DOCSLIB.ORG

Geologic Assessment of the Burger Power Plant and Surrounding Vicinity for Potential Injection of Carbon Dioxide

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Geologic Assessment of the Burger Power Plant and Surrounding Vicinity for Potential Injection of Carbon Dioxide Geologic Assessment of the Burger Power Plant and Surrounding Vicinity for Potential Injection of Carbon Dioxide By Lawrence H. Wickstrom, Ernie R. Slucher, Mark T. Baranoski, and Douglas J. Mullett Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Geological Survey 2045 Morse Road, Building C-1 Columbus, Ohio 43229-6693 Columbus 2008 Open-File Report 2008-1 ABOUT THE MRCSP This report was produced by the Ohio Division of Geological Survey with funding supplied, in part, through the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP). The MRCSP is a public/private consor- tium that is assessing the technical potential, economic viability, and public acceptability of carbon sequestra- tion within its region. The MRCSP region consists of eight contiguous states: Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. A group of leading universities, state geological surveys, non-governmental organizations and private companies makes up the MRCSP, which is led by Bat- telle Memorial Institute. It is one of seven such partnerships across the United States that make up the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Program. The U.S. DOE, through the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), contributes the majority of funds for the MRCSP’s re- search under agreement no. DE-FC26-05NT42589. The MRCSP also receives funding from all of the member organizations. For more information on the partnership please visit <http://www.mrcsp.org>. DISCLAIMER The information contained herein has not been technically reviewed for accuracy and conformity with pres- ent Ohio Division of Geological Survey standards for published materials. The Ohio Division of Geological Survey does not guarantee this information to be free from errors, omissions, or inaccuracies and disclaims any responsibility or liability for interpretations or decisions based thereon. CONTENTS Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................1 Geographic site location ......................................................................................................................1 Previous work ......................................................................................................................................1 Potential geologic sequestration reservoir ...........................................................................................1 Deep saline formations ..................................................................................................................1 Oil and gas fi elds ...........................................................................................................................3 Unmineable coal beds ....................................................................................................................3 Carbonaceous shales ......................................................................................................................3 Methods................................................................................................................................................3 Surface and near-surface site characterization .....................................................................................9 Lowest underground source of drinking water ..............................................................................9 General geologic site characterization .................................................................................................9 Regional geologic setting ..............................................................................................................9 Paleozoic stratigraphy and geologic history ................................................................................13 Discussion of potential saline injection zones ...................................................................................15 Cambrian Conasauga Group (Maryville Formation) ...................................................................17 Cambrian-Ordovician Knox Group .............................................................................................17 Cambrian Copper Ridge dolomite ...............................................................................................17 Cambrian-Ordovician Rose Run sandstone .................................................................................17 Ordovician Beekmantown dolomite ............................................................................................18 Silurian Cataract Group (“Clinton” sandstone) ...........................................................................18 Silurian Lockport Dolomite .........................................................................................................20 Silurian Salina Group ..................................................................................................................20 Silurian Bass Islands Dolomite ....................................................................................................20 Devonian Oriskany Sandstone .....................................................................................................26 Devonian Hamilton Group and West Falls Formation ................................................................26 Signifi cant oil and gas horizons .........................................................................................................26 Lower Silurian “Clinton-Medina”/Tuscarora Sandstone .............................................................32 Lower Silurian Lockport Dolomite .............................................................................................32 Lower Devonian Oriskany Sandstone .........................................................................................32 Upper Devonian siltstones and sandstones ..................................................................................37 Lower Devonian Berea Sandstone ...............................................................................................37 Upper and Lower Mississippian limestones and sandstones .......................................................37 Lower and Middle Pennsylvanian sandstones and coal beds ......................................................37 Unmineable coals ...............................................................................................................................37 