A QUAN'E'A‘IV: $WIWVIHWI HIVflusvsv v MIDDLE DEVONIAN TRAVERSE GROUP IN THE MICHIGAN BASEN Thesis for the Degree of M. S. MECHIGAN STATE UNIVERSETY Roy M. Ross. Jr. 1957 u y; um; will Lu: (I'll 11 1!: gm! [HIM M II A QUANTITATIVE SEDIIVIENTARY ANALYSIS OF THE MIDDLE DEVONIAN TRAVERSE GROUP IN THE MICHIGAN BASIN By ROY M. ROSS. JR. A THESIS Submitted to the College of Science and Arts of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Geology 1957 ABSTRACT The lateral variation of sedimentary deposits is indicative of the different processes at work and the source areas of the detrital material at the time of deposition. In this investigation thirty-three wells, representing complete vertical sections of the Traverse group of the Michigan basin, were quantitatively analyzed to determine their respective lithologic character. Numerical ratios obtained from this investigation were utilized to construct the various lithofacies maps which accompany this report. The elastic ratio map is a graphic comparison of the detrital sediments. derived from the erosion of the pre-existing rock. with the nonclastic material derived by organic and inorganic pre- cipitation. The sand-shale ratio map compares the coarse to the fine elastic material. The construction of the evaporite ratio map is based upon the weight of the evaporite material compared to the weight of the remaining chemical precipitates. The quartz-chert map depicts the percent of quartz to the percent of chert found in each sample and is in effect representative of the contrast between the primary and secondary sediments. ii The lithofacies maps were superimposed over the isopach map to aid in their interpretation. A study of the resulting patterns helped to reconstruct tectonic conditions that existed in mid-Devonian time. This sedimentary analysis indicated that during the deposition of the Traverse group in the Michigan basin, there were no major crustal disturbances within the region. It was shown the structural features defining the limits of the basin were stable and lowlying. and the bulk of the sediments making up the Traverse group entered the basin from the northeast. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to take this opportunity to express his sincere gratitude to Dr. B. T. Sandeful for his constant encourage- ment, helpful suggestions, and unfailing interest that aided so greatly in the completion of this paper. Dr. Sandefur was exceedingly gen- erous with his time in helping compile and edit the final manuscript. The writer also wishes to offer his thanks to all the faculty members of the Department of Geology at Michigan State University for their assistance and aid in regard to this investigation. The members of the Michigan Geological Survey were of great aid in their cooperation and assistance in helping the author select and procure the well samples analyzed in this report. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ............. 1 Description of the Michigan Basin . . ............ . 1 Sedimentary Facies and Lithofacies . . . . . ....... . . 3 Purpose ............... . . . ............ 4 SAMPLE SELECTION AND DISTRIBUTION ....... . . 5 Stratigraphy and Lithology of the Middle Devonian Traverse Group ‘. . . . . . . . . . ........... 5 Selection of the Top and Bottom of the TraverseGroup.... ...... ..... ..... 12 Requirements for Selecting Wells . ......... . . . . . . 13 Selection of Wells . . . ............. . ......... 14 LABORATORY PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . 20 SamplingMethod......... ............ 20 Removal of Water-Soluble Salts .......... . . . . . . . 21 Removal of Acid Solubles . .......... . . . . . . . . . . 22 Disaggregation . ........ I .............. . . . . . . Z3 Sieving...... .......... ..... 24 Mounting and Analyzing the Sand Grains . . . . ...... . 25 Page Accuracy of the Data . . ...................... 25 Results of the Laboratory Analyses .............. 26 LITHOLOGIC INTERPRETATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Methods of Analysis . ....... . . . . ............ . 28 Facies Map Construction . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . 30 Methods of Geological Interpretation . ............ . 32 Errors Involved in Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 34 Geographical Interpretation . . . . . .............. . 34 REGIONAL TECTONICS . . .q ..... . ....... . ..... . . 