HARDING, MATTHEW RYAN, M.S. MAY 2017 GEOLOGY A GEOPHYSICAL STUDY OF UPPER SILURIAN SALINA GROUP IN NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA (135 pp) Thesis Advisor: Chris Rowan The Upper Silurian Salina Group in Pennsylvania’s Appalachian basin consists of 2,000+ feet of salt, which have been a significant influence on the tectonic & structural development of the Appalachian Mountains during the late Paleozoic. Understanding how halokinesis and décollement thrusting within the Salina Group has contributed to the present‐day structure of the Appalachian Basin is of great importance due the organic‐rich shale plays (Marcellus and Utica) currently being explored and developed within this region. Given that most of the seismic data collected from this region was before the advent of high-resolution 3D seismic surveys, a more detailed investigation of structures associated with the Salina Group was warranted. Based on preliminary examination of seismic data from North‐Central Pennsylvania, I propose that the reactivation of basement faults during the Allegheny orogeny influenced halokinesis in the overlying Salina, and therefore acted as a control on the development of the salt cored anticlines and associated faulting in the overlying units. This was tested by detailed mapping of structures in the basement and in the Paleozoic sequence above and below the Salina, noting any spatial associations between the structures. Isochronopach maps and profiles were created and analyzed, to constrain the deformation of the Salina Group. Several faults were found within three primary stratigraphic sections of the seismic volume. Those are the above Salina Group (AB1 and AB2), Salina Group (S1, S2, and S3), and basement (B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, and B6). Along with T1, sub-divided into three stratigraphic sections; faulting ~50ms TWTT above top of basement; monoclinal folding and faulting within the Trenton-Black River Group; and faulting between ~1.5-1.8s TWTT. Further a pop-down structure is formed by salt evacuation between S1 and S2 is found from Inline 300 to Inline 90, being most developed at Inline 95 and 90. Structures found within the 3D volume suggests indirect basement control on Salina development. Along with the development of the pop-down structure of the S1/S2 complex further offer evidence of basement influence. Results appear to strengthen the model put forward by Mount (2014) however result maybe only applicable this specific region. The main conclusion of the study are as follows; there is a spatial correlation between the location and development of faulting within and above the Salina Group and a structural high formed by Neoproterozoic basement faults. With the intersection of B1 and B6 associated with the SW ends of S1 and S2, where above the S1 and S2 propagate highest upwards, and where AB2 initiates above where S1 offsets Tully Limestone above this B1/B6 intersection. This suggests that the location of Salina Group faulting is the resultant influence of Grenville basement topography caused by Neoproterozoic rifting. There is also evidence of diffuse deformation below Salina décollement in the same location T1, whose features are most common below the S1/S2 pop- down and above the B1/B6 intersection. Where the changes in overburden thickness due to basement structures acted as foci for later Salina deformation during the Alleghanian orogeny. A GEOPHYSICAL STUDY OF