92'. “r— . _- -—-—-.- :_” - - .xar- '— —. ---—- V '_‘—;:_ x _ - ‘: ~ - _ ’ M M ' o w ”i ‘ 13! . 3"" Ifia . I“: #3: . "I 1‘ :3 $2} ._—.— .- h -— -— m...— ._...—— ...—~=""n.,_ v—w --- ' ‘ o. ' . 'uu . . ,- . "J Jan 13,3933 “(zl- ILII} t3. [23??1I3: ”I 172“: 3354 1 J11 Lééiig ”51¢ 14:ng 415'. 3. 33.1“ I‘ it: 35!“ I IIII' I’I V“; )‘Ii :2- IL'I Ii" 4‘91.“ ‘ 31 :I‘tggfl‘. IIII iii? I'ifii‘é]? gig: .‘h ; :$' 1.“ 1 III ‘11 II “ . , . .:I~:3'13313'3"1{3; "3.3311133; 3(1'1 IIIII 3113 III... IIWII’V ‘31333 .1 1'11. 1.11111 1.11. .{IIIIIII'IIrIH 333 33I3I WIIIII qu I153!- :3, 3:3 31313.; EIII ,- .éhI :3 ‘h‘ ‘M- “3:..— I7 II :I‘s > .1 l- I" 1.11% 1' 5'1 1;??? IIIII INTI; I IIIIII I J" IIIII' — II ‘J’I’IIE..U”'I "4‘sz . . '3‘. « 3..1IW. . I'm)- '- It IIII-t'IIIII IIIIINIIIIII I III II.I'IIIII‘.»1"?.' 'I-'III"I. ‘k,-:‘ 1'.“ I'I‘f " My}. a-I‘I, 7.25::— ‘3??? ' . : II Il‘IIII ”III: III 3.3:!“ :1 IIII: VII. ”€313 “ $391533}: ' f I 1.. 41;; . 1 . I511 ”HI I' I \l ,I: & II'I ‘IIIII N1 m ' II . ‘1' II 'I. I'II I ' V III I' ‘3 ‘ I III “I I ‘ "111.1 |III«IIII£ImIIIII1IIIIIIII .33] .. 33 1 III III-PI ‘ IIIEIII 3II1 I . I 1';I‘-‘ . _;3 3333. I 3' in > "*1111wm-1. . -: ;II'IIIII§IIII' -I.'..1!:| THESIS This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF LANDSAT LINEAMENT DATA OBSERVED IN MICHIGAN presented by Kevin Todd Campbell has been accepted towards fulfillment. of the requirements for M. 5. degree in Geology M426 - Major professor / Date Augufit '13, 198] 0—7639 OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per day per item REIURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS: Place in book return to renbvc charge from circulation records A STUDY OF LANDSAT LINEAMENT DATA OBSERVED IN MICHIGAN By Kevin Todd Campbell A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTERS OF SCIENCE Department of Geology 1981 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF LANDSAT LINEAMENT DATA OBSERVED IN MICHIGAN By Kevin Todd Campbell Lineaments previously measured by Prouty in 1976 from LANDSAT imagery printouts were studied by the writer to deter- mine the relationship, if any, that exists between length of lineaments, azimuth direction, number of lineaments observed, and age of bedrock in which they reside. The number of lineaments and average length of lineaments was found to be primarily independent of lithology, location, and age of bedrock. Due to the diversity of movement along basement faults, the associated lineament azimuths did not fit a wrenching deformation model as prOposed by Prouty (1976). The calc- ulation of the chi sauare statistic however, suggested a low order relationship between number of lineaments and azimuth direction. No apparent relationship between length of lineaments and azimuth direction exists. Using harmonic analysis and FiSher's test of signifi- cance on the resultant harmonic data, it was found there appears to be an association between the azimuths of the lineament data and those of inferred linear trends extracted from SURFACE II generated structure maps of selected Michigan Basin oil fields. ii Dedicated to Harold and Joan Campbell ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to sincerely thank Dr. C. E. Prouty, Chairman of the Guidance Committee, for his advice, patience, and devotion of his time during the preparation of this study. Dr. J. W. Trow and Dr. F. W. Cambray were also greatly appreciated for their helpful suggestions and constructive criticisms, which led to the successful completion of this manuscript. Appreciation and gratitude is also extended to Mary Campbell and Ann Stephens for the typing of this work, also to Dick Sheets for help with the drafting of some of the figures. Special thanks goes to my wife, Janet, for her support and faith in me and for presenting me with a daughter, Megan, who made this all worthwhile. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES. LIST OF FIGURES. INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Study. Methodology. Previous Work. GENERAL STRATIGRAPHY. GENERAL STRUCTURE. LINEAMENT STUDY LANDSAT Imagery. Definition. Lineament Relationships General. Number of Lineaments vs Age. Azimuth Directions vs. Number and Age. Method. Interpretation. Test for Randomness. Method. Interpretation. Discussion. iv . vii .10 14 .18 19 20 20 24 36 37 44 44 45 45 Length vs Age. Length vs Azimuth Direction and Age. LINEAMENTS VS OIL FIELD TRENDS. Statistical Method. Interpretation. FURTHER STUDY. CONCLUSIONS. APPENDICES A-List of Lineament Data. B-FORTRAN Program For Coordinate Conversion. C-Location of Oil Fields. D-Oil Field Linear Trends BIBLIOGRAPHY. .98 .119 123 126 .128 Table LIST OF TABLES LANDSAT Spectral Bands. Number of Lineaments per Time Interval vs Area. Wrenching Deformation Model-Principle Stress from N O E. Wrenching Deformation Model-Principle Stress from N 3 E. Wrenching Deformation Model-Principle Stress from N 6 E. Wrenching Deformation Model-Principle Stress from N 9 E. Wrenching Deformation Model-Principle Stress from N 12 E. Lineament Length vs Area per Time Interval. vi Page .18 .21 .39 .40 .41 .42 43 .47 Figure CDNO‘U’I-DUON 10 ll 12 l3 14 15 16 l7 18 LIST OF FIGURES Bedrock of Michigan. Areas Covered by Time Intervals. Stratigraphic Succession in Michigan. Regional Structure Map of Michigan and Environs. Rose Diagram-Upper Jurassic. Rose Diagram-Upper to Lower Pennsylvanian. Rose Diagram-Upper Mississippian. Rose Diagram-Lower Mississippian, Miss. and/or Devonian. Rose Diagram-TOp of Upper Devonian to Bottom of Upper Cambrian. . . Rose Diagram-Precambrian Y-Z. Rose Diagram-Precambrian X. Rose Diagram-Precambrian W. Rose Diagram-Jurassic Through Precambrian W. Plan of Wrench System Under East-West Simple Shear. