years ago. The appearance of this multi-celled life suggests that it was probably around this time that atmospheric conditions became somewhat like current conditions. The data set used for climate modeling goes back only about 150 years or to the middle decades of the 1800’s. This is only 0.000028% of the time span from the beginning of the Phanerozoic when multi-cellular life appeared to the present time. It is difficult to get a statistically significant answer to any problem from such a miniscule data set. This is true also in the study of climate change. The rock record contains information about the earth for the entire 540 million years. Why not use it?

WHAT THE ROCK RECORD REVEALS ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE Since the end of the last glacial maximum, about 20,000 years ago, the earth has seen significant warming. The retreat of continental glaciers to higher latitudes, the movement to higher latitudes of climate zones defined by palynomorph zones, ice

OUTCROP | April 2016

core data, and sea level change all tell us that the earth has warmed. Evolutionary changes in plants make it difficult to use palynomorph zones for climate analysis in older periods of time and the oldest ice core data is only about 750,000 years old. So glacial sedimentation and sea level change provide the best hope of using the rock record for understanding climate change since the beginning of the Phanerozoic. The rock record tells us that sea level has risen about 400 feet since the last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago (Figure 1). The rate of change has varied from about 1 mm/ year rise to about 10 mm/year rise over this time period. The most rapid rise was from 14,000 years ago until 7,000 years ago when the sea level rise averaged about 10 mm/ year. The rate over the last 150 years looks like it is in the range of 1.5 to 2.5 mm/year, well within in the range of what would be anticipated from the preceding years. There is extensive glacial sedimentation associated with the Pleistocene glaciation. This sedimentation gives us a good idea of the extent and timing of the glacial periods. In the context of understanding sequence stratigraphy, geologists have determined changes in sea level since the beginning of the Phanerozoic. The first sea level curve was published by Peter Vail and his colleagues

»»CONTINUED ON PAGE 30

Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

LEAD STORY

FIGURE 1:

SHUTTERSTOCK.COM

(Wikipedia Link: Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png)Â See Post Glacial Sea Level Rise References

Monty Hoffman received his BS in Geology from Northern Arizona University in 1975 and his MS in Geology from the University of Wyoming in 1977. He has worked as a Geologist in the oil and gas industry for the last 39 years. Over the last 20 years, he has Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org 29 OUTCROP | April 2016 worked extensively with dual phase fluid flow and the empirical forward modeling of oil and gas reservoirs.

Lead Story

FIGURE 2:

(Wikipedia link: Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png) See Global Sea Level Fluctuations References

at Exxon Research. Hallam, et. al. published a curve that incorporated more data and public data and is probably more accurate (Figure 2). Much of the time, the changes in sea level occur at a rate that can be explained by geologic processes such as continental drift moving land masses in and out of the higher latitudes. Two exceptions to this are the sea level drop that began during the Permian and culminated at the Permian- Triassic boundary, and the sea level drop that began during the Tertiary and culminated in the Pleistocene. These two events represent the lowest sea level stands on earth – and probably the coldest periods of time – since the start of the Phanerozoic. The Tertiary sea level change and its culmination in the glacial periods of the Pleistocene represent a significant period of global cooling and a very low sea OUTCROP | April 2016

level stand. That cooling trend began to reverse itself about 20,000 years ago when the earth entered a warming period which continues today. Although sea level has risen during this period of time it is still near a low level in geologic terms. The Permian-Triassic sea level change represents the lowest stand of sea level since the beginning of the Phanerozoic. There are glacial sediments associated with this low stand, but it is difficult to determine the time of maximum continental glaciation. However, data that is available suggests that The Permian-Triassic low stand looks much like the Tertiary-Holocene low stand which is documentable as a time of global cooling. The best explanation of this older Permian-Triassic low sea level stand is that it represents a period of global cooling as well.

»»CONTINUED FROM PAGE 28

»»CONTINUED ON PAGE 31

Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

Lead Story the species become increasingly more complex. Global warming has been much kinder to life on Earth than global cooling.