43 Structural Relations of the Michigan Basin . . . . . . . . . 43 Structural Interpretations in Relation to Tectonics . . . . 44 Tectonic Aspect . . . . . . . . ...... . ......... . . . . 49. CONCLUSIONS ..... . ........... 50 REFERENCES ................... . ........... 51 vi LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES TABLE Page I. Generalized Middle Devonian Column in Michigan . .............. . ......... . . 8 II. Well Descriptions . ................ . . . . . . 16 III. Summary of Quantitative Analysis . . . ........ 27 IV. Lithologic Ratios . . . . . . ................ . 31 FIGURE I. Relationships between Isopachs and Facies Lines . ....... . ......... . . . . . . . . 33 vii Traverse Group LIST OF MAPS Outcrop Areas . ...... . . . . . . Locations of Wells Used for Facies Analysis . . . County Locations . . . . . . ............. . . . . Sand-Shale Ratio . . . . . . ..... . ........... Clastic Ratio . Quartz -Chert Ratio ...................... Isopach ..... Evaporite Ratio viii Page 1 5 Pocket Pocket Pocket Pocket Pocket Pocket INTRODUCTION Description of the Michigan Basin Until 1926. before the beginning of extensive oil and gas de— velopment in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, little was known of the details of the subsurface geology. This part of Michigan is masked by the thickest deposit of glacial material in the United States. During the last thirty years many wells. together with test drillings and coring operations. have yielded much information about the Michigan basin. Pirtle (1932) had this to say about the Michigan basin: The Michigan basin is a broad structural and sedimentary basin probably originating in Precambrian time. It is slightly rectangular in form, trending northwest and southeast, with its deepest point near the center of the southern peninsula of Michi- It extends approximately 450 miles east and west. and al- The rocks dip toward Its sedimentary gan. most the same distance north and south. the center at a rate of 30-35 feet per mile. and structural history is closely related to the large positive elements of the Cincinnati, Kankakee. and Wisconsin arches. Folds within the Michigan basin have a persistent northwest- Southeast parallel trend and may be traced through a distance of 40-60 miles. Their origin is believed to be closely related to the early history of the basin itself, being controlled by trends Of folding or lines of structural weakness which existed in the basement rocks. If the glacial drift in this area were stripped away, the se— quence of stratigraphic units filling the Michigan basin would crop out as more or less concentric bands with the youngest system (Pennsylvanian) being innermost and the oldest (Cambrian and Ordovician) located most distant from the center. These systems might be compared with a nest of shallow dishes or saucers. Pirtle (1932) enumerates the structures bounding the basin are the Wisconsin arch in the west. the two limbs of the Cincinnati arch in the south. the Kankakee arch to the southwest, and the Findlay arch .to the southeast. The northern boundary is the Canadian Shield, and the eastern boundary is the Algonquin arch. The material written by Smith (1912), Pirtle (1932), and New- combe (1933) describing the basin, its relationship to surrounding areas, and time of origin are mainly in accord. These have pre- viously been stated. Green (1957) in a recent paper re-evaluates Somme of the time-honored concepts. He states that the regional as- pect of the Michigan basin structure resulted from subsidence within This subsidence. the 'basin itself. rather than from uplift about it. he feels, began in post-Niagaran Silurian time. Green (1957) writes that many of the major structural features discussed in literature Will not withstand the test of careful examination. The "Kankakee arch" is cited by Green (1957) as an example of a term that should be dropped because no structural connection ever existed between the Wisconsin and Cincinnati arches. It is left to the reader as to which of these conflicting con- cepts he wishes to accept. because both have merit. The author. for this investigation and its conclusions. has chosen to follow the beliefs of Smith. Pirtle. and Newcombe. Sedimentary Facies and Lithofacies The principle of facies and facies changes has been recog- nized by stratigraphers for many years. but only in the last decade has more serious consideration been given