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Histogram-Upper Jurassic. Histogram—Upper to Lower Pennsylvanian. Histogram-Upper Mississippian. Histogram-Lower Mississippian, Miss. and/or Devonian. . . . . . . . . . vii 15 26 27 28 29 3o .31 .32 .33 34 35 .49 .50 51 52 Figure 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Histogram- Top of Upper Devonian to Top of Upper Cambrian. . . . . . . Histogram-Precambrian Y-Z. Histogram-Precambrian X. Histogram-Precambrian W. Histogram-Upper Jurassic-pC W. Oil Field Location Map. Akron Oil Field-Structure Top of Goldwater. Akron Oil Field-Structure TOp of Marshall. Akron Oil Field-Structure T0p of Traverse. Bloomingdale Oil Field-Structure Top of Goldwater. . . . . . . . . . . . Bloomingdale Oil Field-Structure TOp of Traverse. . . . . . . . . . . . . Muskegon Oil Field-Structure Top of Goldwater. . . . . . . . . Muskegon Oil Field-Structure Top of Traverse. . . . . . . . . . Kawkawlin Oil Field-Structure Top of Saginaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kawkawlin Oil Field-Structure TOp of Goldwater. . . . Kawkawlin Oil Field-Structure Top of Sunbury. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kawkawlin Oil Field-Structure TOp of Traverse. . . . . . . . . West Branch Oil Field-Structure Top of Goldwater. . . . . . . . . . . . West Branch Oil Field-Structure T0p of Sunbury. . . . . . . . . . . . viii Base 53 .54 .55 .56 .57 59 61 .62 .63 .64 65 .66 67 .68 .69 .70 71 .72 .73 Figure 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 West Branch 011 Field— Structure Top of Traverse. . . . . . . . . . . Rose City Oil Field-Structure Top of Goldwater. . . . . . . . . . . . Rose City 011 Field-Structure TOp of Sunbury. . . . . . . . . . . Rose City Oil Field- Structure Top of Traverse. . . . . . . . Walker Oil Field- Structure Top or Goldwater. . . . . . . Walker Oil Field-Structure Top of Traverse. . . . . . . . . . . . Porter Oil Field-Structure Top of Saginaw. . . . . . . . . . Porter Oil Field-Structure Top of Bayport. Porter Oil Field-Structure Top of Goldwater. . . . . . . . Porter Oil Field-Structure Top of Traverse. . . . . . . . . Beaver Creek Oil Field-Structure Top of Marshall. Beaver Creek Oil Field-Structure Top of Goldwater. . . . . . . . . . . . Beaver Creek Oil Field-Structure TOp of Traverse. . . . . . . . . . . . . Freeman-Redding Oil Field-Structure Top of Saginaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Freeman-Redding Oil Field-Structure TOp of Bayport. Freeman-Redding Oil Field-Structure Top of Marshall. . . . . . . . . . . . . ix 76 .77 78 .79 80 81 82 .83 .84 85 .86 87 88 .89 Figure 54 55 56 Page Freeman-Redding Oil Field-Structure Top of Goldwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Freeman- -Redding Oil Field- Structure Top of Traverse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 Graph of Harmonic Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . .93 INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Study This study was performed to provide a better understanding of the nature of lineaments (alignments) observed through LANDSAT imagery. By checking the relationship, if any, that exists between length, azimuth, and geologic occurrence, these features may yield information as to the times and types of deformation of the Michigan Basin and Upper Peninsula. It is also the purpose to test in as quantitative a manner as practicable, the proposal by Prouty (1976), that lineaments of the Michigan Basin are indeed shear faults, essentially strike- slip, formed under a wrenching model with stress derived from a general southeastwardly direction. A statistical comparison of the azimuth directions and number of lineaments in the Lower Peninsula to linear trends obtained from selected Michigan Basin oil fields, may suggest that there may be a relationship between the lineaments and linear structures in the Basin. Methodology The azimuths of the lineament data were measured by hand using a protractor and T square directly off of a base map, compiled by Prouty in 1976, which contained all of the Sum ul\|uM1nn bop-"mom ..| (’ can.“ 4: Sun» Small sun/(rm r .nlm'\ll'nl ownmo fijr‘. g:.\ /V \._ l - ‘-’-0 . ,. 7\. , _ . , \._ LFHl'VI' .,. . .. , 5" :::i':::::'ii'i": ' Mg — g“. ”was...” . f , .-- H :1.“ “ g / . . . WWW-c. - Eii lblvvlbn-tulh . Q / E ‘3‘ ‘F‘fl‘jkr &_ gr\ I n Im— lir-mu-v 7 , ‘ _ . "HM-7: I L577 J ’ um um"... l S' {In-[thur-U l f; q W.. - \ ,..-. a»... w... 3;. . ............., I L" 3 m y..........mm mad. .,...~ .144 .mmu 5 J Ly: . up.“ Ind av nun-w..." "g — m rm. um... 1 um]; m.- .m u may nun..." I D“: - 1...- Nam-tn! lub- n n m...“ (a l-rriuru L'c'" ‘ - ........... A; - um» Mum... - 7 , ‘ - 1......“ mm... ,. - “mum—um / l - vauln 8 I'v-u mun“... “I run l "mu“ A...» Mum-n Figure l ‘Efiiofifilrlfc’noss srn‘fidi' 3i Tifé [COVER PENINSULA ' _ . . v , u. u, BEDROCK HF MICHIGAN 531;” :.