survey notes, may 2011

8/7/2019 Survey Notes, May 2011

1/16

U T A H G E O L O G I C A L S U R V E Y

SURVEY NOTESMay 2011Volume 43, Number 2

TAPPING INTO UTAHSUNCONVENTIONALOIL AND GAS RESOURCES


2/16

Every year the Utah Geological Survey(UGS) provides information on the produc-tion trends of Utahs energy and mineralscommodities to the Governors Ofice ofPlanning and Budget (GOPB) EconomicOutlookreport (see www.governor.utah.

gov/dea/ERG/2011EconomicOutlook.pdf for the 2011 report). We alsoprovide price and production estimatesof critical geologic commodities toquarterly meetings of GOPBs RevenueAssumption Committee. The role of thiscommittee is to monitor and predict keyindicators of Utahs economic activity.Inclusion of information provided by theUGS underscores the growing impor-tance of geologic commodities to Utahseconomy (see graph).

During the second half of the 20th centurythe annual production value of Utahs

geologic commodities averaged about$4 billion (inlation-adjusted to 2010dollars). However, the production valuehas doubled since about 2005, with the2010 igure being $8.4 billion. The $4.4billion igure for nonfuel production in2010 comprises base metals (66 percent;e.g., copper, molybdenum, magnesium,beryllium), industrial minerals (22percent; e.g., saline minerals, sand, gravel,limestone, phosphate), and precious

metals (15 percent; e.g., gold, silver). Tdominant factor inluencing most of t

trends is the commodity price, whichinluenced by complex factors such

supply, demand, and economic activiDuring the past year most geologic comodities showed upward trends in valu

The only sector that showed a signiicadecrease was industrial minerals (dow

3 percent). Natural gas revenue remain

Design: Stevie EmersonCover: Outcrop of the upper Green RiverFormation lacustrine deposits alongEvacuation Creek, Uintah County, Utah.See article on page 1.Photo by Michael Vanden Berg.

Survey Notes is published three times yearly by Utah Geological Survey, 1594 W. North Temple, Suite 3110, Salt Lake City, Utah 84116; (801) 537-3300. The Utah Geological Survey providtimely scientifc inormation about Utahs geologic environment, resources, and hazards. The UGS is a division o the Department o Natural Resources. Single copies o Survey Notes a

distributed ree o charge within the United States and reproduction is encouraged with recognition o source. Copies are available at geology.utah.gov/surveynotes.ISSN 1061-7930

THE DIRECTORS

PERSPECTIVE

CONTENTSExploring Utahs Other Great Lake ..................1Utah Shales May Contain

The Right StuNatural Gas ............... 3Historical MapsMore Than

Meets The Eye ............................................6Energy News ....................................................8Glad You Asked .............................................. 10GeoSights .......................................................12

New Publications ............................................13

StateofUtahGary R. Herbert, Governor

DepartmentofNaturalResourcesMichael Styler, Executive Director

UGSBoardKenneth Puchlik, Chair

William Loughlin Jack Hamilton

Tom Tripp Alisa Schofeld

Mark Bunnell Donald Harris

Kevin Carter (Trust Lands

Administration-ex ofcio)

UGSStaff

Administration

Richard G. Allis, Director

Kimm Harty, Deputy Director

John Kingsley,Associate Director

Starr Losee, Secretary/Receptionist

Dianne Davis,Administrative Secretary

Kathi Galusha,Accounting Ofcer

Linda Bennett, Accounting Technician

Michael Hylland, Technical Reviewer

Robert Ressetar, Technical Reviewer

EditorialStaffVicky ClarkeLori Douglas, Stevie Emerson,

Jeremy Gleason, Jay Hill

StateEnergyProgram Chris TallacksonDenise Beaudoin, Jerriann Ernsten,

Brandon Malman, Will Chatwin,

Deborah Boren, Alair Emory, Alex

Dalp-Charron, Sherry Childers,

Stean Wilson, Alex Scott, Bruce Miya

GeologicHazardsSteve Bowman

Richard Giraud, William Lund,Greg McDonald, Jessica Castleton,

Gregg Beukelman, Chris DuRoss,

Tyler Knudsen, Corey Unger,

Lisa Brown, Jim Ollerton,

Adam McKean

GeologicInformationandOutreachSandra EldredgeChristine Wilkerson, Patricia Stokes,

