Devonian Shales Qf Ohio and Their Eastern Equivalents

SCHWIETERING, Joseph Francis, 1930- DEVONIAN SHALES OF OHIO AND THEIR EASTERN EQUIVALENTS.

The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1970 Geology

University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan

THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED DEVONIAN SHALES QF OHIO AND

THEIR EASTERN EQUIVALENTS

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Joseph Francis Schwietering, B.S.

The Ohio State University 1970

Approved by

Adviser Department of Geology ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to thank R. L. Bates of The Ohio State

University, Department of Geology, who acted as adviser and supervised the preparation of this manuscript; J. M. Schopf, who gave critical comments; members of the Ohio Geological Survey, who released data that helped in this study and provided space to examine well-cuttings; and, the Appalachian Log Service, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and

Columbus, Ohio, who made available gamma-ruy-neutron logs used in this investigation.

I am indebted to the Department of Geology of The Ohio State

University for financial aid from the Bownocker fund and Friends of

Orton Hall fund, which helped defray the cost of my studies, field work, and the preparation of this manuscript.

v?

ii VITA

May 25, 1930 . . . B o m - Cincinnati, Ohio

1956 . . . • • • . B.S., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1956-1959 • • t . Exploration geologist, Pure Oil Company, Casper, Wyoming

1959-1963 • • • . Teaching Assistant, Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1964-1965 J • • . Engineering geologist, Harding and Associates, San Rafael, California

1965-1966 • • • • Teaching Assistant, Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1966-1967 • • • . Engineering geologist, Ohio State Highway Department, Testing Laboratory, Columbus, Ohio

1968-1969 • • • . Instructor, Department of Geology, Hanover College, Hanover, Indiana

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Geology

Studies in Stratigraphy. Professors R. L. Bates, E. M. Spieker, C. H. Summerson

Studies in Paleontology. Professors W. C. Sweet and A. La Rocque

iii CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... ii VITA ...... iii LIST OF PLATES ...... v LIST OF FIGURES...... vi

INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Chapter 1. METHOD OF S T U D Y ...... 5 II. GEOLOGIC SETTING...... 8 III. OHIO SHALE AND EQUIVALENTS...... 11 Nomenclature and Lithologic Rela t i o n s...... 11 Age and Correlation ...... 17 IV. OLENTANGY SHALE AND EQUIVALENTS...... 21 Nomenclature and Lithologic Relations ...... 21 Age and Correlation...... 25 V. RESULTS OF STUDY...... 30 Ohio Shale ...... 30 Upper Olentangy S h a l e ...... 37 Sonyea and Genesee Groups 4-0 Tully Limestone...... 4-3 Lover Olentangy Shale ...... 44 VI. CONCLUSIONS...... 49 Origin of Black Shale ...... *••• 49 Geologic History...... 52 APPENDIX A...... 58 B...... 66

SELECTED REFERENCES...... 70

iv LIST OF PLATES

Page

Plate I. Three concepts of the relationship of the Chagrin Shale to the Cleveland, Olmsted and Huron shales 14-

Plate II. Three concepts of the relationship of the Olentangy Shale to overlying and underlying rocks ...... 22

Plate III. Fence diagram of Olentangy Shale in north-central Ohio ••••••••••. 26

Plate IV. C^oss-section A-A’ In pocket

Plate V. Cross-section B-B1 ...... In pocket

Plate VI. Cross-section C-C' ...... In pocket

Plate VII. Cross-section D-D1 In pocket

Plate VIII. Fence diagram of Middle and Upper Devonian rocks in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, and eastern Kentucky .... In pocket

v *

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Index map ...... 3

Figure 2. Map showing location of wells used in constructing cross-sections and fence diagrams...... U

Figure 3. Typical gamma-ray-neutron logs of wells drilled through the Devonian shales of central Ohio .... 6

Figure A. Chart showing lateral relations between Devonian shales of Ohio and formations to the east • • . . . 28

Figure 5. Isopach map of Ohio Shale and equivalents ..... 31

Figure 6. Diagram showing relations of Devonian rocks across southern New York ...... 35

Figure 7. Isopach map of Upper Olentangy Shale and equivalents ...... 38

Figure 8. Isopach map of Sonyea and Genesee groups and equivalents U1

Figure 9. Isopach map of Lower Olentangy Shale and equivalents...... A5

vi INTRODUCTION

The Middle and Upper Devonian shales of Ohio were formed in broad intracontinental seas. They are western equivalents of rocks of marine and continental origin that make up the Catskill Delta in

New York and Pennsylvania. The purpose of this study was to establish the physical relations between the Devonian shales of Ohio and their equivalents in the eastern states by tracing these rocks in the sub­ surface. In the past, most workers who attempted to make this corre­ lation relied primarily on data derived from outcrops. Those who made subsurface studies were interested primarily in the oil- and gas- producing strata, and did not make detailed studies relating the western shales to the eastern formations. It is hoped that the re­ sults of the present study will add to our understanding of these problems, and also of the Devonian history of the Appalachian Basin and surrounding areas and the environment in which the Devonian black shales of the eastern United States were formed.

Devonian rocks in Ohio and to the east and south have been known and studied for over 100 years. Much of the early work is summarized in the following pa_ *s, which contain reviews of the history and usage of stratigraphic terms applied to these rocks. Prosser (1903a,

1905) listed and described all the formations recognized in Ohio;

Hoover (i960) reviewed the stratigraphic terms applied to the Devonian and Mississippian shales and included an annotatod bibliography. Caster (1934-) described the Upper Devonian rocks exposed in north­ western Pennsylvania, Willard and others (1939) discussed the

Devonian rocks in Pennsylvania, primarily those exposed in the eastern and southern parts of the state, A volume edited by Shepps

(1963) contains many papers on the Devonian of Pennsylvania and surrounding states. Cooper (1930, 1933, 1934) described the

Hamilton Group of New York, Rickard (1964), on a correlation chart of the Devonian rocks of New York, shows stratigraphic terms applied to these rocks and the lateral variations in the section.

His chart is summarized in figure 6 of this paper. Woodward (194-3) described the Devonian rocks of West Virginia, Savage (1930) and

Twenhofel (1931) discussed the Devonian of Kentucky, Friedman and

Johnson (1966) summarized existing knowledge of the Catskill Delta.

Martens (1939) and Fettke (1933, 1961) published sample descrip­ tions of many wells drilled in the area of study. 3

CANADIAN SH,*lD

a oironoack m o u n tain s

OMlAI'O

UPU*!

Index map

Figure 1 60

56

•17 *16

N r

'36 •35 »4t •47

-46

100 ISO 200 Miles

43

Map showing location of wells used in constructing

cross-sections and fence diagrams

Figure 2 CHAPTER I

METHOD OF STUDY

Data used in this study wero obtained from measurement of out­ crop sections in Ohio, 132 gamma-ray-neutron logs, and 27 well-sample logs. Cuttings from seven wells drilled in eastern and central Ohio were described. The locations of the measured sections and wells are shown on figure 1. Wells used in constructing the cross-sections and fence diagrams are listed in Appendix A, and their locations are shown on figure 2.

In Ohio, Middle and Upper Devonian rock units were measured on the outcrop. These units were then identified on gamma-ray-neutron logs and on sample logs of wells drilled near the outcrop. For

New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky, the writer relied on published information of rock units. The rock-stratigraphic units were traced by means of geophysical and sample logs, and their lateral relations were established.

Dark carbonaceous shale of the section studied is revealed on gamma-ray-neutron logs by higher radioactive values than lighter colored shale, siltstone, sandstone, and limestone (fig. 3). The radioactivity is the result of the emission of gamma rays by unstable atoms of uranium, thorium, and potassium. Uranium is the primary source of gamma rays in these shales, although thorium has been reported (Hoover, I960, p. 62) and potassium is present in the Rabart C Svrick laka Shara Pin liao Ci ft Jarry M o o n Inc. 25 Sac. 17 flaborti # 1 EJa* Two. Howard A lba Co. lic k in g Ca, Ohio

Hanford Twp Naolroa licking Co., Ohio M ill 200 API M illAPI 200 2000 r*'

- 8 "

- 8 “

OlM Sk

Huron Sh ' 8 '

-V ~8'

’ 8 "

Typical gamma-ray-neutron logs of wells drilled

through the Devonian shales of central Ohio.

Location of wells shown on figure 2

Figure 3 silt-sized feldspar grains and in clay minerals. Bates (1957), in a study of uranium in the black carbonaceous Chattanooga Shale of

Tennessee, showed that the uranium is randomly distributed in the unaltered rock and is associated with organic material and pyrite.

The random distribution of the uranium suggests that it was precipitated from sea water.

High radioactivity is more pronounced in the western part of the area of study than in the eastern part. The lower radioactivity of the eastern shales may be the result of more rapid sedimentation, which would dilute the concentration of uranium} chemical variations of the sea water, such as differences in pH, which would affect the rate of precipitation of uranium; or some undertermined causes.

Rock units may be readily traced on garama-ray neutron logs in eastern Ohio and eastern Kentucky, where dark carbonaceous shales are the predominant rock type. Good results were also obtained in the Middle Devonian and in the lower part of the Upper Devonian of

New York and western Pennsylvania. Results were poor, however, in the Middle and Upper Devonian section of eastern and southern

Pennsylvania and most of West Virginia, and in the upper part of the Upper Devonian in New York and western Pennsylvania. In these areas there are few widespread rock units that can be identified on lithologic and gamma-ray-neutron logs, and only a small number of logs were available. CHAPTER II

GEOLOGIC SETTING

The major structural elements that are thought to have affected

sedimentation during the Devonian in Ohio and nearly states to the

east and south are discussed below. Their location is shown on

figure 1.

Most of the area of study lies within the Appalachian Basin, a

structurally low region situated west of the complexly folded and

faulted Appalachian Mountains (Valley and Ridge Province) and east of

the Nashville Dome, the Cincinnati and Findlay arches, and the

Algonquin Axis. The Canadian Shield and the Adirondack Mountains

bound the basin on the north. The basin extends southwest from central

New York to Alabama, far beyond the area of this report. The basin

contains a suite of sedimentary rocks, Paleozoic in age, that were

formed in a miogeosyncline. The rocks form a wedge that thickens from

two to three thousand feet in western Ohio and central Kentucky to more than 40,000 feet in the eastern parts of Pennsylvania and

West Virginia. During the Middle and Late Devonian, a great clastic wedge known as the Catskill Delta was built westward into this basin

from highlands to the east of the present Appalachian Mountains.

The present study deals with those Ohio shales that are western

equivalents of rocks formed in the Catskill Delta.

8 9 The exact location and the geologic nature of the high eastern

source area are not known. It may have been a complex geosynclinal range with granite intrusions, a range of mountains uplifted by faulting, a series of island arcs, or even the North Africa land mass as suggested by advocates of continental drift.

The Cincinnati Arch is a major structural element which, in conjunction with the Nashville Dome, extends north from central

Tennessee through central Kentucky, western Ohio and eastern Indiana.

In west-central Ohio, it divides into the Kankakee Arch, which extends to the northwest, and the Findlay Arch, extending northeast­ ward onto the Canadian Shield (fig. 1). In southwestern Ontario, the Findlay Arch is crossed by the Chatham Sag, a structural low that provided a passage through which water from the Michigan Basin and the Appalachian Basin joined during periods of major Paleozoic transgressions of the sea. The Cincinnati and Findlay arches probably contributed a little sediment to the Appalachian Basin during periods of marine regression.

North of the region of study are the Canadian Shield and the

Adirondack Mountains. The shield may have been the source of some of the sediments that were deposited in the basin during the Devonian; but the thickness and character of Devonian rocks along the northern outcrops, and Fuller's discovery (1950) of Middle Devonian limestone pebbles in the Sharon Conglomerate (Pennsylvanian) of northern Ohio, are evidence that part, if not all, of the Canadian Shield was covered by the sea during the Devonian. 10

Evidence on the prominence of the Adirondack Mountains during the Devonian is inconclusive. Isopach maps of Lower Devonian rocks suggest that these mountains were structurally high. However, the thickness and lithofacies distribution of Middle and Upper Devonian rocks to the south do not indicate that the Adirondacks markedly affected sedimentation during the Middle and Late Devonian (Oliver and others, 1967, p. 1008-1017} this paper, fig. 5, 7, 8, 9).

The area of study is limited on the south by southeastern

Kentucky and southern West Virginia, where only a few gamma-ray- neutron logs were available. CHAPTER III

OHIO SHALE AND EQUIVALENTS

Nomenclature and Lithologic Relations

Ohio Shale Andrews (1871, p. 62) applied the term "Ohio slate" to black carbonaceous shale exposed in southern Ohio. Shaler (1877, p. 169) proposed "Ohio shale" for the same rocks, and this latter term has come into general use. In central and southern Ohio, the

Ohio Shale consists predominantly of dark brown carbonaceous silty shale with minor interbeds of gray and blue-gray mudstone. Discon­ tinuous beds of gray and dark brown argillaceous limestone, 1 to 2 inches thick, with cone-in-cone structure, are present in the middle and upper parts of the Ohio Shale. Large septarian carbonate concretions occur in the lower part.