-. / ONTARIO 2. I“ viscous": ,0 g 9; ILLINOIS I "DIANA {—— '| onto AREAS COVERED BY TIME INTERVALS Figure 2 4 lineaments he had recorded from LANDSAT imagery printouts until that time. It was decided not to display a figure of the original lineament map because the loss of detail and distortion that would accompany the drastic reductions necessary for the map to be included in the theSis. Access to the lineament map may be obtained by consulting C. E. Prouty, Department of Geology, Michigan State University. All lineament measurements performed by the writer can be seen in the appendices. Using the Bedrock of Michigan map (Figure l), Prouty's base map was divided into areas corresponding to eight different geologic time intervals (Figure 2). These intervals were chosen primarily according to age of the rocks and areal extent. Time interval number four was created in the hope that differences between this and subsequent time intervals might reflect the prOposed timing (Prouty, 1972) of the Appalachian orogeny. The length of each lineament was digitized on the MICRO DATATIZER and a file was created which consisted of azimuth, length of lineament, and geologic time interval in which the lineament was observed. Lineaments shared by two or more categories were placed in the category in which the greatest fraction of its‘length rested. Line segments which occupied the same vector and were less than four miles (% inch on the original base map) apart were recorded as one lineament. All E-W and N-S trending lineaments were listed as N 90 E and N O E respectively. 5 From this file, rose diagrams and histograms were created on the GALCOMP plotter using standard FORTRAN commands. The rose diagrams (Figures 5-13) portrayed the number of lineaments observed per degree from N 90 W to N 90 E for each separate geologic category and for all categories combined. The histograms (Figures 15-23) portray average length of lineaments for each category and a summary of all categories through the simple mean equation (sum of length of lineaments/total number of lineaments) per five degree intervals. A planimeter was used to measure the area covered by each time interval. These results were then used to correct the differences, due to areal extent, that would arise in the total number and average length of lineaments observed in each interval. Statistical tests were run on the lineament azimuths to determine randomness of the data and overall goodness of fit to a wrenching deformation model (Moody and Hill, 1956). Well data for the oil fields studied were obtained from drillers logs from the Geology Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Oil fields were selected on the basis of the number of well sites, their location in the Basin, and the nature of the surrounding township and range baselines and meridians (see appendix B). Geologic horizons were picked out for each oil field according to their position in the stratigraphic column, the formations present in the area and the constancy with which the drillers and/or geologists had been able to identify the target formation. 6 A FORTRAN computer program developed for the mathematical conversion from township and range notation to Cartesian co- ordinates (Good, 1964) was modified and used as a location identifier for subsequent use on the SURFACE II computer map— ping program. This program also featured a scaling routine that fit data with any range of X and Y extremes into a 12” by 12" area. SURFACE II is a computer software system used for the creation of displays of spatially distributed data. A contour map is the basic form of graphic display produced by this program. Data input is required to be in the X, Y, Z form, where X and Y are location identifiers and Z is a finite value or identification number associated with that point. The only restrictions are that the coordinate variables must be orthogonal and the Z variable must be single valued. Portrayal of the data as a contoured surface requires either the data to be read in neatly spaced on a regular pattern or, for randomly spaced data, the creation of a grid by the program. In the latter case size and shape of the grid and methods used in estimating values at grid nodes can be performed automatically or can be specified by the user. The resultant maps can be drawn by either the CALGOMP plotter or a line printer. Maps created on the plotter are more accurate and are the more aesthetically pleasing of the two. Various other capabilities such as posting of data points, manipulation of gridded data, perspective block 7 diagrams, stereographic projections, map overlays, trend sur- face analysis, histogram generation, error analysis and first derivative calculation are also available through SURFACE II. Linear trends were extracted from the SURFACE II gener- ated contour maps and these were compared to the lineament data through harmonic analysis. A FORTRAN computer program was used to perform the harmonic analysis on Lower Peninsula LANDSAT data and on the oil field linear trend data respec- tively. Results of the tests were then graphed to see if a possible correlation between the two exists. Previous Work Several studies have been made regarding the relation- ship between known faults and lineament data. Although there was some apprehension as to the reliability of the early data gathering process (ERTS-l and aerial photographs) and the fact that some lineaments do not coincide with known faults, it is generally agreed that a positive correlation between the two does exist. Kaiser (1950) observed lineaments associated with zones of close-spaced random joints, with swarms of parallel joints, and with abrupt but minor changes in the strike of sedimentary beds. He suggested those lineaments not directly related to faults or lithologic