this concept. Moore (1949) states. ”Sedimentary facies are areally segre- gated parts of differing nature belonging to any genetically related body of sedimentary deposits." He further states. "The term litho- facies denotes the collective character of any sedimentary rock Whic.h furnish record of its depositional environment." The ”collective character" of a sedimentary rock or ”litho- facies" can perhaps be clarified by an illustration. Within the limits of a certain area a formation may be limestone. In an ad- Wining area this same formation grades into a shale. and beyond this area the shale grades into a sandstone. The lithofacies of this formation is limestone in the first area. shale in the second. and sandstone in the third. The study of lithofacies by means of facies changes in a formation is helpful in determining the original depo- sitional environment. Purpose The purpose of this paper is to determine the depositional environment within the Michigan basin during Middle Devonian time. This will be determined by the construction and interpretation of lithofacies maps of the Traverse group. The author intends that a detailed investigation will contribute to the understanding of the tectonic environment which existed at the time of deposition of this well-defined stratigraphic unit. Other similar investigations have previously been conducted on formations from the Lower and Middle Devonian series. The Traverse group. representing the Middle Devonian series. was se- lected for analysis so that these investigations might be continued and a detailed picture of all Devonian sediments and their source areas can be constructed. SAMPLE SELECTION AND DISTRIBUTION Stratigraphy and Lithology of the Middle Devonian Traverse Group The Traverse group is present over a large part of the It crops out (see Map l) at the surface in the The Michigan basin. northernmost counties of the southern peninsula of Michigan. rocks of this age crop out beneath glacial drift along the northern flank of the Kankakee arch in Indiana and along the Findlay arch in northwest Ohio and southeast Michigan. The Traverse group. which .has been correlated with the Hamilton group of New York State on the basis of certain faunal elements. consists of gray to buff limestone. gray shaly limestone. and shale. Many of the limestone beds are cherty. fossiliferous. and contain abundant corals. In western Michigan some anhydrite has been found in the lower part. In the localities where the Traverse group attains maximum thickness the upper part is pre— dOIn-inately shale and the lower part is shale and shaly limestone. By grouping similar lithologic characteristics. the Traverse group has been divided into units as a means of correlation. formations can be distinguished over a large area. but because of 5 Many MAPI MICHIGAN Traverse Group Outcrop Areas lateral gradation from east to west. and thinning in the south. cer- tain formations cannot be differentiated throughout the state. The formations making up the Traverse group will be discussed in order of age from the oldest to the youngest. A generalized column of the Middle Devonian formations in the Michigan basin is shown in Table 1. Special emphasis has been placed on the Traverse group. The Bell shale is the lowest formation of the Traverse group. It rests on the Rogers City limestone. In the absence of the Rogers City limestone the Bell shale overlies the Dundee limestone. The Bell shale extends south from the outcrop area (Map l). but is absent in the southern and southwestern part of the state. The shale is calcareous. fossiliferous in part. and generally includes a few thin beds of limestone. The Rockport Quarry limestone. in the north part of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. is a gray or brownish limestone with some interbedded shale. South from the center of the basin it becomes very argillaceous and shaly. The Rockport Quarry limestone is ab- sent in southeast Michigan. and the Silica formation. which has been correlated with the Ferron Point formation. lies directly upon the mid- Devonian Dundee limestone. TABLE I GENERALIZED MIDDLE DEVONIAN COLUMN IN MICHIGAN (after H. M. Martin) Series Group Formation. Stage. Member. Bed 3 Squaw Bay 1 3 Petoskey Thunder Bay Potter Farm Charlevoixl Norway Point Four Mile Dam3 . 1.2 Middle Devonian Traverse GravelzPomt Alpena Gorbut 3 2 Kohler Newton Creek . . 