ABSTRACT Structural Analysis of the Criner Hills, South-Central

ABSTRACT

Structural Analysis of the Criner Hills, South-Central Oklahoma

William M. Walker, M. S.

Thesis Advisor: Vincent S. Cronin, Ph.D.

It has been suggested that there may have been Quaternary displacement along the

Criner Hills Fault in South-Central Oklahoma. The Criner Hills Fault is generally on- trend with the active Meers Fault, which has led some to suggest that the Criner Hills

Fault may also be active.

A GIS database has been created that combines aerial photographs, satellite imagery, published geologic maps, and digital elevation models of the area around the surface trace of the Criner Hills Fault. Subsurface data from ~150 hydrocarbon exploration and production wells were used with the surface data to construct a 3D structural model of the study area, assisted by the structural modeling application

LithoTect.

The Kirby Fault is interpreted to be a major reverse fault that controls the topography and structure of the Criner Hills. The Criner Hills Fault is interpreted to be an inactive, secondary structure related to the Kirby Fault.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures ...………………………………………………………...... v

List of Tables …………………………………………………………...... vii

Acknowledgments ...………………………………………………...... viii

CHAPTER ONE Introduction ...…………………………………………………………...... 1

Previous Work ....…………………………………...... 4

CHAPTER TWO Stratigraphy ...…………………………………………………………...... 6

Precambrian ...... ………………………………………………...... 6

Cambrian ...... …………………………………………………...... 6

Cambrian / Ordovician ..………………………………………...... 9

Devonian / Silurian ……………………………………………...... 10

Mississippian .……………………………………………………... 10

Pennsylvanian ……………………………………………………... 11

Tectonic History …………………………………………………… 12

CHAPTER THREE Methods ...……………………………………………………………...... 17

CHAPTER FOUR Structure ..………………………………………………………………...... 25

CHAPTER FIVE Results …..……………………………………………………………...... 28

Cross-Section A ...... 28

Cross-Section B ...... 28

iii

Cross-Section C ...... 33

Cross-Section D ...... 33

Cross-Section E ...... 33

Cross-Section F ...... 40

Cross-Section G ...... 40

Cross-Section H ...... 40

Cross-Section J ...... 47

Cross-Section K ...... 47

CHAPTER SIX Interpretations ...………………………………………………………...... 52

CHAPTER SEVEN Conclusions ...... …………………………………………………...... 55

Appendices ...... 56

Appendix A ..…………………………………………………………...... 57

Appendix B ...... 61

References .....…………………………………………………………...... 62

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Location map depicting the location of the Criner Hills Fault ...... 3

Figure 2: Stratigraphic column .……………………………………………… 7

Figure 3: Generic model of the formation of an aulacogen ...... 14

Figure 4: Diagrammatic depiction of the evolution of the Southern Oklahoma aulacogen ...... 15

Figure 5: Deformation chart showing the major orogenies that affected south-central Oklahoma ...…………………………………………. 16

Figure 6: Illustration of the basemap, depicting formation outcrops and faults 18

Figure 7: Illustration of the basemap with A) wells, and B) surface measurements ...... …………………………...... 20

Figure 8: Structure map of the top of the Arbuckle Group ...... 21

Figure 9: Basemap with the 10 cross-sections labeled ...... 22

Figure 10: Illustration of how a typical cross-section is created ...... 23

Figure 11: Six models of common volumetric adjustments ...... 26

Figure 12: Fault-propagation fold kinematics ...... 27

Figure 13: Explanation of the color, symbol, and relative age of the cross- sections .…………………………………………………………..... 29

Figure 14: Detail view of cross-section A ...... 30

Figure 15: Regional view of cross-section B ...... 31

Figure 16: Detail view of cross-section B ...... 32

Figure 17: Regional view of cross-section C ...... 34

Figure 18: Detail view of cross-section C ...... 35

Figure 19: Regional view of cross-section D ...... 36

Figure 20: Detail view of cross-section D ...... 37

Figure 21: Regional view of cross-section E ...... 38

Figure 22: Detail view of cross-section E ...... 39

Figure 23: Regional view of cross-section F ...... 41

Figure 24: Detail view of cross-section F ...... 42

Figure 25: Regional view of cross-section G ...... 43

Figure 26: Detail view of cross-section G ...... 44

Figure 27: Regional view of cross-section H ...... 45

Figure 28: Detail view of cross-section H ...... 46

Figure 29: Regional view of cross-section J ...... 48

Figure 30: Detail view of cross-section J ...... 49

Figure 31: Regional view of cross-section K ...... 50

Figure 32: Detail view of cross-section K ...... 51

Figure 33: Illustrations of fault-propagation fold breakthroughs ...... 53

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: List of thicknesses of stratigraphic layers used for the modeling in this project ...... 8

vii

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my family for their support and encouragement throughout

my entire college career, as well as their guidance for everything I do in life.

I would also like to thank Bryan Sralla with Hewitt Mineral Corporation for his

tremendous help in this project. This project would not have materialized without his

generous helping hand and expertise.

Bob Ratliff and the Geo-Logic Systems Company very generously donated two

copies of the computer-based structural modeling program LithoTect, an integral part of

this project.

The generous financial aid of my family, Baylor University’s O.T. Hayward

Research Scholarship, Geological Society of America’s Schlemon Scholarship, and Gulf

Coast Association of Geological Societies made it so I only had to worry about finishing

this project.

The Ardmore Sample Cut & Library (Bob Allen: owner and Mary Lou Fisher:

librarian) charitably let me spend numerous days looking at well logs.

I would also like to thank Mr. Griffith, the Burns’, Mr. Graves, Mr. Hogan, and

the Dolese Brothers Company for allowing me access to their properties to obtain surface

measurements.

Last but not least I would like to thank Dr. Cronin for all of his help, guidance, and word-smithing through all of the parts of this project, the abstracts, and the poster- sessions. His silver tongue smoothed out them there words I could just never get quite right.

viii

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

The Criner Hills are composed of a series of Paleozoic rock outcrops that have

been of economic importance to the people of southern Oklahoma since the early 1950s.

A major rock quarry operated in the Criner Hills by Dolese Company produces large

amounts of crushed limestone and dolostone from carbonate members of the Arbuckle

Group that are exposed near the crest of the Criner Hills anticline. The complex geology

has also led to the entrapment of several commercially significant oil and gas fields in

and along trend with the study area. Most recently, several new housing subdivisions

have been constructed within the oil producing areas, and several more are being

planned. Surface geomorphology provides an esthetically pleasing landscape that is appealing to housing developers and home buyers in the area.

A number of residents of the Criner Hills have recently become concerned about the possibility that the Criner Hills area may be seismically active. A magnitude 3.5 earthquake occurred in June of 2004, causing minor damage to several houses in a Criner

Hills subdivision. Although the epicenter was located a number of miles southwest of the

Criner Hills (OGS, 2006), several residents became concerned about the possibility of future earthquakes.