changes may reflect structures having a common origin with echelon fault belts, transcurrent fault zones and related structures. Kaiser believed lineaments were 8 passive structures produced by recurrent movements of basement blocks. Hoppin (1974) reported in many cases lineaments have been demonstrated to be very old deep faults that have a history of repeated activity. Attempts to fit lineaments of the Central Rocky Mountains into a simple wrench-fault model did not work because of the overall complexity of the region and failure of the researchers to take all variables into account. Werner (1975), studying lineaments ranging in length from 50-1000 kilometers mapped from ERTS mosaics and supplemented by other photography, found that lineaments were frequently sites for termination or offset of structural axes in the Appalachian Plateau region and in the Valley and Ridge province. Except for the Mid-Continent region, no known faults were found to coincide with the lineaments. He suggested lineaments are deep fracture zones in the sedimentary column which might be inherited from basement structure. Prouty (1976) performed frequency analysis using LANDSAT lineament azimuths in a transect from eastern Pennsylvania to Iowa (including the Michigan Basin) and found cluster tenden- cies whose orientations were similar to major Michigan Basin structures. He believes lineaments are faults and their related structures. These faults and their related structural patterns are attributed to periodic reactivation along Precambrian lines of weakness. Prouty concluded these faults fit a wrenching deformation model with the shearing stresses coming from a 9 general eastward direction with the dominant stress occurring in Post—Osagean, Mississippian time. Gassinis (1977), through the use of satellite data, studied the correlation between lineaments and faults in Italy and found, in general, there was a close agreement between their azimuth directions. He also discovered that the number of lineaments exceeded that of the observed faults by many times. Gassinis further observed that the older tectonic patterns were very often rejuvenated by subsequent periods of orogeny. The harmonic analysis performed by the writer on the relationship between linear trends observed in oil fields and on lineament data azimuths is based on studies explaining structure according to patterns of facies changes in carbonates. Jackson (1958), Ells (1962), Dastanpour (1977), Hamrick (1978), Hyde (1979), and Ten Have (1979) have all inferred faults in oil fields based on the geometry of dolomite-fracture porosity fields. GENERAL STRATIGRAPHY This study encompassed the entire time stratigraphic sequence of rocks present in Michigan. Lineaments were found to exist in the oldest Precambrian rocks right up through to sediments that are Upper Jurassic in age. Lithologic descrip- tions are generalized. Major revisions in Precambrian nomenclature have occurred since Figure 1 was produced (James, 1972). Precambrian W refers to the period of earth history prior to 2.5 Ca, also known as the Archean. This replaces such terms as Keewatin and Laurentian, the period terminated with what is referred to as the Algoman Orogeny in the U.S.A. (Kenoran in Canada). The period post 2.5 Ga before present (B.P.) up to the begin- ning of the Cambrian, 0.6 Ca B.Pu is referred to as the Proterozoic and is divided into three parts. Precambrian X, formerly Middle Precambrian and Huronian as shown on Figure 1 ranges from 2.5 Ca to 1.6 Ga and in Michigan it was represented by the Marquette Range Supergroup (Cannon and Gair, 1970) which contains the well-known banded iron formations. Precambrian Y ranges from 1.6 Ga B.P. to 0.8 Ca B.P. and contains the Keweenawan rocks of Michigan which are thought to be associated with an approximately one billion year old intracontinental rift system (Chase and Gilmer, 1973; Halls, 1978; and Fowler and Kuenzi, 1978). 10 ll Precambrian Z covers the period of time from 0.8 Ca B.P. to 0.57 Ga B.P. The only unit which may belong to this period in Michigan is the Jacobsville sandstone. Placement of the Jacobsville formation in this time frame has been contested as some prefer to classify it as defining the base and middle of the Cambrian system (Figure 3). Whether it truly belongs with the Cambrian or Precambrian is a matter of conjecture but for the purpose of this study it shall be termed Precambrian Z. The Precambrian W in oldest to youngest order, consists of schists, greenstones, granite gneiss, metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks and a gneissic granite. The Precambrian X succession goes from dolomite and quartzites on the bottom; iron formations, slate, and quartzites in the middle; and graywackes, slate, basic volcanics and local iron formations at the top. Precambrian Y is represented by sandstones, conglomerates and extrusive volcanics. The general lithology of Precambrian Z, as has already been discussed, is a sandstone. Cambrian rocks were comprised of sandstones and dolomite. Ordovician rocks in Michigan are primarily carbonates and shales that have roughly the same gross characteristics through- out the Basin. The St. Peter sandstone, a clean white sand found mostly in western Michigan, is a notable exception. 12 Figure 3 mm .5... ruin!” “235 3.605.... 154.2533 m 55: 230$: 9903: IILHHM ; m pleul 35m 3.5... 55: 5: 2.3.5.2 2. 20.3525 uiaéuzaas .18.... 