»»CONTINUED FROM PAGE 30

GLOBAL WARMING VS. GLOBAL COOLING: Their Effect on Biodiversity The Phanerozoic is divided into three eras primarily determined by major changes in the nature of the plant and animal life as seen in the fossil record. At the end of the Paleozoic a mass extinction occurred that wiped out 85% of the species present on earth at the time. This coincides with the sea level low stand that occurs at the Permian-Triassic boundary and the major cooling period that caused it. At the end of the Mesozoic there is another mass extinction event that coincides with the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary and the sea level low stand. This was also a time of global cooling. In contrast, the warming periods in between are times of increasing biodiversity. Species multiply and

WHAT THE ROCK RECORD SUGGESTS ABOUT THE FUTURE

Nothing can predict the future, but the Phanerozoic rock record can give us some insights into the possibilities. First, while the earth has warmed since the last Pleistocene glacial event, we are still in a relatively cool time in the Earth’s history. The sea levels at the culmination of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic were much higher than they are today. From this data we can infer a much warmer climate at that time than at the present. Second, the Holocene warming event which we are currently experiencing (Figure 3)

»»CONTINUED ON PAGE 32

FIGURE 3:

(Wikipedia link: Ice Age Temperature.png) See Ice Age Temperature Changes References

Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

OUTCROP | April 2016

Lead Story currently not the case in climate change modeling.

»»CONTINUED FROM PAGE 31

is neither of sufficient duration nor warming magnitude to eliminate the possibility that it is simply a short, warmer interglacial period in an overall cooling trend. Finally, if the current warming trend proves to be just the beginning of a much longer trend similar to what is seen in the geologic past, we can expect it to be tens of millions of years long and culminate with temperatures of the magnitude of past warming cycles.

THE METHODOLOGY OF EMPIRICAL FORWARD MODELING

A perfect numerical model of a physical experiment would exactly predict the outcome of the experiment. But building a perfect numerical model requires an exact understanding of the controlling variables of the process. That typically is not the situation when people build empirical forward models. In fact, the very reason they build models because the problem appears to be too complex and difficult to exactly match. The typical process is to build a numerical model that is a “best guess” at what the controlling variables are. The data are input and the model is run but, because there is no data from the future available, it is run on a historical data set only. The results of the numerical model output are compared to the actual data results. Depending on the complexity of the issue being studied these rarely, if ever, match. The more complex the issue and the less well-understood the variables involved are, the poorer the match. At this point, a process called “history matching” starts. Historical data is plotted and a curve is fit to the data. From this, an algorithm is generated that best describes the curve. The hope is that the algorithm also best describes the variable that generated the data that was plotted. This process is continued for all of the known variables. After each curve fit and algorithm generation for the variables, the model is run again. This process is repeated time after time with the aim of getting the model results to converge with the historic data. When the model results and the historic data match, the model is considered “history matched” and validated. The model is then used to forward model and make predictions about the future.

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

Before we examine the science of climate science, it is useful to review the scientific method. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as «a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.” The scientific method is a process which begins with observations about the natural world, followed by the development of ideas (hypotheses) about why things are the way they are and predictions that can be tested. These hypotheses can be tested by carefully controlled and replicated experiments that gather empirical data. Depending on how well the tests match the predictions, the original hypothesis may require refinement, alteration, expansion or even rejection. At present, climate science has observed a phenomena, postulated a hypotheses, but not tested the hypotheses by experimentation. Currently the complexity of the physics and chemistry are not well understood and a proper experiment cannot be designed. Instead, people who are working on climate change are building numerical models and trying to empirically forward-model climate change. While modeling is a worthwhile exercise in trying to understand a process, it has two problems that are often overlooked. First, it is not an experiment that has observable data to confirm or reject the hypotheses. Second, empirical forward-modeling is only useful to the extent that the mathematical model realistically represents the physics and chemistry of the process being studied. This is OUTCROP | April 2016

