w—hWW '—
l .I A" .u,

 

A STRATIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS or THE TRAVERSE GROUP
OF MICHIGAN »

Thesis for the Degree of 'M. S.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
STEPHEN LANE R-UNYON
1976

I “fly

TI:
' “AMI-g

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

A STRATIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF THE
TRAVERSE GROUP OF MICHIGAN
BY

Stephen Lane Runyon

The Middle Devonian Traverse Group, in the past, was
a major producer of hydrocarbons. Though it hasn't been ac-
tively explored for many years, new technology and a substan-
tial increase in drilling activity in the last ten years
warrants an updated examination<xfthis group. This stra-
tigraphic analysis attempts to reinovate some concepts con-
cerning its development, especially those related to future
hydrocarbon exploration, and reemphasize some of those
already in existence.

This study provides completely updated structure and
isopach maps constructed from t0ps derived from 306 gamma
ray-neutron logs, in addition to, those obtained from
samples of sixty wells widely distributed throughout the
state. Lithofacies trends were diagnosed from these well
cuttings and a clastic ratio, a limestone to dolomite ratio,
evaporite and chert percent maps were generated to determine
the paleoenvironment and history during a time when Michigan
and surrounding areas were widely inundated by seas.

Many significant concepts concerning the Traverse Group

are evidenced by this investigation. Support for the

Stephen Lane Runyon

orientation of the major structural trends in the Michigan
Basin is demonstrated by the isopach and structural study.
The various features delineated by these maps coincide with
the structural trends evident in the Basin at the present
time. Isopach thinning over present anticlinal features
suggest that some movement in the Basin was concurring with
deposition. Many of the major structures evident today
though, were not apparent during Traverse time emphasizing
that the main diastrophism, which resulted in these struc-
tures, occurred later. A substantial number of features
delineated by the structure and isopach maps coincide with
present oil and gas producing fields suggesting the validity
of future predictions for hydrocarbon exploration as gleaned
from them. Sharp, assymmetrical folds in southwest, south
and southeast Michigan suggest faulting. These faults tie

in isolated oil and gas fields and cross major, known hydro-
carbon producing structures such as the linear, Albion-Scipio
trend. In many producing fields where cross-fractures inter-
sect, pronounced dolomite development, hence porosity, has
been found. The cross-structure relationship of these faults
suggests that possible hydrocarbon prospects exist along
these features. Other features have also been cited as
possible future exploration areas. The apparent complexity
of the Howell Anticline area, suggested by a preliminary
investigation there, indicates that a more detailed analysis

is needed to unravel its history.

Stephen Lane Runyon

The various lithofacies trends generated in this study
help to explain the paleoenvironment and history of the
Michigan Basin during Middle Devonian, Traverse time. Dolo-
mite and clastic lithofacies patterns indicate an eastern
source area which is either lowlying and peripheal or an
intermittantly rising eastern source area. They also dis-
close that the Findlay Arch stood slightly higher than the
other frame structures directly related to the Michigan
Basin at that time. The clastic ratio map indicates that
the Kankakee Arch was also a source of clastics. .A north
to south high dolomite trend on the west side of the state
can be related to shallowing on the Wisconsin Arch or a
result of a west Michigan Barrier. For this barrier, a
model has been postulated to help explain its relationship
to the limestone, dolomite and evaporite trends in existence
in the Basin during Traverse time. A more detailed examin-
ation of the widespread occurrence of chert in the Traverse

Group is warranted to ascertain its significance.

A STRATIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF THE

TRAVERSE GROUP OF MICHIGAN

BY

Stephen Lane Runyon

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
,in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Geology

1976

DEDICATION

I would like to dedicate this thesis to my late
Grandfather, Virgil Runyon, who helped pioneer the Michigan
oil and gas fields, to my parents, Jack and Rosella Runyon
whose hard work and devotion instilled in me the traits of
hard work and perseverance and to my wife, Sue and son,

Jason whose love helped me complete this study.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I gratefully express my thanks to Dr. Prouty, Chairman
of the guidance committee, whose devotion of time and inter-
est in this problem and in the critical review of this man-
uscript is sincerely appreciated. Thanks are extended also
to Dr. James H. Fisher, Dr. Stonehouse and Dr. Bennett,
other members of the committee, for their helpful suggestions
and review of the thesis text and illustrations.

Also, I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to the
Michigan Geological Survey for the use of Mechanical logs
and well samples, especially Garland Ells, Richard Lilienthal,
Mike Bricker and Ron Elowski for their time and many help-
ful suggestions.

Thanks is also extended to Deb Tomasek and Chris
Gruesbeck for their patience and skill in typing this thesis
from barely legible copies and minimal pay.

Foremost appreciation must go to my wife Sue and son
Jason for their love and devotion throughout this time of
trials and tribulation. Their patient understanding and
occasional push towards completion of this work will never

be forgotten.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
INTRODUCTION
General Statement
Scope and Purpose
Previous Work
GENERAL STRATIGRAPHY
TECTONIC FRAMEWORK OF THE MICHIGAN BASIN
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION

STRUCTURAL INTERPRETATIONS OF MICHIGAN BASIN ON THE
TRAVERSE GROUP

ISOPACHOUS INTERPRETATIONS OF THE TRAVERSE GROUP
FACIES INTERPRETATIONS

Carbonate Facies

Evaporite Facies

Barrier Model

Clastic Facies

Chert Facies
ENVIRONMENTAL INTERPRETATION
ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS
SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY
BIBLIOGRAPHY.

APPENDICES

Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C

iv

OS

12

14

24
31
39
39
42
46
50
53
56
58
62
65
67

71

71
84
86

LIST OF TABLES
Page

1. Generalized Middle Devonian Column in Michigan 8
(Subdivisions of the Traverse Limestone)

\Dmflmmnb-WNH

Hru
hao

I"
N

13

l-‘
.5

LIST OF FIGURES

Michigan Traverse Group Outcrop Areas
Michigan Region Tectonic Map

Traverse Group Cross-Section
Stratigraphic Succession in Michigan
Michigan Traverse Group Structure
Michigan Oil and Gas Fields

Major Structural Trends in the Michigan Basin
Michigan Traverse Group Isopach
Carbonate Facies Map

Evaporite Percent Map

Previous Barrier Axis

Barrier Model

Clastic Ratio Map

Chert Percent Map

Page

13
15
16
25
26
27
32
40
43
45
47
51
54

INTRODUCTION

General Statement

The Middle Devonian, Traverse Group of Michigan has
been in the past and still is a large producer of hydro-
carbons. The Traverse Group along with the Rogers City-
Dundee formation stimulated great exploration activ1ty in
the 1930's. Today there is a total of 181 fields which
have produced out of the Traverse Group singularly or in
combination with other horizons with cummulative production,
through 1974, as great as 16,860,442 BBLS. from the Walker
field alone. At the present time, the Traverse Group is
not an exploration target, though many, more subtle traps
are yet to be found. An understanding of the paleoenviron-
ment and history together with new exploration techniques

could help to renew interest in the horizon.

Scope and Purpose

This study will attempt to update structure and iso-
pach interpretations, and discover, plot and contour litho-
logic variations present in the Middle Devonian, Traverse
Group of Michigan. Structure and isopach contour maps will

be reconstructed from tops picked off gamma ray-neutron logs

and percentages of limestone, dolomite, quartz, shale, chert,
pyrite and evaporites will be derived from well samples
throughout the southern penninsula of Michigan. (Directions
referred to herein after are in terms of Southern Michigan
only).

ISOpach maps of the Traverse Group were first pub-
lished by Newcombe (1933). Records of drilling after that
date show that his map was seriously in error in Charlevoix
and Antrim counties. Later, Cohee (1947) provided a more
accurate estimate of Devonian thickness as along with a
structure contour map based on the available well records
to 1947 which penetrated the entire Traverse Group section.

Since this time, considerably more wells have been
drilled penetrating the Traverse Group in search of hydro-
carbons. The increasing production success of the northern
and southern Silurian Reef Trends and the Ordovician Albion-
Scipo play in the extreme south have spurred a new search
for hydrocarbons in the deeper, older strata of the Michigan
Basin providing a substantial increase in new data. In
addition to this, recent technology has provided us with a
relatively new and accurate tool for examining carbonate
strata, the gamma-ray neutron log. In light of this an
updating of the thickness of the Traverse Group is appro-
priate.

Gustafson (1960), investigated the Traverse Group in
the Lansing area and generated structural and isopach maps

of this area. Fisher (1969), examined the Traverse

Formation, the top unit of the Traverse Group, and completed

a structural contour map on the top of the Traverse Group.

A preliminary investigation by the writer found that his

picks were inconsistent in many instances and were quite

different than the tops picked in this report. Therefore,

a new and further updated structure contour map is justified.
Previous work on the lithology of the Traverse Group

usually involved a general description of the divisions

of the Group and how they vary from one part of the state

to another. A composite Devonian lithofacies in the Mich-

igan Basin, including the Traverse, was constructed by Dice

(1955); and Ross (1957) constructed lithofacies maps involv-

ing a sand-shale ratio, clastic ratio, quartz-chert ratio

and evaporite ratio of the complete Traverse Group using a

quantitative, sedimentary analysis. To date, no one has

attempted a qualitative, lithofacies study of the Traverse

limestone. The Traverse limestone for purposes of this

study is that unit between the tOp of the Bell Shale and

the base of the Traverse Formation. This investigation will

endeavor to update previous thickness and structure maps

of the Traverse Group and shed light on the source of

clastics, dolomite, chert and evaporite trends of the

Traverse Limestone in conjunction with the structure and

thickness contour maps.

Previous Work

The Traverse Group has been studied in outcrOp since
the early 1800's. Pioneer work was first done in Emmet and
Charlevoix counties, Michigan by Christopher C. Douglas in
1841, Winchell and Rominger in the latter half of the
1800's, Grabau (1902), Smith (1912) and then by Kesling,
Segall, and Sorensen (1974). Grabau (1902) was the first to
subdivide the Traverse Group and his nomenclature 18 still
in use today. The Michigan Geological Survey in 1926 spon-
sored a field trip investigation of all Middle Devonian
strata in the lower peninsula, the members including E. O.
Ulrich (U.S.G.S.) E. Case, G. Ehlers, C. Deiss, and A. S.
Warthin Jr., all of the University of Michigan. This work
is incorporated as part of an updated study by Kesling,
Segall and Sorensen (1974). Warthin and C00per (1943)
studied these rocks on the east side of the state while
Pohl (1930) discussed them in the Little Traverse Bay area.
Ehlers and Kesling further examined them in Alpena and
Presque Isle counties in 1970.

In subcr0p the Traverse Group has been studied exten-
sively, because of its hydrocarbon importance. Discussion
of the occurrence of these rocks throughout the state have
been made in reports by Newcombe (1928, 1933), Hake and
Maebius (1938); and in parts of Michigan by Riggs (1928),
Pringle (1937), Newman (1937), Eddy (1936), Addison (1940),
Landes (1945), and Cohee (1944, 1947). Most recent investi-

gations have been concluded by Dice (1955), Gustafson (1960),

and Ross (1957). Fisher (1969) focused his study on the
Traverse Formation which he defined as a formal stratigraphic

unit.

GENERAL STRATIGRAPHY

The Traverse Group and the rocks correlative to it are
found all over the Michigan Basin from the southern penin-
sula of Michigan to northern Indiana, northwestern Ohio,
southwestern Ontario and eastern Wisconsin. They are found
at the surface (Fig. l) in Alpena, Presque Isle, Cheboygan,
Emmet and Charlevoix counties in nothern Michigan. Rocks
of the Traverse Group also crop out in Lucus County, Ohio
and Ontario, Canada. They subcr0p (beneath glacial drift)
in southeastern Michigan and northwestern Ohio along the
Findlay Arch and along the north flank of the Kankakee Arch
in Indiana. They are called the Hamilton Series where they
extend across southwestern Ontario into the Appalachian
Basin in the vicinity of the Chatham Sag. They probably
also extend into Indiana through the Logansport Sag. Rocks
of Traverse age are also on the southeastern side of Wiscon-
sin along the shore of Lake Michigan from Cheboygan to
Milwaukee.

The Traverse Limestone is divided into stratigraphic
division or formations by Warthin and C00per (1943), (Table
1). These units have been carried into the subsurface and
in some cases over large areas, but lateral gradation from
shales and argillacious limestones in eastern Michigan to
pure limestone in western Michigan make it impossible to

follow these units in the subsurface. The thinning and

 

 

 

 

MICHIGA N

 

Traverse Group Outcrop Areas

Figure l

 

 

Table l
GENERALIZED MIDDLE DEVONIAN COLUMN IN MICHIGAN

(modified after H. M. Martin)

 

 

— w
Series Group Formation, Stage, Member, Bed
3
Squaw Bay
Petoskeyl Thunder Bay3

Potter Farm3

Charlevoix1 Norway Point3

Four Mile Dam3

1,2
. 3
Middle Devonian Traverse Grave12P01nt %E Alpena
Gorbutz Newton Creek3
Kohler
. . 3
Killians
Genshaw3
Ferron Point3
3
Rockport Quarry
3
Bell Shale
”—7 w

 

1Traverse group in Little Traverse Bay area.
2Traverse group in Cheboygan-Presque Isle counties.

3Traverse group in Thunder Bay Region.

Table 1 (Continued)

M

 

Thickness Lithology
(feet)
8 Limestone, brown fossiliferous overlain with dolomite
13-40 Limestone, interbedded with shale
70 Shale, alternating with sublithogarphic limestone
45 Shale, thinly interbedded with limestone
20 Limestone, biothermal with thin shale members
79 Limestone, pure to argillaceous
25 Limestone, dark
116 Limestone, dark
37 Shale, calcareous and thin shaly limestone
40 Limestone, dark with some interbedded shale
80 Shale, calcareous and fossiliferous with thin

beds of limestone

10

disappearance of the Bell Shale in the southwest so that the
Traverse limestone rests on the Dundee limestone, also con-
fuses simple correlation.

