Stratigraphy and Structure Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
GEOLOGY, NATURAL GAS POTENTIAL, AND MINERAL RESOURCES OF LEE, CHATHAM, AND MOORE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA Timothy W. Clark, Kenneth B. Taylor, & Philip J. Bradley Carolina Geological Society FIELD TRIP GUIDEBOOK October 22-23, 2011 The 2011 Carolina Geological Society Field Trip and Guidebook is dedicated to the memory of CHARLES H. GARDNER 1937-2011 North Carolina State Geologist 1990-2002 “He stood in awe of the beauty of nature” CAROLINA GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY 2011 FIELD TRIP GEOLOGY, NATURAL GAS POTENTIAL, AND MINERAL RESOURCES OF LEE, CHATHAM, AND MOORE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA OCTOBER 22-23, 2011 ABERDEEN, NC FIELD TRIP LEADERS: TIMOTHY W. CLARK CGS SECRETARY-TREASURER KENNETH B. TAYLOR ASSISTANT STATE GEOLOGIST AND CHIEF NORTH CAROLINA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PHILIP J. BRADLEY SENIOR GEOLOGIST NORTH CAROLINA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CAROLINA GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY Board of Directors 2011 President Philip J. Bradley North Carolina Geological Survey Vice-President Scott Howard South Carolina Geological Survey Secretary-Treasurer Timothy W. (Tyler) Clark Carolina Geological Society Andy R. Bobyarchick University of North Carolina – Charlotte Michael G. Waddell University of South Carolina William A. (Bill) Ranson Furman University Paul Johnstone MACTEC Engineering and Consulting ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND CREDITS Special thanks to: for allowing K-12 teachers and students to attend the event at a greatly reduced cost. The field trip leaders also wish to express their gratitude to the following people and organizations who helped make this field trip possible (in alphabetical order): Jim Faille (Standard Minerals), Jack Garvey (Hanson Brick), John Hairr (House in the Horseshoe State Historic Site), Keisler Land Company (Alton Creek Stop), Mr. Philip Oldham (Black Diamond Mine), and Russ Patterson (Patterson Exploration). Cover Figure: Pekin Formation exposed in the inactive Boren Clay Product pit. Photo by Jeffrey C. Reid ii CONTENTS Articles Depositional and Structural Framework of the Deep River Triassic Basin, North Carolina: by Timothy W. Clark, Pamela J. W. Gore, and Mary E. Watson ………………………………………………………………… 1 A History of Early Geologic Research in the Deep River Triassic Ba- sin, North Carolina: by T. Wyche Clark ………………………………… 15 Field Trip Stops Saturday October 22: STOP 1 – Boren Clay Pit – Pekin Formation ………….…………………… 29 STOP 2 – Alton Creek – Cumnock Formation ………………….……….… 31 STOP 3 – Carbonton Dam – Cumnock Formation …………..…….…..… 33 STOP 4 – Black Diamond Mine – Cumnock Formation ……..….……… 35 STOP 5 – Endor Iron Furnace – Sanford Formation …….……......….… 37 STOP 6 – Deep River fault – Sanford Formation (optional stop) ….….. 42 Sunday October 23: STOP 7 – Standard Minerals Pyrophyllite Mine ……………...……...… 43 iii DEPOSITIONAL AND STRUCTURAL FRAMEWORK OF THE DEEP RIVER TRIASSIC BASIN, NORTH CAROLINA Disclaimer: The following article was originally published as part of a Field Trip Guide for the 50th Annual meeting of the Southeastern Section of the Geological Society of America, April 2001, p. 27-50. It has been in- cluded in this guidebook as is, without any editorial changes to the text. However minor reformatting was neces- sary to accommodate different page sizes. References should be made to Clark and others (2001). Timothy W. Clark, North Carolina Geological Survey, Raleigh, NC Pamela J. W. Gore, Georgia Perimeter College, Clarkston, GA Mary E. Watson, North Carolina Geological Survey, Raleigh, NC INTRODUCTION member, and bed. The Deep River basin lacks an abundance of good maker beds or horizons for assign- The Deep River Triassic basin has one of the long- ing strata to a specific formation or member. This is est recorded histories of geologic research in North primarily due to the gradational nature of lithologic Carolina, starting with the work of Olmsted in 1820. contacts common in rift basin environments. Facies are Since that time, numerous investigations have attempt- laterally gradational and the same lithostratigraphic ed to unravel the complex nature of the basin’s geology unit can vary from conglomerate to siltstone across the and mineral resources. As a result, varying methods of basin. Since the lithofacies system of stratigraphic no- geologic mapping and stratigraphic nomenclature are menclature is unfamiliar to many geologists, this arti- found throughout the published literature. These differ- cle compares and contrasts the various systems of geo- ences typically manifest themselves by one particular logic mapping currently used in the Deep River basin. map area using one particular system of stratigraphic nomenclature, with an adjacent map area using a dif- GENERAL