Carbonaceous shales ..........................................................................................................................42 Confi ning units for potential injection intervals ................................................................................43 Structural geology near the Burger site..............................................................................................43 Seismic refl ection data .......................................................................................................................44 Artifi cial penetrations .........................................................................................................................44 Class I and II injection wells .......................................................................................................44 Class III injection wells ...............................................................................................................44 Seismicity ...........................................................................................................................................46 Summary ............................................................................................................................................46 Selected references .............................................................................................................................50 FIGURES Figure 1.—Location of Burger Power Plant ........................................................................................2 Figure 2.—Map of the Burger site with 20-mile radius area of review ...............................................4 Figure 3.—Stratigraphic correlation and CO2 sequestration characterization chart ............................5 Figure 4.—Map of oil, gas, and solution mining wells .......................................................................6 Figure 5.—Stratigraphic cross section showing stratigraphic correlations and geophysical log signatures of shallow geologic units ........................................................................7 Figure 6.—Stratigraphic cross section showing stratigraphic correlations and geophysical log signatures of deep geologic units .............................................................................8 Figure 7.—Structure contour map on the top of the Berea Sandstone ..............................................10 Figure 8.—Structure contour map on the top of the Oriskany Sandstone .........................................11 Figure 9.—Locations of abandoned underground mines ...................................................................12 i GEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT OF THE BURGER POWER PLANT AND VICINITY Figure 10.—Locations of major geologic elements during early Cambrian time .............................13 Figure 11.—Structure contour map on the top of the Precambrian unconformity ............................14 Figure 12.—Stratigraphic correlation chart showing details
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cambrian Ordovician
    Open File Report LXXVI the shale is also variously colored. Glauconite is generally abundant in the formation. The Eau Claire A Summary of the Stratigraphy of the increases in thickness southward in the Southern Peninsula of Michigan where it becomes much more Southern Peninsula of Michigan * dolomitic. by: The Dresbach sandstone is a fine to medium grained E. J. Baltrusaites, C. K. Clark, G. V. Cohee, R. P. Grant sandstone with well rounded and angular quartz grains. W. A. Kelly, K. K. Landes, G. D. Lindberg and R. B. Thin beds of argillaceous dolomite may occur locally in Newcombe of the Michigan Geological Society * the sandstone. It is about 100 feet thick in the Southern Peninsula of Michigan but is absent in Northern Indiana. The Franconia sandstone is a fine to medium grained Cambrian glauconitic and dolomitic sandstone. It is from 10 to 20 Cambrian rocks in the Southern Peninsula of Michigan feet thick where present in the Southern Peninsula. consist of sandstone, dolomite, and some shale. These * See last page rocks, Lake Superior sandstone, which are of Upper Cambrian age overlie pre-Cambrian rocks and are The Trempealeau is predominantly a buff to light brown divided into the Jacobsville sandstone overlain by the dolomite with a minor amount of sandy, glauconitic Munising. The Munising sandstone at the north is dolomite and dolomitic shale in the basal part. Zones of divided southward into the following formations in sandy dolomite are in the Trempealeau in addition to the ascending order: Mount Simon, Eau Claire, Dresbach basal part. A small amount of chert may be found in and Franconia sandstones overlain by the Trampealeau various places in the formation.
    [Show full text]
  • (Medina, Clinton, and Lockport Groups) in the Type Area of Western New York
    Revised Stratigraphy and Correlations of the Niagaran Provincial Series (Medina, Clinton, and Lockport Groups) in the Type Area of Western New York By Carlton E. Brett, Dorothy H. Tepper, William M. Goodman, Steven T. LoDuca, and Bea-Yeh Eckert U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 2086 Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences of the University of Rochester UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1995 10 REVISED STRATIGRAPHY AND CORRELATIONS OF THE NIAGARAN PROVINCIAL SERIES been made in accordance with the NASC. Because the The history of nomenclature of what is now termed the NASC does not allow use of the "submember" category, Medina Group, beginning with Conrad ( 1837) and ending units that would be of this rank are treated as informal units with Bolton (1953), is presented in Fisher (1954); Bolton and have been given alphanumeric designations. Informal (1957, table 2) presents a detailed summary of this nomen- units are discussed under the appropriate "member" clature for 1910-53. A historical summary of nomenclature categories. of the Medina Group in the Niagara region is shown in fig- The use of quotes for stratigraphic nomenclature in this ure 7. Early investigators of the Medina include Conrad report is restricted to units that have been misidentified or (1837); Vanuxem (1840, first usage of Medina; 1842); Hall abandoned. If stratigraphic nomenclature for a unit has (1840, 1843); Gilbert (1899); Luther (1899); Fairchild changed over time, the term for the unit is shown, with cap- (1901); Grabau (1901, 1905, 1908, 1909, 1913); Kindle and italization, as given in whatever reference is cited rather Taylor (1913); Kindle (1914); Schuchert (1914); Chadwick than according to the most recent nomenclature.