THE PROBLEMS WITH HISTORY MATCHING AND FORWARD MODELING The fact that the model has to be modified by history matching to fit the data acknowledges that it is not a perfect numerical model of the physical and chemical processes it is meant to represent. Because

»»CONTINUED ON PAGE 34

Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

Night at the Museum An RMAG SEPM DMNS Event

4.5.16 Thank you sponsors!

VIP Behind-the-Scenes Tours with James Hagadorn 3D Digital Geologic Earth-Surfing with Robert Raynolds Location: The Denver Museum of Nature and Science

email: Vol. 65, No. 4 |staďŹ&#x20AC;@rmag.org www.rmag.org |

phone: 303.573.8621 33 | fax: 303.476.2241 web: www.rmag.org | 910 16th Street #1214, Denver, CO, 80202

OUTCROP | April 2016

Lead Story

of this, it is critical to determine that the mathematics used to modify the model are well grounded in the physics and chemistry of the process being described. If the mathematical adjustment to the data has no connection to the physics and chemistry of the process being modeled then the forward- modeling is not valid. Here are some of the pitfalls: The assumptions made to derive the mathematical model need to match the real world. Much of the time, the math needed to describe the real world is very complex. In an attempt to reduce that complexity to a solvable problem, simplifying assumptions are made. If these assumptions violate the actual physics and chemistry of the real world, then the numerical model is invalid. The historical data set used to modify the numerical model by history matching has to contain all of the possible outcomes. No forward model can predict something that is not described in the model. This is an obvious problem with using a 150 year long data set to model a 540 million year old process. At quick glance at the sea level curve shows that the 150 year long data set is insufficient to model the process. This is because it covers only a warming trend and not all of the possible outcomes that are present in the 540 million year time frame. The process being studied needs to be analyzed in terms of the variables that control it, not in terms of variables that are dependent on another variable. Often when we analyze two variables in relationship to each other there appears to be a correlation between them and the conclusion that we often reach is that one variable controls the other. That is, one is a controlling variable and one is a dependent variable. The problem arises when both are actually dependent variables of a third variable that has not been considered in the model. Assuming a controlling-dependent relationship in this case will result in a false conclusion. Any changes to the algorithm or input data have to reflect realistic processes and values that are present in the real world. Often in the hunt for a history match a progression of changes gets the model closer and closer until there is a match. While the changes made at the beginning may have been appropriate and realistic, the ones at the final match may not be, OUTCROP | April 2016

but that fact is lost in the iterative process. Continued iterations require additional assumptions that take us farther from the actual physics and chemistry of the process. Finally, when the history matching is finished, the model needs to be examined to determine that it makes sense. It needs to be physically possible and no laws of physics can be violated.

»»CONTINUED FROM PAGE 32

FAILURE OF FORWARD MODELING: EXAMPLES

Climate science is not the only place that empirical forward modeling is attempted. Weather forecasting, oil and gas reservoir models, economic forecasts, and stock market forecasting are all examples of places where it is used. How successful is it? The forecasts do well as long as the trend direction and magnitude of change that are occurring continue. They are not very good at predicting inflection points in the trends and they are terrible at predicting trend reversals. Oil and gas reservoir models are not usually public data and so are difficult to verify. However, the other categories listed above are more verifiable so they can be examined for their reliability.

WEATHER AND CLIMATE

Weather forecasting forward empirical models are reasonably accurate for 48 hours. After that, the accuracy declines quickly. Again, the models can predict well as long as trends continue. When a cold or warm front is approaching, the models do reasonably well for that trend. They have difficulty, however, predicting what happens after the front passes and the next trend starts. One should expect similar problems in climate forecasting and, in fact, climate models have predicted faster warming than has occurred (Figure 4). Of interest is the time interval from 1998 to 2014 where there was an unpredicted slowing in the warming. NOAA has recently issued a statement that contradicts this conclusion but this position is disputed in the climate science community (See References).