Cohee (1947) described lithology of the Traverse Group
in the Michigan Basin as argillaceous limestone, shales and
some pure limestone in eastern Michigan grading westward
into calcareous shales with the limestone becoming more pure
until the whole group becomes relatively pure limestones in
western Michigan with some dolomite and dolomitic and
argillaceous limestone. In northern Michigan, the Ferris
Point, Genshaw, Newton Creek and Potter Farm formations
contain gypsum while some gypsum in the lower part of the
Traverse in southwestern Michigan is found with lithographic
limestone. Relatively pure limestone contains abundant.
chert and some chert can be found in argillaceous limestone
beds also. The thumb area of Michigan is typically shale in
the lower part with some shale and limestone in the upper
part. Only about 20% of this group is massive limestone.
Hake and Maebius (1938) state, "The prominent feature of
the lithology of the Traverse Group of sediment in Central
Michigan is its composition of calcareous, argillaceous and
silicious materials in varying degrees of admixture. These
rocks range from remarkably pure limestone through cherty,
dolomitic and shaly limestone and limy shales to nearly pure
clay shales". They also state that the second outstanding
characteristic of this group is the presence of abundant

fossil debris which include fragments of corals, hydrozoans,

11

bryozoans, crinoids, and brachiopods. Fossil reefs composed
of the remains of hydrozoans, coral and algae also exist

within this group.

TECTONIC FRAMEWORK OF THE MICHIGAN BASIN

The Michigan Basin is surrounded in the northeast,
north and east by exposed Precambrian rocks of the North
American Shield. Stonehouse (1969) suggests that the three
provinces of this Shield Area, The Grenville Front to the
east, Superior to the north and Penokean to the west meet
under the Michigan Basin and comprise the basement rocks
of the basin.

The origin of the Michigan Basin is debated by many.
Significant theories have been postulated by Newcombe (1933),
Pirtle (1932), Kirkham (1937), Lockett (1947), Cohee and
Landes (1958) and Hinze (1963). A good summarization of
these theories can be found in Ells (1969). These theories
range from principal warping of the Michigan Basin by forces
related to the Keweenawan Disturbance acting against the
rigid Wisconsin Arch area to downwarp in the Basin chiefly
resulting from movement of vast bodies of magma from one
part of the earth's crust to another.

Many structural elements frame the Basin on all sides
(Fig. 2). To the north, northeast, and east the North
American bounds the Basin. It is constrained on the west
by the Wisconsin Arch, and on the southwest by the Kankakee
Arch in northern Indiana. In the south it is bounded by the
Cincinnati Arch and in the southeast and east by the Findlay—

Algonquin Arches.

12

l3

 

 

 

 

 

 

MIC HIGAN REGION

TECTONIC MAP

FIGURE 2

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION

Structure and isopach maps were constructed from tops
identified from 310 gamma ray-neutron logs obtained from the
Michigan Geologic Survey and were recorded by Schlumberger
Log Company. These logs measure and record radioactive
emanations from strata exposed in the walls of wells. All
rocks exhibit some degree of radioactivity and the variations
in this property are sufficiently characteristic to afford
a means of distinguishing between different sedimentary
lithologies. Identification of different rock types can
be made using this log and where a lithologic change occurs
at the contact of two formations, tops can be picked. In
addition to this, 60 tops were included from well samples
selected throughout the state.

Tops were picked in accordance with the manner adopted
by the Michigan Geological Survey (Fig. 3). The t0p of
the Traverse Group has always been picked at the base of
the Antrim Shale (Fig. 4) that is the top of the Traverse
Formation. The Survey‘s method is to pick the top of the
Traverse Group at the base of the first highly radioactive
kick of the Antrim Shale going up the stratigraphic column.

This Antrim Shale is a black extremely carbonaceous
shale found all over the Michigan Basin (Asseez, 1969). It
has been recognized, because of its diagnostic color, as
probably the best marker bed in the stratigraphic column of

Michigan. Because of its high content of organic matter it

14

TUITlE-UULEIIANDT I
22.48 4'
II m

H‘-

S
2'
1.:6»
'23:
32-
1
8

SIMPSON-MURPHY
6 IS 5'
n ow n d. u m

IENEDUM-IAHS
22.3%!”

um-

SKEllY-AUO U6 3
$94”

ClAUFOID-VUNSCH I
m m In
I: W

 
   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Traverse Group Cross-Section

(after Gardener, 1974)

 

 

 

Figure 3.

 

" 3 IImsésiz‘.':«:iII..a:. ,IIIIIIII H1111)

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LWHIII' Imam, : .2' 1'

t WWW '

 

 

 

mocms mmms STRATIGRAPHIC SUCCESSION IN MICHIGAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ERA SYSTEM SERIES ~ STAGE
U um
_ V-Hm Sui PALEOIOC mom“ m
0 W.“ In Out. W
N m 9.4. n w
o OUATERNARY Minoan! 95°” (,7 H, {S}
E Yarn-cl 9.1L \
U cm... Gar-Ion
OUT CROP NOMENCLATURE SUBSURFACE NOMENCLATURE
“9:3?“ vmuvumumoc nocmsrumwmc ROCK-WW I; t;._ I" I
8 FORMATION [manual snoop mm..-
: a g 1;, SERIES GROUP FORMATION nausea W __ «a... , u d M. ,, mun-.a-uu-u
In: a .“m ”m WH‘~~J~IQMQ__~U\GO¢
Why thou-“nu aboOG-dI'IdH-n—lwu-b

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

thy-.de-hoyDA-u-H c... Duo-Id” lid—II-
mwmhdu-dflu—“I'w

mum
IJUI-Ch-‘t-h—WWJ-v-v
Mlm-Nhh-nhom

INFORMAL TRMS

 

deumdwwumdnm
ondumuflwaMdbm-uamnh
Mm

5mm m m RIMS PAYS

POTTSVILL!
land had”. d

50”!“- _____~.~.-

 

‘I’

hb-wpd'd ‘b—oh

Mn.» —— Dunn—6-
I-w
0"- ._c-ton

Wk 5-50!
‘w—h

Mg! v...- Goo
(um-u...

Inward

UIMQI ___1-‘Mn-DU-—_ousa-
Iv— Su —_b-u|.~.n-_oucu
S.” Icy l! —_)——Oq _—CIOG-o

 

 

 

Wwd ,Wb‘
TrmGaon— lm-____fl|cq
van-«Mum 'hu" 0““
hpnClyls alb-
Dad-cu ouc—
Mountb-
p-idLunh-m ___..uou—__.on|cu

nun—on-

ha
.1”... I--———ou<-

'm-fi“

huh“

WI. _CI$G-
Mall uh-
Pu'dS‘u .—
Graolu—*__.c—¢n- a
bum-elk?
Cuba-Ion ."h a.
w | Huh

Alcm ____.Mu-— —<IO¢-

 

”9"“ bun-p—

WSW! ‘rn'h'. a.“
Gnu-id:

Mde-m—__ nun-uh.-

TWO!” ouc-

 

“Ir-b...

Inn-un—

 

2
S
a
D
:‘
l0

 

 

 

LATE

 

 

 

 

ORDOVICIAN

EARLY

 

 

 

 

 

mm «5(Mmuc “hula“- Och-O
tin Im.uuhmuonu1~.wo—-o»r~q
“woo. Ila-pl My HI--~‘_-- "‘ Jun-
a, l bud-uh— ““h‘hhfi-unhu—l hotly-c...
human-c...

.a-.

Figure 4
964 «0374.1

m .I'l- I."

 

17

is extremely radioactive relative to other rock types and on
the gamma ray-neutron log it is denoted by the highest radio-
active deflection in the stratigraphic column. The first,
diagnostic, off-scale kick of this shale signals the end of
Traverse Group deposition. In this manner the tOp of
Traverse Group becomes an extremely consistent pick. It is
consistent in that the pick is made in the same place on

the log and consistent in that the change, paleoenviron-
mentally, from the Traverse Transitional Formation to the
start of the Antrim Shale reducing facies is correct.

The Bell Shale, which lies above the Dundee limestone,
marks the beginning of Traverse deposition. It is very dia-
gnostic on the gamma ray—neutron log and is widespread in
Michigan except in the southwest where it thins out. It
becomes difficult to determine the base of the Traverse
Group in this area because both the Traverse and the under-
lying Dundee are limestone. The writer, in order to deter-
mine the Traverse Group-Dundee contact, used previously
published cross-sections (Bloomer 1969, Gardener 1971),
cross-sections drawn by personnel of the Geological Survey
and published sample records to correlate the Bell Shale from
its outcrop area in the north of the southern peninsula of
Michigan to where it disappears in southern Michigan. This
correlation was continued throughout southern Michigan so that
the base of the Traverse would be a consistent and correct
pick. It is interesting to note that the southern limit of

the Bell Shale by correlation of logs was very close, if not

18

the same, as that placed by Cohee (1947) from examination
of well samples.

Three published sample descriptions were also used to
help delineate a confusing area in Gladwin County.

Lithofacies variations were determined for the Traverse
limestone alone or from that part of the Traverse Group which
lies between the tOp of the Bell Shale and the base of the
Traverse Formation (Fig. 4). The bottom of the Traverse
Formation or the top of the Traverse limestone as determined
by the Michigan Geological Survey is the very first kick
representing 100 percent carbonates on the gamma ray-neutron
proceeding from tOp to bottom of the log. This limestone
kick represents the top of the Squaw Bay Limestone Unit.
Fisher (1969) compiled detailed correlations using gamma
ray-neutron logs and represented these as cross sections all
over the state demonstrating the widespread character of this
unit. The author used these cross sections in addition to
cross sections drawn by the staff of the Geological Survey
to verify the top of the Traverse limestone or bottom of
the Traverse Formation, especially in marginal areas of
the Basin where the Squaw Bay thins to fifteen feet or less.
This writer supports Fisher's and Cohee's (1947) contention
that the Squaw Bay merges with other, less shaly, limestone
and dolomite fractions of the upper Traverse Group sediments
as the western and southwestern parts of Michigan are

approached.

19

In this way the top of the Traverse Limestone was also
chosen from the well samples. All Traverse limestone tOps
were picked where 90-100 percent carbonate was encountered
and then the lithologic description of all 60 of these wells
were compared to the closest well where a gamma ray-neutron
log was available to verify these tops.

The base of the Traverse limestone in well samples was
chosen as the tOp of the Bell Shale, an easy pick in the
northern two—thirds of the State where it consists of 100
percent gray shale. In the southwest corner, comparison of
lithologic description of well samples to gamma ray-neutron
logs was necessary to ascertain the break between the Dundee
and Traverse Group limestones. In most cases, this break
coincided with what geologists in the past had picked from
well cuttings and recorded on printed logs.

The Traverse Formation was excluded from this study
because serious doubt exists as to whether or not it should
be placed within the Traverse Group. This formation is
thought to be more closely associated with the Antrim Shale
paleoenvironment than the Traverse Group. Hake and Maebius
(1938) state that rocks of the Traverse formation are not
typical of the Traverse Group and in some places they are
underlain by black carbonaceous shale stringers character-
istic of the Antrim Shale. Evidence of weathering at the
top of the Traverse Limestone in southwestern Michigan,
according to Bishop (1940), further suggests a break between

the Traverse Limestone and shale period of deposition, where

20

no such break occurs between the Antrim and Traverse Forma-
tion. Furthermore Fisher (1969), who studied the Traverse
Formation, states that it is transitional between the
Traverse Group and Antrim Shale and it is not part of the
Traverse Group but a separate environmental unit unto
itself.

The Bell Shale was not included in this study as it is
not representative of the typical environment of the Traverse
Group. It has definite boundaries, is almost 100 percent
shale and is considered a separate, easily identifiable unit.

The main part of Traverse history is reflected in the
interval between the Bell Shale and the Traverse Formation.
Some of these subdivisions of the Traverse Limestone are not
traceable over the whole Michigan Basin and the fact that
this interval is represented by predominant carbonate depo-
sition where small regressive fluctuations are responsible
for some shale develOpment indicates that the Traverse
limestone was deposited within a single environmental period.
Therefore, the inclusion of the Traverse Formation and the
Bell Shale with different paleoenvironmental histories in
this study would only confuse and hide the lithofacies
trends which occurred during the main part of Traverse time.

Data for the lithofacies variations were determined
from examination of well cuttings of sixty wells selected
throughout the State. As the Traverse was a highly sought
after hydrocarbon reservoir, no problem was encountered in

finding adequate sample coverage for the State, though

 

 

 

 

ll)‘ I (Titf‘llll {ll l ‘l l

21

sparse drilling precluded finding good information for
Benzie and Grand Traverse counties, and locating wells with
complete sections was somewhat of a problem. Samples were
obtained from the Michigan State University and Michigan
Geologic Survey sample libraries. The author chose one
cable tool well per county thus providing a uniform scatter
of the state. The advantages of cable tool samples over
rotary are set forth by Krumbein and Sloss (1951). A
preliminary examination of rotary samples revealed that at
least 40-60 percent of each sample represented contamination
from above. Therefore, much time was expended locating
complete, cable—tool samples for the sake of accurate results.