Mark Milligan, Stephanie Earls,

Emily Chapman, Lance Weaver,

Gentry Hammerschmid, Jim Davis,

Marshall Robinson

GeologicMappingGrant WillisJon King, Douglas Sprinkel,

Janice Hayden, J. Buck Ehler,

Kent Brown, Basia Matyjasik,

Don Clark, Bob Biek, Paul Kuehne

GroundWaterandPaleontologyMichael LoweJames Kirkland, Janae Wallace,

Martha Hayden, Hugh Hurlow,

Don DeBlieux, Kim Nay,

Paul Inkenbrandt, Lucy Jordan,

Kevin Thomas, Rebecca Medina

Walid Sabbah, Rich Emerson,Stean Kirby, Scott Madsen,

Toby Hooker

EnergyandMineralsDavid TabetRobert Blackett, Craig Morgan,

Mike Laine, Je Quick, Taylor Bo

Thomas Chidsey, Cheryl Gustin,

Tom Dempster, Brigitte Hucka,

Stephanie Carney, Ammon McDo

Ken Krahulec, Valerie Davis,

Brad Wolverton, Sonja Heusche

Mike Vanden Berg, Andrew Rupk

Mark Gwynn

continued on pag


3/16

Great Salt Lake and its Ice Age predecessor, Lake Bonneville, arewell known to many, but long beore these lakes existed, anotherlarge lake played an important role in Utahs geologic history. About50 million years ago, northeastern Utahs Uinta Basin and north-western Colorados Piceance Basin were covered by a large body owater called Lake Uinta. A similar ancient lake, named Lake Gosiute,

existed to the north in the Green River and Washakie Basins o Wyo-ming. The rocks o the Eocene Green River Formation preserve arecord o these ancient lakes, including world amous ish and leaossils. Additionally, Utahs much-talked-about oil shale resources,as well as signiicant conventional oil and gas reserves, are withinthe strata that accumulated in ancient Lake Uinta.

In May 2010, the Utah Geological Survey (UGS) and the Universityo Utahs Institute or Clean and Secure Energy (ICSE) teamed up torecover 1000 eet o 4-inch-diameter core rom the upper Green RiverFormation, about 60 miles southeast o Vernal in Uintah County.ICSEs purpose or this coring program was to recover resh oilshale samples or a variety o geochemical and geomechanical test-ing to acilitate possible uture oil shale development. The UGS has

additional goals or drilling the core which include (1) reconstructingthe climatic changes in ancient Lake Uintas environment, (2) cor-relating changes in Utahs lake sediments with changes in the adja-cent Piceance Basin o Colorado, and (3) providing an educationaltool to teach others about ancient lake systems and their petroleumpotential.

The borehole, named Skyline 16, was spudded (start o drilling) onMay 18, 2010, on land owned by the Oil Shale Exploration Company.The drillers recovered 20 eet o rock per coring run and typicallyrecovered between 100 and 200 eet o core a day. Ater a 20-ootsection o core was brought to the surace, UGS geologists erriedit into the back o a large truck and laid it out in trays. The corewas then accurately measured, marked with ootage depths, stripedto indicate proper orientation, described to note changes in rock

Vernal

Price

GrandJunction

Rifle

Rock Springs

Big Piney

EvanstonGREEN

RIVER

BASIN

WASHAKIE

BASIN

UINTA

BASIN PICEANCE

BASIN

Utah

Colorado

Wyoming

10 0 10 20 30

Miles

Skyline 16 DouglasCr e

ek

Arch

Uinta MountainUplift

Lake Uinta

Lake Gosiute

Exploring Utahs Other Great LakeMichael Vanden Berg

Ancient Eocene lake basins and the location of the new Skyline 16 c

Drill rig used to recover the Skyline 16 core in the eastern Uinta Basin. UGS geologist Andrew Rupke catching core as it is brought to the su

MAY 2011 1


4/16


5/16

Are They Just Really Ugly Rocks?

Driving south from Price along Highway 6 and then east toward

Grand Junction along Interstate 70, one observes a desolate,drab gray landscape of gullies, small buttes, low rounded hills,and slopes leading up to the massive Book Cliffs to the east andnorth, respectively. This is the Mancos Shale, a thick geologicformation composed primarily of mud and clay deposited inthe bottom of an ancient seaway that extended from Canada tothe Gulf of Mexico about 80 to 100 million years ago during theCretaceous Period. To look at these sediments, one might wonderwhat interest or value they could possibly have to anyone. Whenwet, they become a muddy quagmire and when dry, a desertwasteland. However, the Mancos and other Utah shales maycontain the right stuff to generate, store, and produce naturalgas. These shale beds are widespread, thick, organic rich, andburied deep enough in many areas to create and hold signiicant

recoverable gas reserves.

New Techniques and the Hottest Gas Plays in the U.S.

Shale-gas plays in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, andthe northern Appalachia states are the sites of extensive drillingprograms. Not too long ago the U.S. was anticipating hugeincreases in natural gas imports. Although shale was known tocontain natural gas, the numerous pores (open spaces) withinthe rock are very small and the permeability (the connectivity ofthose pores that allows gas or liquids to low) is extremely low.However, new techniques were developed that changed manyshales from only being a source of hydrocarbons (oil and naturalgas) to major producers today, and thus the need for future gas

imports has vanished. Once the target shale is reached, wellsare now drilled horizontally to encounter multiple natural frac-tures. Shales that contain sand and silt are usually brittle andtherefore more susceptible to fracturing. Hydraulic fracturingtechniques (see Energy News on page 8) further increase thenumber of fractures and the amount of permeability. The resultof these new techniques and drilling activity is that the majorU.S. shale-gas plays have 1400 trillion cubic feet of commercial,recoverable gas. But what about the shale-gas potential in Utah?