    [Show full text]
  • Stratigraphic Succession in Lower Peninsula of Michigan
    STRATIGRAPHIC DOMINANT LITHOLOGY ERA PERIOD EPOCHNORTHSTAGES AMERICANBasin Margin Basin Center MEMBER FORMATIONGROUP SUCCESSION IN LOWER Quaternary Pleistocene Glacial Drift PENINSULA Cenozoic Pleistocene OF MICHIGAN Mesozoic Jurassic ?Kimmeridgian? Ionia Sandstone Late Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality Conemaugh Grand River Formation Geological Survey Division Late Harold Fitch, State Geologist Pennsylvanian and Saginaw Formation ?Pottsville? Michigan Basin Geological Society Early GEOL IN OG S IC A A B L N Parma Sandstone S A O G C I I H E C T I Y Bayport Limestone M Meramecian Grand Rapids Group 1936 Late Michigan Formation Stratigraphic Nomenclature Project Committee: Mississippian Dr. Paul A. Catacosinos, Co-chairman Mark S. Wollensak, Co-chairman Osagian Marshall Sandstone Principal Authors: Dr. Paul A. Catacosinos Early Kinderhookian Coldwater Shale Dr. William Harrison III Robert Reynolds Sunbury Shale Dr. Dave B.Westjohn Mark S. Wollensak Berea Sandstone Chautauquan Bedford Shale 2000 Late Antrim Shale Senecan Traverse Formation Traverse Limestone Traverse Group Erian Devonian Bell Shale Dundee Limestone Middle Lucas Formation Detroit River Group Amherstburg Form. Ulsterian Sylvania Sandstone Bois Blanc Formation Garden Island Formation Early Bass Islands Dolomite Sand Salina G Unit Paleozoic Glacial Clay or Silt Late Cayugan Salina F Unit Till/Gravel Salina E Unit Salina D Unit Limestone Salina C Shale Salina Group Salina B Unit Sandy Limestone Salina A-2 Carbonate Silurian Salina A-2 Evaporite Shaley Limestone Ruff Formation
    [Show full text]
  • Subsurface Facies Analysis of the Devonian Berea Sandstone in Southeastern Ohio
    SUBSURFACE FACIES ANALYSIS OF THE DEVONIAN BEREA SANDSTONE IN SOUTHEASTERN OHIO William T. Garnes A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE December 2014 Committee: James Evans, Advisor Jeffrey Snyder Charles Onasch ii ABSTRACT James Evans, Advisor The Devonian Berea Sandstone is an internally complex, heterogeneous unit that appears prominently both in outcrop and subsurface in Ohio. While the unit is clearly deltaic in outcrops in northeastern Ohio, its depositional setting is more problematic in southeastern Ohio where it is only found in the subsurface. The goal of this project was to search for evidence of a barrier island/inlet channel depositional environment for the Berea Sandstone to assess whether the Berea Sandstone was deposited under conditions in southeastern Ohio unique from northeastern Ohio. This project involved looking at cores from 5 wells: 3426 (Athens Co.), 3425 (Meigs Co.), 3253 (Athens Co.), 3252 (Athens Co.), and 3251 (Athens Co.) In cores, the Berea Sandstone ranges from 2 to 10 m (8-32 ft) thick, with an average thickness of 6.3 m (20.7 ft). Core descriptions involved hand specimens, thin section descriptions, and core photography. In addition to these 5 wells, the gamma ray logs from 13 wells were used to interpret the architecture and lithologies of the Berea Sandstone in Athens Co. and Meigs Co. as well as surrounding Vinton, Washington, and Morgan counties. Analysis from this study shows evidence of deltaic lobe progradation, abandonment, and re-working. Evidence of interdistributary bays with shallow sub-tidal environments, as well as large sand bodies, is also present.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to the Geology of Northeastern Ohio
    SDMS US EPA REGION V -1 SOME IMAGES WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE ILLEGIBLE DUE TO BAD SOURCE DOCUMENTS. GUIDE TO THE GEOLOGY of NORTHEASTERN OHIO Edited by P. O. BANKS & RODNEY M. FELDMANN 1970 Northern Ohio Geological Society ELYP.i.A PU&UC LIBRARt as, BEDROCK GEOLOGY OF NORTHEASTERN OHIO PENNSYLVANIAN SYSTEM MISSISSIPPIAN SYSTEM DEVONIAN SYSTEM \V&fe'£:i£:VS:#: CANTON viSlSWSSWM FIGURr I Geologic map of northeastern Ohio. Individual formations within each time unit are not dis- -guished, and glacial deposits have been omitted. Because the bedding planes are nearly ••.crizontal, the map patterns of the contacts closely resemble the topographic contours at those z evations. The older and deeper units are most extensively exposed where the major rivers rave cut into them, while