Tectonic Implications of Lower Mississippian Fort Payne Carbonate Mounds. Paul L. Scruggs, Bob Hatcher, Gene Lockyear, and Francis Fitzerald

Transcription

1 Tectonic Implications of Lower Mississippian Fort Payne Carbonate Mounds Paul L. Scruggs, Bob Hatcher, Gene Lockyear, and Francis Fitzerald

2 Acknowledgements Gary Bible David Wright Miller Energy Resources Inc.

3 What is the Fort Payne Formation? Vast, heterogeneous, and puzzling Lewis and Potter, 1978 Diverse silicilastic and carbonate facies Covers from KY to Illinois Basin to AL and GA Early Mississippian Ma My research focuses on carbonate mound units within the Fort Payne

4 Lasemi et al., 1998

5 Why is the Fort Payne Important? Early Mississippian is a time of dynamic eustatic and tectonic change in this area Neoacadian Orogeny ( Ma) At least two major unconformities representing subaerial exposure Poorly studied in subsurface of Cumberland Plateau

6 Lower Mississippian System Chattanooga Shale Modified from Dr. Gary Bible (Unpublished) Unconformities in Fort Payne representing subaerial exposure above carbonate mounds

7 Oil and Gas significance TN s first commercial production in 1866 Shallow Fort Payne buildup in Overton County first million barrel oil field in Tennessee Oneida-West in Scott County Prior to 1970 ~ 1 million cumulative barrels in TN : ~1.9 million 90% from Fort Payne

8 Bureau of Land Management, 2008

9 Bureau of Land Management, 2008

10 Bureau of Land Management, 2008

11 Bureau of Land Management, 2008

12 Working Hypotheses Lower and upper Fort Payne bioherms represent different phases of Early Carboniferous mudmounds Upper Fort Payne mounds are probably not adequately explored These mounds can give clues to tectonic activity related to Acadian/Neocadian orogeny and uplift of the Nashville Dome

13 Early Mississippian Carbonate Buildups James and Wood from Facies Models 4, 2010

14 Bridges et al. Carbonate buildup Classifications Type 1: Fenestrate bryozoan- sponge spicule Type 2: Crinoid-bryozoan Type 3: Crinoid-brachiopod-fenestrate bryozoan Type 4: Coralgal- Aphralysia and bryozoan- coralgal Type 5: Trepostome- microthrombolite

15 Study Areas Fort Payne Outcrop Fort Payne in Subsurface

16 Highway 52 near Celina

17 New Road Cut South of Celina, opened in November miles of continuous exposure with uncoformity Max dip ~ 30

18 New Road Cut South of Celina, opened in November miles of continuous exposure with uncoformity Max dip ~ 30

19 New Road Cut South of Celina, opened in November miles of continuous exposure with uncoformity Max dip ~ 30

20 New Road Cut South of Celina, opened in November miles of continuous exposure with uncoformity Max dip ~ 30

21 New Road Cut South of Celina, opened in November miles of continuous exposure with uncoformity Max dip ~ 30

22 Unconformity

23 Soft-Sediment Feature On the northeast side of Hwy 52 north of Celina Three small crinoid mounds that have moved down a gentle paleo-slope Movement appears penecontemporaneous 3-D structure likely lobate NE SW

24 Hand Sample

25 Lower Fort Payne Bioherm Fossiliferous green shale core Interlayered crinoid rich wackestone and packstone thins on crest and distal ends Thickens on flanks Directly overlies Chattanooga Shale

26

27 Lower Fort Payne Bioherm Fossilferous green shale core Interlayered crinoid rich wackestone and packstone thins on crest and distal ends Thickens on flanks Directly overlies Chattanooga Shale Cross-section of Harmon Creek buildup exposed on Lake Cumberland, KY (Meyer et al., 1995)

28 Upper Fort Payne Mounds Above submound facies and capped by detrital non carbonate facies Generally on Chattanooga Shale highs Includes Tennessee s first million barrel field (Oneida West) Dominantly bryozoan composition Well control in study area

29 From Harry T. Moore

30 Upper Fort Payne Mounds Modified from Macquown and Perkins, 1982

31 Upper Fort Payne Mounds 731 Macquown and Perkins, 1982

32 Permit # 84: Oneida- West Field

33 Upper Fort Payne Mounds MacQuown and Perkins, 1982 Sciple, 1981

34 Depositional Environment Submound topography Determined by subaerial weathering Sciple, 1981

35 Depositional Environment Topography determined by pre-existing Chattanooga Shale Submound Chatt. Shale Mound Submound Modified from Lieber, 1978

36 Chattanooga Shale Structure Contour

37 Fort Payne Isopach

38 Mfp Structure Evenick dissertation, 2006

39 Mfp Residual Evenick dissertation, 2006

40 Mfp Isopach Evenick dissertation, 2006

41 MDc structure Evenick dissertation, 2006

42 MDc Residual Evenick dissertation, 2006

43 MDc-Od isopach Evenick dissertation, 2006

44 MDc-Od Ispoach wells Evenick dissertation, 2006

45 Analogs From N.A. Pickard, 1996 Recent Advances in Lower Carboniferous Geology

46 Sacramento Mountains, NM Jeffery, 1997

47 Early Mississippian Paleogeography ~0 Sacramento Mountains Ft. Payne Ft. Payne Modified from Blakey-

48 Sacramento Mountains Alamagordo member of the Lake Valley Formation Mound trends generally parallel to deformation trends Figure from Jeffery, 1997

49 Conclusions Fort Payne reefs could provide keys to eustatic and tectonic setting Timing of uplift on Nashville Dome Upper Fort Payne reefs are probably not adequately explored Upper and lower mounds are probably different phases and should not be treated as equivalent features

50 Future Work Structural relationships need to be more closely studied Well cores need to be studied in detail. Chattanooga Shale relationship to Fort Payne needs to be closely examined.

51