3 Kilhans 3 Genshaw 3 Ferron Point 3 Rockport Quarry 3 Bell Shale l Traverse group in Little Traverse Bay area. Traverse grOup in Cheboygan-Presque Isle counties. 3 Traverse group in Thunder Bay Region. TABLE I (Continued) m. _==— W m Thickness (feet) Lithology 8 Brown fossiliferous limestone overlain with dolomite 13-40 Limestone interbedded with shale 70 Shale alternating with sublithographic limestone 45 . Shale thinly interbedded with limestone 20 Biohermal limestone with thin shale members 79 Pure to argillaceous limestone 25 Dark limestone 116 Dark limestone 37 Calcareous shale and thin shaly limestone 40 Dark limestone with some interbedded shale 80 Calcareous and fossiliferous shale with thin beds of limestone 10 The Ferron Point formation in the northern and eastern part of the basin is a calcareous shale and thin. shaly limestone. It grades to the west into an argillaceous. brown limestone and. in some places. to a pure limestone. The Genshaw formation exposures are gray and brown lime- stones and shale. In eastern Michigan the limestone becomes more shaly. and in the western part of the state the formation is almost a pure limestone. but with some interbedded argillaceous members. There is a dark to black limestone included in the Genshaw forma- tion called the Killians member. The Newton Creek limestone is dark brown and can be differ- entiated. in the outcrop area. from the light gray or brownish gray Alpena limestone which overlies it. In well cuttings the contact be- tween the Newton Creek limestone and the Alpena limestone is very difficult to distinguish. The‘Alpena limestone formation is light gray and brownish gray where it crops out at the northern rim of the Michigan basin. It grades from a pure to a very argillaceous limestone. There are many bioherms throughout this formation; in some places chert is also found. The Four Mile Dam formation is a brownish gray biohermal limestone containing several shale members. It becomes very cherty 11 as it is traced south from the northern outcrop area. In the southern part of Michigan it cannot be distinguished from the underlying Al- pena limestone. The Norway Point formation is a calcareous. gray shale with thin interbeds of limestone in the northern and eastern part of the basin. In western Michigan it becomes an argillaceous limestone. The Potter Farm formation in the outcrop area is a blue to gray shale alternating with sublithographic or argillaceous limestone. This formation has a limited lateral extent. The Thunder Bay limestone is a light gray limestone inter- bedded with shale at its outcrop area on the southern cape of Thunder Bay. In the eastern part of the state this formation is for the greater part a shale; in the southeastern part of Michigan it is a cherty argillaceous limestone. It grades to a pure limestone to the west. The Squaw Bay limestone crops. out in Alpena County. The outcrops are brown. fossiliferous limestone overlain by a brown to brownish gray dolomite containing many solution cavities. In the center of the basin it is mainly a brown crystalline limestone. dolomitic limestone. or dolomite. The Squaw Bay limestone is over- lain by the Antrim shale. The Antrim shale is black carbonaceous shale with several thin. gray shale members in the lower part. In 12. northern and northwestern Michigan the Squaw Bay is overlain by gray shale and argillaceous limestone of the Antrim shale. In the southwestern and southeastern part of the Lower Peninsula where the Squaw Bay limestone is absent the gray and brown argillaceous limestone found at the base of the Antrim shale overlies the Thunder Bay limestone. Cohee (1947). in a diagrammatic cross-section extending east- west across southern Michigan. indicated a wedge of gray shale and gray and brown limestone underlain by black shale in the basal part of the Antrim in the area of Ingham County. At the western end of this cross—section in Allegan County this lower black shale is absent. Selection of the Top and Bottom of the Traverse Group The contact between the Bell shale and the Rogers City lime- stone was selected as a marker for the lower limit of the Traverse group. In the absence of the Rogers City limestone the contact be- tween the Dundee limestone and the Bell shale was used for the lower marker. In the southeastern part of the state. where the Bell shale and the Rockport Quarry limestone are absent. the contact be- tween the Silica formation. which