13 Early Silurian time was characterized by dolomite and shale. Middle Silurian time is marked by the growth of large reefs, followed by a series of evaporites in Late Silurian time. Early Devonian rocks consisted of carbonates which were periodically upwarped and eroded. An evaporite basin formed in Middle Devonian time and was followed by extensive carbon- ate deposition. Black shales blanketed the Michigan area during Late Devonian time. The Mississippian is composed primarily of shales, silt- stones, and sandstones. Some carbonate and anhydrite units occur in Late Mississippian time. Pennsylvanian rocks are cyclothemic in nature and this sequence is characterized by sandstones, black shales, gray and buff limestones, light underclays, and thin coal seams. Surfaces of unconformity are frequent in this section. Jurassic age sediments are generally termed as "Red Beds". These consist of poorly consolidated sands and shales. Gypsum is present at various intervals. GENERAL STRUCTURE The Michigan Basin is a roughly circular depositional province that consists of the entire Lower Peninsula of Michigan, the eastern half of the Upper Peninsula the area overlain by Lake Michigan and Lake Huron and small portions of Ontario, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. It contains sediments from almost all of the Paleozoic systems and these are overlain in the central area of the Basin by Mesozoic sediments that are Upper Jurassic in age. There are several major frame structures bordering the Basin (Figure 4). These are thought to have defined the overall shape of the Basin and may have been factors in the formation of some intrabasinal structures (Ells, 1969). The majority of these intrabasinal structures trend generally northwest-southeast. The Basin is bounded on the west by the Wisconsin Arch, to the northwest by the Wisconsin Highlands, and on the north and northeast by the Canadian Shield. The Algonquin Arch lies to the east in Ontario, the Findlay Arch borders the Basin to the southeast in northern Ohio and the Kankakee Arch is to the southwest in northern Indiana and northeastern Illinois. The intrabasinal structures are anticlinal in nature and were contributing factors in the development of some theories regarding the origin of the Michigan Basin. Pirtle (1932) and Newcombe (1933) believed the origin of the basin was related to the Keweenawan disturbance 14 15 ,// LAKE ‘\\ SUPERIOR CANADA UPPER WISCONSIN DOME WISCM SIN HDUV NODS‘M ILLINOIS Figure 4 l6 acting against the Wisconsin Arch causing a compressional downwarp in Michigan. Evolution of the Basin to its present form was controlled by subsequent periods of stress. The anticlinal fold trends were suggested to have been controlled by zones of weakness in the basement rocks and formation of structures continued relative to these zones of weakness dur- ing successive periods of compression through geologic time. Kirkham's (1937) concept of the origin of the Michigan Basin was that of a compound graben caused by collapse of magma chambers. He theorized that bodies of magma moving from one part of the earth's crust to another was accompanied by subsidence of the crust in a primarily vertical direction. The Precambrian surface was said to be marked by a pattern of joints, shear zones, faults, and rifts which Kirkham described as zones of weakness. The anticlinal folds were believed to have been formed by vertically acting forces along these zones of weakness. Lockett (1947) claimed the subsidence of the basin was due to the mass of sediments deposited from the positive structural features that surround it. He postulated these positive structures are underlain by the cores of Precambrian mountains. Orogenic forces were discounted as a cause in basin form- ation and as a factor in forming the anticlinal structural trends. Lockett believed the system of fractures or lines of weakness and the associated anticlinal folds were a result of simple subsidence. 17 Hinze and Merritt (1969), using data from gravity and magnetic studies of the Michigan Basin, suggested a rift zone had a dominant role in its origin. Isostatic sinking of the Basin could have been a result of additional mass caused by the outpouring of Keweenawan mafic rocks in the basement com- plex. Subsequent deformation was associated with movements along lines of weakness in the basement related to the rift zone . LINEAMENT STUDY LANDSAT Imagery The LANDSAT satellites carry two types of sensor systems: three Return Beam Vidicon (RBV) television cameras and a Multispectral Scanner (M88). The MSS system is a mechanical line scanning device using an oscillating mirror to simultane- ously scan, in four separate regions or bands, the earth's landscape passing beneath the spacecraft. The scanner detects electromagnetic radiation (or the intensity of reflected light) from the earth's surface. A summary of the wavelength used and spectral range for each band and sensor type is listed in Table 1. Table l - Spectral Bands (from Enslin, 1977) Band Sensor Wavelength (nanometers) Spgctral Range 1 RBV 475-575 blue-green 2 RBV 580-680 red 3 RBV 690-830 near infrared 4 M83 500-600 green 5 M88 600-700 red 6 M88 700-800 near infrared 7 M88 800-1100 near infrared The above wavelengths fall into the reflected infrared range. Fault zones or other cracks in the bedrock are believed to be detected by differences in reflected radiation caused by the presence of moisture in the cracks (Rudd, 1974). Water absorbs infrared more effectively than