Examination of cuttings employed the use of a reflected-
light binocular microsc0pe possessing a magnification range
of 7X to 40X. A gridded eyepiece was used to assist in
determining percentages of constituents and to account for
size variation of the grains. All acid testing of samples
used cold hydrochloric acid diluted with distilled water to
acid rates of 7:1. Litholofic determination resulted from
guidelines discussed in "Examination of Well Cuttings"
(Quarterly of the Colorado School of Mines, v. 46, no. 4,
1951). I

Facies changes are lateral variations in a rock unit
and the most effective way of portraying them are by maps.
An exact and detailed description of a stratigraphic unit
is needed and then an expression of that data as a numer-

ical value is necessary to permit the development of faCies

22

maps. Krumbein (1951) set forth the guidelines to be used
in a quantitative approach to facies portrayal and interpre—
tation. These guidelines also apply to a qualitative
approach, which the writer used in this study. Determina—
tion of limestone, dolomite, shale, quartz, argillaciousness
of carbonates, chert, pyrite, and evaporite percentages

were determined from well cuttings. Then a dolomite to
limestone ratio, described also by Krumbein was used to
determine the degrees of dolomitization and its possible
cause. In this case, because of the low number of wells
containing appreciable amounts of dolomite, the writer
inverted this ratio to obtain a large value to assist in
ease of contouring. In this case, the smaller the numerical
value for this ratio the more dolomite is found in the well.
The most fundamental lithologic ratio, described by Krumbein
and Sloss (1951) is the elastic ratio. It is expressed by

the formula:

Conglomerate + Sandstone + Shale

ClaSth Ratio = Limestone + Dolomite +4EVaporite

 

The writer used a slightly modified version of this formula
necessitated by the lack of conglomerates, low amounts of
evaporite and the argillaceous character of the Traverse
limestone. The expression developed for use in this study

is the formula:

Quartz+Shale+Clay Content of Carbonates
Limestone+Dolomite

 

Clastic Ratio =

To determine the degree of argillaceousness and obtain a

value for the clay content of the carbonates, the author

23

ascertained what percentage of the carbonates were argil-
laceous and to what extent it was argillaceous and incorpor-
ated that value in the Clastic ratio formula. The writer
determined the percentage of carbonates that had an extremely
high clay content. From these percentage values, a thickness
of carbonates was obtained and this value was incorporated
into the Clastic ratio formula as clay content. The author
also inverted this ratio for ease in contouring. This, in

no way, effected the pattern of contouring. The author also

included an evaporite percent map expressed by the formula:

 

. _ Evaporite
Evaporite Percent - Total Traverse Limestone x 100'
and a chert percent map expressed as:
Chert Percent = Chert x 100.

 

Total Traverse Limestone
Such small amounts of quartz and pyrite were found that no
meaningful data could be mapped. The chert and evaporite
accumulations were expressed as percentages rather than
ratios because it is the opinion of the author that the
percentage expression represents a truer paleoenvironmental
picture of the whole group rather than during merely the

carbonate depositional history of the group.

STRUCTURAL INTERPRETATIONS OF MICHIGAN BASIN

ON THE TOP OF THE TRAVERSE GROUP

The structure contour map shows a relief of almost
3500 feet from the center of the basin to the outcrop area
in northern Michigan (Fig. 5). The basin area has a eleva-
tion of almost 2500 feet below sea level while the outcrOp
area in Cheboygan County is over 1000 feet above sea level.

The basin as pictured here has an almost symmetrical,
circular shape with two centers. The primary center is
located over Isabella, Midland, Gladwin and Clare counties
(see Fig. 6 for location of counties). The secondary cen-
ter is located over southern Iosco and northern Arenac
Counties and the eastern Saginaw Bay Area. This double
centered basinal feature was first noticed by Cohee (1947)
then by Bloomer (1969) on the Rogers City-Dundee structure
map and later by Fisher (1969).

The major northwest-southeast structural trends (Fig. 7)
associated with the Michigan Basin are readily verified by
the somewhat linear northwest-southeast shape of the primary
and secondary centers. The primary center has many features
within it which delineate this trend such as the large anti—
cline in northeastern Isabella County (Tl6N-R3W) and a small
anticline adjacent to it in Midland County (TlSN-RlW). Other
anticlinal features with this trend are located in southern
Oscoda County (T26N-R2E), adjacent to it in western Ogemaw

is a doubly plunging anticline with smaller, more complex

24

MICHIGAN
TRAVERSE GROUP

 

Structure
c.i. = IOO’

 

Figure 5

 

 

CA! 'I g

 

SOUTHIIN PININSUlA

MICHIGAN OIL AND GAS FIELDS
Figure 6

1'0

1‘

 

ro

 

 

 

I
I

AII an and you IIvIdi .10 conIInad N
SIN southern pnnIktuI. OI ”Iain-I

Sh... end 000"». 04 .11 Hold. 0?.
.cnuollnod. mum oboudonod Hello.

All HOH name: .70 no! shown.

 

 

 

e

NIQII Io.

V

—K—/—\-l-1' 1

KIA-5

L-

 

A.

   

. .48-

I‘Vfi
WE}

r

 

4i

Q Nov". '0:

V Somh 'Ol

GRAND TRAV

”I.

   

   

.
.me

r11 ' -
_‘§!.1_.. +—

Q
. .-

I”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4_

lb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_-i-‘ ___._._.4
l

I
'1"..- '0‘“

 

 

'
a...

I

ICTIAWASQ

l
4--
I
i
TOIN
I

I
l
I N
I

C

I

 

5

 

 

I
‘7
ova-
.

 

ALE
I
I

I

 

I“
I

 

1-.
sAsfiLI

 

 

 

 

I .‘(M

u..-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A
Y

 

/

 

 

I
I
.

j
I

 

 

 

 

HILLSD

(“-

 

 

 

(

E A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

II

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I)

 

 

 

 

 

Honk MonIIOU

 

IE5

 

 

 

us':

 

 

 

 

 

 

I-

A N '. '3':

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

k.

 

 

 

M.
m

WQI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KALAMAZOO
ISTfJOsaeH

 

  

 

1".”

M

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. o
A

T

 

I“
I.-~~
Jizmu_Lmd_.i__L-

3M 8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N

.—
.—

 

 

 

 

 

 

BERRII'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INDIANA

 

 

 

 

IIISISSIP'IAI

I I z £0“.qu

“VOIIAI

AM".

I
m
SILUIIAI

s u

Moun-

hJ nun TIACI -v~~

'ACIII “I'll. _— —

I.
J

 

 

 

Major Structural Trends in the Michigan Basin

 

 

 

1971)

(compiled by Prouty,

Figure 7.

28

structures (T23N—R2E) associated with it and smaller struc-
tures crossing west Roscommon and east Missauke (T23N-R4W),
Genesee and Lapeer Counties (T9N-R9E). The most noticable
feature delineating these trends is the Howell Anticline

in southern Michigan. The only structures which do not
conform to these major trends are east—west flexures
crossing northern Saginaw and Tuscola Counties and a very
diagnostic fold in Osceola and Clare County. Prouty (1970)
suggests that movement, accompanying basinal settling, may
have develOped such radial folds, indicated especially in
the incompetent Antrim Shale and Salina evaporites.

The major structure in southern Michigan is the Howell
Anticline. This large flexure extends from southeastern
Livingston County northwestward through Shiawassee County.
The writer attempted to contour this as an anticline without
faulting it but the control points dictated a major fault
to account for the large left-lateral, strike slip arrange-
ment of contours. In a preliminary investigation of the
Howell Anticline, this writer found many, extremely abnor-
mally thick and thin sections of Traverse Group deposition
suggesting a very complex isopach history with possible
noncontemporaneous faulting. Newcombe (1933) showed
evidence of a normal fault with 90 feet of throw. Cohee
(1947) examined this same data and supports Newcombe's
conclusion. Bloomer (1969) did not fault the center area
of the Howell Anticline but his extremely tight contours

suggest that a fault might be present. On the other hand,

29

Fisher (1969) was able to contour this area without faulting
it and, therefore, the interpretation for this area seems
open to argument. Secondary anticlinal and synclinal fea—
tures adjacent to the Howell Anticline are probably associ—
ated with the anticline itself. The well known Lucas—Monroe
Monocline shows plainly along the southwest side of the
Howell Anticline.

It is interesting to compare the features present on
the structure contour map to oil and gas fields discovered
in Michigan to date (Fig. 6). Foremost of these, of
course, is the Howell gas field which lies abreast of the
Howell Anticline. The Mt. Pleasant, Porter, Chippewa,
Leaton, Geneva, Rosebush, Wise, Vernon, Currie, and Clare
City oil fields all lie within the large anticlinal fea-
ture located in eastern Isabella County (T16N-R3W). The
Rose City, St. Helen, and West Branch fields fall within
the doubly plunging anticline in Ogemaw County (T23N—R2E).
The Beaver Creek field is located on an anticline in south-
west Crawford County (T25N-R4W). In southern St. Clair
County (T4N-R14E) many oil and gas fields could be associ-
ated with a flexure in that area. The Taymorth, Birch Run,
Birch Bela, Arbela, Otisville and Marathon fields lie on
an anticlinal fold in nothern Genesee and Lapeer Counties
and southern Tuscola County (T9N-R9E). Likewise, another
flexure occurs where the Rich and Fostoria fields are
found (TlON—RllE). There are many other fields in Michigan

such as the Jerome field in Midland County (TlSN-RlW),

30

Martin field in Mecosta County (TlSN-RBW), Freeman-Redding
and Lake George fields in western Clare County (T18N-R6W)
and all the fields in eastern Allegan County could be rela-
ted to the structural folding indicated on the contour map.
Many of these fields produce from other horizons than the
Traverse Group, of course, but the structures associated
with those producing intervals probably would be reflected
in the Traverse Group as the main diastrophism occurred
much later and would have affected most of the rocks below
and above the Traverse. The large contour interval does
preclude discerning most of the fields in Michigan such

as the giant, Traverse producing Walker field in Ottawa
and Kent Counties but it is interesting to see that even

a 100 foot contour interval can delineate many structural

trends.

ISOPACHOUS INTERPRETATION OF THE TRAVERSE GROUP

The Traverse Group iSOpach map does not portray the
basin as symmetrical nor circular as the structure contour
map though it does possess definite symmetry and roundness
(Fig. 8).

The thickness interval or depocenter occurs in the
Saginaw Bay Area where it has a maximum thickness of 875
feet. The Saginaw Bay area has been a depocenter intermit-
tently from the Cambrian to the Devonian (Fisher, 1969).

The group attains a thickness of 800 feet in parts of
Gladwin, Iosco, Ogemaw, Roscommon, Oscoda, Crawford and
Grand Traverse counties. North of the depocenter, the
northern 1/3 of Michigan maintains a thickness of 700-800
feet. This broad area could only be iSOpached on a lO-foot
interval from iSOPaCh line 775 and thicker instead of the 25-
foot interval used in the rest of the map. In areas where
sharp thinning and thickening occur, some lines were

omitted for sake of clarity. North of this broad, thick area
the Group crops out reaching a thickness of over 700 feet in
Charlevoix County to 650 feet in Alpena County. To the

south of the depocenter the Traverse thins consistently to
100 feet in the southwest and southeast in the subsurface
area.

The regular pattern of east to west iSOpach lines and
the general thinning of the Traverse Group southward (except

in the depocenter) likely indicates that this area was

31

MICHIGAN
TRAVERSE GROUP

Isopach
c.i.= 25'

IO N 30

 

 

33

inundated from a general northward direction. Hake and
Maebius (1938) state that inundation of the Michigan area
probably came from the north or northwest direction. They
cite for evidence that the Traverse Group thins to the
northeast and very rapidly to the southwest in addition

to substantial thickening of the Bell Shale in the north-
west direction in Manistee County.

One of the most noticable features on the map is the
presence of isopached enclosed, thick and thin pockets which
trend in a northwest to southeast and northeast to southwest
directions. The depocenter is an example of the former. The
structural trends of the Michigan Basin (Fig. 7) have this
same alignment. These structural trends are thought to de-
note zones of weakness in the basement along which folding
or sinking has taken place. Thinning over major anticlinal
folds in the state, noticed by Cohee (1947) and as denoted
by the isopach map here, shows that some movement was taking
place along these major structures and in other areas of
northern Michigan as early as Middle Devonian time. One of
the most dramatic examples of Traverse thinning over a
present-day major anticlinal trend is located over and as-
sociated with hydrocarbon production of the North and South
Buckeye, North and South Billings and Bently fields in
Gladwin County (T18N-R1W) extending northwestward to the
Beaver Creek Field in the southwest corner of Crawford
County (T25N-R4W), (Figs. 6 and 8). Thus two very definite

thin areas of Traverse Group deposition occur over an existing

34

major structural trend. Thickening between these two areas
as well as small areas of thickening adjacent and between
the small structural highs in Gladwin County, in addition
to, the orientation of these highs, infer that the synclines
are associated with en echelon type of folding at that time,
in some places. Many petroleum fields, such as those men-
tioned in Gladwin and Crawford Counties exist along these
anticlinal thins gleaned from the iSOpach map, though hydro-
carbon accumulation may have attended a later episode of
folding. Other such fields like the Walker field in east
central Ottawa County (T6N-R12W) which produces out of the
Traverse Group, and the many fields located in the north-
east corner of Allegan County could also be related to the
folding inferred from the isopach map in these areas. Both
structure and iSOpach maps were prepared prior to any refer-
ence to petroleum field locations. Some other present-day,
major structural trends in the Michigan Basin are believed
post-Traverse in origin. The iSOpaChS show no thinning
along the major structural feature associated with the Porter,
Mr. Pleasant, Chippewa, Leaton, Rosebush, Vernon, Currie and
Clare City oil and gas fields (Fig. 6) establishing that
movement related to the origin of this structure occurred
after Traverse deposition.

Post-Traverse movement is also indicated in southwest,
south and southeast Michigan where sharp bends in iSOpach
lines suggest the possibility of faulting along the strike

of the structural trends of the Michigan Basin. These

35

hypothetical faults are indicated on the Isopach Map (Fig.

8) by solid lines. In northern Ottawa and Kent Counties,
asymmetrical, sharp isopach bends suggest a right lateral,
northeast to southwest trending fault (Figs. 6 and 8). Adja—
cent to this fault, south of it and parallel to it, is
another area in central Ottawa and Kent Counties where iSOpach
lines also suggest a fault of the same nature. Here though,
the symmetry of the iSOpach lines might indicate folding
instead, contemporaneous with Traverse deposition. Other
areas where similar faulting can be postulated are Allegan
County where the center of the fault is located approximately
in T2N-R13W, in Branch and Jackson Counties, where a right-
lateral northeast to southwest trending fault cuts through
the center of the Albion-Scipio trend; and in Lapeer and

St. Clair Counties, a northwest to southeast trending left-
1ateral fault is also postulated. These structures, inferred
from 25-foot contours on the isopach map, are not apparent

on the structure map probably because of the large, lOO-foot
contour interval. The alignment of the proposed faults on
the iSOpach map in Allegan and Ottawa Counties tie in
isolated oil fields, as indicated by solid lines (Fig. 6),
and suggest a connection with the origin of linear producing
fields. In southern Michigan, the hypothesized fault trend-
ing southwest to northeast through Branch and Jackson Counties
crosses the linear Albion-Scipio field. Prouty (manuscript
maps, 1976) has demonstrated that many of the oil and gas

fields of Michigan produce where fractures intersect. He

36

indicates that it is in these cross-structures that dolomiti—
zation is apt to be most marked. It is suggested that this
fault which intersects the Albion-Scipio field might be re-
lated to this cross-faulting or cross—structure. The coin-
cidence of the suggested faults in Ottawa and Kent Counties
and Allegan County in crossing present day major structural
trends and tending to fall on isolated oil fields, such as
the Walker field (which incidently produces out of the
Traverse Group), suggest that these might also be cross-
structures occurring after Traverse deposition and related
to the origin of the major structural trends. The east

to west fault postulated in northern Oceana County (T16N-
R14W) could be related to post-Traverse movement along
radial lines of weakness accompanying basinal settling or
be a part of the overall fracture pattern that may exist

in the Basin. The wedge-shaped thick area located in the
extreme southwest corner of the State (Fig. 8) could be
related to movements during Traverse time, but might be
better explained with additional well control available.