UPPER SILURIAN SALINA GROUP IN NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA. A thesis submitted To Kent State University in partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science by Matthew Ryan Harding May 2017 © Copyright All rights reserved Except for previously published materials Thesis written by Matthew Ryan Harding B.S., Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 2012 M.S., Kent State University, 2017 Approved by Dr. Chris Rowan, Assistant Professor (NTT), Ph.D., Geology, Masters Advisor Dr. Daniel Holm, Chair, Ph.D., Department of Geology Dr. James Blank, Dean, Ph.D. College of Arts and Sciences TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS v LIST OF FIGURES vii PREFACE xi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xii 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1WHAT IS ROCK SALT? 1 1.2 HALOKINESIS 1 1.3 THE APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CHAIN: A BRIEF OVERVIEW 3 1.4 STRATIGRAPHY AND TECTONIC HISTORY OF PENNSYLVANIA 3 1.5 STUDY AREA 5 1.6 DETAILED STRATIGRAPHY OF THE SALINA GROUP 6 1.7 ROLE OF SALINA GROUP IN APPALACHIAN BASIN STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN PENNSYLVANIA 14 1.8 AIMS 17 2. METHODOLOGY 20 2.1 SEISMIC VOLUME 20 2.2 SALINA THICKNESS MAPPING 23 3. SEISMIC RESULTS 29 3.1 REGIONAL SEISMIC VIEW 31 3.2 STRUCTURES WITHIN THE SALINA GROUP 52 3.3 SALINA THICKNESS 76 3.4 STRUCTURES ABOVE THE SALINA GROUP 83 v 3.5 BASEMENT STRUCTURES 90 3.6 DEFORMATION BETWEEN BASEMENT AND SALINA 100 4. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS 103 4.1 SUMMARY OF FAULTS 103 4.2 SPATIAL CORRELATION BETWEEN BASEMENT FAULTING AND ALLEGHANY DEFORMATION. 104 4.3 MECHANISM LINKING BASEMENT STRUCTURES TO DEFORMATION ABOVE THE SALINA GROUP. 107 4.4 OTHER VIEWS ON SALINA DEVELOPMENT 109 4.5 COMPARISON WITH OBSERVED AND MODELLED BASEMENT SALT INTERACTIONS 110 4.6 PROPOSED TECTONIC HISTORY OF STUDY AREA 110 4.7 SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURES FOUND 113 4.8 CONCLUSION 113 6. WORKS CITED 115 7 APPENDIX A: SALINA CONTOUR SOURCE CODE 120 vi LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF PENNSYLVANIA 7 FIGURE 2: SCHEMATIC CROSS SECTION OF PENNSYLVANIA 8 FIGURE 3: SCHEMATIC CROSS-SECTION OF PENNSYLVANIA’S APPALACHIAN PLATEAU. 9 FIGURE 4: GENERALIZED STRATGRAPHIC COLUMN, NE PENNSYLVANIA 10 FIGURE 5: LOCATION OF SALINA SALT BASINS 11 FIGURE 6: ISOPACH MAP OF THE SALINA GROUP 12 FIGURE 7: GENERALIZED STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN OF UPPER SILURIAN ROCKS OF NORTH CENTERAL PENNSYLVANIA 13 FIGURE 8: HYPOTHESIZED STRCUTURAL LINKAGE OF SALINA GROUP AND BASEMENT 19 FIGURE 9: SCHEMATIC SHOWING THE FULL EXTENT OF 3D SEISMIC DATA 24 FIGURE 10: SYNTHETIC WELL TIE PROCESS 25 FIGURE 11: THE TYPICAL SEISMIC REFLECTORS OF THE PICKED HORIZONS 26 FIGURE 12: A SEISMIC CROSS-SECTION 27 FIGURE 13: EXAMPLES OF ERROR OF AUTOPICK HORZIONS 28 FIGURE 14: LOCATION OF SELECT INLINES AND CROSSLINES 30 FIGURE 15A: INLINE 300 [UN-INTERPRETED] 32 FIGURE 15B: INLINE 300[INTERPRETED] 33 FIGURE 16A: INLINE 220 [UN-INTERPRETED] 34 FIGURE 16B: INLINE 220[INTERPRETED] 35 FIGURE 17A: INLINE 180 [UN-INTERPRETED] 36 vii FIGURE 17B: INLINE 180 [INTERPRETED] 37 FIGURE 18A: INLINE 115 [UN-INTERPRETED] 38 FIGURE 18B: INLINE 115 [INTERPRETED] 39 FIGURE 19A: INLINE 95 [UN-INTERPRETED] 40 FIGURE 19B: INLINE 95 [INTERPRETED] 41 FIGURE 20A: INLINE 90 [UN-INTERPRETED] 42 FIGURE 20B: INLINE 90 [INTERPRETED] 