it does the visible wavelength so a land/water boundary becomes evident. Data 18 19 observed by the scanners can be affected by the time of day in which it is recorded and by atmospheric conditions. One LANDSAT scene covers an area of 115 by 115 miles. An arbitrary forward overlap of approximately 10% occurs between consecutive LANDSAT images. Sidelap between adjacent orbits is about 37% for Michigan. Definition There is a considerable amount of controversy-over the meaning of the term LINEAMENT. The main points of debate center around the scale and or continuity of the features. Hobbs (1904) defines the term as nothing more than a generally rectilinear earth feature. Kaiser (1950) notes that a lineament is a straight linear feature many hundreds of feet and commonly many miles long. Lattman (1958) stated a lineament is a feature extending greater than one mile. Any linear feature expressed continu— ously for less than a mile was termed a fracture trace. HOppin (1974) identified lineaments as being lines or zones of structural discordance of regional (100 kilometers or longer) extent. They are expressed at the surface by alignment of combinations of single rectilinear elements less than 100 kilometers in length called linears. Werner (1977) suggested the term be modified to indicate the source and type of features which are aligned. He offered for example the terms photolineament, structural lineament, aeromagnetic lineament, t0pographic lineament, and geologic lineament. 20 The tectonic definition from a geologic dictionary (Matthews, 1976) states a lineament is a straight or gently curved lengthy feature on the earth's surface. For the purpose of this study, this definition will suffice. Lineament Relationships General This study attempts to measure the amount and types of relationships that may exist between four variables: number of lineaments, age of bedrock in which they are observed, length of lineaments and azimuth direction. It is hoped these relationships may provide information as to the timing and type of deformation of the Michigan Basin and its surrounding area. Past studies have indicated an association between zones of weakness in the basement complex and lineaments (Kaiser, 1950; Hoppin, 1974; Werner, 1975; Prouty, 1976; Gassinis, 1977). It is upon this premise which much of the following discussion, experimentation, and statistical analysis is based. Number of Lineaments vs. Age As seen in Table 2, the number of lineaments observed per geologic time interval increases until Middle Mississippian time, after which (except for the large number in Pennsylvanian time) it generally decreases. Controlling factors which could be responsible for this phenomenon are areal size covered by each time interval, lithology (rupture strength of bedrock), orogeny, basinal settling, and data gathering limitations. 21 Table 2 - Number of Lineaments Per Time Interval vs. Area Number of Lineaments Interval Number of Lineaments Area per unit area 1 34 1.6 21.25 2 206 5.4 38.15 3 69 1.7 40.59 4 397 14.1 28.16 5 142 11.9 11.93 6 41 3.0 13.67 7 33 2.1 15.71 8 15 .9 16.67 Mean = 23.27 Standard deviation =Tll.15 22 Referring to Figure 2, a positive correlation seems to exist between the areal extent of a particular time interval and the number of lineaments recorded for that interval. Logically, the greater the area covered by a time interval the greater the number of lineaments. To test this the number of lineaments per unit area was obtained by dividing the total number of lineaments for a particular time interval, by the area it covered on a large scale version of Figure 1. If the number of lineaments seen in each interval is indeed controlled by areal size, the number of lineaments in each interval when corrected for area should be roughly the same. Results of this test (Table 2) show that corrected values for five of the eight time categories fall within one standard deviation of the mean, indicating areal size is indeed a major factor in controlling the number of lineaments observed in each time interval. The rupture strength of the rock beds may determine the amount and type of fracturing likely to be produced when the rock is subjected to stress. Unfortunately, any attempt at determining the rupture strength of the rocks in question is beyond the sc0pe of this study. Recurrent stresses, produced by orogenic episodes or basinal settling, act upon basement faults and cause movement along these old lines of weakness, Transferral of these stresses causes fracturing in the overlying beds and some of these effects are depicted at the surface as lineaments. 23 It has been suggested (Prouty, 1976) this fracturing would occur according to the wrenching-deformation model. Stresses produced by basinal settling and changes in depocenter location might also account for a difference in lineament occurrence. Effects of these stresses would be ob- served primarily in the basin area. There is some debate as to when the basin actually began to subside. Sufficient well control is available to show a well defined depocenter in Ordovician time (Cohee, 1948). This depocenter was located in the middle eastern part of the state covering the Thumb area, Saginaw Bay, and part of Lake Huron. The depocenter switched back and forth on a North-South axis prior to Mid Mississippian time. At this point the depocenter moved to a location roughly in the middle of the Lower Peninsula (Prouty, 1972). Increased stresses caused