.25 0 25 50 75

Manning Canyon shale-gas play area

Paradox Formation shale-gas play area

Mancos shale-gas play area

EXPLANATION

Great

Salt

Lake

UINTA BASIN

San

RafaelS

well

Salt Lake City

Price

PARADOX BAS

Potential shale-gas play areas for the Manning Canyon, Paradox,

Mancos Formations in Utah.

Typical exposure of the Mancos Shale as viewed looking north from

I-70 near Green River, Utah.

UTAH SHALES MAYCONTAIN THE RIGHT STUFFNATURAL GASThomas C. Chidsey, Jr.

MAY 2011 3


6/16

Were On It!

Utah Geological Survey Shale-Gas Studies

The Utah Geological Survey (UGS) is presently conduct-ing major studies of Utahs shale-gas resources in theManning Canyon, Paradox, and Mancos Formations.Although the organic content of some of these shalesis partially known, the reservoir quality and the basicrock-mechanics data so important to successful wellcompletions are virtually unknown. Also, the regional

distribution and thickness of these rocks are poorlymapped and the extent of the gas plays has not beendeined. The burial history of these shales, critical tounderstanding gas generation, appears complex andprobably varies widely from deep to shallow. Thereare no published studies of the best completion prac-tices (horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing tech-niques). The UGS studies address all of these issues.

Manning Canyon Shale

The Mississippian (around 320 million years ago)Manning Canyon Shale in central Utah has long beenknown for its potential as a hydrocarbon source rock,

but has not been considered as a potential gas producer.The Manning Canyon is mainly shale with interbeds oflimestone, sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone, and hasa maximum thickness of 2000 feet. These interbeddedbrittle rock types are ideal for hydraulic fracture stimu-lation. The Manning Canyon may have been depositedin a shallow restricted marine, brackish, and freshwa-ter setting like the modern Everglades and Florida Bay.Total organic carbon that can create hydrocarbonsin shale varies from 1 to 15 percent. Over time, theManning Canyon was buried deeply enough to generatenatural gas. The greatest Manning Canyon potential is a600-square-mile area at the north end of the San RafaelSwell, south and southeast of Price. Several recent wells

have had signiicant shows of gas from the ManningCanyon and additional drilling is planned.

Paradox Formation

In the Paradox Basin of southeastern Utah and south-western Colorado, the Pennsylvanian (around 310million years ago) Paradox Formation consists of thinlyinterbedded, black, organic-rich marine shale, siltstone,dolomite, and anhydrite (an evaporitic rock). The shalesgenerally range between 25 and 50 feet thick and arethe source rocks for the oil in Utahs largest oil ieldthe 450-million-barrel Greater Aneth ield. In Utah,exploratory efforts are just beginning to target some ofthese shales for gas. The Colorado part of the basin hasseen considerable success using horizontal drilling. Ourstudy has revealed two very important features of theseshales: (1) most contain signiicant amounts of silt andare therefore brittle, and (2) bounding and interbeddedcarbonates (limestone or dolomite) possess modestamounts of previously unrecognized pore space thatmay contain gas. These carbonates, as well as someshales, also possess numerous fractures. Therefore,new gas discoveries are highly probable not only fromthe shales themselves, but also from the associatedcarbonates.

UGS geologists describing and measuring an

outcrop of the Manning Canyon Shale in SoldierCanyon, Oquirrh Mountains, southwest of Salt

Lake City.

Well core of typical Go

shale (Paradox Forma

Slabbed core (inset) s

vertical fractures. Effe

gas production depen

on interconnected fra

networks.

4 SURVEYNOTES


7/16

Mancos Shale

The Mancos Shale is an emerging shale-gas play in theUinta Basin of northeastern Utah. Existing gas production from more conventional sandstone reservoirs in thebasin could be greatly enhanced by the addition of recov-erable gas in the Mancos from new wells or bypassedgas zones in existing wells. The Mancos is an extremelythick (as much as 3500 feet) package of rock consisting of different types of shale, siltstone, and very ine

grained sandstone. Unlike the Manning Canyon Shaleand Paradox Formation, production from the MancosShale is proven within the Uinta Basin. The Mancos hasmore than 50 producing wells scattered over the basinand most of these also produce gas from overlying andunderlying sandstone reservoirs. Estimated ultimate gasproduction from the Mancos ranges from 3 to 6 billioncubic feet per well.

So What?

Upon completion, the UGS studies will identify premiumtarget zones, determine the resource potential, andpotentially lower the economic risk of exploration anddevelopment of Utahs shale-gas plays, especially in

environmentally sensitive areas, thus encouraging larg-er-scale, commercial production. For more informationvisit our Web page at geology.utah.gov/emp/shalegas/index.htm.

So the next time you are traveling through those graymuddy rocks in east-central Utah, remember thatalthough they may be ugly, they contain the right stuffnatural gas!

Scanning electron microscope images of the Gothic shale.

Wavy clay lakes with silt grains (s) appear to lack pore

spaces. Inset of a high-magniication image of the same

sample reveals numerous micropores between clay layers

capable of storing gas.