In southeastern Michigan, along the trend of the pre-
sent Howell Anticline in Livingston County, an abnormally
thin area projects northward. A more detailed investigation
into the gamma ray—neutron logs of the area revealed that
it is a very complicated area isopachously, perhaps involv-
ing faulting. Kilbourne (1947) could not contour the inter—
val between the base of the Sunbury Shale and the top of

Dundee limestone without faulting it. Six gamma ray-neutron

37

logs listed in Appendix C revealed an abnormal thick area
located approximately in the northeast quarter of section
18-T2N-R5E adjacent to it. This area should be approximately
325 to 350 feet thick but was found to vary anywhere from

350 to 650 feet thick. Using these six wells, in addition

to other wells in close proximity, a broad area of thicken-
ing is evident, with a very small local area of abnormal
thickening in the area of the six wells mentioned. Although
isolated thicknesses of 650 feet occur within a very small
area, the author limited this maximum iSOpach to 400 feet on
the scale of Figure 8. Since the Howell Anticline is the
subject of a current study, the writer did not carry his
investigation into this area but based on Kilbourne (1947)
conclusions, the complexity of the area isopachously with
abnormal thickening and thinning in close juxtaposition,

in addition to, a northward dragging appearance on the west
side of the broad thick area directly adjacent to the abnor-
mal thin area in T2N-4E, suggests the presence of a fault
there. The author has taken the liberty of drawing a left-
lateral fault (Fig. 8) tending northwest-southeast which
falls in the same place as the present Howell Anticline
which might explain some of the anomalies through the offset
of iSOpachs. The origin of the before mentioned, very small,
abnormal thick area in the northeast corner of 18-T2N-R58 can
only be guessed at now. Perhaps a karst topography on the

Dundee limestone surface can account for the thick sequence

38

or solution of the underlying Detroit River or Silurian evap-
orites produced caving of the overlying beds before Traverse
time.

One last thing to be mentioned about the isopach map
is the obvious difference between the position of the
structural center (Fig. 5) and the depocenter as delineated
by the iSOpach map. The center of the basin in Traverse
time has been pushed from the Saginaw Bay area to central
Michigan. The forces which caused this event must have
occurred after Traverse time as the center of the basin was

in all probability where Traverse deposition was thickest.

FACIES INTERPRETATION

The various facies maps were constructed to delineate
any regional trends and their association to events and/or

structural setting in and around the Michigan Basin.
Carbonate Facies

The limestone to dolomite ratio is used to discover
lithofacies trends in the predominant carbonate deposition
of the Traverse limestone. In this map the zero contour
line indicates a hypothetical 100 percent dolOmite and any
number larger than this reflects more limestone relative to
dolomite. No well was encountered where dolomite exceeded
the limestone content though the dolomite in the well in
Oceana County equaled the limestone content. In fact, any
value over 40 represents a very small amount of dolomite
and shaded areas represent 100 percent limestone.

The high amount of dolomite along the west side of
Michigan reflected in this map (Fig. 9) has been noted by
Gardener (1971). Others, such as Hake and Maebius (1938)
indicate that various counties on the west side of Michigan
contain a higher amount of dolomite than usual. The north-
south trend of this dolomitic zone suggests a possible re-
1ationship to the Wisconsin Arch (Another alternate hypothe-
sis will be discussed later). Newhart (1976), in a study of
the carbonate facies of the Middle Ordovician demonstrates a

possible relationship to an evaporation—reflux dolomitization

39

' /

L I
L CLAIR

CANADA

LAKE (RI!

0 I I2 Ina-II“
===r=

Figure 9. Carbonate Facies Map. (LS/DOL)

 

41

model after Deffeyes (1965) or Dorag dolomitization model
after Badiozamani (1973). Evidence points to exposure of
the Middle Ordovician carbonates, at least along the flanks,
of the Wisconsin Arch at that time to allow diagenetic alter-
ation of the limestone. His dolomite percent map for the
Trenton carbonates have the same north to south orientation
in western Michigan as that of the Traverse. As regional
dolomite content may indicate a shallow, near-shore environ-
ment (Prouty, 1946), the presence of a high amount of dolo-
mite in the same north to south trend as Newhart's, suggests
the possibility that the Wisconsin Arch might have been high
enough to cause shallowing of the Traverse seas along it
also.

Other areas of high dolomite content are also evident.
These are in the northeastern to east thumb area and especi-
ally the southeast corner of Michigan. On the clastic ratio
map (Fig. 13) the highest Clastic area is located in the thumb
area and southeastern Michigan indicating again that shallow-
ing was occurring along the southeastern edge of the basin
and may have some implication in regard to the proximity of
the Findlay Arch. The dolomite trend in the east, though
not as high as that in the southeast, does suggest that
shallowing is taking place farther eastward in light of the
high Clastic content there.

The shaded areas on the map contain extremely little

dolomite or none at all. The high limestone area in the

42

central part of the state is also relatively pure limestone
with very little dolomite or clay content. A north-south
trending barrier (which will be discussed later) has been
postulated by several including Jodry (1954) and Hale (1941),
in this general vicinity (Fig. 11). Reef buildup on this
postulated barrier is evident in the Paris oil field (Jodry,
1954). If reefs developed along this barrier, it partly
could have restricted sediments to the west side of Michigan
in a logoonal environment of perhaps more saline waters,
enhancing good limestone development to the east of it and
accounting, in part, for the high dolomite content to the
west. Comparison to the clastic ratio map (Fig. 13) shows
some support for this theory as the clastic content drOps
off sharply in this area along a north-south line which
could represent the barrier. However, it is possible

that this area could be the westernmost extent of the
clastics from the east. Other hypotheses concerning the
various areas of high dolomite and high limestone will be
discussed later. The isolated area of no dolomite in the
area of the Chatham Sag might be caused by deepening, but
would appear anomalous in regard to the high clastic ratio

there.
Evaporite Facies

In the evaporite percent determination (Fig. 10) only
a small amount was encountered and only a few wells contained
enough to be meaningful. No Traverse limestone section

contained over 2% of the evaporites. The wells plotted

LAKE
37.0LAIR

CANADA

LARK (RI!

Figure 10. Evaporite Percent Map ===' " """”
Author's Barrier Axis = -

 

44

indicate a high evaporite area extending north and south
through western central Michigan. Jodry, Newcombe, Gardener
and many others cite this as evidence of a north to south
trending barrier (Fig. 11) in western central Michigan which
restricted the waters to the west producing a lagoonal envi-
ronment. In times of regression this area was restricted
enough to have produced evaporites. Hale (1941), demon-
strated that the western and southwestern area of Michigan
represents a different basin of sedimentation from the rest
of the state in lower Mississippian time and supported the
idea of a structural or environmental barrier also, to limit
the eastward extension of the Ellsworth Shale. Gardener
(1974) also demonstrated a north to south barrier with bio-
hermalf and biostromal develOpment in central western Mich-
igan. The writer's area of high evaporite (Figs. 10 and 11)
falls in part between the barrier proposed by Jodry and that
proposed by Hale. The few wells showing evaporites tend to
support the lagoon barrier model also inferred in clastic-
carbonate facies distribution. It is not clear why inter-
vening wells are so devoid of evaporites. Either the occur-
rence of evaporites is quite local, or the evaporite fraction
in the samples may have been lost in drilling and/or washing
procedures. The well in Jackson County is anomalously high,
as it was in chert percentage-possibly for the same reason.
The isopach map shows this area as probably shallower and

therefore a more restricted environment.

Figure 11.

45

Previous Barrier Ax
Jodry's Barrier -
Hale's Barrier =
Newcombe Barrier

0 I2 “all”
=1=z==

lAKE
Sh CLAIR

CANADA

LAKE ERIE

 

46
Barrier Model

A simple model can be constructed to help explain
the lithofacies trends denoted by the carbonate and clastic
ratio and the evaporite percent map of this study (Fig. 12).
In no way is this model intended to explain the whole situa-
tion or answer all questions concerning the barrier and the
west Michigan lagoonal facies noted there by many writers.

As mentioned before, several writers have noted the
existence of a structural barrier in western Michigan based
on high dolomite and evaporite content there, in addition to,
reef development along it and the lithofacies change from a
lagoonal environment on the west side of the barrier to an
open sea environment east of the barrier. Other evidence
exists, such as gravity highs,l structural contoured highs
and the change from chemically precipitated limestone on the
east of the barrier to biohermal develOpment to the west of
it, which delineate this feature (Jodry, 1954). Reef develop-
ment was noted by him in the Paris field which lies abreast
of the barrier and by Gardener (1974) who indicated a linear
biohermal and biostromal development along it also.

One well was anomalous to all other wells studied in
this report. The Traverse limestone section in the Ottawa

County well is 300 feet thick and contains about 15% pyrite

 

lJodry cites as additional evidence for his barrier a posi-
tive gravity anomaly as mapped by Loque (1954).

Shoreline to the West

West

Lagoon

High Saline Environment

dia
9e ,
netlcdol - ‘ flux

47

East

EVAPORATION

 

 
 
  

Low to Normal
Saline Envi-
ronment

   

Proposed
Barrier

    
 
   

Good Limestone
*— + Developmentf

‘fi

Figure 12. Barrier Model

48

with the other 85% consisting of reworked very clean, white
coralline limestone. In no other well did the pyrite percent
exceed .8% or consist of such predominent clean coralline
limestone. Jodry, citing evidence for a hypothetical barrier
in western Michigan, which separates lagoonal and deep water
facies, states that east of the barrier dense chemical car-
bonates with minor develOpment of coralline limestone or
other fossil material predominates while west of the barrier,
in the lagoonal facies, biohermal carbonates are abundant, as
are limestones made up of reworked fossil material. The
presence of such a large amount of pyrite supports a reduc-
ing environment interpretation for western Michigan and
enhances the concept of a semi-protected lagoon where reefs
and banks develOped. It should be mentioned that high pyrite
content can just be coincidental. Its presence in just one
well is not necessarily sufficient evidence to definitely
support a reducing environment. Using the evidence obtained
from the well in Ottawa County as well as the linear trend
evaporite high and the evaporite high in Manistee County
the writer's proposed position of the barrier, denoted on
the evaporite percent map as a solid line, would fall
approximately in line with previous postulated axes (Fig. 11).
The presence of this barrier, with reef development
existing abreast it could help explain the lithofaCies
trends present in this study. The restricted nature of the
waters west of the barrier would develop a highly saline

environment where diagenetic dolomitization might occur.

49

This would be especially enhanced when periods of slight
regression lowered the water in the lagoonal area. The
restricted nature of this lagoon could also have been augu-
mented by the presence of the Wisconsin Arch to the west.

The evaporation evident in this western lagoonal area
would develop highly saline waters. Dolomitization then would
probably generate from an evaporative-refluxing model after
Deffeyes (1965). Gardener (1974), on a common association
of dolomite below anhydrite beds, also suggests this model
for the origin of dolomite in the lagoonal area. On the
east side of the barrier, normal salinity and deeper water
existed in an Open sea environment. The existence of the
high limestone to dolomite area (shaded area in central
Michigan on Fig. 9) east of this barrier infers that the
limestone was deposited in an area of low salinity. The
lack of clastics on the west side of Michigan indicates
that the barrier was probably a physical barrier with respect
to currents.

The local pockets of high limestone to dolomite content
in the north and the general low dolomite content encountered
there can be accounted for if a low normal sea water salinity
is hypothesized. Gardener (1974), describes this northern
area of Michigan as a shallow, subsiding marine carbonate
shelf with biohermal develOpment evident. Good limestone
development like this will probably take place in normal
ocean salinity. Another area of good limestone development

occurs in the vicinity of the depocenter. Here rather normal

50

salinity would be expected, in this open, probably deep
water, area. Laseme (1975), in a study of the Bayport
Formation, demonstrates a relationship of limestone with
depth. As the depocenter area was in all probability the
lowest part of the basin at this time it is suggested that
the low dolomite content found there is a result of a com-

bination of deep water and low salinity.
Clastic Facies

The Clastic ratio (Fig. 13) was used here to delineate
source areas of clastics and their relationship to the
Michigan Basin. A value of one signifies an equal amount
of carbonates and clastics and values less than one signify
that more clastic material is found than carbonate material.
Values of 10 or greater correspond to very low amounts of
clastics. The north to south trend of the contours indicates
that a regional Clastic invasion from east to northeast
occurred with the highest Clastic content found in the east
and grading westward to predominantly non-Clastic sediments
in the western third of Michigan. The high clastic content
extending from Saginaw Bay to the thumb area and southeastern
Michigan in addition to an indication of high dolomite content
(Fig. 9) further east of the Basin than this study covers,
suggests shallowing further eastward. These same areas
indicate a source for clastics out of the east. A rising
eastern source area is definitely indicated by Assez (1969)

in the Bedford-Berea sequence and by Chung (1973) in the

Lou/(—

Figure 13.