the younger units are preserved in the intervening higher areas. CO «< in Dev. Mississippian r-c Penn. a> 3 CO CD BRADF. KINOERHOOK MERAMEC —1 OSAGE CHESTER POTTSVIUE ro to r-» c-> e-> e= e-i GO n « -n V) CO V* o ^_ ^ 0. = -^ eo CO 3 c= « ^> <C3 at ta B> ^ °» eu ra to a O9 eo ^ a* s 1= ca \ *** CO ^ CO to CM v» o' CO to CO 3 =3 13- *•» \ ¥\ A. FIGURE 1. Columnar section ol the major stratigraphic units in northeastern Ohio showing their relative positions in the standard geologic time scale. The Devonian-Mississippian boundary is not known with certainty to lie within the Cleveland Shale. The base of the Mississippian in the northern part of the state is transitional with the Bradford Series of the Devonian System and may lie within the Cleveland Shale (Weller er a/., 1948).
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1: Sequence Stratigraphy of the Glenshaw Formation
    Martino, R. L., 2004, Sequence stratigraphy of the Glenshaw Formation (middle–late Pennsylvanian) in the central Appalachian basin, in J. C. Pashin and R. A. Gastaldo, eds., Sequence stratigraphy, paleoclimate, and tectonics of coal-bearing strata: AAPG Studies 1 in Geology 51, p. 1–28. Sequence Stratigraphy of the Glenshaw Formation (Middle–Late Pennsylvanian) in the Central Appalachian Basin Ronald L. Martino Department of Geology, Marshall University, Huntington, West Virginia, U.S.A. ABSTRACT he Glenshaw Formation consists predominantly of sandstones and mud- rocks with thin limestones and coals, which are thought to have accumu- T lated in alluvial, deltaic, and shallow-marine environments. Analysis of 87 Glenshaw outcrops from southern Ohio, eastern Kentucky, and southern West Vir- ginia has revealed widespread, well-developed paleosols. These paleosols are used, along with marine units and erosional disconformities, to develop a high-resolution sequence-statigraphic framework. The tops of the paleosols constitute boundaries for nine allocycles, which are interpreted as fifth-order depositional sequences. Allocycles in this framework correlate with similar allocycles described from the northern Appalachian basin. A sequence-stratigraphic model is proposed that provides a framework for in- terpreting facies architecture in terms of base-level dynamics linked to relative sea level changes. Lowered base level caused valley incision along drainage lines and sediment bypassing of interfluves, which led to development of well-drained paleo- sols. Rising base level produced valley filling by fluvioestuarine systems (lowstand systems tract/transgressive systems tract), whereas pedogenesis continued on inter- fluves. As drainage systems aggraded, the coastal plain water table rose, and in- terfluvial paleosols were onlapped by paludal and lacustrine deposits.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Development and Problems Within the Pennsylvanian Nomenclature of Ohio.1
    Historical Development and Problems Within the Pennsylvanian Nomenclature of Ohio.1 GLENN E. LARSEN, OHIO Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Fountain Sq., Bldg. B, Columbus, OH 43224 ABSTRACT. An analysis of the historical development of the Pennsylvanian stratigraphic nomenclature, as used in Ohio, has helped define and clarify problems inherent in Ohio's stratigraphic nomenclature. Resolution of such problems facilitates further development of a useful stratigraphy and philosophy for mapping. Investigations of Pennsylvanian-age rocks in Ohio began as early as 1819- From 1858 to 1893, investigations by Newberry, I. C. White, and Orton established the stratigraphic framework upon which the present-day nomenclature is based. During the 1950s, the cyclothem concept was used to classify and correlate Pennsylvanian lithologic units. This classification led to a proliferation of stratigraphic terms, as almost every lithologic type was named and designated as a member of a cyclothem. By the early 1960s, cyclothems were considered invalid as a lithostratigraphic classification. Currently, Pennsylvanian nomenclature of Ohio, as used by the Ohio Division of Geological Survey, consists of four groups containing 123 named beds, with no formal formations or members. In accordance with the 1983 North American Stratigraphic code, the Ohio Division of Geological Survey considers all nomenclature below group rank as informal. OHIO J. SCI. 91 (1): 69-76, 1991 INTRODUCTION DISCUSSION Understanding the historical development of Pennsyl- The Early 1800s vanian stratigraphy in Ohio is important to the Ohio The earliest known references to Pennsylvanian-age Division of Geological Survey (OGS). Such an under- rocks in Ohio are found in Atwater's (1819) report on standing of Pennsylvanian stratigraphy helps define Belmont County, and an article by Granger (1821) on plant stratigraphic nomenclatural problems in order to make fossils collected near Zanesville, Muskingum County.