Microscopic view (thin section) of the

Hovenweep shale (Paradox Formation) showingquartz silt (numerous white angular grains),

which creates brittleness and fractures, within a

muddy matrix.

continued from Directors Perspective

lat due to relatively depressed prices caused by thedramatic increase in reserves (and oversupply) bothin Utah and nationally over the past ive years.

The state of Utah is rich in geologic resources (3rdin mineral production value, 8th in natural gas pro-duction, 13th in oil and coal production). The worldis becoming increasingly constrained in energy andmineral supplies, as evidenced by current concernsover Middle East oil and rare-earth-elementsupplies. The state faces important, complex ques-tions concerning the supply of and future accessto strategic commodities, related environmental

impact concerns, and the potential for energy efi-ciency gains, conservation, and recycling to mitigatefuture demand. Currently the value of natural gasenergy ($4/million BTU) is one-quarter that of oilenergy ($17/ million BTU). Should Utah be trying toincrease its use of natural gas in transport fuels andelectricity generation? Important questions such asthese will require ongoing input from the UGS.

MAY 2011 5


8/16

Historical MapsMore Than Meets The EyeStephanie Earls

As luck would have it, the Utah Department o Natural ResourcesLibrary recently received a very interesting donationa worldatlas rom 1826, titled Morses New Universal Atlas of the Worldon an Improved Plan of Alphabetical Indexes, Designed for Acad-emies and Higher Schools, by Sidney E. Morse. The atlas conveysmore than just world geographyit visually illustrates what washappening in the early 1800s.

In 1826, as indicated by the map o theUnited States, Utah was not a state,the Mormon Pioneers had not arrived,Great Salt Lake was not yet named, andthe area now known as Salt Lake Citywas inhabited by the Shoshone, Ute,and Paiute Indian Tribes. However, thereis an area on the map designated ValleSalado, which translates rom Spanishas Salt Valley, that sits just east o anunnamed lake that most likely repre-sents Great Salt Lake. On the map, thelake is ed by the Buenaventura River tothe north, which is now known as theBear River. The presumed outlow othe lake was represented as a dottedline labeled Supposed river betweenthe Buenaventura and the Bay o Fran-cisco, which will probably be the com-munication between the Atlantic andthe Paciic. Around this time, rumorsrom the Native Americans claimed thatthe lake did indeed have an outlow, butthe entire shoreline had not yet beenexplored. Jim Bridger, in 1825, was theirst white man to reach the shores oGreat Salt Lake. In the same year, Jede-diah Smith investigated the northernand western edges o the lake, with no success o inding theoutlow. The lake was not circumnavigated until 1849 whenHoward Stansbury completed the route and oicially declaredthat no river lowed rom Great Salt Lake.

Although in 1826 Utah was still 70 years away rom statehood,the United States was rapidly expanding its borders rom thethirteen original colonies that had gained independence romthe British Empire in 1776. As a result o agreements such as theTreaty o Paris in 1783 and the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, thecontinental United States already included roughly three-ourthso the land area that it does today. However, the western-bor-der states were not yet developed and were known as the Mis-souri and Arkansaw [sic] Territories, as shown on the map o theUnited States. The area that would eventually become Utah was

considered to be part o Mexico and did not become part o theUnited States until 1848, when the Treaty o Guadalupe Hidalgowas signed, ending the Mexican-American War.

An example o a better explored area is demonstrated by themap o South America. The map is ascinating because it con-tains a lot o detail since this area was well explored in the six

teenth and seventeenth centuries. However, the entire continent was composed o only seven individual countries (mostlyEuropean colonies), and countries like Brazil and Ecuador hadonly recently become independent rom Portugal and Spain

respectively. Changes in Central America, evident rom the mapo North America, include Caliornia joining Mexico, and CostaRica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and San Salvador gaining independence rom Mexico as the United Provinces o Central America.

During the time in which the atlas was compiled, land was rap-idly changing hands as a result o luctuating European coloniarule. This is relected in the atlas not only in the level o detail oeach individual map, but also by which maps the author chose toinclude, and the order in which they are presented. For example

Inset of Unexplored Country from the United States map. This region, which at the timewas Mexican territory, included the areas now known as Salt Lake City, Great Salt Lake, andCalifornia.

continued on page 11

6 SURVEYNOTES


9/16

ap of the United States, which in 1826 already included three-fourths of the land area of the present continental U.S.

North American map showing California as part of Mexico, and the UnProvinces of Central America (Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaand San Salvador), which had recently gained independence from Mexi

Map of South America, which in 1826 was composed of only sevencountries.