43 FIGURE 21A: INLINE 60 [UN-INTERPRETED] 44 FIGURE 21B: INLINE 60 [INTERPRETED] 45 FIGURE 22A: CROSSLINE 150 [UN-INTERPRETED] 46 FIGURE 22B: CROSSLINE 150 [INTERPRETED] 47 FIGURE 23A: CROSSLINE 180 [UN-INTERPRETED] 48 FIGURE 23B: CROSSLINE 180 [INTERPRETED] 49 FIGURE 24A: CROSSLINE 250 [UN-INTERPRETED] 50 FIGURE 24B: CROSSLINE 250 [INTERPRETED] 51 FIGURE 25A: INLINE 300 ZOOMED IN [UN-INTERPRETED] 54 FIGURE 25B: INLINE 300 ZOOMED IN [INTERPRETED] 55 FIGURE 26A: INLINE 220 ZOOMED IN [UN-INTERPRETED] 56 FIGURE 26B: INLINE 220 ZOOMED IN [INTERPRETED] 57 FIGURE 27A: INLINE 180 ZOOMED IN [UN-INTERPRETED] 58 FIGURE 27B: INLINE 180 ZOOMED IN [INTERPRETED] 59 FIGURE 28A: INLINE 115 ZOOMED IN [UN-INTERPRETED] 60 FIGURE 28B: INLINE 115 ZOOMED-IN [INTERPRETED] 61 viii FIGURE 29A: INLINE 95 ZOOMED-IN [UN-INTERPRETED] 62 FIGURE 29B: INLINE 95 ZOOMED-IN [NTERPRETED] 63 FIGURE 30A: INLINE 95 ZOOMED-IN (VERTICAL) [UN-INTERPRETED] 64 FIGURE 30B: INLINE 95 ZOOMED-IN (VERTICAL) [INTERPRETED] 65 FIGURE 31A: INLINE 90 ZOOMED-IN [UN-INTERPRETED] 66 FIGURE 31B: INLINE 90 ZOOMED-IN [INTERPRETED] 67 FIGURE 32A: INLINE 90 ZOOMED-IN (VERTICAL) [UN-INTERPRETED] 68 FIGURE 32B: INLINE 90 ZOOMED-IN (VERTICAL) [INTERPRETED] 69 FIGURE 33A: INLINE 60 ZOOMED-IN [UN-INTERPRETED] 70 FIGURE 33B: INLINE 60 ZOOMED-IN [INTERPRETED] 71 FIGURE 34A: INLINE 60 ZOOMED-IN (VERTICAL) [UN-INTERPRETED] 72 FIGURE 34B: INLINE 60 ZOOMED-IN (VERTICAL) [INTERPRETED] 73 FIGURE 35: Z-PLANE 1100MS TWTT 74 FIGURE 36: Z-PLANE SCHEMATIC OF S1, S2, AND S3 AT 1100MS TWTT 75 FIGURE 37: SALINA THICKNESS TO BOTTOM ONE 78 FIGURE 38: THICKNESS PROFILE OF VARIOUS INLINES FOR THE SALINA GROUP 79 FIGURE 39: THICKNESS PROFILE OF VARIOUS CROSSLINES FOR THE SALINA GROUP 80 FIGURE 40A: SALINA POP-DOWN AT INLINES 300, 220, AND 180 81 FIGURE 40B: SALINA POP-DOWN AT INLINES 115, 95, AND 90 82 FIGURE 41A: INLINE 220 AB1 ZOOMED IN [UN-INTERPRETED] 84 FIGURE 41B: INLINE 220 AB1 ZOOMED IN [INTERPRETED] 85 ix FIGURE 42A: INLINE 180 AB1 ZOOMED IN [UN-INTERPRETED] 86 FIGURE 42B: INLINE 180 AB1 ZOOMED IN [INTERPRETED] 87 FIGURE 43:Z-PLANE VIEW AT 625MS TWTTOF AB1 AND AB2 88 FIGURE 44: SCHEMATIC OF AB1 AND AB2 AT ~600MS TWTT 89 FIGURE 45A: CROSSLINE 180 ZOOMED IN [UN-INTERPRETED] 92 FIGURE 45B: CROSSLINE 180 ZOOMED IN [INTERPRETED] 93 FIGURE 46A: CROSSLINE 150 ZOOMED IN [UN-INTERPRETED] 94 FIGURE 46B: CROSSLINE 150 ZOOMED IN [INTERPRETED] 95 FIGURE 47A: INLINE 180 ZOOMED-IN [UN-INTERPRETED] 96 FIGURE 47B: INLINE 180 ZOOMED-IN [INTERPRETED] 97 FIGURE 48: Z-PLANE AT 2502MS TWTT 98 FIGURE 49: SCHEMATIC OF B1-B6 AND S1/S2 99 FIGURE 50: SCHEMATIC OF T1 AND T2 WITH ALL OTHER FAULTS 102 FIGURE 51: BASEMENT RIFT COMPLEX AT 2502 TWTT 105 FIGURE 52: SCHEMATIC OF PROPOSED TECTONIC HISTORY OF NORTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA. 115 x PREFACE To those that read this thesis and those that flip through to see the pretty pictures, I recommend to look at those first, please be kind to remember that this project came into being by two ancient but recurring questions. The first is a bane of professors, teaching assistants and parents everywhere, the unassailable and incontrovertible question of “why?” The second as equally profound or profane (depending on the ever-changing context) that has ever driven the fields of science ever upwards into that always ephemeral boundary of the realm of known and unknown knowledge, which is so inglorious known in the common parlance of “Um, that looks funny”.