Clastic Ratio Map

0 0 I! 10.11..
=2:

LAKE
$7.6LAIR

CANADA

LAKE ERIE

d/iéYar;

 

52

Coldwater Formation in early Mississippian time. It is
possible that this movement was episodic and could have
shown activity in Middle Devonian time also. Another
alternative is that low, peripheral highlands existed

to the east and southeast of the Michigan Basin partially

or throughout Traverse limestone time. Perhaps the Findlay
and Algonquin ArChes were contributing some sediment. In
the north, the Canadian Shield was low lying and contributed
some clastics to the Basin also. Gardener's (1974) percent
shale map focuses on a eastward source of the clastics. Ross
(1957), in a quantitative study of the Traverse Group, demon-
strated, in a Clastic ratio map, that a current-layered,
delta-type pattern indicated an entrance into the Saginaw
Bay area of detrital material from a nearby orogenic source
area to the northeast of the Basin. His sand to shale ratio
indicated a more eastern source of clastics and that the
Findlay Arch to the southeast stood slightly higher than
other structures surrounding the Basin. The high clastic
content near the Findlay Arch, together with a high dolomite
content there, indicates a shallow water environment where
reflux, secondary dolomites accompanies predominantly fine
reworked clastics. The Findlay and Algonquin Arches both
could have been responsible for part of the sediment incur-
sion from the east. The Kankakee Arch to the southwest also
may have been responsible for some clastic sediment. In
Figure 13, the isoliths in southwest Michigan turn roughly
westwart and northwestward subparallel to that arch, while

a small dolomite content suggests deeper water.

53

Very little quartz was encountered in the Traverse
limestone but that present would appear to indicate that at
one time the grains were in dune phase or at least under
short wind transport. The grains were very slightly frosted,
fine to medium grained. The possibility does exist that
some of the clastic sediment could have been wind trans—

ported but were deposited in the marine environment.
Chert Facies

The chert percent map (Fig. 14) shows that an area of
high chert content is found in southern Michigan. Ross
(1947) also found that most of the chert was restricted to
the south and central area of the Michigan Basin. As the
origin of chert is highly questionable, more detailed
studies are needed to account for its widespread occurrence
in the Traverse Group of Michigan, especially in the southern
portion. The bedded character of the chert, in addition to
a climate favorable to life indicates a possible organic
origin for it. Perhaps itznsa lithified diatomaceous or
radiolarian ooze or lithified spiculites (Pettijohn 1957).
However, no organic remains were observed. A second hypothe-
sis is that this chert is post-Traverse in origin and is a
result of replacement by ground water. The high evaporite
content present in the Jackson County well (T4S-R1W), (Fig.
10), suggests that this area was probably slightly restricted
at some time during Traverse history. A third possibility

may be found by comparison to Upper Cambrian and Middle

Figure 14.

54

Chert Percent Map

0

C I2 I. all“
:1:

LAKE
3r. CLAIR

CANADA

AKE ERIE

 

55

Ordovician cycles as observed by Prouty (1960) in Pennsyl-
vania where chert accurs in that unit of the cycle having
dark, organic carbonates, indicating a reducing environment.
The writer noted high organic carbonates in this area. Such
an environment may apply to both the high chert and evapor-

ites content here.

ENVIRONMENTAL INTERPRETATION

At the beginning of Traverse time the seas advanced
over the Michigan Basin from the north or northwest as
pointed out earlier. The depocenter existed in the general
Saginaw Bay area as the thickest accumulation of sediment
is found there, and a shelf-like, thick area existed through—
out the northern portion of the southern peninsula. Reef
development built up over some parts of this area as evi-
denced by abundant fossil debris in some of the wells in
the northwest and in outcrOps in the northeast. This area
was probably a shallow, subsiding marine carbonate shelf.
Limestone was deposited as the sea deepened to the north
and the environment was favorable to the preservation of
life forms as evidenced in the samples. The high dolomite
content in the west suggests shallowing and some restriction.
These dolomite isoliths are subparallel and possibly related
genetically with the Wisconsin Arch. An alternative hypothe-
sis suggest that a barrier, probably structural, is indicated
by the relatively high dolomite and evaporite content on the
west side of it, developing a restricted lagoonal area there.
Isopachous thickening and thinning areas denote that some
very slight diastrophism was taking place in the Basin at
this time forecasting either the Acadian Orogeny or the
later, Appalachian Orogeny; or perhaps owing to differential
basinal settling. A Clastic facies map indicates that the
primary source area existed to the northeast, east and
southeast, whether from afar or the eastern periphery.

56

57

Some clastics may have been derived also from a structurally
low relief Canadian Shield to the north. Dolomite trends
support a shallowing along the eastern rim of the Basin,
perhaps on the Findlay Arch. In the northern, deeper

water areas, precipitation of limestone predominated.

Though clastics were entering the eastern and northern
areas, rather pure limestone relative to dolomite, was

deposited in this deeper, lower saline water area.

ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS

Most of the hydrocarbon production associated with the
Traverse Group has been discovered in southwest Michigan in
the general vicinity of Van Buren, Allegan, Ottawa and Kent
Counties. Jodry believes that some of this production is
related to reef buildup on anticlines or his hypothesized
West Michigan Barrier. Davies (1952) in a study of south-
west Michigan, on the other hand, strongly advanced a
structural relationship only, based on the definite lack
of reef lithology in samples from producing wells. In
either case, Traverse production in the southwest is
usually found in the uppermost layer of the Traverse lime-
stone where porosity is developed as a result of secondary
(epigenetic) dolomitization and is overlain by a chert layer.
In other areas of the state, production is found at the top
or deeper in the Traverse limestone but usually from dolo-
mitized layers. Cohee (1947) states that the best produc-
tion from the Traverse has been obtained at places where
limestone has been dolomitized. It has already been
pointed out that dolomitization is apt to be most marked
where cross-structures are associated with structural
closure.

It has been noted that most of the hydrocarbon produc-
tion from the Traverse Group is found in southwest Michigan,
but by no means all of it. Many fields are located in the

central and marginal areas out of the high regional dolomite

58

59

area. Also since dolomitized production zones are often
linear and found beneath layers of chert or shale and are
associated with structures such as anticlines or inferred
faults indicate that this dolomite is structural and
epigenetic in origin rather than regional or diagenetic.
Most authors concur that "structural" dolomitization stems
from ascending ground waters up through fracture systems in
association with damming affects produced by overlying
impermeable layers such as shale or chert. If, in fact,
the dolomite associated with the production zone in linear
fields of the Traverse Group are structural, then this origin
of structural dolomite could be postulated.

Though the Traverse Group was a much sought after
target in the 1920's and 30's, other petroleum traps must
exist. Further investigation along the cross-structures in
Kent and southeast Montcalm County (Figs. 6 and 8) is war-
ranted. The isopach map definitely indicates that faulting
or folding has taken place along a northeast - southwest
trend. The author suggests that the northeast extension
of these structures be examined in more detail. The cross-
structures located in Branch and Jackson Counties, which
cross the Albion-Scipio field, suggest that a further search
for hydrocarbons along such features be initiated not only
in the Ordovician but in the Traverse Group above. Though
it has been explored repeatedly, the Howell Anticline still
remains one of the most attractive areas. The elusiveness of

the big reservoir traps there can probably be associated with

60

a complicated cross-structure relationship. In Lapeer
County, T7N-R11W, an anticlinal thin or fault is shown in
Figure 8. Though no structure as delineated from the
structure map is seen to coincide with this isopach anomaly,
it still remains a choice explorative area. It should be
mentioned here, that the lack of structure associated with
the above and heretofore mentioned traps is directly a result
of the large contour interval on the structure map. A struc—
ture map with such a large interval will only define very
large structures such as the Howell Anticline or the Mt.
Pleasant-Porter structure. It must also be pointed out that
these structures denoted on the isopach map formed during

or later than Traverse time may have been destroyed, enchanced
or at least moved slightly during more intense movement,
possibly in Mississippian time. Therefore, smaller and more
complicated closure can only be obtained from a more detailed
mapping on a smaller scale and area such as a single township
and range block. Other folds worth looking at exists in (l)
T5N-3W through T6N-3W and 5N-3W (Fig. 8), (2) T6N and T7N-8W,
and (3) 25N and 26N-10W and 11W. These areas indicate thin-
ning taking place during Traverse Group deposition and petro-
leum traps could be associated with these. An excellent
possibility exists in T17N and l8N-R6 west, exactly on the
boundary separating the two range and township blocks. Here
a structural east to west trending anticline (Fig. 5) coin-
cides with an isopach thin or fold in Traverse time. If the

later diastrophism which caused the east to west fold, denoted

61

on the structure map, did not destroy the isopach thin or
fold, which in all probability it did not, then this area
holds future promise.

Though the major structural trends and the hydrocarbon
accumulations associated with them have been discovered, new
tOols such as the gamma ray-neutron log and substantially
more well control could enable more detailed mapping than
ever before. A new innovation, which has possible potential
as an exploration technique is ERTS-l (LANDSAT) Imagery.

By use of very high quality imagery, fracture trends (linea—
ments) can now be examined (Prouty, 1976). These and other
techniques such as seismic velocity discrimination between
dolomite and limestone can delineate the more subtle traps,
thus reinstating the Traverse Group as a potential source for
hydrocarbons. Production from fault zones not accompanied

by anticlinal folds (Albion-Scipio Trend) is well recognized
in Michigan. Thus techniques, as above, have considerable

potential.

SUMMARY

It would appear that structural and isopach studies
support the orientation of the known, major structural trends
of the Michigan Basin. The various folds, the shape of the
depocenter and structural center, doubly plunging anticlines
and the Howell structure all coincide with the known struc-
tural trends of the Basin. Thinning over some of the anti-
clines suggest that some movement had taken place in the
Basin as early as Traverse time; however, other major
structures suggest post-Traverse structures was much stronger
than the slight pulses taking place during Traverse time,
whether the latter was caused by extrabasinal or intrabasinal
stresses.

Sharp asymmetrical bending of is0pach suggest lateral
faulting in the southern, southwestern and southeastern
parts of Michigan. These faults cross major structures
where hydrocarbon production is well developed, such as
the Albion-Scipio trend, suggesting a cross-structure
relationship to these fields. A more pronounced dolomite
development is believed to occur along areas where frac-
tures meet, suggesting that hydrocarbon exploration along
such cross—structures be instigated. Many of the present
day oil and gas fields fall along the flexures diagnosed
by the herein structure and isopach maps. Other possibili-
ties for exploration are suggested along many of the linear

isopach thins, but the future of Traverse Group production

62

63

probably lies in sophisticated exploration techniques combined
with detailed mapping on a small areal scale. The Traverse
history of the Howell Anticline area is a mystery and will
remain so until a further, more detailed, investigation can

be instigated, Such a study is, in fact, underway by another
graduate student at Michigan State.

The coincidence of regional dolomite and Clastic con-
tent in eastern Michigan indicates a source to the east.
Possible origins of this source could be related to either
low peripheral lands or a rising eastern source area as in—
dicated by the later Bedford—Berea sequence. The Findlay
Arch appeared to be slightly higher than most structures
around the Basin and together with a low-lying Algonquin
Arch probably contributed some sediment to the Basin. A high
elastic and dolomite content to the southwest indicates some
shallowing of the seas in the vicinity of the Kankakee Arch.
The high clastic build up there is probably related to the
proximity to the Arch while the high limestone content
suggests deeper water. On the west side of the state a low
Clastic but high dolomite development suggests the presence
of a restricted area separated from the deeper sea to the
east by an hypothesized west Michigan barrier, or shallowing
produced by a slightly high, broad Wisconsin Arch. A linear
north to south trending evaporite belt appears to be largely
restricted to the west of this western Michigan structural or
environmental barrier. Evaporation would be expected to be
more effective in evaporite precipitation in this shallow

environment.

64

An area of slight restriction, near the Findlay Arch,
is evidenced by a high evaporite content there. Perhaps
the environment there was conducive to abundant organic
life which fostered a high chert content in this general

area.

l)

2)

3)

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY

A more detailed examination of the abnormal thick and
thin interval located over the present day Howell Anti—
cline area would help to unravel this areas history as
well as aid in the prediction of future Traverse petro-

leum here.

Detailed studies of existing Traverse fields would help
discover the relationship of cross-structures to major
structural trends aiding in future gas and oil explor-

ation and add information on Basin fault patterns.

A closer look at the dolomite found in existing fields
is warranted to ascertain its association to structure
and its possibile origin.

Some interesting parallels can be drawn between
Newhart's (1976) study of the carbonate facies of the
Middle Ordovician and the Traverse Group. Both stra-
tigraphic sections have the highest regional dolomite
trend in a north to south direction, along western
Michigan, indicating a close relationship to the Wis-
consin Arch during the Ordovician and possibly the
Devonian. Hydrocarbon production in both stratigraphic
sections is primarily located in the south and southwest
areas of Michigan. Newhart and earlier workers have
postulated. for Ordovician fields. that magnesium rich
waters ascended fracture systems and were dammed by an

impervious seal above, the Utica Shale in this case.

65

4)

5)

66

The source of those dolomitizations fluids is believed
to be artesion in nature from outcrOps along the major
positive elements flanking the Michigan Basin with high
magnesium concentrations in the groundwater generated
by its movement through older regional dolomite. This
action probably took place after Devonian time as most
of the structures are related to movement after this
time. The writer speculates this same origin for
Traverse structural dolomite, taking place probably

at the same time with the shale-rich Traverse Formation

and/or Antrim Shale providing the seal.

A closer examination of Traverse outcrops in eastern
Wisconsin and well samples in western Michigan is needed
to ascertain the origin of the regional dolomite found
there. Is there a cause and effect relationship between
this dolomite and the Wisconsin Arch or is it the result

of a lagoonal environment?

One of the most perplexing problems associated with the
Traverse Group is the widespread and common occurrence
of chert, especially in the southern area of Michigan.
The significance of this needs to be evaluated by more

detailed study.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Addison, C. C., 1940, Buckeye Oil Field of Gladwin: Am.
Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 24, pp. 1961-1964.

Annual Statistical Summary 22, Michigan's Oil and Gas Fields,
1974: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Geolo-
gical Survey Division.

Asseez, L. O., 1969, Paleogeography of Lower Mississippian
Rocks of the Michigan Basin: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geo-
logist Bull., v. 53, pp. 127-135.

Badiozamani, K., 1973, The Dorag Dolomitization Model - Ap-
plication to the Middle Ordovician of Wisconsin: Jour-
nal of Sedimentary Petrology. v. 43, no. 4, pp. 965-984.