MAY 2011 7


10/16

Where is nearly all of the drilling action in Utah taking place?The answer is Natural Buttes ield in the eastern Uinta Basinsouth of Vernal where over a hundred new wells are drilledeach year. Natural Buttes ield, the largest gas ield in Utah, hasproduced over 2.1 trillion cubic feet of gas from about 4000wells. Why is Natural Buttes ield so large? It covers a huge areaunderlain by many layers of gas-bearing rock (gas reservoirs)where all the right conditions existed for large deposits ofnatural gas to accumulate. Why are so many wells being drilledthere? The size of the ield area and the unusual nature of thereservoir rocks require many closely spaced wells, using state-of-the-art drilling and completion technology to economicallyproduce the gas. Is the Utah Geological Survey (UGS) conduct-ing any research in the area? In fact, the UGS is assisting with a

major project on Natural Buttes, with and under the directionof reservoir engineers and modelers at the University of Utah.The study is funded by the Research Partnership to SecureEnergy for America (RPSEA) and also involves Utah StateUniversity, software companies, and industry participants.

Natural Buttes, and other ields in the eastern Uinta Basin,produce natural gas primarily from sandstone in the CretaceousMesaverde Group (7080 million years old) and the TertiaryWasatch Formation (5256 million years old). Gas is stored inpores within very ine grained sandstone (the reservoir rock).The connectivity of the pores (permeability), which allows gas

or liquids to low, is very low. This hinders the ability of therocks to release the stored gas, and thus the reservoir rock isreferred to as tight sandstone.

During much of Cretaceous time, a warm, shallow, inland seaextended from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico across the NorthAmerican continent, including eastern Utah. Most of the gasproduction from Natural Buttes ield is from highly compartmentalized, discontinuous, lens-shaped sandstone bodiesdeposited in channels and as sandbars along rivers lowingeastward across a coastal plain from ancient mountains (theSevier orogenic belt) in western Utah toward the inland seaduring Late Cretaceous time. Other sandstone beds represent a nearshore marine setting. The gas was generated and

expelled from older Cretaceous coal beds (originally swampsand marshes) after deep burial in the basin.

Rocks of the Mesaverde Group and Wasatch Formation areexposed at the surface in the cliffs and deep canyons alongthe southern rim of the Uinta Basin, and are inclined gentlynorthward such that in the basin center they are deeply buriedIn Natural Buttes and other gas ields within the basin, individual wells typically penetrate multiple, vertically stackedtight sandstone beds, each capable of producing gas. Thesebeds may be in direct contact with each other or be separatedby very thin to thick, extremely low-permeability siltstone and

NATURAL BUTTES FIELDUTAHS TIGHThomas C. Chidsey, Jr.

Location of Natural Buttes and other elds in the Uinta Basin.

Castle Gate in Price River Canyon (view looking east) is composed of theCastlegate Sandstone of the Cretaceous Mesaverde Group. The CastlegaSandstone was deposited in an ancient braided stream system and produgas at Natural Buttes eld in the eastern Uinta Basin. Photo courtesy ofRessetar.

E N E R G Y N E W S

8 SURVEYNOTES


11/16

shale that act as either barriers or bafles to luid low. Naturalfractures in the reservoir rocks increase both their porosityand permeability.

The discontinuous nature of these tight sandstone bodies isseen in outcrop and in seismic proiles from Natural Buttesield. The sandstone beds that produce in one well are oftencompletely different and separate from sandstone beds inanother well, even if the distance between the two wells is onlya few thousand feet. Thus, ield development at Natural Buttesrequires drilling dozens of closely spaced wells each year. Fourto six wells are often completed from the same surface locationby directionally drilling to the targeted intervals at depth. Thispractice saves drill-site construction costs and reduces the

environmental footprint of development.The lateral and vertical reservoir characteristics such asthickness, degree of porosity and permeability, fractures, andinternal barriers and bafles to luid low, determine wherea well is drilled and the plan as to how it will best produce.Gas production from tight sandstone reservoirs requiresmechanically increasing the number of fractures for the wellsto produce at commercial rates and amounts of gas. This isaccomplished by hydraulic fracturing techniques (also usedto develop shale-gas reservoirs described on p. 3) that have

become signiicantly more effective over the past 10 yearsWater and minor amounts of chemical compounds are pumpeddown the well under pressures high enough to locally fracturethe sandstone, thereby increasing both the porosity and per-meability and allowing the trapped gas to low to the wellHydraulic fracturing is usually conducted in several stagesmoving from sandstone bed to sandstone bed up the well. Tokeep the natural and new open fractures from closing due tothe pressure of the overlying rock layers, sand or other porousmaterials of various sizes (called proppant) is also pumpedinto the fractured zones.

Understanding the natural fracture systems and reservoircharacteristics created by various depositional environ-

ments can aid in optimizing hydraulic fracturing and lead tomore effective drilling and completion strategies. Cores in theCastlegate, Sego, and Price River Formations of the MesaverdeGroup, for example, display classic tight sandstone characteristics including porosity, permeability, and natural fracturesthat the UGS is evaluating to assist with the creation of newreservoir models and simulations for hydraulic fracturing. Formore information, visit our Web page at geology.utah.gov/emp/tightgas/index.htm.

ANDSTONE GAS STOREHOUSE

Well core of typical Castlegate Sandstone from Natural Buttes eldshowing inclined beds representing deposition in a lower coastal plain nearshore marine environment, and open vertical fractures.Schematic diagram of hydraulic fracturing in tight gas sandstone.