The Ohio Shale is composed of silt, clay, carbonaceous matter, and minor amounts of carbonate and pyrite. The silt fraction con­ sists of quartz, feldspar, and mica. The clay fraction contains clay minerals (mostly illite, some kaolinite) and clay-sized quartz grains

(Nelson, 1955). Carbonaceous matter is most abundant in dark gray to brown-black shale layers, in which it constitutes up to 20 percent of the rock, and least abundant in light and medium gray shales. Most of the carbonaceous material consists of finely disseminated silt- and clay-sized irregular masses of plant matter. Thin discontinuous

11 12 layers of coal are present. The carbonate is primarily calcite and occurs in concretions and thin discontinuous limestone beds. The pyrite is present as finely disseminated particles, irregular nodules, small concretions, and replacements of Tasmanites spore cases. In the last-named form,, it occurs as flattened discs and spheres up to

0.5 rom. in diameter. The shale is thinly laminated, and on fresh surfaces it is hard and massive. On weathered surfaces prominent joints develop and the shale becomes fissile, some of the darker layers often weathering to paper-thin "leaves." The darker shales are uraniferous and minor amounts of oil and gas are produced from fractured intervals in the shale. They are not true oil shales, however, and at present it is not economically feasible to develop them (Hoover, I960, p. 62-67).

Fossils belonging to the following groups of animals and plants have been reported from the Ohio Shale: conodonts, radiolaria

(Foreman, 1959, 1963), inarticulate and articulate brachiopods, crinoids (Wells, 194-1), fresh-water fish, spores, algae, coalified logs, and trace fossils (worm markings ?)• The fossils indicate a normal marine or brackish-water environment of deposition.

Along the outcrop belt in Ohio, the thickness of the Ohio

Shale ranges from about 250 feet in southern Ohio to more than 400 feet in the central and northern parts of the state. In Ohio, the

Ohio Shale is overlain by the Bedford Shale (Early Mississippian) and underlain by the Olentangy Shale. In northern Ohio, the stratigraphic interval of the Ohio Shale is occupied by three units, in descending order, the Cleveland Shale

(including the Olmsted Member), the Chagrin Shale, and the Huron

Shale (Plate I, fig. c). This subdivision of the Ohio Shale is generally restricted to northern Ohio, although a similar subdivision can be recognized in outcrops in central and southern Ohio (Lambom,

1934-, p. 357-358) and in the subsurface of eastern Ohio and eastern

Kentucky. Therefore in this paper, the terms Cleveland, Chagrin, and

Huron will be used throughout Ohio and eastern Kentucky.

Cleveland Shale The Cleveland Shale was named by Newberry (1871).

Except for the absence of septarian carbonate concretions, it has the same lithology as the Ohio Shale. The unit is 20 to 60 feet thick at Cleveland, the type locality. It thins eastward, and in

Ashtabula County it wedges out between the overlying Bedford Shale and the underlying Chagrin Shale. The Cleveland Shale is not present east of the Ohio-Pennsylvania line.

Olmsted Member of Cleveland Shale Cushing (1912, p. 582-583) applied the name "Olmsted shale" to "15 to 20 feet of blackish soft shale" which underlies the Cleveland, overlies the Chagrin, and is typically exposed along Rocky River west of Cleveland. He considered it to be a separate formation, which wedged out eastward between the

Cleveland and Chagrin shales, and he did not recognize it east of Plate I

East W a it

i i

U pp e r Devonian

M l dan Devonian Linmtonaa

Figure a. Modified from Ulrich, 1912, p. 166, f ig . 1.

Bedford Sh.

O hio ■ S ha le Group

Huron t£i£n«y '" • • to n .

Figure b. Mooified from Kindle, 1912, p. 204, fig. 3.

Bedford Sh. Conewango G r o u p _ _

O im e te d Conneaut Chagrin Sh. Group Huron Sh O hio Sh Upper Huron

Canadaw ay G ro up

G roup iQaTis^Toup Figure c. This paper.

Three concepts of the Relationship of the Chagrin Shale to the Cleveland. Olmsted, and Huron Shales. Vertical Scale Greatly Exaggerated Cleveland. He noted a westward thickening of the Olmsted Shale and the concurrent thinning of the Chagrin Shale, and suggested that part of the Huron Shale exposed along the Huron River, and much of the Ohio

Shale at Columbus, is Olmsted.

The above conclusions are not supported by this and other studies. Lewis and Schwietering (in preparation), in a study of the

Bedford and Cleveland shales, found that they could not consistently separate the Olmsted from the Cleveland on gamma-ray-neutron logs or in well cuttingsj thus the Olmsted is more properly considered a member of the Cleveland (Plate I, fig. c). They found that there is a belt of thick Cleveland Shale a few miles east of the outcrop, which extends south from north-central Ohio through the central part of the state and passes into Kentucky a few miles east of Portsmouth,

Ohio. The Cleveland thins eastward and westward from this thick belt. Thus, the Olmsted does not thicken to the west and south as suggested by Cushing (1912).

Pepper and others (1954-, P* 16) described the Olmsted Shale as consisting of "black shale, many beds of bluish-gray or gray shale that range in thickness from an inch to several feet; some thin gray to brown siltstone; many small nodules and lumps of pyrite; and several thin siliceous limestones that are characterized by cone-in- cone structure." They considered the Olmsted to be a member of the

Cleveland because conodonts collected from the Olmsted, described by

Hass (1947), are identical with those from the Cleveland. Pepper and others considered the Olmsted to represent the intertonguing of 16

the Chagrin and Cleveland shales, because of the presence of bluish-

gray and gray clay shale similar to the Chagrin interbedded with

shale similar to the Cleveland.

Chagrin Shale Prosser first used the name "Chagrin shale" in 1903

(p. 533-534)• It replaced the name "Erie shale," proposed by

Newberry (1871), which was preoccupied. The Chagrin, typically

exposed along the Chagrin River east of Cleveland, is made up of

blue and gray mudstone and claystone interbedded with discontinuous

beds of gray siltstone if to 2 inches thick. Near the Ohio-

Pennsylvania line, thick beds of siltstone and sandstone are present

in the upper part of the Chagrin Shale. Where the Cleveland Shale

is absent, it is difficult to separate the Chagrin from the Bedford

Shale. The Chagrin thins to the west and intertongues with the

overlying Cleveland Shale and the underlying Huron Shale (Plate I,

fig. o).

Huron Shale Newberry (1871) applied the name "Huron shale" to dark

brown silty shale similar to the Ohio Shale of central Ohio. The

type section of the Huron Shale is along the Huron River in north-

central Ohio. Large septarian concretions are present in the Huron,

but limestones with cone-in-cone structure are absent. In north-

central Ohio, the Huron rests diseonformably on the Prout Limestone

(Middle Devonian), and intertongues with the overlying Chagrin Shale. 17

In northeastern Ohio, the Huron rests conformably on the upper part of the Olentangy Shale.

Age and Correlation

In the years since these lithologic units in northern Ohio were defined, there has been much debate and confusion about their age and correlation. Disagreement between Ulrich and Kindle in 1912 set the stage for subsequent discussion. A summary of the more important papers follows.

In 1912, Ulrich suggested that the Huron, Olmsted, and Cleveland

3hales are all part of a continuous rock mass (Ohio Shale) which dis- conformably overlies the Chagrin Shale (Plate I, fig. a). He con­ sidered the Chagrin to be the western equivalent of the Chemung and possibly of the Portage and Genesee, all Upper Devonian, of New York.

He based his conclusions in part on the eastward thinning of the

Cleveland Shale, the westward thinning of the Chagrin Shale (Chemung,

Chagrin, Portage, and Genesee of Plate I, fig. a), and the difference between fossils in the Huron-Cleveland and those in the Chagrin.

Kindle (1912b) disagreed with Ulrich's conclusions. He con­ sidered the Huron, Chagrin, and Cleveland shales to be members of the

Ohio Shale, and all to be Late Devonian in age (Plate I, fig. b). He presented evidence that the Huron and Cleveland shales intertongue with the Chagrin, and that the Chagrin passes westward into dark shales similar to the Huron and Cleveland. He thought the difference between the fossils of the Huron and Cleveland and those of the Chagrin 18 could be attributed to different environments of deposition, the

Chagrin representing nearshore shallow-water deposits, the Huron and

Cleveland offshore and deeper-water deposits.

These conflicting views had their origin in the use of different stratigraphic principles and in different interpretation of data.

Ulrich, in his paper "Revision of the Paleozoic Systems" (1911), outlined his principles of stratigraphic correlation. He postulated that the Paleozoic seas transgressed upon surfaces of slight relief, that a small rise in sea level would result in extensive coverage of the continent by the seas, and that lateral variation in deposits formed in these seas would be slight. Therefore, he placed emphasis on the "persistence of lithologic units" as a tool in the correlation of rocks, and considered superjacent markedly different rock types to have been deposited in separate seas.

Thus, Ulrich (1912, p. 159) thought that the Chagrin Shale and the Huron-Cleveland Shale were deposited in seas that advanced on the land from opposite directions. He wrote "these oppositely directed overlaps are explained on the ground of continental tilting by virtue of which the marine waters in which the Chagrin and other late Devonian deposits in eastern Ohio and contiguous areas were laid down, invaded from the north middle Atlantic, while those making up the Huron-

Cleveland, or Ohio shale, group invaded from the Gulf of Mexico."

Kindle (1912b) accepted the principle of the lateral variation of sedimentary deposits regardless of the relief of the adjoining lands. He cited examples of the variation of sediments and faunal assemblages in modern seas, emphasizing changes perpendicular to the strand line. He then drew analogies between the modern examples and 19 the Chagrin, Huron, and Cleveland shales, and decided that the Huron and Cleveland represent a deep-water facies of the Chagrin* He suggested that the Black Sea may be analogous to the sea in which these three formations were deposited*

Disagreements about the stratigraphic arrangement of these shales can be partly explained by the fact that nowhere in northern or central Ohio are all three formations exposed in the same outcrop.

Subsurface information available since the time of Ulrich and Kindle indicates that the Huron Shale is present beneath the Chagrin Shale past of the outcrop belt in Ohio, and that the Chagrin extends west to the outcrop belt and intertongues with the Cleveland and Huron

(Plate I, fig. c).

Caster (1934) recognized the threefold division of the Ohio

Shale in northern Ohio* He considered the black shales to be western equivalents (Cleveland Magnafacies) of blue-gray shales and fine sandstones (Chagrin Magnafacies) to the east. He pictured the

Chagrin Shale as a wedge of light-colored fine elastics lying between and lntertonguing with black shales to the west* He considered the

Cleveland and Chagrin shales to be Late Devonian in age, equivalent to the Riceville Shale and the Venango Group in western Pennsylvania.

Lamborn (1934, p* 357-358), in describing the subsurface section of eastern Ohio, wrote "[above] the base of the Ohio shale there is a bed of black or brown shale which is generally known to the driller as Cinnamon. Over large areas in eastern Ohio the Cinnamon is divided into two parts by a thin bed of blue or gray shale. . . .

The black Ohio shale of outcrops in central and southern Ohio is 20 believed to represent the western continuation of the Cinnamon shale

of the drillers." The present study indicates that the two Cinnamon

shales are eastern equivalents of the Huron Shale, not the entire Ohio Shale, and they correspond to the upper and lower parts of the Huron

Shale of this study (Plate I, fig. c).

Hass (194.7) divided the Ohio Shale into two faunal zones on the basis of conodonts. The lower zone, of Late Devonian age, contains

the Huron and Chagrin shales in northern Ohio and the lower part of

the Ohio Shale in central and southern Ohio. The upper zone, Devonian

or Mississippian in age, contains the Cleveland and Olmsted shales in northern Ohio, and the upper part of the Ohio Shale in central and

southern Ohio. Because of the great difference between the faunas of

the two zoneB, Hass suggested that there may be a break between them.

Pepper and others (1954> P* 14-17) pictured the Chagrin Shale

as a wedge of gray shale and siltstone intertonguing with, and

pinching out westward between, the Cleveland and Huron black shales, which merge to form the Ohio Shale. The upper beds of the Chagrin are considered to be equivalent to the Riceville Shale of western

Pennsylvania, The Ohio Shale is considered to be Upper Devonian, and

the Devonian-Mississippian boundary is placed at the contact of the

Cleveland Shale and the Bedford Shale (Chagrin-Bedford contact where

the Cleveland is absent).

Interpretations of the present paper are shown on Plate I, figure c, and on the cross-sections on Plates IV and V. The Ohio

Shale and its correlatives are considered to be Late Devonian in age,

equivalent to the Conewango, Conneaut, and Canadaway groups of

New York and northwestern Pennsylvania (fig. 4). CHAPTER IV

OLENTANGY SHALE AND EQUIVALENTS

Nomenclature and Lithologic Relations

Winchell (1874-, p. 287) first applied the name "Olentangy shale" to "bluish and sometimes greenish shale which is so extensively- exposed in banks of the Olentangy River, in Delaware County, and which underlies the black, tough, but thin beds of the Huron shale.