Bishop, M. S., 1940, Is0pachous Studies of the Ellsworth to
Traverse Limestone Section of Southwest Michigan: Am.
Assoc. Petroleum Geologist Bull., v. 24, pp. 2150- 2162.

Bloomer, A. T., 1969, A Regional Study of the Middle Devonian
Dundee Dolomites in the Michigan Basin: Unpublished
Master's Thesis, Michigan State University.

Chung, P. K., 1973, Mississippian Coldwater Formation of the
Michigan Basin: Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan
State University.

Cohee, G. V., 1947, Lithology and Thickness of the Traverse
Group in the Michigan Basin: U. S. Geological Survey
Preliminary Chart 28, Oil and Gas Investigation Series.

, and Landes, K. K., 1958, Oil in the Michigan Basin in
Habitat of Oil: Am. Assoc. of Petroleum Geology Sym—

Davis, D., 1952, Oil Production from the Traverse Group of
Southwest Michigan: Am. Assoc. of Petroleum Geologist
Bull., v. 36, pp. 1642-1644.

Deffeyes, K. S., 1965, Dolomitization of Recent and Plio-
Pleistocene Sediments by Marine Evaporite Waters on
Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles: Soc. of Economic Paleon-
tologists and Mineralogists, Special Publication #13,
pp. 71-88.

67

68

Dice, B. B., 1955, A Quantitative Study of Composite Devonian
Lithofacies in the Michigan Basin: Unpublished Master's
Thesis, Michigan State University.

Eddy, G. E., 1933, A Study of Insoluable Residues of the
Lower Traverse, Bell and Upper Dundee Formations of

Michigan: Michigan Academy of Science Papers, v. 18,
pp. 345-361.

Ehlers, G. M. and Kesling, R. V., 1970, Devonian Strata of
Alpena and Presque Isle Counties, Michigan: Michigan
Basin Society Guidebook.

Ells, G. D., 1969, Architecture of the Michigan Basin: Mich.
Basin Geol. Soc. Annual Field Excursion, pp. 60-88.

Fisher, J. C., 1969, The Distribution and Character of the
Traverse Formation of Michigan: Unpublished Master's
Thesis, Michigan State University.

, 1969, Early Paleozoic History of the Michigan Basin:
Mich. Basin. Geol. Soc. Annual Field Excursion, pp. 89-
95.

Gardener, W. C., 1974, Middle Devonian Stratigraphy and
Depositional Environment in the Michigan Basin: Mich.
Basin Geol. Soc. Special Papers, No. 1, pp. 43-48.

Grabau, A. W., 1902, Stratigraphy of the Traverse Group of
Michigan: Geol. Survey of Mich. State Board (1901),
pp. 191-196.

Gustafson, W., 1960, Structure and Stratigraphy of the
Traverse Group in the Lansing Area of Michigan: Un-
published Master's Thesis, Michigan State University.

Hake, B. F. and Maebius, J. B., 1938, Lithology of the
Traverse Group of Central Michigan: Mich. Acad. of
Sci. Papers, v. 23, pp. 447-461.

Hale, L., 1941, Study of Sedimentation and Stratigraphy of
Lower Mississippian in western Michigan: Am. Assoc.
Petroleum Geologist Bull., v. 25, pp. 713-723.

Hinze, W. J. and Merritt, D. W., 1969, Basement Rocks of the
Southern Peninsula of Michigan: Mich. Basin Geol. Soc.
Annual Field Excursion, pp. 28-59.

Jodry, R. L., 1954, Reflection of Possible Deep Structures
by Traverse Group Facies Changes in Western Michigan:
Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologist Bull., v. 41, pp. 2677-
2694.

69

Kesling, R. V., Segal, R. T. and Sorensen, H. O., 1974,
Devonian Strata of Emmet and Charlevoix Counties, Mich-
igan: Papers on Paleontology #7, University of Mich-
igan.

Kilbourne, D. C., 1947, The Origin and Development of the
Howell Anticline in Michigan: Unpublished Master's
Thesis, Michigan State University.

Kirkham, V. R., 1932, Unconformity at the Top of the Traverse
Formation in Michigan: Geol. Soc. of America Bull.
Abs., v. 43, pp. 136-137.

Krumbein, W. C., 1952, Lithofacies Maps and Regional Sedi-
mentary and Stratigraphic Analysis: Am. Assoc. Petrol-
eum Geologists Bull.,v. 32, pp. 1909-1920.

, and Sloss, G. F., 1951, Stratigraphy and Sedimentation:

 

Landes, K. K., 1944, Porter Oil Field, Midland County, Mich-
igan: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologist Bull., v. 28, pp.

Lasemi, Y., 1975, Subsurface Geology and Stratigraphic
Analysis of the Bayport Formation in the Michigan Basin:
Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University.

Lockett, J. R., 1947, DevelopmentIIEStructures in Basin
Areas of Northeastern United States: Am. Assoc.
Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 31, pp. 429-446.

Loque, L. L., 1954, Gravity Anomalies of Texas, Oklahoma and
the United States: Oil and Gas Journal, v. 52. PP.
132-135.

Newcombe, R. B., 1933, Oil and Gas Fields of Michigan:
Mich. Geol. Survey Pub. 38, G. Ser. 32.

Newhart, R. E., 1976, Carbonate Facies of the Middle Ordo-
vician of the Michigan Basin: Unpublished Master's
Thesis, Michigan State University.

Newman, E. A., 1937, Geology of Ogemaw County, Michigan:
Mich. Geol. Survey Prog. Report #2.

Pettijohn, F. J., 1957, Sedimentary Rocks: 2nd ed. New York,
Harper and Row Pub. Co., 718 pp.

Pirtle, G. W., 1932, Michigan Structural Basin and Its
Relationship to Surrounding Areas: Am. Assoc. Petroleum
Geologists Bull., v. 16, pp. 145-152.

70

Pohl, E. R., 1930, The Middle Devonian Traverse Group of
Rocks in Michigan, A Summary of Existing Knowledge:
Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., v. 76, Art. #14, pp. 1-34.

Pringle, G. H., 1937, Geology of Arenac County, Michigan:
Geol. Survey Prog. Report #4.

Prouty, C. E., 1946, Lower Middle Ordovician of Southwest
Virginia and Northeast Tennessee: Am. Assoc. of
Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 30, pp. 1140-1191.

, et a1., 1960, Lower Paleozoic Carbonate Rocks in
Maryland and Pennsylvania: The John Hopkins Univ.,
Studies in Geology, Guidebook, No. 3, 101 p.

 

, 1970, Michigan Basin - Paleozoic Evolutionary Develop-
ment: Geol. Soc. Amer. Abst. with Programs, v. 2 (7),
pp. 657-658.

, 1976, Oral Communication.

Riggs, C. H., 1938, Geology of Allegan County, Michigan:
Mich. Geol. Survey Prog. Report #4.

Ross, R. M., 1957, A Quantitative Sedimentary Analysis of the
Middle Devonian Traverse Group in the Michigan Basin:
Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University.

Smith, R. A., 1912, The Occurrence of Oil and Gas in Michigan:
Mich. Geol. and Biol. Survey, Pub. #14, pp. 19-32.

Stonehouse, H. B., 1969, The Precambrian Around and Under the
Michigan Basin: Mich. Basin. Geol. Soc. Annual Field
Excursion, pp. 15-27.

Warthin A. S., and C00per, G. A., 1943, Traverse Rocks of
Thunder Bay Region, Michigan: Am. Assoc. Petroleum
Geologists Bull., v. 27, pp. 571-595.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

 

o.
c: as) 5 68‘ :3 3’;
o m -H mea m
w z 4: :4 cu c:
H m w a. m .2
«3 H :> >21 '0 U
8 8 .‘1’. 88 5 ZS
n—‘I 3 (fl E-IU D B
ALCONA
22-26N-9E Atchinson #1 721 858 1595 737
27—27N—6E Quant #1 870.5 1283 2017 734
20-27N-8E St. Haves #1 900 1037 1780 743
23-27N-9E York #1 760 630 1358 728
30-28N-5E Cranberry Ranch #1 922 1220 1990 770
10-26N-7E Kohlman #1 829 1252 1952 700
ALLEGAN
17-3N-11W H. Edwards #2 800.5 1687 1985 298
21-3N-11W Glusic Edwards #1 722.4 1731 2048 317
9-3N-15W H. Veldhof #1 712.9 1413 1628 215
28-3N-15W K. Bushee #1 709.5 1377 1595 218
5-4N 11W H. Culp #1 814.6 1798 2082 284
15-2N-13W J. & M. Rozeboom #1 745.9 1397 1694 297
3-4N-13W Loew G-14 722 1580 1903 323
28-2N-13W Perrigo M.F.G. Co. #1 618 1209 1496 287
ALPENA
9-29N-5E Turtle Lake Club #1 822 685 1425 740
ANTRIM
19-32N-8W Wolgamott #1 868 467 1182 715
27-29N-6W Elkins #1-27 1308 1687 2476 789
35-31N-6W Artie Morris Unit #1-35 1027 962 1747 785
31-31N-5W L. H. White #1 892 858 1639 781
ARENAC
11-18N-4E Grashaw #1-A 625 1857 2689 832
5-19N-3E St. Adams #l-A 767.5 2138 2958 820
7-19N-4E Harry B. Weber #1 783.0 2025 2853 828
1-19N-6E Chartier #1 589.0 2105 2908 803
22-19N-4E Wood et a1 #2 723 1950 2786 836
BARRY
23-1N-7W E. Farley #1 848 1656 1971 315
30-1N-7W Herrington #1 897 1690 2010 320
17-1N-8W M. Puttman #1 978.8 1788 2094 306

71

72

 

a) c: a. 8‘ m

C E O Q)O B m

o m -a m64 m

-H z u H m c

P m Q’s. m x

Id H > > :3 'U 0

0 H w cc) c -H

O m H H84 5 :

I-J 3 Lil B (.9 O [-0
BARRY
22-3N-7W Carl Bahs #1 896 1985 2336 351
20-4N-7W Schiably #1 868.6 2094 2443 349
3-4N—8W G. McClellon #1 868.8 2075 2437 362
20-4N-8W J. M. Allerding #1 850.2 1983 2335 352
34-4N-10W J. Janose #1 781 1788 2122 334
34-2N-9W Hibbard #1 968 1765 2075 310
8-3N-9W Kidder #1 796 1774 2097 323
BAY

1-14N-4E Schweitzer #5 589 2009 2706 697
2-16N-3E Pomaville #1-2 644 2368 3135 767
29-18N-3E A. B. McTincha #1 738 2227 3028 801
10-15N-3E Edgar D. Solmtt #1 628 2344 3069 725
BE RRI EN

l—6S-19W Schlutt #1-1 645.5 578 672 94
10-6S-17W Thalmann #1 793 747 848 101
34-38-17W Warnan #1 663 850 474 124
8-88-20W Warren #1 645 357 467 110
BENZIE
27-26N-13W State-Inland #1-27 874 1302 2094 792
29-25N-15W Mead #1-29 707 822 1580 758
12-25N-14W Hazel Von Aken #1 858 1298 2086 788
BRANCH
36-68-5W Paul Swain Unit #1 1050 1142 1337 195
29-63-8W Juday #1 862 932 1150 218

4-58-6W Pileri #1 969 1260 1493 233
CALHOUN
12-1S-5W Lena Lake Comm. #1 971.3 1836 2123 287
27-1S-5W Cashman #1 951 1710 2003 293

7-23—4W Cruse #1 918 1617 1894 277
12-28-5W H. Fountain #1 912 1596 1880 284
14-38-4W Radee #1 1014 1535 1781 246
26-38—7W R. Case #1 933 1358 1618 260

73

 

 

 

a) c o. 8‘ m
G E O 030 B m
o w -H me+ m
-H z u u m c
u m 0’0. m .x
m H > >23 U 0
8 2:; 2 a 2 s :a
q 3 m 640 o B
CALHOUN
1-4S-4W Rosenaw #l-A 1021 1500 1730 230
26-23-7W J. Beeson #1 892 1435 1712 277
29-1S-7W Wm. S. Fruin #1 843 1520 1810 290
CASS
31-SS-13W McKenzie #1 913.7 1032 1192 160
14-68-14W F. Kimmick #1 911.8 988 1146 158
26-7S-15W Kaminski #1 835 650 798 148
15-88-15W Good #1 791 600 700 100
5-88-16W N. Beebe #1 746 550 585 35
CHARLEVOIX
7-32N-4W Romaniak #1 833.2 262 1003 741
15032N-6W A. J. Valler #1 837 363 1146 783
7-32N-4W T. Romaniak #1 833 260 1010 750
CLARE
6-17N-4W McKay #1 956 3195 3888 693
21-20N-4W Yake #1 1211 3280 4033 753
8-20N-5W Amstutz #1 1099 3027 3775 748
21-19N-6W St. Redding #1 1047 3175 3860 685
1-18N-5W Kirkpatrick #1 1275 3508 4195 687
20-18N~5W D. W. Frackelton #A-l 1138 3340 4003 663
CLINTON
13-7N-2W Henning #1 754 2370 2796 426
26-8N-2W N. R. Irrer #1 716 2373 2820 447
35-8N-4W F. Watts #1 738.5 2510 2928 418
14-5N-3W Errin & Arlin Zischke #1 825 2388 2771 383
11-7N-2W W. L. Skutt #1 765 2400 2790 390
CRAWFORD
6-25N-3W St. Beaver Crk. #1 1262 2414 3203 789
20-26N-2W McClintic #1 1186 2284 3090 806
8-28N-4W State Frederic "B" 1-8 1276 1865 2648 783
32-25N-1W R. E. Sheppards #1 1200 2202 2972 770
28—27N-1W Martindale #1 1121 2008 2770 762
17-25N—4W St. Beaver Creek #A-3 1241 2245 2935 690

74

 