»»CONTINUED ON PAGE 35

Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

Lead Story

FIGURE 4:

See Model Prediction Divergences References The 2008 financial crisis provided an opportunity to see how well empirical forward modeling predicted a trend reversal. Empirical forward modeling failed miserably. According to the International Monetary Fund, “A good example is the ongoing debate over existing models’ failure to predict or untangle the reasons for the global financial crisis that began in 2008. Insufficient attention to the links between overall demand, wealth, and—in particular—excessive financial risk taking has been blamed.” In other words, the mathematical model used for forward modeling was not grounded in reality because too many variables were overlooked or not properly integrated into the model. Just because there is a history match does not mean the model is realistic, and if the model is not realistic it should not be used to attempt to predict the future.

»»CONTINUED FROM PAGE 34 STOCK MARKET AND FINANCIAL MARKETS There is a tremendous incentive for “seeing the future” in the stock market. A significant effort has been put into trying to use historical data to predict the future. Technical analysis and empirical forward modeling of the stock market have a record that is long enough and that has enough examples that a statistically valid analysis can be done. Numerous academic studies have examined these attempts to predict the future of the stock market. The conclusion is that historical forward modeling doesn’t work and is no better than a “random walk”. The financial markets have responded to this information by moving to index funds that do not try to predict the future and that cost less. Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

»»CONTINUED ON PAGE 36

OUTCROP | April 2016

Lead Story for experimentation. This is contrary to the scientific method and should not be considered science. Empirical forward modeling must be firmly based on the physics and chemistry that control the processes being modeled to provide any insight into the processes. One of the major flaws of current empirical forward modeling in climate change is that it uses a small data set to history match to. This small data set does not contain all of the possible outcomes that are apparent in the long term sea level curves. Empirical forward modeling is an often tried technique in many fields. Examination of the results of these models show that it is a flawed technique with limited application.

»»CONTINUED FROM PAGE 35

Not only did empirical forward modeling fail to predict the 2008 crisis, it actually contributed to it. Empirical forward models were built to predict the risk and give a price for subprime mortgages. Again, these were history matched mathematical models that did well as long as the trend was consistent. When the reality of falling incomes affected the mortgage market, the models’ predictions of risk were wildly wrong. Many of the institutions that had bet heavily on the models failed or would have failed had the government not stepped in. In short, the effectiveness of empirical forward modeling is limited. One of the biggest dangers is thinking that a mathematical model somehow replaces the need to understand the cause and effect of processes that the model is evaluating. While it is a tool to help understand the process, numerical modeling does not replace experimentation in the scientific method.

REFERENCES

POST GLACIAL SEA LEVEL RISE Fleming, Kevin, Paul Johnston, Dan Zwartz, Yusuke Yokoyama, Kurt Lambeck and John Chappell (1998). “Refining the eustatic sea-level curve since the Last Glacial Maximum using far- and intermediate-field sites”. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 163 (1-4): 327-342. doi:10.1016/ S0012-821X(98)00198-8 Fleming, Kevin Michael (2000) Glacial Rebound and Sea-level Change Constraints on the Greenland Ice Sheet, Australian National University PhD Thesis Milne, Glenn A., Antony J. Long and Sophie E. Bassett (2005). “Modelling Holocene relative sea-level observations from the Caribbean and South America”. Quaternary Science Reviews 24 (10-11): 1183-1202. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2004.10.005