At the time the earthquake occurred, oil and gas development near several homes was taking place. It is reported that a large hydraulic fracture stimulation of a newly drilled oil well was being performed synchronous with the earthquake. This led a

1 2

number of residents to speculate that there may be a link between the hydrocarbon wells

and the seismic activity.

In recent years, a number of geoscientists have suggested that the Criner Hills

Fault (CHF) may be active. This hypothesis is based largely on the location and

orientation of the CHF, which is approximately parallel with the Meers Fault

approximately 80 miles to the northwest in the Wichita Mountains. Trench studies

undertaken by Crone and Luza (1986) have demonstrated that the Meers Fault is active.

If the Criner Hills Fault is also active, the people of the neighboring town of Ardmore,

Oklahoma, would face a previously unrecognized seismic risk.

Such concerns are rather unique in Oklahoma, unlike other areas of the United

States such as California and Alaska where large seismic events are relatively common.

Namson and Davis (1993) have suggested that seismic hazards could be better understood if the subsurface geometry and positions of the major faults are documented.

They utilize hydrocarbon exploration techniques involving the construction of serial balanced structural cross sections, constrained by subsurface oil well and reflection seismic data, to provide structural information for use in seismic risk analysis in

California. The study of the Criner Hills described in this paper incorporates the same general methodology in an effort to determine whether there has been recent activity along the major local faults, and thereby gain improved understanding of the risks of future earthquakes in the area.

The study area for this project is in Carter County, Oklahoma, and covers a large portion of Township 5S – Range 1E, and smaller portions of Township 5S – Range 2E,

Township 6S – Range 1E, and Township 6S – Range 2E. Figure 1 illustrates the relative

Figure 1. Location map depicting the location of the Criner Hills Fault.

locations of the Criner Hills Fault and the town of Ardmore in Carter County. The Criner

Hills Fault is approximately 8 miles southwest of Ardmore.

A detailed structural analysis of the Criner Hills produces results that are beneficial for the local residents as well as for the oil and gas industry. Some of the objectives of this study are as follows:

(1) Determine the geometry and kinematics of the major faults and related folds in the

Criner Hills area to constrain the timing of movement.

(2) Improve the characterization of the geometry and trapping style of the associated

hydrocarbon reservoirs.

This study takes advantage of several relatively new data assets that augment

surface geology and older well data utilized by earlier research. Field research is aided

by using digital ortho-photo quadrangles and a global positioning system receiver to

establish location, generally within ~3 meters. The geomorphology of the Criner Hills

and surrounding area is represented in a digital elevation model (DEM) constructed of the

Criner Hills area, derived from U.S. Geological Survey DEMs. Subsurface well data were associated with surface geologic data using LithoTect, which is a commercial modeling program by Ratliff and Geiser (2005). Also, there have been many new wells drilled since the 1950s, which were utilized in developing subsurface models.

This study did not include trenching along the Criner Hills Fault trend, due largely to issues of expense, liability, and land access. However, the results of this study will help to focus any future trench studies along the Criner Hills Fault.

The purpose of this research is to create a three-dimensional model of the subsurface of the Criner Hills in order to gain a better knowledge of the Criner Hills Fault and its seismic/tectonic history.

Previous Work

Studies of the regional geology of south-central Oklahoma date from the work of

J. A. Taff (1904). William E. Ham published several studies focused on the Arbuckle

Mountains that included the Criner Hills. Ham along with other authors (1946, 1964, and

1969) described the stratigraphy of the Criner Hills, and provided an initial framework

for the regional structural history.

There is a limited amount of information related specifically to the Criner Hills.

Much of the relevant data is contained as side notes in papers that are primarily

concerned with the Arbuckle Mountains and their stratigraphy (e.g., Ham and Tomlinson,

1946; Ham and other, 1964; Ham, 1969; and Brown, 1998). Some of the early

information on the Criner Hills is contained within a field conference guidebook published by the Ardmore Geological Society in 1957. This guidebook is a compilation of various authors’ articles about the Criner Hills area. Recent work on the geology of

the Criner Hills area was done by Robert Allen, a geologist working in Ardmore,

Oklahoma. Allen (2000) provides the most current analysis of the geologic evolution of

the Ardmore Basin and Criner Hills.

The aim of this project is to take the next step by providing a detailed surface and

subsurface study that focuses on the Criner Hills area. The previous works are

incorporated into this project to obtain an accurate and up-to-date interpretation of the

formation of the Criner Hills.

CHAPTER TWO

Stratigraphy

The following description of the units present in the Criner Hills area is intended to provide basic information that is useful to the structural analysis of the area. The kind of lithologic detail that would be of interest to a sedimentologist or stratigrapher is generally omitted here, as it is available in the references cited. Figure 2 illustrates the relative ages and thicknesses of units. Table 1 lists the thicknesses of the units used in this study that are relevant to the Criner Hills. The thicknesses used in the study were derived from literature, field measurements, and well log data. Following geological tradition, the units are described in stratigraphic order, with the oldest unit first.

Precambrian

Tishomingo Granite

The basement rock upon which the sedimentary cover was deposited is the

Tishomingo granite, which is an extensive intrusive igneous body emplaced into the

Southern Oklahoma aulacogen (Ham and others, 1964).

Cambrian

Carlton / Colbert Rhyolite Group

At the top of the Cambrian basement-rock lies rhyolite flows and tuffs called the

Carlton or Colbert Rhyolite Group (Ham, 1969).

6 7

Figure 2. Stratigraphic column showing divisions and relative ages of rock units found in the study area. After Brown (1998).

Table 1: List of thicknesses of stratigraphic layers used for modeling in this project.

Symbol Unit Thickness (ft) lPh Hoxbar 100 lPd Deese 100 lPdh Dornick Hills 100 lPMsg Goddard 100 Mc Caney 300 Ms Sycamore 200 MDw Woodford 260 DSh Hunton 190 Osy Sylvan 290 Ov Viola 770 Osb Bromide 550 Ost Tulip Creek 100 Osm McLish 270 Osbe Birdseye 200 Oso Oil Creek 800 Osj Joins 150 Owk West Spring Creek 1350 Obz Brown Zone 480 Okc Kindblade/Cool Creek 2600 Omh McKenzie Hill 900 Cb Butterly 300 Csm Signal Mountain 400 Cro Royer 700 Cfs Fort Sill 700 Chc Honey Creek 200 Cre Reagan 200

Timbered Hills Group

The Reagan Formation is an arkosic, course-grained, glauconitic sandstone which was deposited on the Precambrian crystalline basement, and contained detritus shed from those long-exposed granites (Ham, 1969). Overlying the Reagan Formation is the Honey

Creek Formation, which is a limestone rich in trilobites (Ham, 1969).