It has a thickness of about thirty feet."

Hoover (i960, p. 11) described the Olentangy Shale in central

Ohio as "chiefly a bluish-gray to greenish gray clay shale with black fissile shale beds in the tipper portion. It is characterized by flat concretionary masses of blue limestone; compact blue limestone layers; and pyrite in the form of small nodular concretions, small grains or crystals, and in disseminated form." Pyrite is also associated with worm borings found in black shale beds.

Orton (1893, p. 20) described a gray shale exposed at Prout

Station, Erie County, Ohio, which he believed to be the equivalent of the Olentangy Shale of central Ohio. He considered the shale to be

Middle Devonian in age and equivalent to the Hamilton Group of

New York. This gray shale is overlain by a limestone bed to which

Stauffer (1916) formally applied the name Prout Limestone (a term

21 Plate II

O hio Sh. Huron Sh.

S h.

Stauffer, 1906, p. 476-487.

Huron Sh. .Olontangy Sh. Iprout Ls. ■Plum Brook Sh. .Columhu

Huron Sh Sh ..Prout Ls. Sh. .Plum Brook Sh.

Thee concepts ot the relationship of the Olentangy Shale to overlying and underlying rocks. Vertical scale greatly exaggerated 23 informally used by Prosser, 1903b, p. 47). The gray shale rests on

Middle Devonian limestone; the Prout Limestone is disconformably overlain by the Huron Shale.

Stauffer (1916) correlated the gray shale with the Olentangy

Shale of central Ohio (Plate II, fig. a) and the Arkona Shale of southwestern Ontario; and the Prout Limestone with the Hungry Hollow

(Encrinal) Limestone of Ontario. He considered all these formations to be Middle Devonian in age and equivalent to the Hamilton Group.

Grabau (1917) proposed the name "Plum Creek" for the gray shale beneath the Prout Limestone; Cooper (1941) changed this name to Plum

Brook Shale. Grabau agreed with Stauffer (1916) in considering the

Prout and the Plum Brook to be Middle Devonian in age, equivalent to the Hamilton Group of New York, and to be correlatives of the Hungry

Hollow and Arkona of southwestern Ontario. However, he did not con­ sider the Prout Limestone and the Plum Brook Shale equivalent to the

Olentangy Shale of central Ohio (Plate II, fig. b), but believed that the Olentangy is a basal phase of the Ohio Shale, of Late Devonian age. He did not recognize an unconformity between the Ohio and the

Olentangy, but thought that one existed between the Olentangy Shale and the Delaware Limestone in central Ohio, and between the Huron

Shale and the Prout Limestone in north-central Ohio. Westgate (1926, p. 35-37) reviewed the conflicting ideas of Stauffer (1916) and

Grabau (1917) and accepted Grabau’s view.

Lambom (1927, 1929) described sections of the Olentangy Shale in southern Ohio and noted that, in this area, black shale becomes prominent in the Olentangy. Thus, like Grabau (1917), he considered 24 the Olentangy to be a basal phase of the Ohio Shale and Late Devonian in age* Also, he noted the unconformity beneath the Olentangy Shale.

The Olentangy rests on Middle Devonian carbonates in central Ohio and on Silurian carbonates in southern Ohio and eastern Kentucky*

Lamborn (1934, p* 357), in describing a light-colored shale above the Middle Devonian limestone (Big Lime of drillers) in the subsurface of southeastern Ohio, wrote, "The stratigraphic position of this light shale suggests that it represents the eastern continua­ tion of the so-called Olentangy shale of surface outcrops* This bed increases in thickness east of the line from central Stark to central

Lawrence counties, but it is separated from the Big Lime by a wedge of black or brown shale which thickens to the east. In the deep well drilled on the Jones farm in Warren Townshin, Belmont County, the Big Lime is immediately overlain by 200 feet of black shale representing this wedge, above which occurs the gray shale; while in the test drilled in Island Creek Township, Jefferson County, the

Big Lime is overlain by 400 feet of black shale with 775 feet of light shale above it." Lafferty (1941, p* 809-810) considered the thick black shale immediately above the Big Lime in southeastern

Ohio to be equivalent to the Marcellus Shale of West Virginia.

Louden (1965), in a subsurface study of the Prout Limestone,

Plum Brook Shale, and Olentangy Shale, divided the Olentangy into two parts, separated by an unconformity. He suggested that the lower part of the Olentangy of central Ohio is continuous with the

Plum Brook Shale of northern Ohio, and that the upper part of the

Olentangy may pass into the Huron Shale in northeastern Ohio. The 25 former suggestion is supported by this study (Plate II, fig. cj

Plate III), but the latter is not. In this paper, the upper part of the Olentangy is considered a separate unit.

Age and Correlation

All who have studied the Prout Limestone and the Plum Brook

Shale consider them to be Middle Devonian in age and equivalents of the lower part of the Hamilton Group of New York. There has been no unanimity of opinion on the age and relations of the Olentangy Shale, however, Stauffer (1909, 1916, 1938a, 1938b) on the basis of conodonts and other fossils believed it to be Middle Devonian in age and the correlative of the Plum Brook Shale of northern Ohio. Baker (1942) on the basis of several fossil grotq>s, and Stewart and Hendrix (1939,

1945a, 1945b) on the basis of ostracods, considered the Olentangy

Shale to be Late Devonian in age. Cooper and others (1942, p. 1774, and correlation chart), and Oliver and others (1967, p. 1006-1007) divided the Olentangy Shale into two parts, one Middle Devonian in age, the other Late Devonian. Tillman (1969) studied ostracods from the

Olentangy Shale of central Ohio. He divided it into two parts, separated by an unconformity. He considered the lower to be Middle

Devonian in age, and the upper Late Devonian.

In the present paper, the Olentangy Shale is divided into two parts (Plate II, fig. cj Plate III). These can be recognized on gamma-ray-neutron logs, in well cuttings, and on the outcrop (Louden,

1965 j Tillman, 1969). The upper part (Late Devonian) is equivalent Plate

CLEVELAND SANDUSKY

Upper Olentangy Shale A Ho'i/on

Lower Olentangy Shale IPium Brook Shale!

Delaware and Columbus Limestones

Uncontor (Cilia)

COLUMBUS

Fence Diagram of Olentangy Shale in North-central Ohio 27 to the Java and West Falls groups of New York. The lower part (Middle

Devonian) is equivalent to part of the Hamilton Group of New York

(fig. 4). Chart showing lateral relations between

Devonian shales of Ohio and

formations to the east

Figure A

28 E astern Ohio Northw estern Pennsylvania Southern Pennsylvania K e n tu c k y Northeastern Penn sylvaniaCentral and Southern N orthern and New Vork PennsylvaniaCentral and West Virginia

Cleveland Shale Cleveland Shale Hampshire Fm. C atskill Fm. (C atskill Fm.)

Co nn eaut GroupChagrin Shale Conneaut GroupChagrin

Huron Shale Shale Canadaway GroupHuron Chemung Fm.

Java Group B ra llie r Fm. Upper O lentangy Shale

West Falls Group

Not present in outcrops; Harrell Shale present in suburface of eastern Ohio A b s e n t Genesee Croup

A b s e n t Tully Limestone

Prout Limestone M ahantango Fm.

Absent Lower Olentangy Shale Hamilton Group

Plum Brook Shale M a rc e llu s Snale CHAPTER V

RESULTS OF STUDY

For the purpose of illustration and discussion, the rocks con­ sidered in this study are divided into five units. In descending order, these are Ohio Shale and equivalents, upper part of Olentangy

Shale and equivalents, Sonyea and Genesee groups and equivalents,

Tully Limestone, and lower part of Olentangy Shale and equivalents

(fig. 4-). The Sonyea and Genesee groups form the lower part of the

Upper Devonian in New York. The Tully forms the uppermost part of the Middle Devonian. They lie beneath the West Palls Group (Upper

Devonian) and above the Hamilton Group (Middle Devonian). They are not exposed in Ohio or eastern Kentucky. However, rocks equivalent to the Sonyea and Genesee groups are present in the subsurface of eastern Ohio (fig. 8). As the lower part of the Olentangy Shale is equivalent to the Hamilton Group and the upper part to the Java and

West Falls groups, the Olentangy and its equivalents bracket the

Sonyea, Genesee, and Tully.

Ohio Shale

The Ohio Shale is recognized in Ohio, eastern Kentucky, and southwestern West Virginia. To the east, it is replaced by rocks of different lithologies and names. The distribution of outcrops and

30 31

Approximate position of outcrops of Ohio Shale and equivalents. Dashed ..j“■ w here position of bottom is not known.

Thickness of Ohio Shale and equivalents. 5 0 Dashed w here approxim ate. Includes Bedford Shale interval east of Cleveland ihale pinchout.

Approxim ate eastern limits of Cleveland Shale.

100 2 0 0 Miles

Isopach map of Ohio Shale and equivalent© • East of the Cleveland

Shale pinchout, the thickness of the Bedford Shale

is included with that of the Ohio Shale

Figure 5 32 the thickness of the Ohio Shale and its equivalents are shown on figure 5. Along the western outcrop belt, the minimum thickness of the Ohio Shale ranges from about 150 feet in east-central Kentucky to about 400 feet in central and northern Ohio. In the Beliefontaine

Outlier (west-central part of the state), approximately 190 feet of

Ohio Shale is exposed. Only the lower and middle parts are present, the upper part having been removed by post-Mississippian erosion.

In the outlier, the shale rests disconformably on the Columbus

Line stone (Middle Devonian). The Olentangy Shale and the underlying

Delaware Limestones are absent.

The Ohio Shale in northwestern Ohio is on the southern margin of the Michigan Basin and is not considered in this study; but preliminary studies of garama-ray-neutron logs from wells in Fulton and Williams counties, northwestern Ohio, show the Ohio Shale

(Antrim Shale) to be between 160 and 200 feet thick, and suggest that a three-fold subdivision similar to that farther east may be possible.

The shale thickens eastward, and in eastern Ohio it is between

2000 and 2500 feet thick. Stratigraphic equivalents in central

Pennsylvania are more than 3000 feet thick. The thickness farther east is not known because of uncertainties in determining the top and bottom of the unit. On figure 5, east of the Cleveland Shale pinchout, the thickness of the Bedford Shale is included with that of the Ohio Shale. This inclusion is not thought to greatly displace the position of the isopach lines, because the contour interval is more than twice the maximum thickness of the Bedford, and the 33

Bedford is thought to thin eastward (Pepper and others, 1954, p. 23).

East of the western outcrop belt, the Cleveland Shale inter- tongues with, and wedges out between, the Bedford and Chagrin shales

(Plates V, VI, and VII). The Chagrin Shale thickens eastward. In the subsurface of eastern Ohio, the Huron Shale consists of upper and lower dark carbonaceous and radioactive shale units, separated by lighter-colored shales with lower radioactivity values (fig. 3).

The dark shales correspond to the two "Cinnamon shales" described by

L a m b o m (1934, p. 357-358). The upper dark shale is replaced to the east by medium and dark gray shales and gray siltstones; the lower one continues eastward into western Pennsylvania, where it inter­ tongues with medium to dark gray shale and gray siltstone. The Huron

Shale rests conformably on the upper part of the Olentangy Shale.

In northwestern Pennsylvania and New York, the Chagrin Shale passes into the Conewango and Conneaut groups, and possibly into the uppermost part of the Canadaway Group (Plate V). The Huron Shale passes into the Canadaway Group. The basal part of the Huron can be traced into the Dunkirk Shale, the basal member of the Canadaway

Group of New York. The Dunkirk is a medium gray to black carbona­ ceous shale that contains septarian concretions (Tesmer, 1963, p. 15).

This shale thins to the east and is not recognized east of Steuben

County, south-central New York (Pepper and De Witt, 1951).

These correlations are supported try the occurrence of Foerstla ohioensis. a pelagic alga, at a depth of 140 feet in a well drilled in the city of Ashtabula, northeastern Ohio (Schopf and 34 Schwietering, in press). F. ohioensis is found in a restricted zone in the Huron Shale of Ohio and Kentucky and the Chattanooga Shale of

Tennessee. As the occurrence of F. ohioensis is limited to the Huron, its presence near the surface at Ashtabula suggests that equivalents of the Huron are at shallow depths in northeastern Ohio and hence are probably represented by rocks of the Conneaut and Canadaway groups exposed along the shore of Lake Erie in northwestern Pennsyl­ vania and southwe s temmost New York.

The Conevango and Conneaut groups are made up of interbedded gray shale and siltstone with same conglomerate and red beds in the upper parts. The Canadaway Group consists of interbedded gray, brown, and black shale and gray siltstone. Carbonate septarian concretions are present (Tesmer, 1963, p. 14-44). On a correlation chart of Devonian rocks of New York, Rickard (1964) shows the above groups intertonguing with red and green shales and sandstones of the

Catskill lithofacies. The lower gray shales, siltstones, and sandstones extend farther east than the upper ones (fig. 6).

