Search USGSSearch

USGS · pp1708F.1

Thermal maturity patterns (conodont color alteration index and vitrinite reflectance) in Upper Ordovician and Devonian rocks of the Appalachian basin: A major revision of USGS Map I-917-E using new subsurface collections

Abstract

Introduction The conodont color alteration index (CAI) introduced by Epstein and others (1977) and Harris and others (1978) is an important criterion for estimating the thermal maturity of Ordovician to Mississippian rocks in the Appalachian basin. Consequently, the CAI isograd maps of Harris and others (1978) are commonly used by geologists to characterize the thermal and burial history of the Appalachian basin and to better understand the origin and distribution of oil and gas resources in the basin. The main objectives of this report are to present revised CAI isograd maps for Ordovician and Devonian rocks in the Appalachian basin and to interpret the geologic and petroleum resource implications of these maps. The CAI isograd maps presented herein complement, and in some areas replace, the CAI-based isograd maps of Harris and others (1978) for the Appalachian basin. The CAI data presented in this report were derived almost entirely from subsurface samples, whereas the CAI data used by Harris and others (1978) were derived almost entirely from outcrop samples. Because of the different sampling methods, there is little geographic overlap of the two data sets. The new data set is mostly from the Allegheny Plateau structural province and most of the data set of Harris and others (1978) is from the Valley and Ridge structural province, east of the Allegheny structural front (fig. 1). Vitrinite reflectance, based on dispersed vitrinite in Devonian black shale, is another important parameter for estimating the thermal maturity in pre-Pennsylvanian-age rocks of the Appalachian basin (Streib, 1981; Cole and others, 1987; Gerlach and Cercone, 1993; Rimmer and others, 1993; Curtis and Faure, 1997). This chapter also presents a revised percent vitrinite reflectance (%R 0 ) isograd map based on dispersed vitrinite recovered from selected Devonian black shales. The Devonian black shales used for the vitrinite studies reported herein also were analyzed by RockEval pyrolysis and total organic carbon (TOC) content in weight percent. Although the RockEval and TOC data are included in this chapter (table 1), they are not shown on the maps. The revised CAI isograd and percent vitrinite reflectance isograd maps cover all or parts of Kentucky, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia (fig. 1), and the following three stratigraphic intervals: Upper Ordovician carbonate rocks, Lower and Middle Devonian carbonate rocks, and Middle and Upper Devonian black shales. These stratigraphic intervals were chosen for the following reasons: (1) they represent target reservoirs for much of the oil and gas exploration in the Appalachian basin; (2) they are stratigraphically near probable source rocks for most of the oil and gas; (3) they include geologic formations that are nearly continuous across the basin; (4) they contain abundant carbonate grainstone-packstone intervals, which give a reasonable to good probability of recovery of conodont elements from small samples of drill cuttings; and (5) the Middle and Upper Devonian black shale contains large amounts of organic matter for RockEval, TOC, and dispersed vitrinite analyses. Thermal maturity patterns of the Upper Ordovician Trenton Limestone are of particular interest here, because they closely approximate the thermal maturity patterns in the overlying Upper Ordovician Utica Shale, which is the probable source rock for oil and gas in the Upper Cambrian Rose Run Sandstone (sandstone), Upper Cambrian and Lower Ordovician Knox Group (Dolomite), Lower and Middle Ordovician Beekmantown Group (dolomite or Dolomite), Upper Ordovician Trenton and Black River Limestones, and Lower Silurian Clinton/Medina sandstone (Cole and others, 1987; Jenden and others, 1993; Laughrey and Baldassare, 1998; Ryder and others, 1998; Ryder and Zagorski, 2003). The thermal maturity patterns of the Lower Devonian Helderberg Limestone (Group), Middle Devonian Onondaga Limestone, and Middle Devonian Marcellus Shale-Upper Devonian Rhine street Shale Member-Upper Devonian Ohio Shale are of interest, because they closely approximate the thermal maturity patterns in the Marcellus Shale, Upper Devonian Rhinestreet Shale Member, and Upper Devonian Huron Member of the Ohio Shale, which are the most important source rocks for oil and gas in the Appalachian basin (de Witt and Milici, 1989; Klemme and Ulmishek, 1991). The Marcellus, Rhinestreet, and Huron units are black-shale source rocks for oil and (or) gas in the Lower Devonian Oriskany Sandstone, the Upper Devonian sandstones, the Middle and Upper Devonian black shales, and the Upper Devonian-Lower Mississippian(?) Berea Sandstone (Patchen and others, 1992; Roen and Kepferle, 1993; Laughrey and Baldassare, 1998).