Cambrian / Ordovician

Arbuckle Group

The Arbuckle Group is a well known sequence of regionally deposited

fossiliferous carbonates that contain fossil representatives of a wide variety of life forms

including brachiopods, trilobites, mollusks, sponges, and graptolites (Ham, 1969). The

basal unit of the Arbuckle Group is the Fort Sill limestone, which is overlain by the

Royer dolostone, Signal Mountain limestone, Butterfly dolostone, McKenzie Hill

limestone, Cool Creek limestone, Kinblade limestone, and West Spring Creek limestone

at the top of the sequence.

Simpson Group

Prior to 1931, the Simpson Group was referred to as the “Simpson sands” or

“Simpson limes” until Dr. C. E. Decker and Dr. Clifford A. Merritt differentiated five

separate formations (Ham, 1969). The five different formations differentiated by Decker

and Merritt contain shale, sandstones, and limestone. The basal unit is the Joins

Formation, which is overlain in turn by the Oil Creek, McLish, Tulip Creek and Bromide

Formations. At the base of each of these formations, except the Joins, are clean

sandstone beds which make excellent reservoirs in the subsurface (Ham, 1969).

Viola Formation

The Viola Formation is a widespread carbonate sequence that is divided into a

basal unit of siliceous carbonate laminates, a middle unit of burrowed skeletal mudstones,

and a top unit of pelmatozoan calcarenite (Ham, 1969). It is approximately 800 feet thick in the Criner Hills area (Lang, 1957).

Sylvan Formation

The Sylvan Formation is well laminated, dark, greenish-gray shale (Ham, 1969).

Its thickness in the southern regions of the Arbuckle Mountains is approximately 300 feet, thinning to 150-175 feet to the northeast (Ham, 1969). It rests disconformably upon the Viola limestone and was deposited in the deepest waters of all pre-Mississippian formations of the Arbuckle Mountains (Ham, 1969).

Devonian / Silurian

Hunton Group

The Hunton Group has a resistant basal limestone which is overlain by three other

thinly bedded limestone layers: the Keel, Cochrane, and Clarita (Ham, 1969). Above

those layers lies the Henryhouse Formation which is 152 feet thick section of

fossiliferous mudstones and calcareous shale (Ham, 1969). Next is the Haragan

Formation which is consistent with the lithology of the Henryhouse except there are

Devonian aged fossils present (Ham, 1969). A thickness of approximately 200 feet, of the Hunton Group, remain in the Criner Hills area after a pre-Woodford erosion period

(Lang, 1957).

Mississippian

Woodford Formation

The Woodford Formation is a dark shale sequence that is 6,000 feet thick in southern Oklahoma, and is Mississppian in age (Ham, 1969). Thicknesses near 300 feet are encountered in the Criner Hills (Lang, 1957).

Sycamore Formation

The Sycamore Formation limestone is a sandy limestone that changes facies to

mostly shale southwest of the Criner Hills (Lang, 1957).

Caney Formation

The Caney Formation is characterized as dark, gray, fissile shale. The Caney

Formation ranges in thickness from 250 to 650 feet (Ham, 1969).

Goddard Formation

The Goddard Formation is a dark shale sequence found on the north and east

flanks of the Criner Hills and can reach thicknesses in excess of 2500 feet towards the middle of the Ardmore and Marietta Basins (Lang, 1957). The Springer Group is sometimes labeled as part of the Goddard Formation but is Pennsylvanian in age. It

contains at least four sandstone members in northern Carter County, but only two are

recognizable near the Criner Hills (Lang, 1957). In the Ardmore Basin to the northwest

of the Criner Hills, the Springer contains sandstones at the top of the formation which are

hydrocarbon reservoir beds (Ham, 1969). The Springer has a thickness of 350 feet at the

Hunton anticline and increases to 4,500 feet in the Ardmore Basin (Ham, 1969).

Pennsylvanian

Dornick Hills Group

The Dornick Hills Group is separated into three formations. The Golf Course

Formation is composed of shale, poorly developed sandstones, and limestone (Lang,

1957). It is overlain by the Lake Murray Formation, which is predominately a

conglomerate of cobbles and pebbles from older Paleozoic rocks. The Big Branch

Formation is the youngest of the three, and contains fossiliferous Pumpkin Creek

limestone. The Dornick Hills Group can reach thicknesses of 3,000 feet in the middle of the Ardmore Basin (Ham, 1969) but is consistently around 100 feet in the Criner Hills area.

Deese Group

The Deese Group is widely known within the southern Oklahoma for its many oil productive horizons (Lang, 1957). It is a dominantly shale unit and lies on the south and east sides of the Criner Hills at the surface.

Hoxbar Group

The Hoxbar Group consists of sandstones, shale, and limestone, and it is found mainly on the north and west sides of the Criner Hills (Lang, 1957).

Tectonic History

During the Precambrian, the Southern Oklahoma Aulacogen was injected by granites, known as the Tishomingo in the study area, and developed into a rigid cratonic block (Ham and others, 1964). During the earliest phases of continental rifting, it is thought that tensional failure of the continental lithosphere tends to occur along zones oriented approximately 120° from one another, converging on a central domical uplift

(e.g., Hoffman and others, 1974). The uplift may be related to a mantle plume. As divergence continues, two of the three arms connect to define the through-going rift, while the third arm is abandoned. Early injection of dense igneous rock in the lower crust and subsidence of the ground surface due to extensional faulting leads to the

13 development of a significant trough into which sediments are deposited. This trough along the failed arm of a continental rift is called an aulacogen.

Figure 3 illustrates the formation of a typical aulacogen from a triple junction.

Figure 4 illustrates the evolution of the Southern Oklahoma Aulacogen. During the early

Cambrian, there was regional rifting along the aulacogen, creating a graben which subsided at least one mile, and was filled with the Colbert rhyolite (Granath, 1989; Ham and others, 1964). Within this region of maximum subsidence of the Southern Oklahoma

Alaucogen are the Criner Hills, Anadarko Basin, Marietta Basin, Ardmore Basin and, at the western edge of the Arbuckle Mountains, the closely folded Arbuckle Anticline (Ham and others, 1964).

Deposition of sedimentary strata continued until the Devonian through the deposition of the Hunton Group (Figure 2), at which time there were approximately

11,500 feet of stratigraphic section resting on top of the basement rock (Allen, 2000).

Since these layers were deposited in the aulacogen as a continuous stratigraphic section, the structural features mentioned in the previous paragraph all contain these units (Ham and others, 1964). At the close of the Devonian was the Acadian Orogeny, which resulted in the first uplift of these rocks above sea level (Allen, 2000).