In central and southern Pennsylvania and West Virginia, the

Ohio Shale passes eastward into the Chemung Formation and possibly into the upper part of the Brallier Formation (Plates VI and VII).

These formations are composed of rocks similar to those in the

Conewango, Conneaut, and Canadaway groups. Traced eastward, the

Chemung and Brallier pass into red beds of the Catskill (Hampshire)

Formation. Here, as in New York and northern Pennsylvania, the lower gray shales, siltstones, and sandstones extend farther east than the upper ones (Willard and others, 1939; Woodward, 1943). 35

Conewango. Conneaut. & Canada.vov

Groups

Java &

W est Falls

Black Sh Groups

Sonyea & Giay Sh

Genesee

Groups

T ully Is

Ls & Gray Sh H am ilton Gray Sh ,

S ilts!.. & Ss Group v.*.v.v.v.?.v.v

Onondaga Is

Diagram showing relationships of Devonian rocks across southern

New York. Drawing not to scale. Based upon correlation

chart of Devonian rocks in New York by Rickard (1964)

Figure 6 The Cleveland, Chagrin, and Huron members of the Ohio Shale can be traced into northeastern Kentucky and southwestern West Virginia

(Plate IV). In east-central Kentucky, the Chagrin is absent and the

Cleveland merges with the Huron to form the Chattanooga Shale.

Morse and Foerste (1909) described sections of the Ohio Shale and the overlying Bedford Shale, Berea Sandstone, and Sunbury Shale

(a black shale similar to the Ohio Shale) in southern Ohio and eastern

Kentucky. They noted the southward thinning of all these formations, and the absence of the Bedford and Berea south of Estill County, east- central Kentucky. Because the rate of thinning of the Bedford and

Berea appeared to be greater than that of the Sunbury and Ohio, Morse and Foerste came to the conclusion that the Bedford and Berea pinch out southward between the shales, and that in Estill County, the

Sunbury and Ohio join to form the Chattanooga Shale. This interpre­ tation has been followed by most later workers.

Hass's studies of conodonts from the Chattanooga Shale and the

Maury Formation of Tennessee (1956) convinced him that the Chattanooga

Shale is Late Devonian in age and should be correlated with the Ohio

Shale. He considered the Maury Formation to be Kinderhookian in age and correlated it with the Bedford-Berea-Sunbury, thus suggesting that the conclusion of Morse and Foerste (1909) is invalid. The present study supports the correlation of Hass (Plate IV). The

Sunbury, Berea, Bedford, and Cleveland can all be recognized on gamma- ray-neutron logs in southern Ohio and eastern Kentucky, and their southward thinning can be seen; but there is no evidence that the

Sunbury joins the Ohio to form the Chattanooga. Instead, the data 37 suggest that in southeastern Kentucky the Sunbury, Berea, and Bedford thin and pass into gray shale of the Maury Formation.

Upper Olentangy Shale

The Olentangy Shale of central Ohio is divided into two parts separated by a disconformity. The lower part is continuous with the

Plum Brook of northern Ohio (Plate II, fig. cj and Plate III). It might be advisable to call the lower Olentangy the Plum Brook Shale and restrict the name Olentangy Shale to the upper part. However, the writer thinks that such a redefinition should be based on an intensive study of outcrops and available cores, as well as on gamma- ray-neutron logs. Therefore, in this paper the terms upper

Olentangy and lower Olentangy will be used informally.

The upper Olentangy Shale is exposed in central and southern

Ohio and northeastern Kentucky (Morse and Foerste, 1912, p. 27, 37j

Lambom, 1927, 1929). It is absent in the Bellefontaine Outlier on top of the Cincinnati Arch, and in western Erie County on the east flank of the Findlay Arch (fig. 7). It can be recognized in the subsurface of eastern Ohio, eastern Kentucky, and southwestern

West Virginia. Stratigraphic equivalents are present in New York,

Pennsylvania, and eastern West Virginia. About 30 feet near the outcrop in Ohio, the shale thickens eastward to more than 800 feet at the Ohio-West Virginia line, and equivalents in central New York and central Pennsylvania are more than 2000 feet thick. 38

Approximate position of outcrops of Upper Olentangy Shale and equivalents. Dashed w here position of top and is not known.

Thickness of Upper Olentangy Shale ’ and equivalents. Dashed where approximate.

Eastern limits of A horizon. i

100 2 0 0 Miles

Isopach map of the Upper Olentangy Shale

Figure 7 39 In the subsurface of eastern Ohio, the upper Olentangy consists of varying proportions of greenish-gray shale, meditan to dark gray shale, and black shale with minor amounts of gray limestone* A highly radioactive interval representing dark carbonaceous shale is present at the base of the upper Olentangy in eastern Ohio. This basal radio­ active shale thickens to the east. It pinches out to the west, and is not present on the outcrop.

The ixpper Olentangy Shale can be traced into the Java and West

Falls groups of New York, and the upper part of the Susquehanna Group of northeastern Pennsylvania (Plate V). In southwestern New York, the

Java and West Falls groups consist of interbedded green-gray shale, light gray shale, gray-black and black shale, and impure limestone.

Farther east, in south-central New York, these shales are interbedded with gray siltstone and sandstone, and in southeastern New York, they intertongue with red beds of the Catskill lithofacies (fig. 6)

(Rickard, 1964.).

On gamma-ray-neutron logs of wells in western parts of the area of study, the upper Olentangy can be divided into two parts, the boundary between them being the A horizon, a datum that can be recog­ nized on gamma-ray-neutron logs throughout the western area. Only that part of the upper Olentangy above the A horizon is exposed in

Ohio and eastern Kentucky (Plates IV, V, VI, and VII). The A horizon can be traced into the base of the Java Group of New York. Thus, the upper Olentangy of the western outcrops is equivalent to the

Java Group. The absence of West Falls equivalents in the western outcrops, the westward pinching-out of the basal black shale of the 40 upper Olentangy, and the disconformity between the upper and lower

Olentangy, all suggest a westward overlapping of the Cincinnati Arch by the upper Olentangy Shale and its equivalents (Plate III).

The upper Olentangy Shale in the subsurface of eastern Kentucky corresponds to the non-gas-producing Devonian shales reported by

Ray (1968). (The overlying Ohio Shale produces gas in eastern

Kentucky, southeastern Ohio, and southwestern West Virginia.) The relationship of the upper Olentangy to the Chattanooga Shale of southern Kentucky and Tennessee is not known. It is possible that the upper Olentangy is overlapped by the Ohio-Chattanooga Shale, and equivalents are not present. This would represent a condition similar to that in the Bellefontaine Outlier of west-central Ohio.

Traced into West Virginia and southern Pennsylvania, the upper

Olentangy Shale passes into the lower part of the Brallier Formation

(Plates VI and VII), which consists of interbedded medium dark gray and greenish-gray shale, siltstone, and sandstone. The Brallier intertongues with olive and black shales of the underlying Harrell

Formation (Willard and others, 1939j Woodward, 1943; Dennison, 1963).

Sonyea and Genesee Groups

The Sonyea and Genesee groups make up the lower part of the

Upper Devonian section in New York. They, or their equivalents, are present in New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Equivalents are present in the subsurface of eastern Ohio (fig. 8), but not in the outcrops of Ohio or eastern Kentucky. a

_ v .

Approximate position outcrops of Sonyea and Genesee Groups and equivalents. Dashed where position of to p is not known.

Thickness of Sonyea and G enesee ■50 and equivalents. Clashed w h e re approximate.

100 2 0 0 M iles

Isopach map of the Sonyea and Genesee groups

Figure 8 42

The combined thickness of the Sonyea and Genesee groups in­ creases from a feather-edge in eastern Ohio and western West Virginia to more than 900 feet in central New York and central Pennsylvania.

Their maximum thickness is not known; Rickard (1964.) gives a figure of 2250 feet in southeastern New York.

In eastern Ohio, the Sonyea and Genesee groups consist of dark gray and black shale. They rest disconformably on the lower

Olentangy Shale and are overlapped to the west by the upper Olentangy

(Plates V and VI). The disconformity at the base of the Sonyea-

Genesee in eastern Ohio can be traced into the one that separates the

Genesee from the Hamilton Group (Middle Devonian) in southwestern

New York. Farther east, this same surface separates the Tully

Linestone (Middle Devonian) from the Hamilton. Rickard (1964.) shows a disconformity between the Genesee and the Tully in south-central

New York, but he does not extend it into southeastern New York

(fig. 6). The reported disconformity between the Genesee and Tully was not recognized in this study. If present, it may represent a minor regression of the sea.

Traced into southeastern New York, the gray and black shales of the Sonyea and Genesee of eastern Ohio pass into olive-gray, dark gray, and black shales interbedded with gray argillaceous siltstones and dark gray limestones (Buehler and Tesmer, 1963, p. 67-74.) •

Farther east, in south-central and southeastern New York, these rocks intertongue with red beds of the Catskill lithofacies (fig. 6)

(Sutton, 1963, p. 89-91; Rickard, 1964). U 3

The Sonyea and Genesee groups are equivalent to the lower part of the Susquehanna Group in northeastern Pennsylvania (Plate V).

This group consists of dark gray to black shale at the base, overlain by gray to dark gray shale, siltstone, and sandstone, which in turn is overlain by red, green, and gray shale, siltstone, and sandstone similar to the Catskill lithofacies (Wagner, 1963, p. 68-73).

In West Virginia and southern Pennsylvania, the equivalents of the Sonyea and Genesee groups are the Harrell Shale and locally the lower part of the Brallier Formation (Plates VI and VII). The

Harrell is composed of dark gray and black shale with thin siltstone beds (Willard and others, 1939, p. 2.17-219; Woodward, 194.3, p. 390-392). It intertongues with the overlying Brallier Formation, and rests conformably on the Tully Limestone or disconformably on the Mahantango Formation where the Tully is absent.

Tully Limestone

The Tully Limestone is present in central New York, central and eastern Pennsylvania, and northern West Virginia (fig. 9). Most writers consider it the uppermost unit of the Middle Devonian of

New York, but Rickard (1964.) shows it as the basal unit of the Upper

Devonian. As fossils were not examined in the course of this study, no conclusions can be reached about the age of the Tullyj however, the results of this study suggest that the Tully is the basal unit of a sequence of rocks formed in a sea that transgressed westward toward the Cincinnati Arch. The Tully rests disconformably on the Hamilton 44 Group in the eastern states. It is overlapped to the west by the

Genesee and Sonyea groups (Plates V and VI). The reported discon- formity between the Genesee and the Tully in south-central New York

(Rickard, 1964) nay represent a minor marine regression.

The Tully is not present in Ohio or eastern Kentucky. The

"Tully" of drillers in northwestern Pennsylvania and northeastern

Ohio appears to be the western extension of the Middle Devonian

Tichenor Limestone, as suggested by Austin (1969). The Tichenor is present in the upper part of the Hamilton Group in New York. Plate V shows an interpretation of the relation between the "Tully" of drillers and the Tichenor and Tully of New York. The Tully reported to occur in southeastern Ohio (Jones and Cate, 1957, Plate 6) appears to be a western extension of the Purcell Limestone (Middle Devonian) of West Virginia.

In its western occurrence, the Tully consists of light and dark gray fossiliferous limestone and dark gray shale (Cooper and

Williams, 1935, p. 786-821). To the east, in southeastern New York and northeastern Pennsylvania, the Tully passes first into dark gray shale and sandstone, and then into red beds of the Catskill litho- facies (fig. 6) (Cooper, 1930, p. 122-123J Cooper, 1933, p. 540-542).

Lower Olentangy Shale

The lower Olentangy Shale of central Ohio, and its northern equivalent, the Plum Brook Shale, are western extensions of the lower part of the Hamilton Group (Middle Devonian) of New York, 45

l

Approximate position of outcrops of Lower Olentangy Shale and equivalents.

Thickness of Lower Olentangy Shale 5 0 —. and equivalents.valents. Dashed where approximate.

Approximate limits of Tully Limestone.

100 2 0 0 Miles

Isopach map of the Lower Olentangy Shale

Shows distribution of the Tully Limestone

Figure 9 46

Pennsylvania, and West Virginia (Plates V, VI, and VII). Equivalents of these rocks are absent in west-central and southern Ohio, and in eastern Kentucky (fig. 9)*

The lower Olentangy Shale and the Hamilton Group rest con­ formably on Middle Devonian limestones. They are overlain discon- formably by younger rocks.

Gray shales of the lower Olentangy (Plum Brook) are about

50 feet thick on the outcrop in the north-central part of Ohio.

They thin to the south, and are absent in southern Ohio. The lower

Olentangy thickens eastward, and is between 150 and 200 feet thick at the Ohio-Pennsylvania line. Eastern equivalents are more than

2000 feet thick in northeastern Pennsylvania (fig. 9). Rickard

(1964) reports between 3000 and 4000 feet of Hamilton rocks in south­ eastern New York. These rocks are between 300 and 500 feet thick in northern West Virginia, and about 100 feet thick in the southern part of the state. The data suggest a similar southward thinning for the Sonyea and Genesee groups (fig. 8), but this is not well docu­ mented because of difficulties in determining the top of the interval.