Figure modifed rom Expanded Development o Deep,Tight Gas Reservoirs in the Uinta Basins, by S. Carney,2007, Survey Notes, v. 39, no. 2.

MAY 2011 9


12/16

Among the more commonly asked questions we receive atthe Utah Geological Survey (UGS) are those dealing with thecorrect names o Utahs geographic eatures. Perhaps thebest tool or answering these questions is a searchable data-base established and maintained by the U.S. Board on Geo-graphic Names, which is part o the U.S. Geological Survey(USGS). This database, called the Geographic Names Inor-mation System (GNIS), is available online at geonames.usgs.gov. Following the American Civil War, a surge o exploration,mining, and settlement o western territories created manyinconsistencies and contradictions in geographic names,which became a serious problem or surveyors, map makers,

and scientists. To address this problem, President BenjaminHarrison signed an executive order that created the U.S.Board on Geographic Names in 1890 (the current orm o theboard was established by a 1947 law).

Technology, such as geographic inormation systems, globalpositioning systems, and the Internet increases the need orstandardized data on geographic names, but it also makesaccessing that data quick and easy through the GNIS. Thedatabase includes current and historical inormation or over2 million physical (e.g., mountain ranges, summits, lakes,arches, and streams) and cultural (e.g., populated places,churches, airports, and cemeteries) geographic eatures inthe United States, associated areas, and Antarctica. However,it does not include roads and highways. Named eatures arelocated by state, county, USGS topographic quadrangle map,and geographic coordinates. Other attributes include eleva-tion (another commonly asked question at the UGS), alter-native and unoicial (variant) names and spellings, eatureclass/type, historical and descriptive inormation, and cita-tions.

In addition to inding oicial names, elevations, citations,and such, all sorts o name curiosities can be investigatedusing the GNIS. The ollowing list illustrates some o themore entertaining results o our GNIS name queries.

What is the correctname of...?Mark Milligan

G l a d Y o u A s k e d

The San Rafael Swell, in Utah, has the company o 12 otherSwellplaces across the U.S.

Based on eature names, Utah has more Bars (29) thanArizona (1), Nevada (3), and Wyoming (3). Also based oneature names, the density oBars is apparently not directlyrelated to how dry a state is; Florida has 10, while Idaho has115. But based on eature class, Florida, Idaho, and Utahhave 211, 116, and 40 bars, respectively. Note: a bar is anelongated ridge o sand, gravel, or other sediment that ormsin a river, lake, or ocean.

O the 99 U.S. Nipples, nearly one-third (29) are in UtahMollies/Mollys is most common (8).

The U.S. has 365 Eggs, but only Utah, Virginia, and Texas haveEggnog.

Utah has only two wives (Wife), but this is one more than anyother state in the nation.

Devil(U.S.1,853 and Utah69) is more common than Hellbut God and Jesus are omnipresent. Each has more than2,000 matches in the U.S. In Utah Godhas only 37 matcheswhileJesus has 1,126. This is due to the inclusion o churchnames in the database (the devil is in the detail).

Hellon earth (or at least in the U.S.983 matches, and Utah55 matches) is much more common than Heaven (U.S.327and Utah13).

Utah has a Mitten Canyon in Uintah County, but the amousMittens (East and West Mitten Buttes) o the Navajo NationsMonument Valley are on the Arizona side o the border.

Shite Creek is in Idaho. Shitten Creek is in OregonShitamaring Creekis in Utah. None o these states containone o the nations 28 Paddles.

Scape Ore Swamp in South Carolina has not always beennamed such. Feature names can be and are changed or

political correctness and other reasons, but the original nameis maintained in the database. (You will have to look up theoriginal name yoursel.)

Curiously, Utah contains none o the 104 Strange U.S. namesand not one o the truly Odd(311) U.S. names.

While 23 names across the U.S. include Goblin, UtahsGoblin Valley is unique.

Unique is not unique (12 in the U.S.), but nothing is Uniquein Utah.

10 SURVEYNOTES


13/16

Devils Kitchen, Juab County.

Map of Africa, with little detail and vast unmapped a

Devils Playground, Box Elder County.

The Great Bar at Stockton, Utah as illustrated in Lake Bonneville, U.S.Geological Survey Monograph 1, by G.K. Gilbert (1890). The name hassubsequently been shortened to Stockton Bar.

Goblin Valley, Emery County.

there are separate maps o each European couand each o those contains a high level o deIn contrast to the European maps, Arica is resented only as a continent, composed o roughlyambiguous countries, vast blank areas, and incognitoparts unknown.

Another interesting act about the atlas is thatauthor had some rather amous relatives. SiMorses ather, Jedidiah Morse, both a cleman and geographer, was given the title FatheAmerican Geography or his important role in American cartography. Sidneys brother, SamuelMorse, an artist and inventor, is probably the mwell known Morse as a result o his signiicant cobutions in developing the single-wire telegraphMorse Code. Sidney Morse ollowed in his athootsteps as a geographer as well as an inventorThe New Universal Atlas is only one o many atuted to him.