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 36.465471886798134° to 45.4986468234261° latitude; -85.71533203125° to -72.97119140625° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

John E. Repetski, Robert T. Ryder, David J. Weary, Anita G. Harris, Michael H. Trippi. 2014. Thermal maturity patterns (conodont color alteration index and vitrinite reflectance) in Upper Ordovician and Devonian rocks of the Appalachian basin: A major revision of USGS Map I-917-E using new subsurface collections. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1708f.1

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Resurvey of the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon dam sites in Grand Canyon National Park—Changes in sediment storage and evidence supporting the occurrence of bedrock incision through the mid-20th century

The Bureau of Reclamation developed an extensive plan for a network of dams, water tunnels, and hydropower plants in and around Grand Canyon, Arizona, in the 1940s through 1960s. The two largest of these planned dams were the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon Dams on the Colorado River. Though these dams were ultimately never built, Reclamation conducted extensive topographic, bathymetric, and subsurface exploration work at the sites proposed for these dams in the 1940s and 1950s. Resurveys of these dam sites were conducted between 1998 and 2021 to determine the changes in sediment storage at these dam sites caused by the upstream construction and operation of Glen Canyon Dam and by the recession of Lake Mead, the reservoir impounded by Hoover Dam. The resurveys of the Marble Canyon dam sites indicate that the post-1950s changes in sediment storage at these dam sites are broadly consistent with flux-based estimates of voluminous sand erosion from Marble Canyon since the 1963 closure of Glen Canyon Dam. These resurveys also suggest that the pre-dam longitudinal variation in sediment thickness over bedrock played a key role in determining the locations of the sand erosion induced by Glen Canyon Dam; more sand eroded from locations where more sand was present in the 1950s. The resurvey of the Bridge Canyon dam sites indicates that the Colorado River’s incision of the Lake Mead delta is regulated both by bed-sediment grain size and downstream hydraulic controls. Finally, analyses of bed-sediment thickness and sedimentological data at the dam sites, and observations of bed scour and gravel transport, suggest that sufficient bedrock was exposed to allow bedrock incision during commonly recurring pre-dam snowmelt floods that entrained small boulders into transport.

Arizona

The eruptive behavior of distributed volcanism forming low shield edifices—A case study of Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field, U.S.A.

Distributed volcanic fields are present in various tectonic settings worldwide, and their characteristics reflect differing influences from magmatic and tectonic processes. In the southwestern United States alone, there are 37 Quaternary distributed volcanic fields. After the primary period of extensional tectonics in the southern Basin and Range 15–5 million years ago, the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field developed in southwestern Arizona between 4 and 1 million years ago. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists primarily of low relief shield volcanoes, a type of distributed volcanism with poorly understood temporal evolution. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field is less than 200 kilometers (km) from the Colorado Plateau, Gulf of California, and southern San Andreas Fault system. This work identifies and examines controls on the emplacement of the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field by documenting shallow and surficial structures as well as eruption characteristics and style through time. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists of 21 volcanoes with a total of 33 vents over an area of about 770 square kilometers (km 2 ). The prominence of low relief shield volcanoes may be explained by ascent of basaltic magmas through thin Basin and Range crust, without much crustal contamination, and low viscosities common to mafic compositions. Typical eruption characteristics involve the construction of low relief shield volcanoes followed by Strombolian fissure eruptions at the summits or near-summit medial areas that produce scoria lapilli, which may weld to form agglomerate. The total lifetime erupted volume of about 4.3 cubic kilometers (km 3 ) represents an average eruptive flux of approximately 2x10 -3 km 3 per thousand years (k.y.). This erupted volume is low relative to Neogene basaltic intraplate distributed volcanic fields worldwide, which typically range from 10 -3 to 1 km 3 k.y. -1 . Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field eruptions were likely triggered by intermittent rejuvenation of transient magmatic zones that exist in thinned crust. Instantaneous flux from point sources feeding the lava flows is estimated to be on the order of 10 -1 to 10 cubic meters per second.

Arizona

Capitalization of positional (Lower/Middle/Upper) and temporal (Early/Middle/Late) adjectives in the names of formal chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units of the Phanerozoic

Many authors are understandably confused about the capitalization of the words “lower,” “middle,” “upper,” “early,” and “late.” Where these words are used simply as descriptive adjectives, they should be in lowercase; where they form the first word of a formal chronostratigraphic or geochronologic unit name, they should be in uppercase.

Professional Paper