 

m
c: g 5 a) 8‘ 59 3
o m -a med 0
-a z u H o c
H m a)o. m x
0 F4 > >~5 'o o
8 '3 fl 3 8 5 E
L-J 3 [21 B (D D E4
EATON
2-1N-6W Palmer-Miller Comm. #1 934.7 1850 2170 320
18-2N-5W Cline & LaMont #1 910 1931 2250 319
24-2N-4W C. G. Woodworth #1 901 2058 2385 327
5-3N—4W Woodworth E1 862 2128 2503 375
GENESEE
29-6N-7E E. A. Everson #1 850 1712 2116 404
12-6N-8E E. J. Coffee #1 915 1732 2148 416
4-9N-8E Hutchinson #1 827 1945 2460 515
11-6N-7E G. Gardam #1 878 1777 2172 395
GLADWIN
19-17N-2W St. Beaverton #A-2 748 3116 3846 730
6-18N-1W Briggs #1 783 2988 3763 775
19-18N-1W Bonninghausen #1 745 2968 3744 776
36-18N—1W McMahon #1 728.5 2708 3487 779
4-18N-2W Mills #1 842 3083 3818 735
10-18N—2W M. H. Cady #1 888 3108 3829 721
14-18N-2W Ogg #1 827 3033 3765 732
30-19N-2W Watson #1 887 3058 3787 729
15-18N-1E Heil #1 713.7 2750 3543 793
16-20N-1E St. Clement #A-l 817 2723 3538 815
3-18N-1W Baum #1 (P.L.) 769 2850 3585 735
15-18N-1W Johnson et a1 #1 (P.L.) 749 2810 3575 765
22-18N-1W State C-3 (P.L.) 737 2755 3521 766
19-17N-2E State #A-8 724 2688 3445 757
12-19N-1W State - Gladwin #1 766 2654 3429 775
GRAND TRAVERSE
9-25N-10W Mos et a1 #1-9 1041 1743 2542 799
17-25N-11W FOS #1-17 1055 1766 2520 754
28-26N-11W Burroughs et a1 #1-28 974 1490 2255 765
32-27N-12W D. & M. Pattinson #1 872 1194 1993 799
22-27N-9W Anstett et a1 #1 988 1660 2430 770

75

 

 

Q
c “e’ 8 m8 8 3
o m -a mE4 m
-H z u u m c
u m a)c. m x
«U H :> >23 '0 O
8 "a 3 :22 g :2
a 3 a: E¢U o B

GRATIOT

36-11N-3W J. Davidson #2 766 2670 3182 512

23-lON-2W Awdrey #1 705 2570 3073 503

13-1lN-3W Georig #1 768.7 2685 3258 573

2-11N-1W N. Wenzel #1 696 2672 3238 566

5-lON-4W Shuttlewarth #1 796.5 2726 3250 524
HILLSDALE

3-SS-2W Campenhaut #1 1077.2 1438 1645 207

19-58-2W D. Finegan #1 1118. 1382 1594 212

21-88-1W Wehrle #1 893 822 972 150

29-7S-3W Israel Grace #1 1053 1055 1235 180

16-7S-2W U. & M. Scharp #1 1121 1222 1402 180

HURON

10-15N-10E Szidir #1 638.7 2000 2756 756

36-16N-12E Scott #1 750 1925 2620 695

36-17N-10E Schulze #1 625.5 2072 2828 756

21-18N-13E P. & M. Wisiewski 680 1605 2301 696

27-16N-11E A. Keller #1 656 2050 2806 756

INGHAM

16-2N-2W F. W. Harkness #1 902 2114 2427 313

13-1N-2E Dave Basore #1 963 1425 1717 292

15-2N-1W Laston #1 924 2175 2493 318

12-2N-E Scripter #1 918 2178 2482 304

20-1N-2W Camp Ingham Inc. #1 910 1972 2250 278

13-2N-1E F. C. Anderson #1 912 2148 2462 314

22-4N-1W wm. Kirkpatrick 852 2325 2651 326

IONIA

4-6N-8W C. E. Burtle #1 707 2170 2588 418

34-7N-8W Samuel Len Cate #1 765.1 2200 2622 422

21-7N-5W Albright #1 763.6 2430 2868 438

lS-SN-7W Weldman #1 857 2184 2565 381

ll-6N-6W C. & C. Smith #1 784 2330 2752 422

76

 

 

m
a 2 8 cu 8* 8 3
o m -H mE+ m
-H z u H w c
u 6 4:0. m x
m Fa > > s 'o o
8 a .9. a a 2 :2
A 3 m BCD o B
IOSCO
11-21N-5E Provoast #1 730.2 2200 3008 808
29-21N—5E Erickson #1 763 2356 3173 817
20-21N-6E Nat. Gyp. #1 646.5 2310 3133 823
28-23N-5E Mott #1 863.5 2355 3140 785
3-22N-5E Stork #1 818 2315 3084 769
ISABELLA
17-14N-5W Couser & Wardrop #1 878 3017 3650 633
1-14N-6W Cook #A-l 876.5 3000 3631 631
25-14N-6W Pendell #1 984 3105 3723 618
23-15N-6W Woodin & Forbes #1 927.5 3070 3706 636
30-15N-6W Latham #1 1033 3150 3776 626
17-16N-3W Northwise Unit #2-W 794 2975 3680 705
26-16N-5W O'Rourke #1 896.5 3230 3900 670
22-13N-4W Terry Childs et. a1" #1-22798.6 3011 3619 608
18-15N-4W House #1 875 3182 3797 615
JACKSON
14-1S-3W Schultz-Cannel Comm #1 933.7 1820 2078 258
36-18-3W Campbell #1 1019.5 1908 2177 269
27-28-2W N. H. Bonn #1 927 1716 1972 256
27-28-3W MacDonald Lett #1 999 1690 1948 258
32-3S-1W H. Gumper #1 983.1 1547 1740 193
5-4S-2W Barnes #1 1116 1517 1737 220
28-4S-3W Owen #1 1098 1452 1682 230
26-38-1E G. Boone #1 955.9 1577 1795 218
18-4S-1W Ray Ried #1 1040 1483 1685 202
KALAMAZOO
15-1S-12W Menasha Wooden Ware #1 780 1345 1597 252
31-3S-10W R. Hayward #1 868 1160 1408 248
27-28-9W J. & L. Smith GG-l 986 1442 1710 268
KALKASKA
10-25N—8W St. Springfield #1 1123 2345 3115 770
11-28N-6W St. Cold Springs #1 1271 1838 2634 796
21-25N—5W St. Garfield #1—21 1231 2431 3180 749
28—28N-7W Sherwood #1-28 1007 1535 2328 793
22-27N-6W State-Excelsion #1-22 1178 1958 2753 795
27-25N-8W Consumers Power Co. #1 1017 2294 3013 719

77

 

 

 

 

a
c 8 8 a) 8‘ e9 3’.
o m -a mea m
-a z u H o c
u m 011 0 x
m H > >8: U o
8 8 ,8 8 8 8 :8
H 3 a: saw a B
KENT
3-5N-9W Alto L. P. G. #3 811 2060 2438 378
12-6N-9W L. P. G. #4 638.7 1987 2388 401
35-8N-9W Francisco #1 859.6 2397 2830 433
9-10N-11W Free #1 907 2440 2900 460
6-8N-9W J. Len Haven #1 857 2422 2858 436
35-9N-10W B. E. Goss 936 2488 2917 429
4-8N-9W F. Donovan #1 877 2460 2897 1583
LAKE
30-20N-12W St. Newkirk #1 976 2378 3088 710
17-19N-11W Ellsworth Twp. #1 1101 2674 3347 673
20-18N-12W J. Gramalna #1 872 2500 3135 635
LAPEER
17-6N-12E J. Braidwood #1 913 1472 1815 343
6-6N-12E E. Ulatowski #1 842 1468 1868 400
l4-7N-11E Bagley #1 926 1709 2080 371
10-8N-9E I. Thom #GG-l 790.2 1889 2360 471
6-8N-10E St. Mayfield #1 838.6 1911 2375 464
1-9N-10E A. R. Mathews #1 797 1932 2428 496
21-9N-llE Wilder #1 824.4 1847 2320 473
17-10N-10E Lyon #1 827.5 1943 2458 515
28-10N-10E H. Nowlin #1 780 1887 2388 501
22-9N-10E Louis Bodwin #1 837 1905 2370 465
LENAWEE
14-58-4E Allen #1 859 760 975 215
25-68-2E Drewyer #1 860 832 1040 208
4-88-1E Charles Beal #3 858 766 910 144
24-6S-3E L. Oenius #1 800 780 980 200
LIVINGSTON
35-3N-4E McPherson #1 941.5 492 842 350
27-4N-3E M. & D. Hendryx #1 921 1013 1296 283
14-1N-6E Manuel Lopez #1 915 488 782 294
13-3N-5E C. P. Cornell #1-13 943 852 1213 361
25-3N-5E E. John Hills #1 993 953 1325 372
25-2N-5E Bauer #1 964 550 945 395

78

 

a) c: o. 8* m
C E O 010 B m
o m -H msa m
-a z u H m c
u m m a. m .x
m H > >'5 U U
U .4 m m o c -H
o 0 —4 u H o .c
a 3 a: 6+0 o B
MACOMB
15-3N-14E Wayne Moore #1 591 555 786 231
10-3N-14E Henning St. #1 598 557 802 245
29-4N-13E Payne & Gray #1 657 908 1162 254
36-4N-14E Seifert #1 619 658 889 231
36-5N-12E Lamphar #1 757 1050 1338 288
8-5N-13E Ward #1 777 1135 1437 302
MANISTEE
13-21N-17W Gambs #1 . 606 918 1600 682
8-24N-13W Northrup #1 896 1472 2240 768
10-24N-14W Con. Paw. Co. #1 758 1130 1891 761
8-22N—15W McCarthy #1-8 765 1185 1930 745
5-22N-13W State-Dickson #1-5 1080 1923 2627 704
23-23N-14W Nuikklala 765 1420 2125 705
MASON
9-17N-15W Healey #1 706 1832 2478 646
7-18N-17W Disposal Well #40 649 1426 2052 626
14-18N-17W Jacobson #3 694 1588 2218 630
23-20N-15W State-Cartier #1-23 719 1791 2494 703
19-19N-17W Peterson #3-19 661 1384 2042 658
17-18N-16W Woodward #1 652 1644 2270 626
MECOSTA
2-13N-10W Whipple #1 968 2794 3353 559
8-13N-10W Finch #1 929 2705 3245 540
36-14N-8W Delong #1 1025 3068 3658 590
3-15N—7W Phillips #1 1015.2 3162 3827 665
23-15N-8W Darling #1 1056.3 3115 3750 635
5-15N-9W Flanders & Wilkins #1 958 2831 3435 604
17-15N-8W F. D. Helmer #1 1046 3164 3774 610
MIDLAND
6-15N-1W D. Segerlund #1 656 2950 3667 717
15-15N-2W Middleton et. a1. #1 678.5 3023 3718 695
21-13N-1W Emery #1 683.7 2745 3363 618
13-15N-1W C. & O. #2 645 2958 3683 725
10-16N-1E Rider #1 692 2990 3769 779
1—16N-2E Askevich #1 669 2580 3395 815
12-15N-2E Draves et. a1. #1-12 666 2898 3648 750

79

 

 

 

0 c m 5' m
C E O 010 B m
o m -a me« o
-a z p H m c
u 0 01m 0 .2
m H > >~5 U o
0 H 0 «so c -a
o m P: H34 5 n
q 3 a: 540 o B
MISSAUKEE
31-21N-6W Mulder #1 1190 3168 3907 739
32-22N—7W Stroh & McBain #2 1194 3213 3952 739
10-23N-6W State-West Branch #1 1195 2678 3452 774
25-22N-7W Jager #1-25 1184 3125 3867 742
35-22N-6W Alderman & McCoy #2 1159 3080 3830 750
35-22N-6W Buning #1 1170 3120 3830 710
MONTCALM
9-10N-7W Neilson #1 890.5 2767 3266 499
26-10N-7W Goodnaugh #1 843 2678 3170 492
30-11N-8W Christensen #1 928 2753 3258 505
5-11N-9W Race #1 908.5 2741 3245 504
27-12N-6W H. Graham #1 943 2920 3452 532
28-9N-6W Foncett #1-28 823 2630 3107 477
14-11N-9W Wm. R. Spence #1 932 2781 3260 479
MONTMORENCY
5-30N-2E L. Rosen et. a1. State
Briley #1-5 1216 1124 1866 742
21-31N-4E C. A. Gain #1-21 784 492 1230 738
10-30N-3E W. & I. Miller #1 928 870 1580 710
MUSKEGON
21-9W-14W Wunsch #1 673 1845 2248 403
15-10N-17W McMahn #1 620.5 1625 2074 449
8-12N-16W Wm. Eilers #1 660 1761 2257 496
14-11N-17W A. Wickstrom #1 630 1705 2182 477
15-11N-15W W. J. Smith &C. Hammil #1 686 1887 2322 435
NEWAYGO
18-11N-12W Nyhof & Dobbin #1 810.4 2343 2805 462
15-11N-13W Seaman #1 803 2256 2745 489
26-12N-14W Sheridan Twp. #1 738 2123 2612 489
26-13N-14W Siersema #1 890.3 2283 2824 541
30-16N-11W R. Camfield #1 1087 2858 3467 609
20-15N—14W Walter—Rosilea Thompson:tl821 2083 2648 565
5-12N-12W Sawyer #1 806 2350 2863 513

80

 