Come and see the atlas or yoursel! The New versal Atlas will be on display at the Utah Dement o Natural Resources Library until Decem2011. The Utah Geological Survey thanks WilL. Chenoweth, who has worked with UGS sta consultant ater retiring rom the U.S. Atomic EnCommission, or the donation. Contact StephEarls, Utah DNR Librarian, i you have any questat [email protected] or 801-537-3333.

continued from page 7

MAY 2011 11


14/16

Near the town o Echo in northern Utah is a cluster o reddish-brown natural monuments called The Witches (also known as

Witch Rocks, Witches Rocks, Witch Blus, or Witches Blus),composed o the Echo Canyon Conglomerate. In 1858, armyCaptain Albert Tracy described them in his journal as witch-like and so singularly like igures in kirtles [long skirts] andsteeple-hats, or bonnets that they have received the appellation[Witch Rocks]. By using your imagination (and perhaps squint-ing a bit), you can picture a coven o witches in long robes andwitches hats standing on the hillside.

Nearby Echo Canyon has long been used as a main thorough-are between southern Wyoming and northern Utah, irst byNative Americans, ur trappers, and explorers, then by wagontrains on their way to Salt Lake City or other points west. Beorethe interstate highway, passengers on the Overland Stage andthen the Union Paciic Railroad also made their way through thecanyon. At the town o Echo, the canyon opens into the HeneerValley where most o these travelers rested and marveled at theunusual rock ormations, some even drawing sketches or takingphotographs o The Witches.

GeologicInformation: Between 170 and 40 million years ago,western North America experienced a mountain-building periodcalled the Sevier orogeny. Dense oceanic crust beneath thePaciic Ocean collided with and moved under the lighter con-tinental crust o North America. This convergence generatedcompressional orces that produced low-angle thrust aultswithin the crust. Transported tens o miles eastward along thesethrust aults, rock ormations were pushed up and over adjacentrock layers, orming the Sevier mountain belt.

The Echo Canyon Conglomerate was deposited about 90 to85 million years ago when Sevier thrust aulting in Utah hadreached its peak. The conglomerate is composed o sandstoneand quartzite pebbles, cobbles, and boulders eroded rom themountainous areas to the west and northwest. Streams thencarried these sediments o o the highlands, eventually deposit-ing the heavier material in large alluvial ans (an-shaped streamand debris-low deposits).

In more recent times, the elements have eroded areas o theconglomerate near Echo and within Echo Canyon into the an-tastic shapes we see today; in addition to The Witches, thereare rock structures named Pulpit Rock, Castle Rock, Devils War

Club, Sphinx, and Sentinel Rock, to name a ew. Theupper caps, or witches hats, are ormed o a lighter-colored conglomerate layer cemented into a hardermass than the soter, underlying conglomerate layerthat orms the witches robes. The harder cap rockerodes more slowly and helps protect the rockunderneath. But as a witch becomes moreand more slender, her hat eventually alls oand can no longer protect her, and thus, likethe inamous Wicked Witch o the West, shesuccumbs to the eects o water and gradually melts tothe level o the surrounding landscape.

The Witches near Echo, Summit County, UtahGeoSightsChristine Wilkerson

Howtogetthere: From the south and west, travel along I-80 Eaexit 169 (Echo) at the entrance to Echo Canyon. At the bottom o

o-ramp, turn let (north) to go under the interstate. Take a let (wonto Echo Canyon Road heading towards the town o Echo. Conton Echo Canyon Road/Echo Road/Old Highway 30 or approxim2 miles (passing Echo). A landmark sign or The Witches will bthe right (east) side o the road.

From the north, travel along I-84 East to exit 115 (Utah State Hway 65/Heneer/Echo). Turn let (east) onto Main Street, cross I-84, and as you curve to the right (south) towards the town o Ethe road becomes Echo Road/Old Highway 30. Continue or appmately 2 miles until you reach The Witches landmark sign on the(east) side o the road.

The more resistant, light-colored cap rock slows down the erosion ofunderlying reddish-brown conglomerate layer.

The Echo Canyon Conglomerate is composed of pebble-, cobble-, ansome places even 9-foot-diameter boulder-size clasts of mostly sandsand quartzite. Photos courtesy of Amanda Wilkerson.

12 SURVEYNOTES


15/16

Evaluation of sources of poor qualityground water in the Bothwell Pocketarea, lower Bear River Valley, easternBox Elder County, Utah, by Janae Wallace,Kevin Thomas, and Mike Lowe, CD (38 p. + 12p. appendices, 1 pl.), ISBN 978-1-55791-839-0,SS-135 .................................................... $14.95

The Weber River Basin Aquifer Storageand Recovery pilot project, by HughHurlow, Mike Lowe, Marek Matyjasik, andPaul Gettings, CD (79 p. + 48 p. appendices,2 pl.), ISBN 978-1-55791-840-6,SS-136 .................................................... $19.95

Geologic map of the St. George andeast part of the Clover Mountains 30 x60 quadrangles, Washington and IronCounties, Utah, by Robert F. Biek, Peter D.Rowley, Janice M. Hayden, David B. Hacker,Grant C. Willis, Lehi F. Hintze, R. Ernest