Following the Acadian uplift, deposition of shale and limestone layers began and continued until the early Pennsylvanian, to the Springer shale (Figure 2). The Wichita

Orogeny represented a major pulse of deformation beginning in the late Mississippian and continuing to the early Pennsylvanian (Figure 5). During this period of slow deformation, Allen (2000) infers that the Criner Hills rose to approximately 16,000 feet. above sea level. Erosion of this mountain mass, shed sediments into the Ardmore Basin

Figure 3. Generic model of the formation of an aulacogen. 1) A three-armed radial rift system generated by crustal doming above mantle plume. 2) Two rift arms spread to produce narrow rift ocean similar to Red Sea. 3) Spreading of the two rift arms produces large ocean basin. 4) Ocean is closed by subduction along trench, producing adjacent volcanic arc. 5) Closing of ocean ultimately results in continental collision and development of collision orogen similar to that of Himalayas (Hoffman and others, 1974).

Figure 4. Diagrammatic depiction of the evolution of the Southern Oklahoma Aulacogen (Hoffman and others, 1974).

Figure 5. Deformation chart showing the major orogenies that affected south-central Oklahoma (from Brown, 1998 – modified from Hardie, 1990).

to the northeast and the Marietta Basin to the Southwest (Allen, 2000; Granath, 1989).

From the mid- to late-Pennsylvanian, the Dornick Hills and Deese Groups (Figure

2) were deposited into the adjacent basins and onlapped the Criner Hills. Toward the end of the Pennsylvanian, another less intense pulse of deformation occurred, known as the

Arbuckle Orogeny (Figure 5). The Arbuckle Orogeny was the last pulse of deformation to affect the Criner Hills.

CHAPTER THREE

Methods

This study of surface and subsurface data was initiated to produce an enhanced description of the structural geology of the Criner Hills area. To accomplish this task, a

3-D subsurface model is produced using the computer based structural modeling program

LithoTect (Ratliff and Geiser, 2005). The 3-D model of the subsurface in this project is based upon surface measurements (bed and fault orientation at the ground surface, and

the location of surface traces of formation boundaries and faults) along with well log

data, utilized to constrain a set of structural cross-sections across the study area.

A geologic map of the Criner Hills by Frederickson (1957) was scanned and

georeferenced in LithoTect to use as a starting point in the mapping process. Next,

DEMs (USGS, 2005) were obtained and overlain with aerial photographs (OCGI, 2005)

in a geographical information system (GIS) to create a three dimensional model of the

ground surface in the study area. The 3-D images were then placed over the original base

map in LithoTect. A compromise of the surface contacts, using those defined by

Frederickson and what appear to be contacts on the 3-D images, were digitized to

produce the georeferenced base map in the modeling program (Figure 6). Also, field

measurements were taken with a GPS unit to aid in the placement of surface contacts.

Well log data is a key form of control when creating the cross-sections.

Approximately 150 electronic well logs (Appendix A), mostly dual induction logs, were

used in this study. The wells were georeferenced and placed onto the base map (Figure

7A). Then the depths of the tops of the formations were identified on the well logs and

17 18

Figure 6. Illustration of the base map, depicting faults and basal contact of formations.

input to the modeling program for their respective wells. Formation tops were indicated with a circle in cross-section view. Faults were also inferred on the well logs where sections of formations are repeated. The depths to faults were input to the program and were denoted with a square in cross-section view. Unconformities were also found in well logs, placed into the program, and were denoted by triangles in cross-section view.

Another form of control obtained from well logs is dip-meter data, used to determine the orientation of the formations in the subsurface.

Surface measurements (strikes and dips; Appendix B) were taken where formations are exposed at the surface, and were placed into the modeling program

(Figure 7B) to act as another form of control for the cross-sections. Structural contour

maps of the tops of formations and surfaces were another form of control used (Figure 8).

Contour maps of the tops of several formations were created by hand, digitized, and

placed into the modeling program as DEMs. A published contour map of the top of the

Brock Oilfield (Radler, 1957) was digitized and placed into the program. These DEMs

were projected onto the cross-sections to aid in the subsurface modeling.

After all of the primary control data were placed into the modeling program, ten

cross-sections were developed that could utilize as much of the control data as possible

(Figure 9). Once the cross-sections were placed on the base map, wells and surface

measurements were projected onto the profile (Figure 10A). The next step was

connecting the dots of the formation tops while using DEMs of formation tops as

guidelines (Figure 10B). The formations can be filled in with the designated color to obtain a more clear and crisp look (Figure 10C). The formation tops, dip-meter data,

surface measurements, and the DEMs of tops of formations and surfaces were used as

constraints for the modeling process.

A major assumption when creating the cross-sections was that all of the

formations have a constant thickness throughout the study area. This assumption was

generally supported through examination of well logs and outcrop measurements. Only a thin sandstone layer, the Tulip Creek Formation, does not follow this assumption well.

The Tulip Creek Formation pinches out in the southwest corner of the study area but has a thickness that is generally constant elsewhere. While adjusting the uppermost layers,

LithoTect has a projection tool that allows the user to adjust a formation top while showing where the other formation tops should appear to aid in the proper placement.

This is helpful because of the lack of control at depths beyond those reached by the

Figure 7. A) Illustration of the base map with locations and types of the wells used in the study. B) Illustration of the base map with strike and dip measurements taken in the field.

Figure 8. Contour map of the top of the Arbuckle Group.

Figure 9. Base map with the 10 cross-sections labeled.

deepest well. So the uppermost layers, from which all of the control data are derived, constrain the way that the deeper formations are modeled.

Restorations are constructed for several of the cross-sections to make sure that they are balanced and kinematically reasonable. A balanced cross-section is both viable and admissible, meaning that bed length and volume are equal in both the deformed and restored cross-sections (Woodward and others, 1989). LithoTect is able to do some of the restoration and the rest is done by hand. When done by hand, line length and volume are used as control to balance the restorations. The area-balanced cross sections constructed in this research are based on several assumptions, including plane strain

Figure 10. Illustration of how a typical cross-section is created. A) Wells and surface measurements are projected onto the cross-section. B) A complicated game of connect the dots is played using input data and structural techniques as guidelines. C) For aesthetic value, the formations are filled in with designated colors to give a different view while checking for accuracy of the interpretations.

throughout the deformation events, and maintenance of constant bed thickness achieved by modeling all folds as kink folds with planar limbs and angular hinges.

Several of the sources of error found in the methodology used in this study are human related. These include 1) uncertainty in picking formation tops, faults, and unconformities from well logs, which is estimated to be ± ~20 feet; 2) uncertainties in measuring the orientation of beds or faults at the ground surface with a Brunton compass,

extimated to be ± ~5°; 3) uncertainties in locations determined using a GPS receiver,

estimated to be ± ~10 feet; and 4) uncertainties in the hand-contoured structure maps of

the formation tops.