has been correlated with the Ferron Point formation. and the top of the Dundee limestone was selected as 13 the base of the Traverse group. The contact between the Rogers City limestone or the Dundee limestone and the overlying basal member of the Traverse group. was for the most part well defined. The contact of the top of the Squaw Bay limestone and the base of the Antrim shale was used as the marker in selecting the upper limit of the Traverse group in the northern and central basin areas. Where the Squaw Bay limestone was absent in southwestern Michigan the contact between the Thunder Bay limestone and the Antrim shale was used for the marker horizon. With very few ex- ceptions the contact between the uppermost formation of the Traverse group and the base of the Antrim shale was very distinct. In the south-central part of the basin three wells showed what might be considered as a transititional zone between these two formations. Requirements for Selecting Wells Cable-tool and rotary-tool methods are used in drilling for oil and gas in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. Krumbein and Sloww (1951) compared the samples taken during drilling by each method. They stated that because ”cable-tool wells require the casing and cementing. of caving formations and artesian aquifiers the samples taken from this type of well are relatively pure. with . 1....14 . 14 only a minor amount of material knocked off the bore by the passage of tools and bailer." This is not the case. however. in wells drilled by rotary-tool methods. Krumbein and Sloss (1951) state. "In rotary-tool drilling the rotation of the drill pipe and each removal and introduction of the tools cause a certain amount of caving from the side of the bore. Therefore. rotary samples taken from a given drilling interval con- tain not only cuttings from the strata represented. but also fragments from any horizon drilled below the lowest casing point." The proper spacing of control points used for the construction of the lithofacies maps was important. If the wells were widely dis- persed the results would be vague and meaningless. On the other hand. if control points were very closely spaced the complexities introduced by local anomalies would obscure the regional interpreta- tion. Another requirement was that only wells representing a com- plete stratigraphic section of the Traverse group should be used. Selection of Wells Whenever possible samples were taken from wells drilled by cable-tool methods. The author attempted to select wells properly spaced to give the most accurate results. Each well chosen passed 15 through at least a part of the Antrim shale and penetrated the Rogers City or Dundee limestone. In this manner the sampling of a complete section of the Traverse group was assured. Table 11 lists the wells used in this investigation. It includes the location. the operator. the permit number. and the thickness of the sampled section. Map 2 shows the locations of the wells listed in Table II. TABLE H WELL DESCRIPTIONS 16 County ThiCk- Well Operator and ness of and , Sec. Twp. Rg. No. . Permit Number Section Township (feet) 1 _Alpena Notman and Aubin 25 30N 6E 772 Wilson No. 576 Z Antrim Naph-Sol Refining l4 31N 8W 785 Central No. 17180 Lake 3 Bay Gulf Refining Co. 34 15N 4E 700 Kawkawlin No. 10551 4 Calhoun Verona Crude Oil 29 18 7W 265 Pennfield. and Gas Co. No. 4768 5 Cheboygan Scott Drilling. Inc. 7 34N 2W 660 Ellis No. 19422 6 Clinton Parson Brothers Co. 27 SN 4W 410 Lebanon No. 19272 7 Gladwin Gordon Drilling Co. 2 17N 2W 730 Beaverton No. 19585 8 Hillsdale D. B. Lesh Drilling 7 SS 4W 220 Lithfield Co. No. 18594 9 Huron Collins and Cline 12 18N 12E 708 HUme Drilling Co. No. 18019 10 Ionia Terry-Dale-Michigan 12 6N 7W 349 Berlin Co. No. 3154 N fi v_v v—vfi TABLE II (Continued) 17 ‘r Thick- C t Well oun y Operator and ness of No and Permit Number Sec. TWP' Rg. S t' ' Township - ec ion (feet) 11 Iosco Bay W. Matlock l 22N SE 723 Baldwin No. 12163 12 Kalkaska Mogul Oil Co. 17 26N SW 770 Bear Lake No. 15121 13 Lapeer Don Shape 14 7N 11E 360 Attica Drilling Co. No. 17786 14 Lenawee Michigan Oil and 14 SS 4E 175 Clinton Gas Drilling Co. No. 20036 15 Livingston I. C. Chamness 25 2N SE 339 Genoa No. 11818 16 Livingston Panhandle Eastern 11 3N 3E 319 Handy Pipe Line Co. No. 10990 17 Manistee Carter Oil Co. 35 24N 15W 730 Pleasanton No. 17709 18 Mason Superior Oil Co. 25 17N 16W 550 Eden No. 18905 19 Midland Dow Chemical Co. 21 14N 2E 650 Midland Fee No. 8 20 Montcalm Gordon Drilling Co. 3 MN 7W 450 Douglas No. 20075 7-1 Newaygo Sun 011 C0. 