CONCLUSIONS

The rock record shows that sea level rise and the associated global warming have been an ongoing process over the last 20,000 years. Any analysis that tries to determine the effects of anthropomorphic warming must first account for this fact. The rock record over the last 540 million years shows that sea level has varied greatly. Continental glacial sedimentation shows that some of the change is due to global warming and cooling. While the earth has been warming over the last 20,000 years, sea level is at a relatively low level and we can infer that this a relatively cool time in the earth’s history. Short term sea level and ice core information indicates that the Holocene warming trend has not been of sufficient length or warming magnitude to eliminate the possibility that it is simply another interglacial period of the Pleistocene glaciation - a mere “blip” superimposed on an overall cooling trend. If it does, in fact, represent a trend reversal into a long term warming period then past geologic data indicates that it should last for tens of millions of years and raise the temperature and sea level to a much higher point than it is today. Currently the methodology of the study of climate change substitutes empirical forward modeling OUTCROP | April 2016

GLOBAL SEA LEVEL FLUCTUATIONS Hallam, A., Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. B 325, 437-455 (1989). Harland, W.B. and many others, A Geologic Time Scale, (1982). Haq, B., J. Hardenbol, P. Vail., Science, 235, 1561167 (1987). Ross, C.A. & J.R.P. Ross, Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research Spec. Publ. 24, 137149 (1987). Ross, C.A. & J.R.P. Ross in Sea-level Change: an Integrated Approach (Eds. Wilgus, C.K., Hastings,

»»CONTINUED ON PAGE 37

Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

Lead Story glacial cycles from an Antarctic ice core, Nature 429:6992, 623-628, doi:10.1038/nature02599. [2] Lisiecki, L. E., and M. E. Raymo (2005), A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic d18O records, Paleoceanography, 20, PA1003, doi:10.1029/2004PA001071. [3] Hearty, P.J. and Kaufman, D.S. (2000) Whole-rock aminostratigraphy and Quaternary sea-level history of the Bahamas, Quaternary Research 54, 163-173. D. B. Karner, J. Levine, B. P. Medeiros, R. A. Muller (2002) Constructing a Stacked Benthic δ18O Record, Paleoceanography 17:0, doi:10.1029/2001PA000667.

»»CONTINUED FROM PAGE 36

B.J., Posamentier, H., van Wagoner, J.C., Ross, C.A., and Kendall, C.G. St. C.), SEPM Spec. Pub. 42:71-108 (1988). Vail, P.R., Mitchum, R.M., Jr., Todd, R.G., Widmier, J.M., Thompson, S., III., Sangree, J.B., Bubb, J.N. and Hatleilid, W.G., 1977, Seismic Stratigraphy and global changes of sea level. In: C.E. Payton (Editor), Seismic Stratigraphy-Applications to Hydrocarbon Exploration. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Mem., 26:49-212. ICE AGE TEMPERATURE CHANGES Petit J.R., Jouzel J., Raynaud D., Barkov N.I., Barnola J.M., Basile I., Bender M., Chappellaz J., Davis J., Delaygue G., Delmotte M., Kotlyakov V.M., Legrand M., Lipenkov V., Lorius C., Pépin L., Ritz C., Saltzman E., Stievenard M. (1999) Climate and Atmospheric History of the Past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica, Nature, 399, 429-436. [1] EPICA community members (2004) Eight

MODEL PREDICTION DIVERGENCES http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/didglobal-warming-slow-down-in-the-2000s-or-not/ http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/ articles/agu_2014_fall_poster_michaels_ knappenberger.pdf

WELCOME NEW RMAG MEMBERS!

Michael Brooks

is a University of Colorado Boulder Senior in Broomfield, Colorado.

Timothy Bruno

Scott Cherry

is a Geologist in Edmond, Oklahoma.

Thomas Davis

is a Professor of Geophysics at Colorado School of Mines in Golden, Colorado.

Thomas Davis

is a Senior Geoscience Technical Specialist at IHS in Lakewood, Colorado.

is the Owner/geologist at Thomas L. Davis Geologist in Ventura, California.

works at EOG Resources in Denver, Colorado.

is the Owner at Rye Ridge Resources in Denver, Colorado.

John Chapman

Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

Reed Dixon 37

is an Environmental Consultant at Bureau Veritas North America, Inc. in Denver, Colorado.