(v a a. 8* m
g E O 010 B m
m -H me« 0
'3 z ‘8’ 8 n. 8 ii
8 :1 > > :1 '0 O
o a) 3 S 8 S E
H 3 m 540 o B
OAKLAND
30-2N-8E Beauthien #1 963 798 1105 307
35-4N-8E Huntoon #1 1033 1323 1648 325
11—4N-11E Eldridge #1 972.8 1276 1574 298
18-5N-10E E. Lorence #1 1063 1630 1990 360
21-1N-7E W. Smith #1 936 445 735 290
OCEANA
7-13N-16W R. & L. Mund #1 780 1929 2434 505
29-15N-17W Gray #1 903 1930 2495 565
11-16N-16W Skidmore #1 976 1933 2515 582
15-16N-16W Hill #1 885 1841 2455 614
15-16N-17W J. N. Griener #1 650.5 1572 2130 558
12-13N-17W Huls #1 706 1830 2324 494
27-14N-17W Spooner #1 943 2038 2541 503
OGEMAW
4-24N-3E St. Rose #1 1232.3 2212 2998 786
35-22N-3E F. Buckingham #4 861 1667 2487 820
28-24N-2E State Foster #1 1457 2155 2952 797
10-21N-1E E. A. Lehman #1 936 2472 3313 841
29-23N-3E Morrison #1 934 1880 2669 789
OSCEOLA
29-17N-7W Rountree #1 1115.5 3236 3924 688
5-17N-10W LR—82-3 1087 2830 3456 626
32-18N-7W Wimmer #1 1056.5 3218 3897 679
35-19N-8W Yarhouse #1 1213.6 3350 4046 696
26-19N-10W Lindell #1 1197 3005 3690 685
5-20N-7W Matt Found. #1 1213 3243 3988 745
17-20N-8W Kleinhesselink #1 1304.5 3343 4068 725
14-20N-9W Johnson-Thomas #1 1586.1 3578 4303 725
19-20N-10W Lindberg #1 1168.5 2942 3657 715
31-17N-9W Con. Paw. Co. #1 1117 3024 3648 624
10-18N-9W State—Cedar #B-l 1332 3276 3944 668
OSCODA
12-25N-2E U.S.A. #1-12 1133 2382 3180 798
16-28N-1E Garland #1 1230 1991 2793 802
19-25N-3E U.S.A. #1 1241 2220 3000 780

81

 

 

 

a) c: o. 8‘ m
G E O 0)O B m
o m -H mEa m
-H z u n m c
“ 0 0:1 0) x
0 —1 > >~D ro o
o H 0 «50 c -a
o m H: L1H s a
H 3 m 540 a £4
OTSEGO
22-30N-2W Kenney #1-22 1308 1611 2363 752
27-31N-1W Marstrand #1—27 1027 934 1678 744
2-29N-4W L. J. Savage et. a1. #2-2 1309 1530 2311 781
34-30N-3W AuSable #1 1285 1575 2333 758
OTTAWA
32—6N-14W Wyngarden #1 668 1578 1955 377
34—7N-13W Fenske #4-A 645 1748 2134 386
21-8N-14W Heckel St. #1 651.4 1790 2194 404
19-7N-15W Wm. A. Berg #1 639 1534 1947 413
21-6N-14W Ponstantine #1 652 1590 1954 364
ROSCOMMON
8-22N-4W Hogan #6 1137 2884 3685 801
17-22N-4W Hogan #5 1142.4 2880 3653 773
23-24N-1W U.S.A. #B-l 1168 2000 2797 797
28-22N-2W Trustees of Estate of
L. Meldrum, deceased 1180 2928 3722 794
19-21N-3W State-Roscommon FG-4 1128 3137 3908 771
2-23N-2W Salling Hansen Co. Tr.:[11166 2578 3345 767
SAGINAW
5-12N-6E L. Elbers #1 595.5 2478 3113 635
33-11N-3E R. Gage Coal Co. #1 587 2382 2912 530
5-11N-3E Rockwell #1 603 2515 3058 543
ST. CLAIR
11-3N-16E Sharrow #B1-1 590 438 662 224
2-4N-15E Lopapkicwicz #1 646.7 687 953 266
4-5N-15E Stern #1 704.3 835 1130 295
7-6N-14E Schmidt #1 792 1160 1483 323
5-7N-13E Hull #1 789.5 1442 1822 380
11-7N-14E Gleason #1 783.5 1220 1577 357
4-8N—16E O'Conner #1 720.6 546 948 402
18-7N-16E Collins #1-18 698 505 860 355

82

 

 

 

 

0) r: a. 8‘ m
c E o m o E4 m
o m -H me« o
-a z u H w c
u m 010. m x
c F* > > 5 'o o
8 8 3 £8 8 ”.3
H 3 m 910 o B
ST. JOSEPH
15-7S-9W R. Reed #1 864 866 1077 211
17-SS-9W Krupp #1 873 1067 1313 246
27-68-11W Thunder #1 817 820 1015 195
13-6S-11W Dunworth #1 865 942 1163 221
SANILAC
31-9N-15E Kappler #1 767.6 1295 1688 393
2-10N-15W Trowhill #1 761.3 990 1470 480
9-10N-16E Keglovitz #1 771.6 927 1378 451
25-11N-12E Ode #1 771 1940 2453 513
7-11N+14E Mica #1 785.7 1628 2187 559
7-11N-16E Essenmacher #1 805.5 1106 1611 505
9-12N-13E Uiswell #1 783.6 1576 2168 592
12-12N-14E Detary #1 762 1363 1933 570
28-14N-12E Linderman #1 786 1950 2634 684
34-13N-15E E. Mosure #1 778.6 1094 1648 554
26-9N-15E Marshall #1 748 660 1073 413
SHIAWASSEE
22-5N-2E Dysinger #1 894.7 1978 2378 400
15-5N-3E Schribner #1 870.7 1458 1857 399
12-8N-4E Birchmeier #1 700 2110 2588 478
33-7N-3E Brooks #1 809 1995 2410 415
TUSCOLA
31-10N-8E McCormick #1 770.5 1877 2385 508
8-13N-9E Sattleberg #1 667.8 2112 2760 648
16-13N-11E Novesta TWP. #1 727 1973 2595 622
12-14N-9E Dancey #1 653.8 2009 2718 709
32-14N-8E Downing #1 607 1998 2672 674
4-13N-9E J. Timko #1 662 2109 2756 647
VAN BUREN
34-4S-14W Kern #1 911 1065 1245 180
24-28-15W T. A. Curtis #1 708 1028 1220 192
8-18-14W Pease #1 734 1178 1412 234
35-28-16W Ament & Webster #1 768 1033 1195 162

83

 

 

a) a o. 8* m
C E o wc> B m
o m -H mea m
.-| Z 4J LI (1) C:
U m mCL m x
M .4 > > 5 'o o
8 8 3 8 8 8 LS
H 3 [:1 B O Q [-4
WASHTENAW
16-4S-5E Schowacko #GG-l 862.5 409 597 188
24-3S-7E Wabash R.R.G. #1 691.6 130 357 227
25-28-3E Goers #1 937 1028 1274 246
26-28-7E Jorgensen #1 768 424 642 218
22-1S-3E Warner & Slocum #1 954.5 1280 1540 260
12-18-7E Butler-Ansel-Strok #2 936 397 652 255
28-18-5E Brassow #1 946 1222 1471 249
22-28-3E J. Merkel #1 998 1185 1465 280
WESFORD
28-21N-9W Davidson #1 1323 3182 3900 718
23—21N-11W St. Henderson #1-23 1336 3048 3702 654
32-22N-9W Lesson & Sours #1 1303 3066 3791 725
9-22N-10W Commers Sons Cypress Co.
#1 1411 2910 3621 711
20-24N-9W St. Liberty #A-l 1014 2377 3142 765
2-24N-12W Kellogg #1-2 1089 1890 2631 741
1-22N-9W Andrews #1 1310 3030 3746 716

APPENDIX B

 

m.H o
o moo.
s¢.~ o
m.H sooo.
mm.m o
wm.m o
0.4 o
s. o
mm.H o
~m.~ 0
mo. mo.
Nb.s o
m¢.~ HHoo.
o o
~0.H o
vo.m me.
o o
h0.s o
m.H woos.
o nmoo.
o mm.~
ma. m0.
H4.m o
o m.
«N. o
qm.0 0
mm. 0
mm. o
o o
mo.m ma.
0 o:
w _ m
000:0 000000

 

 

o 0 ms. 0.0~
qu. mmoo. me.¢ 00.0
om.a Ha. H.om o
o o mm.Ha mo.mmm
0 ma. nn.o m.~m
o o0.a 0m.m mm.¢
o o mn.a o
o o -.H cm
0 o ma.m~ H.0H
0 mm. mm.m mm.mma
o o mm. mH.H~
o o ma.~ mm.m
o mooo. mm.m mm.am
o o m.H m.mm
o o R.H mv.ma
o o «H.m mm.oa
o o mm.a mm.vm
sooo. o so.m >.H~
o o mn.0 n.oav
saooo. mafia. mm.~ «.ma
0 o mmH mhdm
o o H.q mm.m
o o mm.m o
mHH m. 3.3 NH...”
o o mm.a mo.mv
o o mm.¢ m~.HHH
o o mm.a mo.ov
mm.m um. mn.~ o
mHoo. o 0o.m m.omm
c we. v.oa aa.m
o o m.~ 0o.Hm
w m 00000 Hoo\
000050 munuomm>m oflummao 00

Ht 20368 :H

mOHIZmINN

Hw §H0EBH0 .h. SNHIZmHIom

H» 5388 .m

H# .00 HOBOQ 280
H100 £0050 .0 a .n

H# 0000 mmm

Ha 00:03

H¢ x0000

H4 £0020 .o a .o
xvfiuummxuam 3::

H4 umaamm .m

H* 000500 .z_w n>

3 0000.300 .b

H* :H3HV0HOI0umum

H4 ccmcumu .0

H# nunozpogz

mLm* x0000 nm>mmm .00
Ha punxm :H gs

”L04 copamxumym 33,.0
Hm 0.0.2.22 .9

Hfi 09000 .2

H0 0000

H* c0500 .0 3:;

Hw 8gb»

as ugeaom .o.nmmum

H¢ H0092

«4 .H0 .00 0003

H* 000:3..m_.q

HH Esau 0x00 manage
H* .8 .e outcomes 0.01%“.me
.2. 5530M

 

HH03 MO 0502

m XHQmemfl

3a.Zm-v
25.2mmupm
za-mmusm
5073
37700.3
mmufimum
30.20-HH
gauzvsmm
mHHJZGflunm
gnumsuma
zmuzfiumm
3723-2
ms.20ufla
34.2m1m
zaJZmNunH
10.27:
30.20Huom
31.02.
33.80
33.00an
shumauam
3o~nwmum
8.221:
3?sz
04.2ma-mm
gmqumuam
mm-2mmum
321,010
05.20muoa

003003

000009
00.0...”
ucwx

00100029”
0000:0me
009600
0HH0Q00H
oomoH
0HcoH

.nmgwcH

.885
0.1.60: Hz
“530.5
s0.63an
0000:00
§0m
00830.5
9005.8
0.0.30
590305
0000

0000
c5058
c0HH0m
s00
§

0000.2

5.35

0200de

90003.0
008?.

Nuwgoo

84

85

 

 

0.0 o o o oo.m o.m
oo.m o o o mm.~ no.0
om.~ o o o 00 oo.o
mm. Hoo. o o 0moo. «0.0o
oo.~ o o ooo. oo.m No
no.0 moo. o o oHo. o.om

o.m mo. o o mm.o oo
oo. o o o mo. o

o.o o o o 00o.0 oo.~0

o o o o No.0 o~.m
mo. oo.o0 oH.H o o.HH n.0om

o oooo. mmoo. «moo. mm.~ ma.oo0
o0. o o o oo.~ o

o.0 o o «0.0 ~0.m o.o¢
mo. o ma. o o.0 oo.m0
oo. HHoo. o mmoo. mo.m0 oH.H
00.0 on. No.0 o mo.0 o.o

o o m0. o oo.mm om.m0

o o o o ooo.00 om.m

o o o oHoo. mo.o o.mo
om.0 o o o 0.om o
mm. o oo. 00.0 «.0 ooo.o

00.0 o o o mo.~ om.0~
o o o mo.H oo.o o
m.~ ooooo. o ooo. oo.o o0.m

o o o o0.0 o.o mo.oa
oo.0 om. o o oH.H o
0N.o oo. o o 0.0 00.0
m.m oo. o o o0.0 03.0
0 0 0 0 00000 08\

00000 000.00 00080 00000090 000008 00

 

.20 0302

0* 00000:..0
0000003 0 0cmem

Ht 0000.3. .h

.2" 0xooum
.2, H3002
.20 55020.5

0.7.; mfiHHOU

.3 HH03xUQm

H m .29 .00 0:00:00 0:00000
0* 0000;000000

.3 0.3002
.3 .¢.0.D

Him“ $00000

Hw Gomflg

SmIZNNIH
Mm Immlmm
Kwanmmlmm
mmIZmalq
NMIZhImm
MmHIZmlmm
Saalmmlma
MmHIEImH
MMIZHHIm
SNIZMNIN
Svalzmlam
ZMIZOMIvm
NMIZmNImH
SmIZmHIOH
MMIZMNImN

H0 nwcoom0_3o0.zvauom
a 0000 .3 E0700
00 000300.3mauz~0-m

0* 0:0:50

2 30000 .0 0 00000 .0 .3 32:22:00
2 0030.2 .H w .3 SMIZOmIoH
:0 8:000 .0 .23 0.8.2313

gIZNNImm

.20 Ugahmmmm .Q 3HIZmHIm
aw H9200 .D .m BmIZmHI5”

.3 00030003 EHIZmHIbH

.20 0.0002 .3
.2“ H0>0m

:0 000009 .A

 

 

.303 mo 0802

2+ 0H0vafidz BVHIZMNIMN

mvHIZMImH
mmIZNImN
MMImmlwm

00000000

000.0003
300000003
00.000 00>

0.3003.

0000030000
00H 0000
000000 .00
.0003 .00

3000000

00850000
030000
000000
000000

0.30000

30:08
000000
000300
0050302
0000x002
000009500:
5000093.

000300002

000032

0000002

00002
00000002
9500:
000000030
0030000

Nmmmmw

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C

 

 

CL
:2 3 8 m8‘ 8 3
0 rd '0'! mE-a a)
"-4 2 4J H a) x:
u to mu. m .5:
m .—+ > >13 '0 U
8 '63 3’. 38 S E
b—‘l 3 [11 EU 0 E4
LIVINGSTON
18-2N-5E Lounsberry #1-18 923.6 637 1288 651
8-2N-5E White #1—8 960 678 1108 430
17-2N-5E Lounsberry #1-17 926 620 1185 565
l3-3N-5E Chanay P. Cornell #1-13 943 852 1212 360
7-2N—5E Kuhns #6-7 913 640 1178 538
8-2N-5E White #2-8 941 634 1151 517
12-2N-4E Gates #1-12 916 620 1038 418

86

HICHIGQN STRTE UNIV. LIBRRRIE

Illll"Lilli“lllllllmlllllfllllllllIllllllllllllllllllllllHl

 

3101281172