Another methodology of this project, as described by Cronin and others (2003),

was to take digital elevation models (DEMs; USGS, 2005) and use a computer program such as MicroDEM (Guth, 2005) or ArcView (ESRI, 2006) to change the illumination angle and azimuth to look for geomorphic features that may be associated with faults.

After possible fault-related features are mapped on the computer, field work is undertaken to evaluate whether a fault is present. When a fault is encountered, it is

examined for any evidence of recent (Holocene) displacement.

CHAPTER FOUR

Structural Geometry and Inferred Kinematics

When layers of rock are faulted and folded, there arise problems of volume

accommodation during folding. There are several different ways that rocks may deform

while maintaining a constant volume. Figure 11 depicts some of the most common

models of constant-volume accommodation structures found in the study area. These important secondary structures are present in synclines as well as anticlines (Brown,

1982). While constant-volume modeling involves an appropriate first-order assumption, it should be noted that the common occurrence of stylolites and vein-filled cracks in strata exposed in the Arbuckle Mountains and Criner Hills demonstrates that mechanisms of pressure solution and reprecipitation were contributing to volumentric adjustments in these rock units.

In this study, fault-propagation folding is used to model the evolution of the

Criner Hills structures. Fault-propagation folding is the process of folding at the tip of a

propagating thrust fault which, in contrast to fault-bend folding, produces steep-to- overturned beds in the forward limb (Woodward and others, 1989). Figure 12 illustrates the typical process of how a fault-propagation fold forms.

The major layers in determining the geometry of the Criner Hills area are those that were deposited prior to thrusting which includes the Reagan Formation (Cambrian) through the Caney Formation (Mississippian). Post-thrusting, Pennsylvanian, sediments include layers younger than the Caney which are highly variable and do not contribute to the reconstruction of the subsurface.

25 26

Figure 11. Six models of common secondary structures found in the study area: A) rabbit-ear structure developing on the steep limb of an anticline; B) crenulations or disharmonic/parasitic folds; C) synclinal-hinge fault; D) décollement (detachment along bedding planes); E) complementary thrusting; and F) back-limb arc (modified after Brown, 1982).

Figure 12. Fault-propagation fold kinematics (from Tearpock and Bischke, 2003; after Suppe, 1985).

CHAPTER FIVE

Results

This chapter illustrates and describes the results of the modeling process through

each of the cross-sections. Figure 13 is the explanation or key associated with all of the

cross sections, defining the use of color and symbols for the various structural and

stratigraphic elements depicted. The location of each cross-section is shown in Figure 9.

The major faults are labeled and highlighted in bold: CHF – Criner Hills Fault, KF –

Kirby Fault, and OF – Overbrook Fault.

Cross-Section A

This cross-section (Figure 14) is the northernmost and shows a piece of evidence

of the timing of deformation of the Criner Hills Fault with the offset of the Pennsylvanian

aged Deese and Hoxbar Formations. This movement appears at the end of deformation

in the study area. The well in the middle of Figure 14 is also important because it

constrains hypotheses about where the Kirby Fault cuts through the subsurface. The

Deese and Hoxbar Formations have been overturned on the right side of Figure 14 due to deformation associated with displacement along the Overbrook Fault.

Cross-Section B

Figure 15 illustrates a wider and deeper cross-sectional view of the study area. It also shows how the control data from shallow wells can be projected downward to obtain an idea of the deeper subsurface. At the bottom of Figure 15 is the restoration of the cross-section, indicating that the cross-section is balanced. Figure 16 is a detail view of

28 29 phic layers found in the cross-sections. mbol, and relative age of the stratigra Figure 13. Explanation of the color, sy

30 xplanation of colors and symbols. cross-section A. See Figure 13 for e Figure 14. Detail view of

Figure 15. Regional view of cross-section B.

32 of cross-section B. Figure 16. Detail view

the area with control data included. This figure also has an important well that intersects

the Kirby Fault helping to constrain its location.

Cross-Section C

This cross-section (Figure 17) has control data to the east, which allow for the

construction of the Ardmore Basin. This cross-section has also been restored and is

balanced. Cross-section C includes a well that cuts the Kirby Fault (Figure 18). Other

notable features are the rabbit-ear structure on the right side of the anticline in the center

of the figure (Arbuckle anticline) and the back-limb arc faults on the left side. The

rabbit-ear structure is inferred from dip-meter data.

Cross-Section D

The regional view of this cross-section (Figure 19) looks similar to cross-section

C because it has wells that allow the Ardmore Basin to be modeled. Upon closer

inspection (Figure 20), cross-section D has some of the same characteristics such as the

back-limb faults. Note that the rabbit-ear structure is still present even though there is no

control to give that impression. Since the rabbit-ear is present in the neighboring cross-

section (C) and there is other control, it is feasible to correlate the structure to this cross-

section.

Cross-Section E

The regional view of this cross-section (Figure 21) shows the control for the

Overbrook anticline, which is the first fault propagation fold to the west of the Ardmore

Basin. Looking at the detail view (Figure 22), there are back-limb faults and a rabbit-ear structure. Notice that there are detachment surfaces in the Oil Creek Formation shale

34 of cross-section C. Figure 17. Regional view

arcs anticline and the back-limb on the right side of cross-section C. Note the rabbit-ear structure Figure 18. Detail view of on the left side.

Figure 19. Regional view of cross-section D.

37 of cross-section D. Figure 20. Detail view

Figure 21. Regional view of cross-section E.

39 of cross-section E. Figure 22. Detail view

(Oso) on both sides of the Arbuckle anticline. This is most likely due to the fact that the

Oil Creek shale is a large weak layer sandwiched between the Birdseye limestone and

West Spring Creek limestone. The Oil Creek shale commonly hosts a detachment surface in many of the other cross-sections.

Cross-Section F

This cross-section offers another view (Figure 23) of the study area at a regional

scale. In detail (Figure 24), abundant well control shows that the Arbuckle anticline is

becoming more deformed in its hinge zone to accommodate the overall shape changes at

constant volume. The dip-meter data and surface measurements are helpful while trying

to determine how the beds should be interpreted.

Cross-Section G

Figure 25 is a regional view of cross-section G and shows the Ardmore Basin to the east and the edge of the Marietta Basin to the west. This cross-section has been

restored to show that the cross-section is balanced and that the interpretation is

reasonable. The detail view (Figure 26) illustrates how the deformation is increasing in

intensity with the formation of crenulations.

Cross-Section H:

There are fewer wells towards the southern edge of the study area to aid in the

regional creation of cross-section H (Figure 27). However, there are enough data to

create a cross-section that has the same general characteristics and shape of the other

regional cross-sections. Figure 28 shows how the crenulations are present at the top

Figure 23. Regional view of cross-section F.