Anderson, and Kent D. Brown, DVD (108 p.,2 pl., scale 1:100,000 [contains GIS data]),ISBN 978-1-55791-843-7,M-242DM .............................................. $24.95

Geologic map of the Steinaker Reserviorquadrangle, Uintah County, Utah, byDavid A. Haddox, Bart J. Kowallis, andDouglas A. Sprinkel, 2 pl., scale 1:24,000,ISBN 978-1-55791-831-4,MP-10-3 .................................................. $13.95

Geologic map of the Dry Fork quadranglUintah County, Utah, by David A. Haddox,Bart J. Kowallis, and Douglas A. Sprinkel, 2 pscale 1:24,000, ISBN 978-1-55791-832-1,MP-10-4 .................................................. $13.9

Paleoseismology of Utah, Volume 19:

Late Quaternary faulting in East Canyonvalley, northern Utah, by Lucille A. Piety,

Larry W. Anderson, and Dean A. Ostenaa, C(38 p.), ISBN 978-1-55791-841-3,MP-10-5 .................................................. $14.9

Preliminary regional sequencestratigraphic framework andcharacterization of potential luvial

reservoirs of the upper MesaverdeGroup, Uinta Basin, Utah, by Jennifer L.Ashcroft, CD (40 p., 6 pl.),OFR-569 ................................................. $14.9

Interim geologic map of the west partof the Panguitch 30 x 60 quadrangle,Garield, Iron, and Kane Counties, Utah

Year 2 progPhado, David W. Moore, John J.Anderson, Peter D. Rowley, Van S. WilliamsL. David Nealey, and Edward G. Sable, 94 p.,1 pl., scale 1:65,000,OFR-577 ................................................. $17.9

NEW PUBLICATIONS

EMPLOYEE NEWSBruce Miya has joined the Utah State Energy Program as the Energy ProjCoordinator. Bruce received his Masters in Architecture from the UniversityUtah and has worked as a project manager in the private sector for the past years. He replaces Jim Levy who accepted a position with Quantum Lighting

Barry Solomon retired in January after 22 years of service with the UGS. Barrwork in the Geologic Hazards Program involved research and mapping of a wi

variety of geologic hazards, in particular earthquakes and radon. He completgeologic-hazard map folios of the Tooele Valley, Cache Valley, and Springdareas as well as detailed suricial-geologic maps of the Oquirrh and West Cacfault zones. He was involved in several suitability studies for hazardous-wasdisposal, and characterized geologic conditions as they relate to indoor-radhazards in numerous areas throughout Utah. Barry worked closely with tGeologic Mapping Program, authoring or co-authoring nearly two dozgeologic quadrangle maps. Barrys expertise and breadth of knowledge will missed, and we wish him well in his retirement.

News Flash: This past March, the 2011 State Legislature created an OficeEnergy Development, which will consolidate some state energy and policy funtions including those of the Utah State Energy Program (USEP). Housed at tUGS since 2005, USEP will be moving shortly to new ofices at the Departmeof Environmental Quality.

Henefer

The WitchesHeneferV

alley

WeberR

iver

Echo

Canyo

n

MainS

t.

Echo

Ech

oReservo

ir

Echo

Canyo

nRd

OldHwy30

EchoR

d

2

EchoDam

Rd

1 2 3 Miles

lN

Ogde

n

Evan

ston,

WY

SaltLakeC

ity

MAY 2011 13


16/16

Beautiful Bear Lake, in northern Utah, is called the Caribbeanof the Rockies because of its vivid turquoise blue hue. It isUtahs deepest natural lake and is among the oldest of lakesin North America. This booklet, Why is Bear Lake So Blue?,answers 17 commonly asked questions about the lake,including topics on geology, biology, hydrology, weather,recreation, history, the Ice Age, the modern and prehistor-ic connection to the Bear River, and laws and regulationsgoverning the use of the lake. This colorful and informa-tive publication contains dozens of photographs, maps,and igures to help answer the questions. It also high-lights new information and discoveries from a collab-orative and intensive scientiic study of Bear Lake thatwas published in 2009.

Available at the Natural Resources Map & Bookstoremapstore.utah.gov

Public Information Series 96

by Jim Davis and Mark Milligan

WHY IS BEAR LAKE SO BLUE?

And Other Commonly Asked Questions WHYISBEARLAKESOBLUE?andothercommonlyaskedquestions

byJimDavisandMarkMilligan

PRSRT STD

U.S. Postage

PAID

Salt Lake City, UTPermit No. 4728

UTAH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

1594 W. North Temple, Suite 3110

Box 146100

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6100

Address service requestedSurvey Notes

FOLLOWUS!

UGSBlog

geology.utah.gov/blo

g

UGSFacebook

UGSTwitter

NATURALRESOURCESMAP&BOOKSTORE

mapstore.utah.gov1594WNorthTempleSaltLakeCity,UT84116

801-537-3320or1-888-UTAHMAPMondayThursday 7:00 a.m.6:00 p.m.

survey notes, may 2011

Documents