A comparison of the isopach map of the lower Olentangy Shale and its equivalents (fig. 9) with maps of the upper Olentangy and

Ohio shales and their equivalents (figs. 5 and 7) shows that the

southward thinning of the lower Olentangy is not present in the upper

Olentangy and Ohio. This suggests that the configuration of the

Appalachian Basin during the Middle Devonian was different from what it was during the Late Devonian. Also, the southward thinning of the lower Olentangy and the Hamilton, their absence in southern Ohio 47 and eastern Kentucky, and the disconformity separating them from younger rocks, indicate that in the southern areas Middle Devonian rocks were removed by erosion prior to the deposition of Upper

Devonian sediments.

In the subsurface of eastern Ohio, the lower Olentangy Shale is made up of gray to dark gray and black shale with thin beds of limestone. A black, carbonaceous, highly radioactive shale is present at its base. This basal black shale thickens to the east and can be recognized throughout the eastern area. It corresponds to the Marcellus Shale, the lowermost unit of the Hamilton Group.

The basal black shale thins to the west, and is not present in outcrops in Ohio.

The gray, dark gray, and black shale and limestone beds above the basal black shale in eastern Ohio can be traced into south­ western New York. In south-central New York, siltstone and sandstone beds are interbedded with the shales and limestones. Farther east, these rocks intertongue with red beds of the Catskill lithofacies

(fig. 6) (Rickard, 1964).

The lower Olentangy can be traced into the Mahantango and

Marcellus formations (Hamilton Group) of West Virginia and southern

Pennsylvania. The Mahantango overlies the Marcellus Formation. It consists of interbedded medium to dark gray shale, siltstone, sand­ stone, and some limestone. In southeastern Pennsylvania, the

Mahantango intertongues with red beds of the Catskill lithofacies

(Willard and others, 1939, p. 133-136, 195-200). The Marcellus Formation is made up of grayish black, noncal- careous shale with zones of carbonate concretions and thin beds of dark gray limestone, In eastern Pennsylvania, gray shale and sand­ stone are present in the middle part. The Marcellus intertonguss with the overlying Mahantango (Willard and others, 1939, p, 166-176

Woodward, 194-3, p. 311-316), Traced south from northeastern

West Virginia, the Marcellus replaces the Mahantango; the latter is absent in southern West Virginia (Dennison and Naegele, 1963, CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSIONS

Origin of Black Shales

The origin of black shales has been debated for many years*

Twenhofel (1939) and Conant and Swanson (1961, p. 56-62) have reviewed theories advanced to explain the origin of these shales# Their work, the review of depositional environments by Trask (1951), and studies of recent sediments by Goldman (1924), Smirow (1958), and Zangerl and

Richardson (1963) suggest that depth of water is not a critical factor in the environment in which black shales form, as black muds are today accumulating in both shallow and deep water. The critical factors appear to be 1) an abundance of organic material, primarily plants,

2) a reducing environment, and 3) a slow rate of accumulation of terrigenous sediments.

Since the black shales contain from 10 to 20 percent carbona­ ceous matter, and discontinuous thin layers of coal, the need for an abundance of organic matter in the parent sediment is self-evident.

A reducing environment is indicated not only by the preservation of carbonaceous material, but by the presence of pyrite and marcasite.

If the rate of supply of terrigenous silt and clay had been rapid, carbonaceous matter would be masked by the detrital sediments and the rocks would be same shade lighter than black.

49 50

In most of the theories, it is assumed that the reducing environ­ ment is formed in stagnant water. Some means is proposed to restrict circulation, for example, a shallow sill; local deeps in otherwise shallow sea bottoms; restricted outlet to the open sea; density stratification; and a plant-covered bottom, the plants restricting the movement of water. According to these theories, the water is depleted of its contained oxygen by organic activity, and anaerobic, sulfate-reducing organisms become the predominant life form.

The Devonian black shales in the Appalachian Basin and sur­ rounding areas were formed in extensive inland seas. The contained fossils (conodonts, radiolaria, brachiopods, algae, etc.) indicate that the water was marine or brackish; the absence of evaporites indicates that it was never extremely saline. The presence of coalified logs and fresh-water fish in the shale is evidence of runoff from surrounding ind areas (Wells, 19-41, 1947). Streams would also be likely to carry nutrients necessary for plant growth in the sea.

The abundant marine organisms would require a continual supply of nutrients and oxygen.

Although the oxygen content of the water may have been low, the fossils and the carbonaceous material in the shale suggest to the writer that oxygen was present, that the water was not stagnant, and that circulation was necessary to supply nutrients and oxygen and to transport, the terrigenous silt and clay. The reducing environment necessary for the preservation of the carbonaceous material probably was present beneath the sediment-vater interface. 51 In the western part of the area of study, the black shales over­ lap older rocks, become thin toward structural highs, and rest on a disconformity on top of these highs (Plate VI). The thinning of the shales, the disconformity at their base, and their widespread nature led Grabau (1906, p. 593-613) and Ulrich (1911, p. 357) to conclude that they formed in shallow water. On the basis of sedimentary struc­ tures (scour channels, and thin sandstone beds with small ripple marks) in the Chattanooga Shale of Tennessee and southern Kentucky, and the relations of this unit with overlying and underlying rocks,

Conant and Swanson (1961, p. 59-62) concluded that it was formed in water less than 100 feet deep.

In the eastern areas, the relations of the black shales to pre­ dominantly gray shales, siltstones, and sandstones (fig. 6) suggest bottomset (fondo) deposits in front of a westward-advancing delta.

This led Rich (1951a, 1951b) and Sutton (i960, p. 4.7-48; 1963, p. 96-97) to think that the black shales were formed in deep water.

A study by Erickson and Reynolds (1969, p« 48-53) of the inter­ dependent roles of bacteria and algae in Quabbin Reservoir, Massa­ chusetts may help in understanding the origin of black shales. In a lake, there is an interaction of physical and biological factors that tends to minimize the accumulation of organic material. Cellu­ lar debris of algae that live in the water, organic material intro­ duced by streams and winds, and cellulose are degraded by bacteria.

This degradation produces nutrients that are returned to the overlying water, thus increasing the growth of algae and higher plants. If 52 sufficient nutrients are supplied, "algal blooms" occur. In Quabbin

Reservoir, as the algal population increases, the bacterial popula­ tion generally decreases.

The Devonian seas are thought to have received an adequate supply of fresh water from rain and streams to maintain a normal marine or brackish-water environment. As the amount of nutrients built up through introduction by streams and recycling from bottom sediments, the number of organisms in the water would increase.

Eventually the rate of supply of organic material to the bottom sediments would exceed the rate of degradation by bacteria, and deposits of black muds would form in a reducing environment.

Thus the writer suggests that the Devonian black shales represent sediments deposited in a normal marine or brackish-water sea in which a large number of organisms lived. Black muds accumu­ lated in those parts of the sea where the supply of organic material to the bottom was large in relation to the supply of terrigenous material. The muds could have formed in shallow or deep water.

Geologic History

Oliver and others (1967) described the Devonian rocks in the

Appalachian Basin and summarized existing knowledge of these rocks.

On cross-sections (p. 1022-1031), they show the western black shales

(Ohio and Chattanooga) to be Upper Devonian and physically continuous with black shales in the Middle Devonian and the lower Upper Devonian 53 in the east. Their interpretation suggests that only one major trans­ gression of the sea occurred in the Appalachian Basin during the

Middle and Late Devonian, and that the distribution of black shales in the section represents a westward migration of the black shale facies as the sea transgressed westward from the basin onto the Cincinnati

Arch. The following discussion will suggest that these conclusions are not correct.

During the Middle and Late Devonian, the Catskill Delta was built westward into the Appalachian Basin. Friedman and Johnson

(1966) described this delta as the type example of a "tectonic delta complex" which they define as "a delta complex built into a marine basin contiguous to an active mountain front and dominated by orogenic sediments." This delta forms a clastic wedge that extends from the Hudson River in eastern New York west to Lake Erie, and from central New York southwestward to near the Pennsylvania-West Virginia line. Sediments making up this clastic wedge range in thickness from

2000 or 3000 feet in the west to more than 10,000 feet in eastern

Pennsylvania and New York.

Associated with the westward building of the Catskill Delta are two major westward transgressions of the sea onto the Cincinnati Arch.

The regression that separated them is represented by the disconformity at the top of the lower Olentangy Shale in the west and the top of the

Hamilton Group in the east. This disconformity can be recognized throughout the area of study (Plates IV, V, VI, and VII).

The upper Olentangy and the Hamilton represent the upper part of the sequence of rocks formed during the Middle Devonian transgression. 54 The Devonian rocks above the disconformity represent the lower part of the sequence formed during the Late Devonian and Mississippian transgression,

Sloss and others (1949, p, 110-121) applied the term "Kaskaskia sequence” to Devonian and Mississippian rocks resting on an erosion surface cut on Middle Devonian and older rocks, and lying beneath the

Chesterian (Mississippian) elastics, Sloss (1963, p» 99-102) rede­ fined the Kaskaskia Sequence to include the Chesterian elastics.

Wheeler (1963a, 1963b) divided the Kaskaskia into a lower Piankasha

Sequence and an Tipper Tamaroa Sequence, separated by the Acadian

Discontinuity, He placed the discontinuity (disconformity) at the base of the Ohio and the Chattanooga shales in the west, and at the base of the Canadaway Group in the east.

The present study shows that a major disconformity is present within the Middle and Upper Devonian section of the Appalachian Basin and adjacent areas. However, it is located at the top of the lower

Olentangy Shale and the Hamilton Group, not at the stratigraphic position suggested by Wheeler, Therefore it appears necessary to redefine the Tamaroa Sequence to include the Java, West Falls,

Sonyea, and Genesee groups, the Tully Limestone, and the upper

Olentangy Shale,

The major Middle and Upper Devonian transgressions in which the above sequences were formed in the Appalachian Basin and sur­ rounding areas proceeded in pulses. Pepper and De Witt (1951) described cycles produced during Upper Devonian eastward trans­ gressions and westward regressions of the sea on the Catskill Delta 55 in New York. A cycle consists of black mud at the base, followed by brown and dark gray mud in the middle part, and silty mud, silt, and fine sand at the top. On figure 6, the black muds are represented by black shales. Me Cave (1969a, 1969b) and Johnson and Friedman (1969) described eastward transgressions of the sea on the Catskill Delta during the late part of the Middle Devonian. The older transgressions are represented by limestones in south-central and southwestern

New York (Tully, Tichenor, and Portland Point) and nearshore and shoreline deposits of gray shale, siltstone, sandstone, and red and green shale and siltstone in the east.

The distribution of the remains of the pelagic algal form

Foerstia ohioensis may also indicate that the transgressions occurred in pulses. F. ohioensis is restricted to a single zone within the

Huron and Chattanooga shales, and all but one of its reported localities sure in the western part of the Appalachian Basin. Schopf and Schwietering (in press) suggest that the life cycle of Foerstia was similar to that of the modern alga Sareassum which has attached and free-floating phases in its life cycle. Egg cells of Sareassum are germinated along coast lines where the yovjng plants become at­ tached. Many of the plants break loose and grow vegetatively, but do not reproduce sexually in the free-floating condition. If a plant washes ashore, the cycle begins again. The distribution of

Sareassum in the open sea is controlled by currents.

If Foerstia had a similar life cycle, and required a specific littoral environment for completion of the sexual phase, then its 56 restricted zone in the Huron and Chattanooga may represent a period of shoreline stability. A rapid transgression may have destroyed the environment necessary for reproduction and thus caused its extinction in the Appalachian Basin. Its restricted areal distribution may have been caused by currents in the sea.

The fact that the two major transgressions of the sea onto the

Cincinnati Arch are related to the westward building of the Catskill

Delta, upon which there were sporadic eastward transgressions, is best explained by assuming that the transgressions proceeded in pulses and are partly the result of rises in sea level.

If this was the ca-se, then the sea would have advanced simul­ taneously on all the bordering lands of the Appalachian Basin. In the eastern area, the delta front would retreat and advance. In time, because of the large quantity of sediments coming from the eastern highlands, the net result would be a westward advance of the delta front (fig. 6). Because the western areas were never a source for a large amount of elastics, as is indicated by the relatively smooth carbonate surface on which Middle and Upper Devonian rocks rest, the result of a major transgression in tho west would be a covering of the

Cincinnati Arch and eventually a joining of the seas present in the

Appalachian, Michigan, and Illinois basins.

The fact that the Cincinnati Arch was covered during both major transgressions is indicated by the presence in the Bellefontaine

Outlier, which lies on the crest of the Cincinnati Arch, of the

Columbus Limestone (Middle Devonian), a member of the Piankasha

Sequence, and the Ohio Shale, a member of the Tamaroa Sequence. It is 57 not known how widespread the lower Olentangy (upper part of the

Piankasha) originally was, as the Cincinnati Arch was subjected to erosion during the Acadian Discontinuity.