42 of cross-section F. Figure 24. Detail view

Figure 25. Regional view of cross-section G.

44 of cross-section G. Figure 26. Detail view

Figure 27. Regional view of cross-section H.

46 of cross-section H. Figure 28. Detail view

of the Arbuckle anticline and possibly becoming more pronounced than in cross-section

G. Also note that the Criner Hills Fault block is decreasing in size.

Cross-Section J

This is the second to last cross-section to the south, and the regional view (Figure

29) shows that there is still the imbricate system of fault-propagation folds. Moving from north to south in the study area, the cross-sections are moving up-plunge of the entire folded/faulted structure and the folds are becoming tighter. This tightening of folds can be seen in the crenulations at the top of the Arbuckle anticline in Figure 30. There are three important observations in Figure 30: 1) the absence of the Criner Hills Fault; 2) the Kirby Fault does not reach the surface anymore; 3) the Tulip Creek Formation pinches out.

Cross-Section K

This is the southernmost cross-section in the study area. There is not enough well

data to create the regional view like some of the other cross-sections but the regional

view of cross-section K (Figure 31) shows the general structure as seen in the other cross-

sections. Figure 32 shows again that the Criner Hills Fault is absent and that the Kirby

Fault does not reach the surface.

48 of cross-section J. Figure 29. Regional view

49 surface surface the Kirby fault does not reach iner Hills fault is absent and ea where the Tulip Creek Formation pinches out. Creek Formation ea where the Tulip oss-section J. Note that the Cr anymore. Also, this is the point in study ar anymore. Also, Figure 30. Detail view of cr

Figure 31. Regional view of cross-section K.

of cross-section K. Figure 32. Detail view

CHAPTER SIX

Interpretations

Fault-propagation fold modeling was chosen for this project because it seemed best suited to explain the large amount of displacement along the Kirby Fault. Fault- propagation folds also explained the three major anticlines seen in the larger regional cross-sections. Figure 33 illustrates six typical breakthroughs that occur during fault- propagation folding. A breakthrough occurs when a propagating fault tip encounters layers that it is unable to fold in the predescribed manner, such as to form a tight anticline, causing the fault to cut through the anticline at the weakest location (Suppe and

Medwedeff, 1990). Some of the cross-sections exhibit synclinal or high-angle breakthroughs along the Kirby Fault. Figure 19 exhibits a synclinal breakthrough, while

Figure 25 exhibits a high-angle breakthrough. Some blind thrusts terminate in fault- propagation folds that accommodate all their slip (Woodward and others, 1989); this is seen in the fault-propagation fold to the east of the Kirby Fault. The detail views of the cross-sections include a variety of the secondary structures depicted in Figure 12.

The cross-sections imply several important constraints on the timing of movement of both the Criner Hills Fault and the Kirby Fault. In cross-section A (Figure 14) towards the west side of the cross-section, the Criner Hills Fault slightly offsets the Deese and

Hoxbar Formations. Since the Hoxbar Formation is late Pennsylvanian in age, the displacement of the Criner Hills Fault took place during the Arbuckle Orogeny (Figure

5). There are places along the Criner Hills Fault at the surface where there appears to be some offset; however this displacement is most likely due to the faster erosion of the

52 53

Figure 33: Illustrations of fault-propagation fold breakthroughs: A and B) décollement breakthroughs; C) synclinal breakthrough; D) anticlinal breakthrough; E) high-angle breakthrough; F) low-angle breakthrough (from Suppe and Medwedeff, 1990).

Hoxbar shale against the more rigid Arbuckle limestone. The Criner Hills Fault appears to merge downward into the Kirby Fault. On the other side of the Kirby Fault is a fault that has been produced by volumetric adjustments at the top of the Arbuckle anticline and is on trend with the Criner Hills Fault.

Timing evidence of the last movement of the Kirby Fault can be seen in cross- sections J and K (Figures 30 and 32, respectively). Notice that the Kirby Fault no longer reaches the surface because it is cut by the Deese Formation which is early-middle

Pennsylvanian in age. Therefore, movement along the Kirby Fault ended prior to deposition in the early Pennsylvanian at the end of the Wichita Orogeny (Figure 5).

Displacement along the Criner Hills Fault is not necessarily synchronous with displacement along the Kirby Fault. Thrust movement along the Overbrook Fault to the east does however coincide with the timing of movement of the Criner Hills Fault during the Arbuckle Orogeny. Therefore the Criner Hills Fault was either reactivated or possibly created during the Arbuckle Orogeny. In either scenario, the Criner Hills Fault is interpreted to be a back-thrust associated with the Kirby Fault that has not had any movement since the late Pennsylvanian.

The detailed cross-sections created in this study help to locate and identify the style of hydrocarbon reservoir traps associated within the surrounding area. This helps in identifying a possible location for drilling a future oil or gas well.

Another question involving south-central Oklahoma is the direction of shortening.

There have been debates whether the deformation was caused by movement along a transcurrent fault, in the northwest-southeast direction, or whether it was caused by compression in the northeast-southwest direction. The results of this study suggest a rather typical contractional deformation due to shortening in the northeast-southwest direction. The large amount of slip along Kirby Fault, approximately 19,000 feet (as seen in Figure 17), is an indication that there was a large contraction in the northeast- southwest direction. Because the cross-sections are balanced, simple contractional deformation by plane strain on reverse faults and related fold structures is a feasible interpretation for the study area (e.g., Geiser, 1988; Dahlstrom, 1969; Boyer and Elliott,

1982).

CHAPTER SEVEN

Conclusions

1. The Criner Hills Fault is interpreted to be a back-thrust associated with the

Kirby Fault. Initiation of motion along the Criner Hills Fault probably coincides with

motion on the Kirby Fault.

2. The primary direction of shortening appears to have been in a southwest-

northeast direction due to the large amount of displacement along the Kirby Fault.

3. The Criner Hills Fault is inferred to be inactive. It has probably not been active

since the Late Pennsylvanian.

4. The Kirby Fault is truncated by an Early Pennsylvanian unconformity, so we infer that the Kirby Fault has not been active since the Early Pennsylvanian.

I recommend that additional work be conducted to further trace the extent of the

Kirby Fault and to better define the fault on the south side of the Kirby Fault that is on-

trend with the Criner Hills Fault. Trenching to expose the inferred truncation of the

Criner Hills Fault by the erosional surface at the base of the Deese Formation would

clarify whether it is an inactive fault.