by this shifting and by regular subsidence could have reactivated the basement faults or could have possibly created new ones. This would result in a more diffuse orientation seen in the lineaments. The greatest stress (from the Appalachians) and the time most folded structures are believed (Prouty, 1972) to have occurred in the Basin was Post-Osage Mississippian time. This also is believed to be the time of shifting of the depocenter to the present central position in the Lower Peninsula. This compares favorably with the high number of lineaments seen in that time interval. The high number of lineaments occurring 24 in Pennsylvanian time may reflect the continued orogenic stresses in Late Paleozoic time. A general factor that affects the number of lineaments observable from LANDSAT imagery is the extent of cloud cover. During the mapping procedures in which the basic lineament map was developed, Prouty (1981) indicates that by use of several different passes by the LANDSAT satellite in the same path (18 day intervals) it was generally possible to observe cloud-free conditions. The most notable exception to this was in a small area of the north central Lower Peninsula, in parts of the time interval designated number 4. Azimuth Directions Vs. Number and Age Tests and graphic displays were made to determine if a preferred orientation of the lineaments was evident for each time interval and for all intervals combined. Rose diagrams were constructed and a statistical analysis that attempted to fit the observed number of lineament azimuths to a wrenching-deformation model was performed. The Rose diagrams (Figures 5-13) were prepared to give a rough generalization as to the directions of preferred orientation. It was hoped clustering tendencies (a succession of azimuth directions containing a higher concentration of lineaments) would readily become apparent. Unfortunately no definite set of preferred orientations presents itself. Using the wrenching deformation model (of Moody and Hill, 1956, Figure 14) a more precise method of determining the 25 extent of preferred orientation was attempted. Ideally, accord- ing to this model there are twelve principle directions along which fractures and their associated folds would be likely to develop. Primary lst-order wrenches would be defined in two directions, primary folding in one direction, 2nd-order wrenches in four directions, 2nd-order drag folds in two directions, 3rd-order wrenches along four directions, and 3rd-order drag folds occur in one direction. This adds up to fourteen direc- tions, but two of the four azimuth trends for 3rd—order wrenches are parallel to the primary lst-order wrenches, hence only 12 directions are represented. This model also assumes the materi- al which is being fractured is homogenous, isotropic, and that the faulting stresses and motions are essentially horizontal. Direction of the primary stress controls the azimuth at which a particular structural feature would appear. The same azimuth numbers reoccur with every 15 degree rotation from a base point. For example, the exact same set of azimuth direc- tions would occur at N 0 E as there would be at N 15 E, N 30 E, N 15 W, etc. The only variables are the type of deformational structure defined by a particular azimuth. An example of this is in a primary stress from N 90 E a primary lst-order wrench would occur at N 60 E, while rotating the primary stress to S 75 E the feature described at N 60 E would be a 2nd-order drag fold. 26 CALL] m muswwm unm¢mDm mmmm: mwzamo >m mpzwzmmzuq mo zwmzaz :323: om cm or om om ov cm on Oh om om ow om ON ON 0.— D D~ DEGREE W UPPER T0 LOWER PENNSYLVRNIHN Figure 6 28 m o m muswfim qumaHmmewH: mmmm: z o uwmouo >m whzwzcuzum Lo «muzzz 29 w wndwfim quzo>mE moiuzq .wsz chmmewwafiz mmzom mmmmmmmmm De / uuuuuu Z . a u N m v mmmm \ // / ../,,,,//I I I! My mmlml -yuxsssso fiQ/i - \ . 2 fl // logos». 1.. a? 4&2 \’.\\\ .3 E? / L n: D n: 30- zaammzau mmaa: m w v m N u o m oudwwm mo tor—om Op chzo>mo mmmm: z a — N m uwzcuo >m mhzuzcuz_4 Lo «meta: mo ace 31 N-> 26..qu «.0 ”Eu wuxawo >m whzuzmwzum mo muons: 32 HA muswnm X Zquunme mmzowo >m mhzwzcwzaq mo mumzaz 33 NH shaman 2 23% 23mg mumcwo >m mhzwzmw2~4 mo mwmtzz 50 6, \\ ){z yq7tzg~m ” ’l‘ '0 WHEN/"ii osgr ""' w, 60 l g/\ a ’1! ll Q l s“ § 8 & F 00 90 0|23455789l011121314 NUHBER OF LINEHHENI’S BY DEGREE W JURFISSIC THROUGH PRECHMBRIRN W 14131211109 8 '7 6 5 4 3 2 I 0 Figure 13 35 i 3H shaman mm 7.02me “.0 244a 50:83 router—EN 28 use .85.. .5 r oo¢/\ m :82: .35 IE» «7/ 3 \ ,X woo 28 2% rout/o 2.5. \. 9 I \a. 50:23 330 -3. / é 1K9 00 . / R 0... use \A, a /r x \ _ 28 I 32:. wmwmhm >m<§_mn_ L9 k. m Ill IIIIILI ; / 28 no... .35.. Rm 5.". \ ov/oo 2“ I 3M... .Io \\ . \ / fins mi 5:23 .35.. a». taste as \ _ .w \vfi. / / \ 8. an/ 28 as... suflflufi w. _ / \ \3 “.on Ameld A a u a 52.23 .35-ch o o u m 2 36 Method The percentage of lineaments observed in a :_3 degree standard deviation around a direction of proposed preferred orientation under the wrenching-deformation model was compiled for five different principle stress azimuths. Each principle stress direction was rotated 3 degrees from the previous example. In this way, along with the margin of standard deviation, a representative sample of the goodness of fit to the wrenching model for all possible primary directions was obtained. From the equation: E(l)=((standard deviation x 2)+1)/180 the expected percentage (E) of lineaments to be observed at each azimuth direction if the sampling was random can be obtained. In this case a random sampling of 4% of the lineaments would be expected to fall in each set. To measure the percentage of lineaments expected to fit the wrenching deformation model for a random sampling the equation: E(2)=(((standard deviation x 2)+1)x12)/180 is used. In this study a random sample of 47% of the total lineaments would be expected to fit the model. Three equations were used to compute the percentage of the actual number of lineaments observed (A) that fit the wrenching deformation model. These represented percentages for goodness of fit for overall direction, time interval, and total time combined. 