11 RN 13w 480 Garfield No. 13816 “K TABLE II (Continued) 18 L i w Thick- C nt Well 01.1 y Operator and ness of No. and Permit Number Sec. TWP' Rg. Section Township (feet) 22 Osceola Sohio Petroleum Co. 1 1 17N 7W 627 Orient No. 15489 7-3 Oscoda E. V. Hilliard 26 25N 2E 756 Big Creek No. 17517 24 Ottawa Muskegon Oil Corp. 35 6N 15W 390 Olive No. 3678 25 Roscom- Sun Oil Co. 28 22N 2W 765 mon No. 18973 Backus Z6 Saginaw Dow Chemical Co. 14 10N SE 540 Taymouth B.D. No. 98 27 St. Joseph Ford Oil Co. and 7 68 10W 196 Nottawa Basin Oil Co. No. 19599 28 Sanilac Wm. M. Joy and 35 10N 16E 411 Lexington O. J. Tomczyk No. 18305 29 Shiawassee Panhandle Eastern 23 5N 2E 350 Perry Pipeline Co. No. 16738 30 Tuscola Shell on Co.. Inc. 16 13N 11E 627 Novesta No. 10968 31 Van Buren Whitehill and Drury 35 25 16W 203 Bangor Drilling Co. No. 5229 32 Wayne Max Spidel 6 ZS BB 328 Canton No. 19634 33 Wexford Turner Drilling Co. 30 ZZN 10N 693 Selma No. 10245 19 MA P 2 MICHI GAN Location of wen: razed f0r Facies Analysi LABORATORY PROCEDURE Sampling Method The samples used for each of the thirty-three wells were obtained from the Michigan Geological Survey, Lansing, Michigan. The section representing the Traverse group was selected from each set of well samples. The vertical sections analyzed ranged from 175 feet to 785 feet in thickness. This vertical section of each well was represented by three to six trays, each containing twentyefive vials. Each vial contained a sample of the cuttings taken from a drilling interval of usually 5 to 10 feet. Wentworth (1926) states it is hardly advisable to collect less than about 12.5 grams of any‘sedimentary sample for mechanical analysis regardless of its grain size. To adhere to this minimum sample of 125 grams an arbitrary weight of sample to be taken from each vial was determined. The arbitrary weight of sample per vertical foot of section was not constant from well to well, but in every Case it was constant throughout each individual well. It was the intention of the author, wherever possible, to take a more generous sample than the minimum suggested. However, in 20 21 some of the wells due to the restricted vertical range or to the small amount of cuttings in the vials, a total sample of somewhat less than 125 grams was analyzed. The composite sample taken from each well was contaminated with small fragments of iron from the well casing and the drill bit. Before a final weighing could be made it was necessary to remove these particles of iron with the aid of a powerful electromagnet. The sample was then placed in a 400-milli1iter breaker of known weight . Removal of water-Soluble Salts Wiegner (1927) states that an appreciable amount of soluble salts in a solution may seriously hinder dispersion of the small particles and will increase the rate of coagulation. The author is not mainly concerned with dispersion, but is interested in the pro- cedure used by Wiegner (1927) to remove these soluble salts so that the determined data might be used later to compute evaporite ratios for each well. The procedure followed was to boil the sample for one hour in 200 milliliters of tap water. This caused the ionic particles to go into solution so they could be removed by siphoning. 2?. Ten milliliters of clear solution were siphoned off after the solution had settled. The salinity of the solution was checked by adding several small crystals of silver nitrate. The resulting pre- cipitate was compared with that formed in a similar amount of tap water treated in the same way. If the precipitate formed in the solution was greater than that formed from tap water, the sample was decanted and boiled again in clear water. With few exceptions two treatments were sufficient to remove the water—soluble salts. The sample was washed several times by adding water, stirring. allowing the mixture to settle, then siphoning off the clear solution. The remaining sample was dried and weighed. The amount of water solubles removed was determined by subtracting the weight of the treated sample from that of the original sample. Removal of Acid Solubles The remaining nonclastic material was removed from the Sample by‘ a series of treatments with hydrochloric acid. T.he first treatment was to add slowly a 25 percent solution 0f hydr0