APPENDICES

56 57

APPENDIX A

Wells

Operator Well Name Well # Type Cox E.L. McLaughlin 1 Dry Daube Exploration Cheatham 1 Oil Abercrombie J.S. Cheatham 2 Oil Anadarko Production Daube 1-A Dry CNG Producing Sam Daube 1-4 Oil Frankfort Royall 1 Dry Sun Drilling Coffey 1 Oil Ran Ricks Coffey 10-A Oil Ran Ricks Coffey 10-B Oil Daube Exploration Coffey 1-A Oil Laurence Coffey 7 Oil Daube Exploration Coffey 1 Oil Daube Exploration Bogart 1 Oil Mercury Bogart 1 Oil Barrett Resources Hedges 2 Gas Jones Production Tuttle 1 Dry L.E.Jones Keith Walker 1 Oil L.E.Jones Keith Walker Sidetrack Oil McCasland Kirby 1 Oil Mack Kirby 2 Oil McCasland McClure 1 Oil Mack McClure 3 Oil Mack McClure 2 Oil Mack McClure 4 Oil DeHart Hatley 1 Oil G & S Investment Dilley 1-B Oil Seaboard Dilley 1-A Oil Seaboard Kistler 2 Oil Seaboard Kistler 1 Oil Seaboard Kistler 4 Oil Seaboard Nadel & G Dilley 1 Oil Seaboard Lester 1 Dry Deka Exploration Walker 1-16 Dry w/ Oil Show S & J Operating F. Baptiste 4 Oil Mobil Criner 1 Dry Seaboard & Daube Sutton 1 Oil Conoco Daube 1 Dry Holden Energy Harris 22-1 Dry Holden Energy Dunn 22-1(1) Oil Tomlinson Baptiste 1 Oil Tomlinson Baptiste 2 Oil

Operator Well Name # Type Mullen Harris 1 Oil Operator Well Name # Type Tomlinson Farve 3 Oil Tomlinson Farve 4 Oil Tomlinson Williams 1 Dry w/ Oil Show Tomlinson Williams 3 Dry Tomlinson Williams 4 Dry Tomlinson Farve 2 Oil Tomlinson Farve 1 Oil Stanolind Simons 1 Oil Stanolind Simons 3 Oil Stanolind Simons 4 Oil Stanolind Simons 1 Inj Stanolind Simons 5 Oil Tomlinson Farve 5 Oil Alspaugh Lane 1 Dry Davis Petroleum Davis 1-24 Gas Western States Davis 1 Dry Marathon Davis 1 Dry Mack Jackson 9 Oil Mack Jackson 6 Oil Mack Jackson 4 Oil Mack Jackson 5 Oil Sinclair Hollingsworth 5 Oil Sinclair Hollingsworth 6 Oil Mack Jackson 2 Oil Mack Jackson 3 Oil Mack Jackson 7 Oil Mack Jackson 8 Oil Santa Fe Minerals Jackson 26-1 Dry w/ Oil & Gas Show Mack Jackson 1 Gas Sinclair Hollingsworth 4 Oil Sinclair Hollingsworth 3 Oil Sinclair Hollingsworth 2 Oil Sinclair Hollingsworth 1 Oil State Oil Hollingsworth 1 Oil Dunlap-Van Eaton Hollingsworth 4 Oil Dunlap-Van Eaton Hollingsworth 5 Oil Dunlap-Van Eaton Hollingsworth 6 Oil Dunlap-Van Eaton Hollingsworth 7 Dry w/ Oil Show Tomlinson Elix 3 Dry w/ Oil & Gas Show Tomlinson Elix 2 Gas Tomlinson Elix 4 Oil Tomlinson Elix 1 Oil Seagull Elix 1-26 Dry w/ Oil & Gas Show Tomlinson Elix 5 Gas State Oil Hollingsworth 2 Oil State Oil Hollingsworth 3 Oil Tomlinson Hollingsworth 1 Dry

Operator Well Name Well # Type Wham Drilling Alex 1 Dry w/ Oil Show Sinclair Elix 1 Oil Greehey & Company Daube 1-27 Oil Greehey & Company Daube 3-27 Oil Greehey & Company Daube 2-27 Oil Greehey & Company Craighead 1-27 Oil Finley Resources Inc. Craighead 1 Oil Toklan Carroll 1-A Dry Nelson-Spain Buck 1 Dry Beach & Talbot Buck 1 Dry Finley Resources Inc. Wilson's Valley 1 Dry w/ Oil Show Greehey & Company Daube 35-1 Dry Greehey & Company Hodges 2 Oil Greehey & Company Graves 1-35 Oil Greehey & Company Graves 2-35 Oil Holden Energy Haney 35-1 Oil Greehey & Company Hogan 1-35 Gas Ledbetter Carr 1 Oil S. W. Tyler Steed 1 Oil Sunray Mid Continent Shipman 1 Oil Deans Well Service Shipman 3 Gas w/ Oil Show Sunray Mid Continent Shipman 2 Oil Greehey & Company Bean 1-35 Oil Sunray Mid Continent Shipman 1-A Oil Samedan Bourland 1 Oil Greehey & Company Steven Marris 1-35 Gas Mack Marris 2 Oil Duncan Producers Investment 1 Oil Tomlinson Bourland 1 Oil Ledbetter Bourland 1 Oil Greehey & Company Terry Marris 1-36 Gas Ledbetter Bourland 1-B Oil Mack Marris 3 Oil Mack Marris 4 Oil Compadre Bourland 1 Oil Sinclair Bourland 1 Oil Marshall Bourland 1 Oil Daube Exploration Bourland 1 Dry Minerva Oil Co. Howard 1-1 Dry Petroleum Incorporated Bourland 1 Oil

Operator Well Name Well # Type C & K London 2 Oil Sinclair Ewing 1 Dry Blackwood & Nichols Gant 1 Dry Ferguson Carroll 1 Dry Kaiser-Francis Oil Yell 1 Dry Jones Production Yell 1 Dry Shell Smith 1 Dry Ratliff Farve 1 Dry w/ Oil Show Jones Production Glassock 1 Oil Jones Production Cude 1 Dry Gulf Oil Riner 1 Gas Gulf Oil Scott 1 Dry National Oil Van Eaton 1 Dry Ensearch Exploration Gill Estate 1 Gas Signal Oil City of Ardmore 1 Gas