Black shales are common in the Upper Devonian of the Illinois and Michigan basins. The presence of black Ohio Shale in the

Bellefontaine Outlier suggests that the black shales of Indiana

(New Albany), Michigan (Antrim), and Ohio were part of a continuous sheet.

After the inland seas of the Appalachian, Michigan and Illinois basins were joined in the Late Devonian, further rises in sea level would produce eastward extensions of black mud (shale) as is illustrated by the Cleveland and Sunbury black shales. APPENDIX A

Wells used in constructing cross-sections and fence diagrams

Well No* Permit No. Well Name Operator Location

1 ? Prout Station Core Ohio Geol. Survey Lot Q-3, Oxford Twp., Erie Co., Ohio

2 P-9 Willis #1 Floto & Mammoth Lot 9. Sec. 2, Berlin Twp., Erie Co., Ohio

3 P-191 Rhoa #1 Horizon Oil Co. Lot 30, 3rd. Qtr., Trumbull Twp., Ashtabula Co., Ohio

U P - 1 2 H Hier #3-A Wiser Oil Co. Lot 70, Hinckley Twp., Medina Co., Ohio

5 P-S59 Maurer Investment Great Basin Lot 56, Grafton Twp., Co. #1 Petroleum Co. Lorain Co., Ohio

6 P-854 Gregg #1 Midland Tract 8, Lot 32, Brighton Twp., Exploration Co. Lorain Co., Ohio

7 P-A3 Clayton- Kin Ark Oil Co. Lot 31, 3rd Qtr., Fitchville Twp., Crecelius #1 Huron Co., Ohio

8 P-30 Niederweier #1 Reliance Oil Co. Lot 5, Sec. 3, Richmond Twp., Huron Co., Ohio

9 P-271 Champion #1 Hallion Sec. 25, Plymouth Twp., Petroleum Co. Richland Co., Ohio APPENDIX A— Continued

Well No. Permit No. Well Name Operator Location

10 P-8 Krichbaum #1 Sun Oil Co. Sec. 33, Vernon Twp., Crawford Co., Ohio

11 P-30 Ricker #1 Sun Oil Co. Sec. 26, Polk Twp., Crawford Co., Ohio

12 P-2274 Frazier #1 Kansfield Oil and Sec. 14, Gilead Twp., Development Morrow Co., Ohio

13 P-2A21 Higgins #1 General Oil Co. Sec. 23, Congress Twp., of Ohio Morrow Co., Ohio Incorporated

14 P-323 Augustine #1 Hadson Ohio Sec. 34, Troy Twp., Oil Co. Richland Co., Ohio

15 p-415 Sauder #1 Olympic Ifonroe Twp., Richland Co., Ohio Petroleum Co.

16 P-2355 Allen #1 Kingwood Oil Co. Sec. 7, Mohican Twp., Ashland Co., Ohio

17 P-M34 Martin #1 Sun Oil Co. Sec. 15, Chester Twp., Wayne Co.

18 P-1233 Bowman #1 Sun Oil Co. Lot 4, Salt Creek Twp., Holmes Co., Ohio APPENDIX A— Continued

Well No,. Permit No. Well Name Operator Location

19 P-101 Luneman #1 Pan American Sec. 7, North Twp,, Petroleum Corp. Harrison Co., Ohio

20 P-955 Mizer Unit #L Stocker & Lot 4, Clay Twp., Sitier Inc. Tuscarawas Co., Ohio

21 P-1330 Johnson #1 Natol Corp. Monroe Twp., Coshocton Co., Ohio

22 P-1712 Paige #1 Kin Ark Oil Co. Sec. 14, Monroe Twp., Knox Co., Ohio

23 P-2129 Swick #1 Lake Shore Sec. 17, Eden Twp., Pipe Line Co. Licking Co., Ohio

24 P-2051 Swetnam Comm. #1 Southern Triangle Lot 5, Burlington Twp., Oil Co. Licking Co., Ohio

25 P-2057 Roberts #1 Howard Atha Lot 2, 3rd Qtr., Hartford Twp., Licking Co., Ohio

26 P-19 Reppart #1 Pan American Lot 8, Trenton Twp., Petroleum Corp. Delaware Co., Ohio

27 P-91 Pomeroy #1 Gibbs Oil Co. Sec. 4, Berlin Twp., Delaware Co., Ohio

28 P-31 Heminger #1 Humble Oil & VMS 5088, Jefferson Twp., Refining Co. Logan Co., Ohio o o APPENDIX A— Continued

Well No. Permit No. Well Name Operator Location

29 P-427 Lamp #1 L. B. Jackson Co. Sec. 9, Violet Twp., Fairfield Ci • > Ohio

30 P-9A5 Swallow #9986 Oil Fuel Gas Co. Sec. 30, Bristol Twp., Morgan Co., Ohio

31 P-A3A Heirs #1 Clark Oil & Sec. 15, Clear Creek Twp., Refining Corp. Fairfield Co., Ohio

32 P-ll Zeigler #1 Haimnerstone Oil Sec. 19, Colerian Twp., Co. & Hadson Ohio Ross Co., Ohio Oil Co.

33 P-1222 Hockman #1 Dunigan Jr. Sec. 31» Starr Twp., Hocking Co., Ohio

3A P-H Cryder #1 Hammerstone Oil Sec. 9, Liberty Twp., Co. & Hadson Ohio Ross Co., Ohio Oil Co.

35 P-A Bailey #1 Cabot Corp. Jefferson Twp., Adams Co., Ohio and others

36 P-202 Will #1 Young & Sec. 17, Harrison Twp., Hennebsrger Scioto Co., Ohio

37 P-117 Wagoner #1 B. & E. Oil Inc. Sec. 6, Walnut Twp., Gallia Co., Ohio APPENDIX A— Continued

Well No. Permit No. Well Name Operator Location

38 V Felty #1 Union Carbon Co. Carter Coordinate 3-W-79, Greenup Co., Kentucky

39 P-1555 Pennington #9021-T United Fuel Gas Co. Carter Coordinate 21-T-76, Elliott Co., Kentucky

40 P-17590 White #2 Holly Creek Carter Coordinate 20-0-73, Prod. Corp. Wolfe Co., Kentucky

A1 P-14519 Rice #1284 Kentucky- Carter Coordinate 19-P-80, West Virginia Gas Johnson Cc., Kentucky

42 •? Fordson Coal Co. United Fuel Carter Coordinate 3-H-73, #36, #8810 Gas Co. Leslie Co., Kentucky

A3 Min-407 Nighbert Land United Fuel Hardee District, Mingo Co., Co. #9, #8204 Gas Co. West Virginia

AA BOO-991 Bull Creek Land Cities Service Peytona District, Co. #15, 0. W. 1569 Oil Co. Boone Co., West Virginia

A5 FAY-106 New River- United Sewell Mountain District, Pocahontas #1 Producing Co. Fayette Co., West Virginia

AS SUM-6 Guinn #1 Anchor Gas Co. Alderson District, Summers Co., West Virginia

wo APPENDIX A— Continued

Well No. Permit No. Well Name Operator Location

47 WEB-55 Pardee & Curtin Cramon Stanton Inc, Fork Lick District, Lumber Co. #1 Webster Co., West Virginia

48 R0A-1200 United Fuel Gas Co., United Fuel Gas Co, Walton District, Tr. 2396, #9375-T Roane Co., West Virginia

49 HAN-80 Minesinger #1 Humble Oil & Clay District, Refining Co. Hancock Co., West Virginia

50 ? Foley #1-A Benedum Trees 2.500 ft. S. 40° 25’, Oil Co. 4.500 ft. E. 80° 20', Washington Co., Pennsylvania

51 ? Monroe #1 Huntley & 600 ft. S. 40° 25*, Huntley Inc. 3.800 ft. E. 79° 45’, Allegheny Co., Pennsylvania

52 IND-411 Bennett #4750 Manufactur. 14,900 ft. S. 40° 35', Light & Heat Co. 9.800 ft. W. 79° 05', Indiana Co., Pennsylvania

53 CBA-13 Heidingsfelder #1 Pennzoil 6,950 ft. S. 40° 20*, United Inc. 4,475 ft. W. 78° 50«, Cambria Co., Pennsylvania O' APPENDIX A— Continued

Well No. Permit No. Well Name Operator Location

54 ? Penn Track #98 Phillips 13,500 ft. N. 40° 05', Petroleum Co. 5,000 ft. W. 79° 10', Westmoreland Co., Pennsylvania

55 ? Blemle #1 Pure Oil Co. 740 ft. S. 41° 35', 7.700 ft. E. 76° 20', Bradford Co., Pennsylvania

56 ? Hindle #1 Atlas 6.700 ft. N. 41° 45', Exploration Co. 3,350 ft. W. 80® 05’, Crawford Co., Pennsylvania

57 ERI-78 Hoag #1 Texaco Inc. 16,800 ft. S. 42o 05', 13,600 ft. W. 79° 45', Erie Co., Pennsylvania

58 ? Harrington #1 Wolfes Head Oil 23,925 ft. S. 42o 151, Refining Co. 1,300 ft. W. 79° 20', Chautauqua Co., New York

59 ? Heron #1 Humble Oil & 1.85 miles N. 420 15', Refining Co. 0.30 miles W. 78° 55', Cattaragus Co., New York

60 ? Cook #2 New York State 17,100 ft. S. 42° 30', Nat. Gas Corp. 2,050 ft. W. 780 10', Allegany Co., New York

£ APPENDIX A— Continued

Well No# Permit No. Well Name Operator Location

61 ? Hargrave #1 New York State 12.650 ft. S. 42° 05’, N-588-S Nat. Gas Corp. 2.650 ft. W. 77° 25*, Steuben Co., New York

62 ? May #1 Hanley & Bird 11,500 ft. S. 42° 05’, 15,000 ft. W. 76° 50', Chemung Co., New York APPENDIX B

Depths to formation tops in wells used in constructing cross-sections and fence diagrams

Abbreviations: C - core; S - sample description log; GN - gamma-ray-neutron log.

A - absent; AS - at surface; L - Middle Devonian, or older, car­ bonates beneath the shale section; LO - Lower Olentangy Shale and equivalents; 0 - Ohio Shale and equivalents; SG - Sonyea and Genesee groups and equivalents; T - Tully Limestone; UO - Upper Olentangy Shale and equivalents

Well Source Reference No. of data 0 UO SG T LOL (if any)

1 CAS AAA 61 120 Louden, 1965

2 GN AS 296 AA 308 382

3 GN AS 1510 AA 1755 1895

4 GN, S 549 1700 A A 1834 1952

5 GN 305 1069 AA 1160 1256 6 GN 788 A A 878 950 294 t 7 GN 273 682 A A 700 767

8 GN AS AAA 340 391

Q✓ GN 305 680 AA 695 738

10 GN 287 669 A A 688 717

11 GN 142 500 AA 526 540

12 GN 177 540 AA 568 588

13 GN 675 1107 AA 1145 1165

66 67

APPENDIX B— Continued

Well Source Reference No. of data 0 UO SG X LO L (if any)

H car 628 1111 A A 1157 1185

15 o n 760 1352 A A 3423 1457

16 GN 640 1373 A A 1472 1527

17 GN 910 1810 A A 1928 2019

18 GN 860 7,177 AA 2370 2462

19 GN, S 1283 3337 3893 A 3965 4087

20 GN 1169 2866 3217 A 3231 3338

21 (31 1160 2089 AA 2239 2287

22 GN 807 1432 AA 1523 1543

23 GN 969 1679 A A 1800 1328

24 GN 694 1284 A A 1362 1386

25 GN 535 995 A A 1055 1082

26 GN 285 698 A A 733 764

27 car AS 244 A A 275 290

28 GN AS A AAA 149

29 GN 131 640 A AA 700

30 GN 1449 2851 A A 3178 3230

31 GN 550 1030 A A A 1105 32 GN 360 762 A A A 862

33 GN 1185 1964 A A 2133 2344

34 (31 252 69° AAA 770

35 GN AS 62 A A A 98 68

APPENDIX B— Continued

Well Source Reference No. of data 0 UO SG T LO L (if any)

36 GN 842 1312 A A A 1427

37 GN 2169 AA A 2363

38 GN 957 1324 A A A 1418

39 GN 929 1244 A A A 1279

40 GN 1222 1422 AAA 1462

41 GN 1170 1658 AAA 1815

42 GN 2591 2792 AAA 2813

43 GN 2954 3848 A AA 4210

44 GN 2100 3838 4418 A 4500 4590

45 GN 3080? 6586? 7337? A 9 7766

46 GN 1920 4752? 5578? A 6032? 6174

47 GN 1150? 4092? 5344? A 5754? 6082

48 GN 2211 4250 4985 A 5190 5361

49 GN ? 3420 4262 A 4510 4663

50 GN 1718 4200? 5427 5722 5800 6008

51 GN 1912? 4725? 6493 6953 7073 7410

52 GN 1000? ? 6050? 6900 6914 7560

53 GN 1690? 9 7590 8363 8377 9260

54 GN 990 9 7023? A 7582 8337

55 GN - AS?? 5855 5970 7677 Wagner, 1963

56 GN 349? 2022 2555? A 2600 2820

57 GN AS 1870 2417? A 2471 2700 69

APPENDIX B— Continued

Well Source Reference No. of data 0 uo SG T LO L (if any)

58 car AS 1638 2295 A 2344 2641

59 (31 AS 1695 2470 A 2626 2962

60 GN AS 945 1845 2220 2262 2700

61 GN AS 852? 2569 3185 3235 3942

62 GN AS 2200 3110 3195 4250 SELECTED REFERENCES

Andrews, E. B., 1871, Report of progress in the second district: Ohio Geol. Survey Report of Progress, 1869, p. 55-142•

Austin, N. C., 1969, Subsurface Tully Limestone, New York and northern Pennsylvania (abs.)s Northeastern Section, Geol. Soc. America, Albany, New York, p. 2.