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibit 5 Town of Barton Geology and Seismicity Report Sections
    GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY REPORT SNYDER E1-A WELL TOWN OF BARTON TIOGA COUNTY, NEW YORK Prepared for: Couch White, LLP 540 Broadway P.O. Box 22222 Albany, New York 12201 Prepared by: Continental Placer Inc. II Winners Circle Albany, New York 12205 July 25, 2017 Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Depositional Sequences and General Stratigraphic Sequence ................................................ 2 2.1.1 Upper Devonian Lithologies ........................................................................................................ 4 2.1.2 Marcellus-Hamilton ..................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.3 Tristates-Onondaga ...................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.4 Helderberg .................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.5 Oneida-Clinton-Salina ................................................................................................................. 4 2.1.6 Black River-Trenton-Utica-Frankfort .......................................................................................... 5 2.1.7 Potsdam-Beekmantown ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • IC-29 Geology and Ground Water Resources of Walker County, Georgia
    IC 29 GEORGIA STATE DIVISION OF CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT OF MINES, MINING AND GEOLOGY GARLAND PEYTON, Director THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Information Circular 29 GEOLOGY AND GROUND-WATER RESOURCES OF WALKER COUNTY, GEORGIA By Charles W. Cressler U.S. Geological Survey Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey ATLANTA 1964 CONTENTS Page Abstract _______________________________________________ -··---------------------------- _____________________ ----------------·----- _____________ __________________________ __ 3 In trodu ction ------------------------------------------ ________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Purpose and scope ------------------------------"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Previous inv es tigati o ns ____ _____ ________ _______ __________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5 Geo Io gy _________________________________________________________________ --- ___________________ -- ___________ ------------- __________________ ---- _________________ ---- _______ 5 Ph ys i ogr a p hy ______________________________________________________ ---------------------------------------- __________________ -------------------------------- 5 Geo Io gi c his tory __________________________ _ __ ___ ___ _______ _____________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------- 5 Stratigraphy -·· __________________
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Cross Section C–C' Through the Appalachian Basin from Erie
    Geologic Cross Section C–C’ Through the Appalachian Basin From Erie County, North-Central Ohio, to the Valley and Ridge Province, Bedford County, South-Central Pennsylvania By Robert T. Ryder, Michael H. Trippi, Christopher S. Swezey, Robert D. Crangle, Jr., Rebecca S. Hope, Elisabeth L. Rowan, and Erika E. Lentz Scientific Investigations Map 3172 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Ryder, R.T., Trippi, M.H., Swezey, C.S. Crangle, R.D., Jr., Hope, R.S., Rowan, E.L., and Lentz, E.E., 2012, Geologic cross section C–C’ through the Appalachian basin from Erie County, north-central Ohio, to the Valley and Ridge province, Bedford County, south-central Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3172, 2 sheets, 70-p.