GEOLOGIC SETTING ferent and incompatible system of nomenclature. Be- cause of these incompatibilities, no basin-wide compi- The Deep River basin, located in the east central lation of the entire Deep River basin has ever been Piedmont of North Carolina, resulted from early Meso- produced using one standard system of map units and zoic rifting of the supercontinent Pangea. This rifting stratigraphic nomenclature. created a series of irregularly-shaped half-graben along This article highlights recent work to develop a the Atlantic margin of North America. The Deep River standardized method of mapping that is flexible basin is the southern-most exposed of these basins enough for the wide variety of lithologies and deposi- (Fig. 1). During rifting, the basin filled with a variety tional environments encountered throughout the Deep of Late Triassic clastic sediments, their depositional River basin. Smoot and others (1988) proposed a sys- environments strongly controlled by local basin tecton- tem of uniform map symbols for all of the Mesozoic ics. Alluvial fans prograded into the basin from the rift basins along the Atlantic margin of North America. topographically-higher, faulted margins. Sediment was The North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS) adopt- transported along the basin axis by meandering river ed this system during recent geologic mapping in the systems and deposited in large alluvial plains. Fresh- Durham basin. This system uses map units called water lakes formed in basin depocenters, accumulating lithofacies, which can be composed of one to several deltaic (delta), lacustrine (lake), and paludal (swamp) different rock types (e.g., sandstone, siltstone, and deposits. mudstone). Similar lithofacies can be grouped together The deposits of the Deep River basin were buried to form a lithofacies association, based on both lithol- and lithified, and are now recognized as the Chatham ogy and interpreted depositional environment. Group, part of the Newark Supergroup (Fig. 1) as de- The lithofacies system of mapping differs slightly fined by Olsen (1978) and Luttrell (1989). The Chat- in organization and definition from the more traditional ham Group in the Deep River basin consists of varying North American Stratigraphic Code units of formation, amounts of conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, clay- 1 stone, shale, coal, and small amounts of limestone and The Deep River basin is a north to northeast trend- chert (and gypsum in cuttings from several ing half graben. It is bordered on the east by the Jones- wells).Bedding generally dips east to southeast, but boro fault, a west-dipping high-angle, normal fault local variations are common, especially near faults and (Campbell and Kimball, 1923) that separates the Trias- dikes. Thus, the lowermost (oldest) strata typically oc- sic sedimentary rocks from the Raleigh metamorphic cur on the western side of the basin and the uppermost belt and the Carolina zone metavolcanic and (youngest) strata occur on the east. metasedimentary rocks (Fig. 2). The total amount of displacement along the fault is unknown but estimated to be a minimum of 3.0 to 4.5 kilometers of dip-slip displacement, depending on location (Campbell and Kimball, 1923; Reinemund, 1955; Bain and Harvey, 1977; Parker, 1979; Bain and Brown, 1980; Hoffman and Gallagher, 1989). Bain and Brown (1980) suggest- ed that the Jonesboro is actually a fault zone, character- ized by step faulting along numerous individual faults, with rider blocks occurring between these faults. Clark (1998) showed that the Jonesboro fault plane itself is extremely sharp, commonly with a 1-3 meter wide gouge zone of clay and foliated breccia in the footwall. Several intra-basinal faults, both synthetic and an- tithetic to the Jonesboro, are also recognized through- out the basin (Fig. 2). Along the basin’s western mar- gin, sedimentary rocks of the basin unconformably Figure 1. Exposed early Mesozoic basins of the Newark Su- overlie Late Proterozoic and Cambrian metavolcanic pergroup. Note the Deep River basin (9) is listed by its three component basins (Durham, Sanford, and and metasedimentary rocks (NCGS, 1985). Minor Wadesboro). Figure from McDonald (1996), after Un- (post-depositional?) faults also form the basin bounda- ger (1988). ry locally along the western border. Figure 2. Generalized geologic map of the Deep River basin, NC. Modified from Reinemund (1955), Bain and Harvey (1977), NCGS (1985), Olsen and others (1989, 1991), Hoffman and Gallagher (1989), Clark (1998), and Watson (1998). 2 The Deep River basin is subdivided into three described type localities of the Jonesboro, Deep River, smaller basins, the Durham, Sanford, and Wadesboro and Carbonton faults. Although an inadequate under- basins, from north to south, respectively (Fig. 2). The standing of rift basin development flawed many of boundaries of these smaller, component basins are un- their conclusions,