Baker, R. C., 1942, The age and fossils of the Olentangy Shale of central Ohio: Am. Jour. Sci., v. 24.0, p. 137-14-3.

Bassler, R. S., 1911, The stratigraphy of a deep well at Waverly, Ohio: Am. Jour. Sci., v. 181, p. 19-24-.

Bates, T. F., 1957, Black shale: Storehouse for uranium: Pennsylvania State Univ. Mineral Industries, v. 26, no. 8, p. 1-3, 5-6.

Bayles, R. E., and others, 1956, Wood County deep well: West Virginia Geol. and Econ. Survey, Rept, of Inv., no. 14, 62 p.

Bownocker, J. A., 1920, Geologic map of Ohio: Ohio Geol. Survey.

Broughton, J. G., and others, 1962, Geologic map of New York - 1961: New York State Mus. and Sci. Service Geol. Survey Map and Chart Ser., no. 5.

Bushier, E. J., and Tesmer, I, H,, 1963, Geology of Erie County, New York: Buffalo Soc. Nat. Sci. Bull., v. 21, no. 3, 118 p.

Carmen, J. E., 1947, Geologic section of the Chillicothe test-core: Ohio Jour. Sci., v. 47, p. 49-54*

-- 1955, Revision of the Chillicothe test-core section: Ohio Jour. Sci., v. 55, p. 65-72.

Caster, K. E., 1934, The stratigraphy and paleontology of northwestern Pennsylvania, Pt. 1: Am. Paleontology Bull., v. 21, no. 71, 185 p. Chadwick, G. H., 1925, Chagrin Formation of Ohio: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 36, p. 455-464. Conant, L. Ce, and Swanson, V. E., 1961,Chattanooga Shale and related rocks of central Tennessee and nearly areas: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 357, 91 p.

70 71

Cooper, G. A., 1930, Stratigraphy of the Hamilton Group of New York, Pt. 1: Am. Jour. Sci., v. 219, p. 214-236.

— — 1933, Stratigraphy of the Hamilton Group of eastern New York, Pt. 1: Am. Jour. Sci., v. 226, p. 537-551*

— — 1934, Stratigraphy of the Hamilton Group of eastern New York, Pt. 2: Am. Jour. Sci., v. 227, p. 1-12.

1941, New Devonian stratigraphic units: Washington Acad. Sci. Jour., V. 31, p. 179-181.

, and others, 1942, Correlation of Devonian sedimentary formations of North America: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 53, p. 1729-1794. Cooper, G. A., and Warthin, A. S., 1942, New Devonian (Hamilton) correlations: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 53, p. 873-888.

Cooper, G. A., and Williams, J. S., 1935, Tully Formation of New York: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 46, p. 781-868.

Cushing, H. P., 1912, The age of the OVveland Shale of Ohio: Am. Jour. Sci., v. 183, p. 581-5&f.

Dennison, J. M., 1963, Stratigraphy be oween Tioga Metabentonite and Pocono Formation along Allegheny Front in Maryland and West Virginia, p. 213-227. in SN.ipps, V. C., ed., Symposium on Middle and Upper Devonian Sttigraphy of Pennsylvania and adjacent states: Pennsylvania Topog. and Geol. Survey, Rpt. G 39, 301 p.

, and Naegele, 0. D., 1963, Structure of Devonian strata along Allegheny Front from Corriganville, Maryland, to Spruce Knob, West Virginia: West Virginia Geol. ~nd Econ. Survey Bull. 24, 42 p.

Donnestag, Philip, and McDonald, Rosemary, 1952, Sample study and correlation of Robert Bates No. 1 well: New York State Mus. Circ. 30, 10 p.

Donnestag, Philip, and others, 1950, Sample study and correlation of C. C. Lobdell No. 1 well: New York State Mus. Circ. 28, 15 p.

Erickson, P. A., and Reynolds, J. T,, 1969, The ecology of a reservoir: Natural History, v. 78, p. 48-53.

Fettke, C. R., 1933, Subsurface Devonian and Silurian sections across northern Pennsylvania and southern New York: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 44, p. 601-660. 72

--— 1950, Summarized record of deep wells in Pennsylvania: Pennsylvanian Topog. and Geol. Survey Bull. M 31, 148 p.

1961, Well-sample descriptions in northwestern Pennsylvania and adjacent states: Pennsylvania Topog. and Geol. Survey Bull. M 40, 691 p.

Foerste, A. F., 1906, The Silurian, Devonian and Irvine Formations of east-central Kentucky: Kentucky Geol. Survey Bull. 7, 369 p.

Foreman, H. P., 1959, A new occurrence of Devonian Hadiolaria in calcareous concretions of the Huron Member of the Ohio Shale (Ohio-Ky.): Jour. Paleontology, v. 33, p. 76-80.

— — 1963, Upper Devonian F.adiolaria from the Huron Member of the Ohio Shale: Micropaleontology, v. 9, no. 3, p. 267-304.

Freeman, L. B., 1951, Regional aspects of Silurian and Devonian stratigraphy in Kentucky: Kentucky Geol. Survey Bull. 6, 565 p.

Friedman, G. M., and Johnson, K. G., 1966, The Devonian Catskill Delta complex of New York, type example of a "tectonic delta complex"; p. 171-188, in Shirley, M. L., and Ragsdale, J. A., eds., Deltas in their geologic framework: Houston Geol. Soc., 251 p.

Fuller, J. 0., 1950, Northern Middle Devonian sedimentary source for the Sharon Conglomerate of northeastern Ohio (abs.): Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 61, p. 1463-1484.

Goldman, M. I., 1924, "Black shale" formation in and about Chesapeake Bay: Am. Aasoj. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 8, p. 195-201.

Grabau, A. W., 1906, Types of sedimentary overlap; Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 17, p. 567-636.

1917, Age and stratigraphic relations of the Olentangy Shale of central Ohio, with remarks on the Prout Limestone and so-called 01ent8ngy Shale of northern Ohio: Jour. Geol., v. 25, p. 337-343.

Gray, Carlyle, and others, I960, Geologic map of Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Topog. and Geol. Survey.

Hass, W. H., 1947, Conodont zones in Upper Devonian and Lower Mississippian formations of Ohio: Jour. Paleontology, v. 21, p. 131-141. 1956, Age and correlation of the Chattanooga Shale and the Maury Formation: U. S, Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 286, 47 p. 73

Haught, 0. L., 1956, Wood County deep well: West Virginia Geol. and Econ. Survey, Rept. of Inv. no. 14, 62 p.

Helton, W. L., 1968, Silurian-Devonian stratigraphy of Pulaski County, Kentucky: Kentucky Geol. Survey, Thesis Ser., no. 2, 35 p. Hoover, K. V., I960, Devonian-Mississippian shale sequence in Ohio: Ohio Geol. Survey, Inf. Circ. no. 27, 154- p.

Jillson, W. R., 1929, Geologic map of Kentucky: Kentucky Geol. Survey, Ser. VI.

Johnson, K. G., and Friedman, G. M., 1969, The Tully clastic cor­ relatives (Upper Devonian) of New York State: a model for recognition of alluvial, dune (?), tidal, nearshore (bar and lagoon), and offshore sedimentary environments in a tectonic delta complex: Jour. Sad. Petrology, v. 39, p. 4.51-485•

Jones, T. H., and Cate, A. D., 1957, Preliminary report on a re­ gional stratigraphic study of Devonian rocks of Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Topog. and Geol. Survey, Spec. Bull., no. 8, 15 p., 7 pis.

Kindle, E. M., 1912a, The unconformity at the base of the Chattanooga Shale in Kentucky: Am. Jour. Sci., v. 183, p. 120-136.

— -- 1912b, The stratigraphic relations of the Devonian shales of northern Ohio: Am. Jour. Sci., v. 184, p. 187-213.

Lafferty, R. C., 1941, Central basin of Appalachian Geosyncline: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 25, p. 781-825.

Lambom, R. E., 1927, The Olentangy Shale in southern Ohio: Jour. Geology, v. 35, p. 708-722.

1929, Notes on the character and occurrence of the Olentangy Shale in southern Ohio: Ohio Jour. Sci., v. 29, p. 27-38.

1934, Data on the thickness and character of certain sedimen­ tary series in Ohio: Ohio Jour. Sci., v. 34, p. 345-364*

Logan, W. N., 1932, Geologic map of Indiana: Indiana Geol. Survey, Pub. no. 112.

Louden, R. 0., 1965, The Prout Limestone and Plum Brook Shale; de­ scription of lithofacies and discussion of lithostratigraphic relationships with the Olentangy Shale: Bowling Green State Univ., M. S. thesis (unpub.), 112 p. n

Martens, J. H. C., 1939, Petrography and correlation of deep-well sections in West Virginia and adjacent states: West Virginia Geol. Survey, Rept. v. 11, 255 p.

Martin, H. M., 1936, Geologic map of the southern peninsula of Michigan: Michigan Geol. Survey.

Mathews, E. B., 1933, Map of Maryland showing geological formations: Maryland Geol. Survey.

Matteson, L. S., and Busch, D. A., 1944, Oil-bearing sands in south­ western Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Topog. and Geol. Survey, Spec. Bull. no. 1, 16 p., 55 pis.

McCave, I. N., 1969a, Correlation of marine and nonmarine strata with example from Devonian of New York State: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 53, p. 155-162.

1969b, Correlation using a sedimentological model of part of the Hamilton Group (Middle Devonian), New York State: Am. Jour. Sci., v. 267, p. 567-591.

McFarlan, A. C., and White, W. H., 1952, Boyle-Duffin-Ohio Shale relationship: Kentucky Geol. Survey, Bull. 10, 24 p.

Morse, W. C., and Foerste, A. F., 1909, The Waverly formations of east-central Kentucky: Jour. Geology, v. 17, p. 164-177.

1912, The Waverlian formations of east central Kentucky: Kentucky Geol. Survey, Bull. 16, serial no. 19, 76 p.

Nelson, B. W«, 1955, Pre-Berea mineralogy and stratigraphy: Illinois Univ., Ph. D. dissert, (unpub.), 104 p.

Newberry, J. S., 1871, Report of progress of the Geological Survey of Ohio in 1869: Columbus, Ohio, Nevins and Myers, State Printers, 176 p.

Oliver, W. A., Jr., and others, 1967, Devonian of the Appalachian Basin, United States: p. 1001-1040, in Oswald, D. H., ed., International Symposium on the Devonian System, v. 1, Alberta Soc. Petroleum Geologists, Calgary, Alberta, 1055 p.

Orton, Edward, and others, 1893, Report of the Geological Survey of Ohio: Ohio Geol. Survey, v. 7, 699 p.

Pepper, J. F., and De Witt, Wallace, Jr., 1951, Stratigraphy of the Late Devonian Perrysburg Formation in western and west-central New York: U. S. Geol. Survey, Oil and Gas Inv. Chart, 0C 45. 75

Pepper, J. F,, De Witt, Wallace, Jr., and Demarest, D. F., 1954, Geology of the Bedford Shale and the Berea Sandstone in the Appalachian Basin: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 259, 111 P«

Prosser, C. S., 1903a, The nomenclature of the Ohio geological formations: Jour. Geology, v, 11, p. 519-546.

— — 1903b, Notes of the Biological Club: Ohio Naturalist, v. 4, P. 47. 1905, Revised nomenclature of the Ohio geological formations: Ohio Geol. Survey, Bull. 7, 36 p.

— — .1912, The Devonian and Mississippian formations of north­ eastern Ohio: Ohio Geol. Survey, Bull. 15, 574 P«

1913, The Huron and Cleveland shales of northern Ohio: Jour. Geology, v. 21, p. 323-362.

Ray, E. 0., 1968, Shale stimulation, a new approach: p. 35-45, in Rose, W. D., ed., Proceedings of the technical sessions Kentucky Oil and Gas Association, Thirtieth and Thirty-first annual meetings, 1966 and 1967: Kentucky Geol. Survey, Spec. Pub. 15, 119 p.

Rich, J. L., 1951a, Three critical environments of deposition, and criteria for recognition of rocks deposited in each of them* Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 62, p. 1-20.