Richard Blessing

Shelley FitzMaurice

is a Consultant at FitzMaurice GeoConsulting, LLC in Denver, Colorado.

Samantha Higbee

is a Sr. Engineering Technician at Venoco, Inc. in Thornton, Colorado.

Gabriela Keeton

is a Geologist at Anadarko in Boulder, Colorado.

Kjersten Lehman

lives in Fort Collins, Colorado.

»»CONTINUED ON PAGE 38

OUTCROP | April 2016

IN THE PIPELINE

RMAG/SEPM Night at the Museum. Denver Museum of Nature and Science.

DWLS Luncheon. TBA

APRIL 6, 2016

IHS Course. Kingdom Seismic and Geological Interpretation.

RMAG Luncheon Program Speaker: Professor Christine Siddoway

APRIL 25-29, 2016

APRIL 27, 2016

APRIL 19, 2016

APRIL 5, 2016

Oilfield Christian Fellowship. For reservations, RSVP to OCF-DenverChapter@pxd. com or 303-675-2602.

WELCOME NEW RMAG MEMBERS!

lives in Boulder, Colorado.

Kurt Neher

is a VP Business Development at California Resources Corp. in Ojai, California.

Joseph Nicolette

is a Geologist at Catamount Energy Partners in Denver, Colorado.

Tanner Posey

works at Decollement Consulting in Arvada, Colorado.

Steven Reid

is a Consulting geologist at Consultant in Casper, Wyoming.

Mayra Rosa

is a Land Professional/Attorney in Centennial, Colorado. OUTCROP | April 2016

Alan Seeling

works at Nighthawk Production in Buena Vista, Colorado.

Sara Smaltz

is a Geologist at Encana in Denver, Colorado.

Nathan Smith

works at Valerus in Denver, Colorado.

Yvette Sornberger is a Contracting Officer at US Geological Survey in Denver, Colorado.

Shuang Sun

is an Imaging Supervisor at CGG Canada in Calgary, Alberta.

Luke Tetreau

is an Undergraduate at University of Colorado Boulder in Boulder, Colorado. 38

Thomas Mason

ÂťÂťCONTINUED FROM PAGE 37

Joseph Thomas

lives in Gunnison, Colorado.

Joan Tilden

is the President at Algonquin Resources Inc in Dillon, Colorado.

Michael Vomaske

is a Vicel President Sales at Columbine Logging Inc in Denver, Colorado.

Alexander Cheney

is a Research Assistant at Colorado School of Mines in Golden, Colorado. RMAG contributions support the calendar of 2015 of RMAG events, including short courses, symposia, social events, monthly luncheons, and more.

Click here to make a contribution online!

Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

RMAG FOUNDATION

2016 Scholarship Winners

On behalf of the RMAG Foundation Trustees it is my pleasure to announce this year’s scholarship award winners. Recipients will be announced at the Wed, April 6th RMAG Luncheon.

COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP:

GARY BABCOCK MEMORIAL AWARD:

Alexander Cheney, PhD: Reservoir and Seal Distribution in a Low Net: Gross Tidally Influenced Shelf System, El Vado/Tocito/Gallup Sandstone intervals, San Juan Basin, NM

Edward Matheson, PhD University of Nebraska: Sedimentology and Stratigraphy of the Phosphoria Rock Complex in the Bighorn Basin, Wyoming: Implications for Paleoceanography and Paleoclimate Scyller Borglum, PhD South Dakota School of Mines and Technology: Pierre Shale: Poroelastic Behavior Characterization through Novel Permeability and Tensile Strength Testing

STONE/HOLLBERG MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP:

Elizabeth Wilson, MS Colorado School of Mines: The Structural Evolution of the Hamilton Creek/ Dry Creek Anticline and its Relationship to the Southeast Termination of Paradox Valley, SW Colorado

NORMAN H FOSTER MEMORIAL AWARD:

Rebekah Simon, PhD University of Colorado, Boulder: Characterizing Residual Migrated Hydrocarbons and Their Role in Porosity Evolution Andrew Canada, PhD University of Idaho: High-elevation Lake Basins in Nevada: Implications for Topographic and Hydrologic Reconstruction of the Cordilleran Hinterland

DUDLEY AND MARION BOLYARD MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP: UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO:

Derek Weller, PhD: Characterizing the Climatic and Environmental Changes Across the End of the Cretaceous Mass Extinction into Earliest Paleocene Time in the Rocky Mountain Region COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP:

EARL GRIFFITH: VETERANS MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP:

Alexandra Racosky, MS: Alteration Geometries of a Multiphase System and Implications for the Presence of Porphry Root, Harrison Pass Pluton, Nevada

Gayln Adams, MS University of Oklahoma: Timing of Dolomitizing Fluids in Zebra Dolomite Bodies of Nevada’s Basin and Range Province Steven Levesque, MS New Mexico State University:

VOLUNTER! Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

Evaluating the Magnetic Evolution of the McCartys Flow, West-Central New Mexico

— Phil Moffitt, RMAG Foundation Chair

As a diverse community of individuals working towards a worthy cause, we believe that your unique talents can bring us all forward. Volunteers are always needed and welcome! If you would like to volunteer for any of our committees or events, please contact the RMAG office at (303) 573-8621 or staff@rmag.org

OUTCROP | April 2016

CALENDAR | APRIL 2016 SUNDAY

MONDAY

TUESDAY

WEDNESDAY

RMAG/SEPM Night at the Museum.

RMAG Luncheon Program.

THURSDAY

FRIDAY

SATURDAY

DWLS Luncheon.

Oilfield Christian Fellowship. IHS Course: Kingdom Seismic and Geological Interpretation..

OUTCROP ADVERTISING RATES 1 Time

2 Times

6 Times

12 Times

Full page (7-1/2” x 9-1/4”)

$330

$620

$1,710

$3,240

2/3 page (4-7/8” x 9-1/4”)

$220

$400

$1,110

$2,100

1/2 page (7-1/2” x 4-5/8”)

$175

$330

$930

$1,740

1/3 page horizontal (4-7/8” x 4-7/8”)

$165

$250

$690

$1,200

1/3 page vertical (2-3/8” x 9-1/4”)

$165

$250

$690

$1,200

1/6 page (2-3/8” x 4-7/8”)

$75

$120

$330

$600

Professional Card (2-5/8” x 1-1/2”)

$20

$34

$84

$144

OUTCROP | April 2016

Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

ADVERTISER INDEX • AAPG ��19

• MJ Systems ��7

• Daub & Associates, LLC ��26

• Neil H. Whitehead, III ��6

• Décollement Consulting, Inc ��15

• Petroleum History Institute ��9

• Donovan Brothers Inc. ��18

• PTTC ��4

• Enerplus ��10

• QEP Resources ��14

• Eureka Geological Consulting, LLC ��16

• Sinclair Petroleum Engineering, Inc. ��6

• Geo Link ��17

• SM Energy ��12

• GeoMark ��16

• Spancers & Associates ��6

• GeoSteering ��7

• Stephens Production Company ��13

• Horizontal Solutions Intl. (HSI) ��14

• Stoner Engineering (SES) ��21

• James C. Karo Associates Land Services ��10

• Sunburst Consulting ��13

• JLog® Petrophysical Software ��8

• Thomas L. Davis ��26

• Johnson Geo-Consulting, LLC ��18

• Tracker Resource Development LLC ��18

• Kestrel Geoscience, LLC ��12

• Whiting Petroleum Corporation ��11

• Louis J. Mazzullo, LLC ��8

• W.W. Little Geological Consulting, LLC ��6, 26

• Mineral Appraiser, LLC ��6

• Yates Petroleum Corporation ��17

VOLUNTER! Vol. 65, No. 4 | www.rmag.org

OUTCROP | April 2016