    [Show full text]
  • Stratigraphic Framework of Cambrian and Ordovician Rocks in The
    Stratigraphic Framework of Cambrian and Ordovician Rocks in the Central Appalachian Basin from Medina County, Ohio, through Southwestern and South-Central Pennsylvania to Hampshire County, West Virginia U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1839-K Chapter K Stratigraphic Framework of Cambrian and Ordovician Rocks in the Central Appalachian Basin from Medina County, Ohio, through Southwestern and South-Central Pennsylvania to Hampshire County, West Virginia By ROBERT T. RYDER, ANITA G. HARRIS, and JOHN E. REPETSKI Stratigraphic framework of the Cambrian and Ordovician sequence in part of the central Appalachian basin and the structure of underlying block-faulted basement rocks U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1839 EVOLUTION OF SEDIMENTARY BASINS-APPALACHIAN BASIN U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MANUEL LUJAN, Jr., Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1992 For sale by Book and Open-File Report Sales U.S. Geological Survey Federal Center, Box 25286 Denver, CO 80225 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Ryder, Robert T. Stratigraphic framework of Cambrian and Ordovician rocks in the central Appalachian Basin from Medina County, Ohio, through southwestern and south-central Pennsylvania to Hampshire County, West Virginia / by Robert T. Ryder, Anita C. Harris, and John E. Repetski. p. cm. (Evolution of sedimentary basins Appalachian Basin ; ch. K) (U.S. Geological Survey bulletin ; 1839-K) Includes bibliographical references. Supt. of Docs, no.: I 19.3:1839-K 1. Geology, Stratigraphic Cambrian.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of the Strategic and Structural Evolution of the Talladega Slate Belt, Alabama Appalachians
    fl d029-08 1st pgs page 1 The Geological Society of America Field Guide 29 2012 Overview of the stratigraphic and structural evolution of the Talladega slate belt, Alabama Appalachians James F. Tull* Department of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Science, Florida State University Clinton I. Barineau* Department of Earth and Space Sciences, Columbus State University ABSTRACT The allochthonous Talladega belt of eastern-northeastern Alabama and north- western Georgia is a northeast striking, fault bounded block of lower greenschist facies metasedimentary and metaigneous rocks that formed along the margin of Lau- rentia at or outboard of the seaward edge of the Alabama promontory. Bounded by metamorphic rocks of the higher grade Neoproterozoic(?) to Carboniferous eastern Blue Ridge on the southeast and unmetamorphosed to anchimetamorphic Paleozoic rocks of the Appalachian foreland on the northwest, the Talladega belt includes shelf facies rocks of the latest Neoproterozoic/earliest Cambrian Kahatchee Mountain Group, Cambrian-Ordovician Sylacauga Marble Group, and the latest Silurian(?) to uppermost Devonian/earliest Mississippian Talladega Group. Along the southeast- ern fl ank of these metasedimentary sequences, a Middle Ordovician back-arc terrane (Hillabee Greenstone) was tectonically emplaced along a cryptic pre-metamorphic thrust fault (Hillabee thrust) and subsequently dismembered with units of the upper Talladega Group along the post-metamorphic Hollins Line fault system. Importantly, strata within the Talladega belt are critical for understanding the tectonic evolution of the southern Appalachian orogen when coupled with the geologic history of adjacent terranes. Rocks of the lower Talladega Group, the Lay Dam Formation, suggest latest Silurian-earliest Devonian tectonism that is only now being recognized in other areas of the southern Appalachians.
    [Show full text]