1951b, Probable fondo origin of Marcellus-Ohio-New Albany- Chattanooga bituminous shales: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 35, p. 2017-2040.

Rickard, L. V., 1964, Correlation of the Devonian rocks in New York State: New York State Mus. and Sci. Service, Geol. Survey, map and chart ser., no. 4*

Sanford, B. V., 1969, Geology, Toronto-Windsor area, Ontario: Canada Geol. Survey, map 1263A,

Savage, T. E., 1930, The Devonian rocks of Kentucky: Kentucky Geol. Survey, Geol. Repts., v. 33, 161 p.

Schopf, J. M., and Sehwietering, J. F., The Foerstia Zone of the Ohio and Chattanooga Shales: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1294-H (in press).

Shaler, N. S., 1877, Notes on the investigations of the Kentucky Geological Survey during the years 1873, 1874, and 1875: Kentucky Geol. Survey Rept. Progress, v. 3, p* 129-282. 76

Shearrow, G. G., 1957, Geologic cross section of the Paleozoic rocks from northwestern to southeastern Ohio: Ohio Geol. Survey, Rept. Inv. no. 33, 42 p*

Shepps, V. C., 1963, ed., Symposium on Middle and Upper Devonian stratigraphy of Pennsylvania and adjacent states: Pennsylvania Topog. and Geol. Survey, Rept. G 39, 301 p.

Sloss, L. L., 1963, Sequences in the cratonic interior of North America: Geol, Soc. America Bull., v, 74•» P* 93-114*

Sloss, L. L., Krumbein, W, C., and Dapples, E, C., 1949, Integrated facies analysis: Geol. Soc. America, Mem. 39, p* 91-123*

Smirow, L. P., 1958, Black Sea Basin, its position in the Alpine structure and its richly organic Quaternary sediments: p. 982-994* in Weeks, L. G., ed., Habitat of Oil, a Symposium. Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Okla., 1384 p.

Stauffer, C. R., 1909, The Middle Devonian of Ohio: Ohio Geol. Survey, Bull. 10, 204 p*

1916, The relationship of the Olentangy Shale and associated Devonian deposits of northern Ohio: Jour. Geology, v. 24., p. 476-487.

1938a, Conodonts of the Olentangy Shale: Jour. Paleontology, v. 12, p. 411-443.

1938b, The fauna of typical Olentangy Shale: Jour. Geology, v. 4.6, p. 1075-1078.

— — 1944, The geological section at the limestone mine, Barberton, Ohio: Amer. Jour. Sci., v. 242, p. 251-271.

Stewart, G. A., and Hendrix, W. E., 1939, Ostracodes as a possible aid in the Olentangy Shale problem (abs.): Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 50, p. 1988-1989.

1945a, Ostracoda of the Plum Brook Shale, Erie County, Ohio: Jour. Paleontology, v. 19, p. 87-95*

1945b, Ostracoda of the Olentangy Shale, Franklin and Delaware counties, Ohio: Jour. Paleontology, v. 19, p. 96-115*

Stose, G. W., 1932, Geologic map of West Virginia: West Virginia Geol. Survey. 77 Stumm, E. C., 1942, Fauna and stratigraphic relations of the Prout Limestone and Plum Brook Shale of northern Ohio: Jour# Paleontology, v. 16, p. 549-563#

Sutton, R# G., I960, Stratigraphy of the Naples Group (Late Devonian) in western New York: New York State Mus. and Sci. Service, Bull. 380, 56 p.

1963, Correlation of Upper Devonian strata in south-central New York: p. 87-101. in Shepps, V. C., ed., Symposium on Middle and Upper Devonian stratigraphy of Pennsylvania and adjacent states: Pennsylvania Topog. and Geol. Survey, Rept. G 39, 301 p.

Sutton, R. G., and others, 1962, New stratigraphic nomenclature for Upper Devonian of south-central New York: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 46, p. 390-393.

Tesmer, I. H., 1955, Restudy of Upper Devonian (Chautauquan) stratigraphy and paleontology in southwestern New York State: New York State Mus. Circ. 42, 22 p.

— — -1963, Geology of Chautauqua County, New York, Part I, stratigraphy and paleontology (Upper Devonian): New York State Mus. and Sci. Service, Bull. 391, 65 p.

Tillman, J. R., 1969, On the age of the Olentangy Shale of central Ohio (abs.): North-central Section, Geol. Soc. America, Columbus, Ohio, p. 49.

Trask, P. D., 1951, Depositional environment of black shale: Program, 1951, Ann. Mtg., Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists, St. Louis, Mb., April 23-26, p. 44. Reprinted in Conant, L. C., and Swanson, V. E., 1961, Chattanooga Shale and related rocks of central Tennessee and nearby areas: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 357, p. 59. Twenhofel, W. H., 1931, The building of Kentucky: Kentucky Geol. Survey, Ser. 6, v. 37, 230 p.

1939, Environments of origin of black shales: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 23, p. 1178-1198.

Ulrich, E. 0., 1911, Revision of the Paleozoic Systems: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v, 22, p. 281-680.

1912, The Chattanooga Series with special reference to the Ohio Shale problem: Am. Jour. Sci., v. 184, p. 157-183. 78

U. S. Geol* Survey, and Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists, 1962, Tectonic map of the United States.

Verwiebe, W. A., 1917, Correlation of the Devonian shales of Ohio and Pennsylvania: Am. Jour. Sci., v. 194, p. 33-4-7.

Wagner, W. R., 1958, Emma McKnight No. 1 well, Pymatuning Township, Mercer County: Pennsylvania Topog. and Geol. Survey, Well- sample Record No. 4-0, 36 p.

1963, Correlation of Susquehanna Group in part of northeastern Pennsylvania: p. 63-77. in Shepps, V. C., ed., Symposium on Middle and Upper Devonian stratigraphy of Pennsylvania and adjacent states: Pennsylvania Topog. and Geol. Survey, Report G 39, 301 p.

Wells, J. W., 194-1, Crinoids and Callixvlon: Am. Jour. Sci., v. 239, p. 454-456.

— -- 1947, Provisional paleoecological analysis of the Devonian rocks of the Columbus region: Ohio Jour. Sci., V. 4-7, p. 119-126.

Westgate, L. G., 1926, Geology of Delaware County:Ohio Geol. Survey, Bull. 30, 147 p.

Wheeler, H. E., 1963a, Post-Sauk and pre-Absaroka stratigraphic patterns in North America: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 47, p. 1497-1526.

1963b, Catskill and the Acadian discontinuity: p. 103-113. in Shepps, V. C., ed., Symposium on Middle and Upper Devonian stratigraphy of Pennsylvania and adjacent states: Pennsylvania Topog. and Geol. Survey, Rept. G 39, 301 p.

Wiggins, J. W., 1954, sample study and correlation of F. E. Buchanan No. 1 well: New York State Mus., Circ. 38, 9 p.

Willard, Bradford, 1937, Tully Limestone and fauna in Pennsylvania: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 48, p. 1237-1256.

Willard, Bradford, Swartz, F. M., and Cleaves, A. B., 1939,The Devonian of Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Topog. and Geol. Survey, Bull. G 19, 481 p.

Winchell, N. H., 1874, Report on the Geology of Delaware County: in Ohio Geol. Survey, v. 2, Pt. 1, p. 272-313. 79 Winslow, M. R#, 1962, Plant spores and other microfossils from Upper Devonian and Lower Mississippian rocks of Ohio: U. S. Geol* Survey Prof. Paper 364., 93 p*

Woodward, H. P., 194-3, Devonian System of West Virginia: West Virginia Geol. Survey, v. 15, 655 p.

— — 1959, General stratigraphy of the locality: p. 9-28. in A symposium on the Sandhill deep well, Wood County, West Virginia: West Virginia Geol. Survey, Rept. of Inv., no. IS, 182 p.

Zangerl, Rainer, and Richardson, E. S., Jr., 1963, The paleo- ecological history of two Pennsylvanian black shales: Fieldiana, Geology Mem., v. 4-, Chicago Nat. History Mus., 352 p. A North

14

C uyahoi GrouF

Sunbury 9

Berea Bedford Sh. BW8fc£s.vs Cleveland Chagrin Sh. ChaarjhS

Ohio Sh. m NVAVAV.

Lower Huron L o w e r

Olentangy Sh{ Low er Delaware & Columbus Limestones Silurian Carbonates

33 2 9 >K- 24 19 24 ->K- 28

Cross - sect i 36 36 39 40

/ c uyahoga Group Sunbury S h .^

Berea 5s. & Bedtord^S^y

SLower HuronShj

Upper Olentangy Sh

Ohio I Kenucky

Horizontal scale Cross-section A-A . Ath Plate IV S outh 40 42

Veritcal Explanation scale

r—1000 feet Berea Sandstone

Southern Kentucky &. Upper Devonian highly Tennessee radioactive dark shales

— A — A Horizon of Fort Payne Chert Upper o te n ta h jy Shale Maury Sh — 500 fe e t

Tully Limestone Chattanooga Sh. §

Silurian Shales Lower Olentangy Shale & Carbonates and Hamilton Group

— 0 feet Limestones in upper part of Hamiiton Group

31 38 - > K - Middle Devevonian limestones ■*1 (Onondaga and equivalents)

Silurian shales and carbonates 0 10 20 30 Miles |_ _l— _J H orizontal scale Location of wells shown on figure 2. Location of wells shown 56 Vertical on figure 2. scale Explanation of patterns Pocono shown on plate IV. Group ,—1000 feet

30 Miles

H orizontal scale

500 feet

0 feet

West

Ohio Sh Upper Olentangy i***** L Lc»wer Olentangy Sh. Olentangy S h Delaware L Columbus Limestones

Ohio i Pennsylvania 59

scono oup"7

Conewango and Conneaut Groups

W est Falls Group

Tichenor Ls.

ainia Pennsylvania iNew York Cross-section B-B7 Plate V

b ' E a s t

6 1 62 55 Susquehanna Canada way J a v a and Group W est Falls G roup at a t surface Groups Surface 1 5 0 0 feet a t surface 5 0 0 0 fee t of log 1700 feet o f log not shown of log not shown not shown 5 0 0 0 '

r 1700'

Susquehanna Group

Tully Ls.

Hamilton Group

Onondaga Ls.

New York i Pennsylvania 20 19

Location of wells shown on figure 2. Explanation of patterns shown on plate IV

Vertical scale Conev ,— 1000 feet Conne

— 5 0 0 feet

1—0 feet

West

W«

Ohio Sh. OP' 28

Ohio Sh. ;Lower Olentangy Sh. Olentangy Sh Columbus Ls. Silurian Carbonates

4 8 19 19 3 0 18 -*r*~ 4 -

Cross-section C Plate VI

c' East

19 49 50 51 52 53

Log begins Pennsylvanian Pennsylvanian Pennsylvanian Pennsylvanian a t 1000 feet a t surface a t surface at surface at surface top of top of top of top of top of Devonian Devonian Devonian Devonian Devonian not known 1436'? 1912'? 1000'? 1690'? -2100 -5 0 0 0 6 7 0 0 3 5 0 0

Conewango and -5000 Conneaut Group Chemung Fm.

Brallier Sh.

/

Canadaway Group

Brallier Sh Harrell Sh.

Tully Ls

West Falls Group Hamilton Group

GeneseeSonlee Gr°“Ps« tangy Sh

Onondaga L

I - ! Ohio i £ i Pennsylvania 10 20 30 Miles _l____ I If Horizontal scale ss-section C-C 44

Silurain Shales and Carbonates 1 1 I. 30 1 27 1 I 45 1 . 49 1 1 ; i Kentucky i West Virginia

Cross-section D- D/

\ Plate VII

D' East 44 45 46

Pennsylvanian Pennsylvanian a t surface a t surface top of top of Devonian Devonian 3080? 1920

-5 6 0 0 r 4 0 0 0

Vertical scale

Chemung Fm 1000 feet

— 5 0 0 feet

Brallier Sh

-0 feet

Harrell Sh

Hamilton Group

Onondaga Ls.

4 5 I 49 24 Location of wells shown on figure 2. Explanation of patterns shown on plate IV

10 20 3 0 Miles I _I_ H o rizo nta l scale Cross-section D- D Ont.

Lake Erie

\ ____

/.K Chemung Fm,

Ohio Sh. Lower

Brallier Sh. Plate VIII

Susqunanna

Group

Hamilton

Group

Onondaga Ls.

vertical scale

5 0 0 0 feet

Rocks younger than Devonian Chemung Fm

Ohio Sh. ShJpw)^

Ohi,

Brallier Sh.

) r

Fence diagram of Middle and Upper Devonian rocks in Ohio. Pennsylvania tiroup

Onondaga Ls.

6 0

2 8 '

W. Va.

r3 3

3 6 , 4 8

*44 Ue 4 0

i

scale

— 5000 feet ( Rocks younger than Devonian / Rocks older than Lower Olentangy Shale or Hamilton Group

Unconformity

Datum is unconformity at top of Lower Olentangy Shale and Hamilton Group

-O fe e t

50 100 Miles .J Horizontal scale

io, Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, and eastern Kentucky