APPENDIX B

Strikes and Dips

Latitude Longitude Elevation (ft) Strike Dip N 34.07736 W 97.15485 786 N 39 W 42 NE N 34.07817 W 97.15539 824 N 50 W 51 NE N 34.07656 W 97.15401 849 N 28 W 42 NE N 34.07709 W 97.16897 715 N 12 W 45 W N 34.07667 W 97.16828 727 N 2 E 63 E N 34.08053 W 97.17505 758 N 38 W 53 SW N 34.09979 W 97.18054 854 N 24 W 49 W N 34.09924 W 97.18005 853 N 28 W 52 W N 34.13166 W 97.20261 961 S 45 E 81 NE N 34.13047 W 97.20294 920 S 40 E 81 NE N 34.13075 W 97.20278 937 S 40 E 82 NE N 34.10171 W 97.20063 917 N 41 W 48 S N 34.10000 W 97.19758 870 N 32 W 54 NE N 34.09831 W 97.19543 820 N 35 W 62 NE N 34.09683 W 97.19649 858 N 35 W 38 W N 34.10143 W 97.19705 883 N 40 W 54 NE N 34.09588 W 97.19150 872 N 30 W 61 NE N 34.08853 W 97.18359 865 N 13 W 83 W N 34.08642 W 97.17224 746 N 11 W 48 E N 34.09122 W 97.17235 725 N 14 W 24 E N 34.09122 W 97.17214 715 N 32 W 19 NE N 34.08349 W 97.17202 748 N 7 E 60 E N 34.11423 W 97.21277 929 N 10 E 8 W N 34.11742 W 97.21621 968 N 23 W 16 W N 34.07808 W 97.17392 728 N 32 E 29 W N 34.07918 W 97.17402 762 N 29 W 50 W N 34.08642 W 97.17881 869 N 21 W 49 W N 34.09098 W 97.17922 774 N 9 W 52 W N 34.09112 W 97.17731 728 N 23 W 39 W N 34.09088 W 97.17854 783 N 0 W 53 W N 34.09090 W 97.17927 774 N 6 W 55 W N 34.10523 W 97.20175 957 N 45 W 21 NE N 34.10565 W 97.19988 961 N 52 W 45 NE N 34.10597 W 97.19945 990 N 44 W 44 E N 34.10450 W 97.20106 933 N 39 W 24 E N 34.10429 W 97.20289 925 N 44 W 35 W N 34.10491 W 97.20315 928 N 49 W 36 W N 34.10156 W 97.10823 839 N 27 W 51 SW

REFERENCES

Allen, R. W., 2000, Stratigraphy, mountain building and complex geological structures of the Ardmore Basin: Oklahoma Geological Society, Shale Shaker, v. 51, nos. 1-3, p. 10 – 21.

Boyer, S. E., and Elliott, D., 1982, Thrust systems: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 66, no. 9, p. 1196 – 1230.

Brown, W. G., 1998, Structural style and outcrop stratigraphy of the Arbuckle region of southern Oklahoma: Sonat Exploration and Chevron, 58 p.

______, 1982, New tricks for old dogs -- A shortcourse in structural geology: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Southwest Sectional Meeting, 79 p.

Crone, A. J., and Luza, K. V., 1986, Holocene deformation associated with the Meers Fault, southwestern Oklahoma, in The Slick Hills of southwestern Oklahoma – Fragments of an aulacogen?: Oklahoma Geological Survey, Guide Book 24, 112 p.

Cronin, V. S., Byars, B. W., and Gammil, T., 2003, Developing techniques for regional structural interpretation using GIS and DEM-based terrain analysis: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, v. 34, no. 7, p. 261. http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2003AM/finalprogram/abstract_61851.htm

Dahlstrom, C. D. A., 1969, Balanced cross sections: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 6, p. 743-757.

ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.), 2006, http://www.esri.com/

Frederickson, E. A., 1957, Geologic map of the Criner Hills area, Oklahoma, in Criner Hills field conference, Lake Murray area, southern Oklahoma: Ardmore Geological Society Guide Book, 79 p.

Geiser, P. A., 1988, The role of kinematics in the construction and analysis of geological cross sections in deformed terranes, in: Mitra, G. and Wojtal, S. (eds.), Geometries and mechanisms of thrusting with special reference to the Appalachians. Geological Society of America, Special Paper 222.

Granath, J. W., 1989, Structural evolution of the Ardmore Basin, Oklahoma -- Progressive deformation in the foreland of the Ouachita collision: Tectonics, v. 8, no. 5, p. 1015-1036.

Guth, P. L., 2004, MicroDEM version 15.10.14.4, http://www.usna.edu/Users/oceano/pguth/website/microdem.htm, accessed 02- 2004.

Ham, W. E., 1969, Geology of the Arbuckle Mountains: Oklahoma Geological Survey Guide Book 17, 52 p.

Ham, W. E., Denison, R. E., Merritt, C. A., 1964, Basement rocks and structural evolution of southern Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geological Survey Bulletin, v. 95, p. 302.

Ham, W. E., and Tomlinson, C. W., 1946, A structural and stratigraphic consideration of the Arbuckle Mountains: Ardmore Geological Society, Field Trip Book, 21 p.

Hardie, W. E., 1990, Subsurface structural study of the buried Ouachita thrust front, southeastern Oklahoma: Baylor University, Master’s Thesis, 156 p.

Hoffman, P., Dewey, J. F., and Burke, K., 1974, Aulacogens and their genetic relation to geosynclines, with a proterozoic example from Great Slave Lake, Canada, in Modern and ancient geosynclinal sedimentation: Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special Publication No. 19, p. 38 - 55.

Lang, R. C., III, 1957, Criner Hills – A key to the geologic history of southern Oklahoma, in Criner Hills field conference, Lake Murray area, southern Oklahoma: Ardmore Geological Society Guide Book, p. 18 - 25.

Namson, T., and Davis, J., http://www.davisnamson.com/index.htm, accessed 02-2006.

OCGI (Oklahoma Center for Geospatial Information), Aerial photographs, http://www2.ocgi.okstate.edu/, accessed 05-2005.

OGS (Oklahoma Geological Society), Earthquake data, http://www.okgeosurvey1.gov/home.html, accessed 02-2006.

Radler, D., 1957, Contour map of the Brock oilfield: contours on eroded Arbuckle, in Criner Hills field conference, Lake Murray area, southern Oklahoma: Ardmore Geological Society Guide Book, p. 18 - 25.

Ratliff, R., and Geiser, P. A., 2005, LithoTect version 1.23: Boulder, Colorado, Geo- Logic Systems, L.L.C., web URL http://geologicsystems.com.

Suppe, J., 1985, Principles of structural geology: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 537 p.

Suppe, J., and Medwedeff, D. A., 1990, Geometry and kinematics of fault-propagation folding: Eclogae Geolische Helvetica, v. 83 (3): 409-454. 64

Taff, J. A., 1904, Preliminary report on the geology of the Arbuckle and Wichita Mountains in Indian Territory and Oklahoma: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, no. 31, 81 p.

Tearpock, D.J., and Bischke, R.E., 2003, Applied subsurface geological mapping with structural methods, 2nd ed.: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 822 p.

USGS, 2005, Digital elevation models: U. S. Geological Survey web documents, ftp://okmaps.onenet.net/1995_dem/, accessed 05-2005.

Woodward, N.B., Boyer, S.E., and Suppe, J., 1989, Balanced geological cross-sections – An essential technique in geological research and exploration: American Geophysical Union, Washington D. C., 132 p.