37 A(l)= total number of lineaments in one direction total number of lineamentsgin Michigan A(2)= total number of lineaments in a time interval that fit model total number of711neaments contained in that time intervaI A(3)= total number of lineaments overall that fit model total number of lineaments in MiChigan The compilation of these data (Tables 3-7) shows the percentage of lineaments that fit the wrenching model per geologic time interval and overall time for each primary stress direction. Percentage of overall number of lineaments that fit a proposed direction of preferred orientation is also given. Interpretation According to these tests there is nothing to definitely indicate that the lineaments observed in Michigan fit into a wrenching deformation model. None of the precentages record- ed for overall fit, time interval, or any particular direction of preferred orientation are significantly above what would be expected for a random sampling. Hoppin (1974), reported attempts to fit lineaments from the Central Rocky Mountain region into a wrenching deformation pattern meet with a similar lack of success. The wrench-fault hypothesis requires that each lineament set have the same sense of horizontal slip. Hoppin stated because lineaments are ancient faults that have been reactivated many times with differing resultant styles of deformation and senses of fault slip, attempts to equate them with a simplified wrench-fault system are unsatisfactory. 38 Considering the diversity of modes of stress extant in the Michigan Basin (differential basinal settling, depocenter re— location, orgenic episodes), this explanation might apply to the failure of this endeavor. 39 Table 3 - Wrenching deformation model, Principle stress from N 0 E Time Interval A(1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Tot. % N 75 W 3 8 2 21 8 2 1 0 45 5 N 60 W 2 13 2 17 4 O 2 0 4O 4 N 45 W 1 6 6 18 7 1 1 0 40 4 N 30 W 5 7 1 10 14 1 2 0 4O 4 N 15 W 3 7 3 19 11 2 0 1 36 4 E-W 3 9 1 8 16 1 1 O 39 4 N 15 E 1 16 1 8 1 2 1 O 30 3 N 30 E 1 6 4 13 4 0 3 0 31 3 N 45 E 1 16 4 2O 7 1 3 3 55 6 N 60 E 1 5 5 17 3 3 0 2 36 4 N 75 E 1 7 0 14 2 3 0 2 29 3 N-S 2 11 2 11 5 0 1 1 32 3 Tot. 24 111 31 176 82 16 15 9 464 N 34 206 69 397 142 41 33 15 937 A(2)% 71 54 45 44 58 39 45 60 50% A(3) 40 Table 4 - Wrenching deformation model, Principle stress from N 3 E Time Interval A(1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Tot. % N 87 W 2 14 1 10 7 1 1 1 37 4 N 72 W 3 9 1 18 8 3 1 0 43 5 N 57 W 1 12 1 19 5 0 0 O 39 4 N 42 W 0 4 6 15 7 1 1 1 35 4 N 27 W 4 7 1 6 8 1 2 O 29 3 N 12 W 4 5 3 19 9 2 O 1 43 5 N 3 E 3 10 4 12 6 1 1 O 37 4 N 18 E 0 11 2 12 4 3 0 O 32 3 N 33 E 1 7 5 13 4 1 2 0 33 3 N 48 E 1 17 5 19 2 O 5 1 5O 5 N 63 E 2 8 5 16 2 2 O 1 26 3 N 78 E 0 7 0 10 2 2 O 2 23 2 Tot. 21 111 34 169 64 17 13 7 436 N 34 206 69 397 142 41 33 15 937 A(2)% 62 54 49 43 45 41 39 47 47% A(3) 41 Table 5 - Wrenching deformation model, Principle stress from N 6 E Time Interval A(1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Tot. % N 84 W 2 9 3 10 4 1 0 0 29 3 N 69 W 0 6 3 20 5 4 1 l 40 4 N 54 W 2 15 1 25 6 0 1 0 50 5 N 39 W 0 6 3 20 5 l 4 1 40 4 N 24 W 0 5 1 ll 11 3 3 0 34 4 N 9 W l 7 2 16 11 1 0 O 38 4 N 6 E 1 5 4 13 1 2 0 0 26 3 N 21 E 0 5 5 19 3 5 1 1 39 4 N 36 E O 5 2 l4 2 1 O 1 25 3 N 51 E 0 8 8 22 3 0 3 0 44 5 N 66 E 2 ll 5 22 1 2 0 0 43 5 N 81 E 0 3 0 8 l 4 1 l 18 2 Tot. 7 85 37 200 53 24 14 5 432 N 34 206 69 397 142 41 '33 15 937 A(2)% 21 41 54 50 37 59 42 33 45% A(3) 42 Table 6 - Wrenching deformation model, Principle stress from N 9 E Time Interval A(1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Tot. % N 81 W 1 5 4 12 2 0 O 0 24 3 N 66 W 2 7 3 l3 4 2 2 3 36 4 N 51 W l 16 4 28 9 l l 0 6O 6 N 36 W 2 6 0 l4 6 0 7 0 35 4 N 21 W 0 7 1 17 12 2 3 0 42 4 N 6 W l 6 3 17 14 2 0 0 43 5 N 9 E l 10 2 12 O 4 0 0 29 3 N 24 E 0 3 7 21 3 3 l 1 39 4 N 39 E 0 6 2 21 6 2 2 l 40 4 N 54 E 0 5 6 l4 2 1 1 0 29 3 N 69 E 1 l4 2 22 l 2 0 0 42 4 N 84 E 0 1 0 8 l 3 1 0 l4 1 Tot. 9 86 34 199 60 22 18 5 433 N 34 206 69 397 142 41 33 15 937 A(2)% 26 42 49 50 42 54 55 33 46% A(3) 43 Table 7 - Wrenching deformation model, Principle stress from N 12 E Time Interval A(1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Tot. % N 78 W 2 4 1 17 7 0 O 0 31 3 N 63 W 2 10 2 14 5 2 2 3 40 4 N 48 W 1 11 4 24 12 1 0 O 53 6 N 33 W 5 5 1 13 10 O 6 0 4O 4 N 18 W O 8 4 18 11 3 1 1 46 5 N 3 W 3 7 3 13 15 3 1 O 45 5 N 12 E 1 15 1 9 0 2 1 O 29 3 N 27 E 1 4 5 12 1 1 3 0 27 3 N 42 E O 9 2 2O 9 1 5 2 28 3 N 57 E O 6 6 19 3 2 O 1 37 4 N 72 E 2 10 2 13 O 4 0 0 31 3 N 87 E 1 7 2 13 1 0 1 0 25 3 Tot. 18 96 33 185 74 19 20 7 452 N 34 206 69 397 142 41 33 15 937 A(2)% 53 47 48 47 52 46 61 47 48% A(3) 44 Test for Randomness Having concluded there is no relationship between azimuth direction and number of lineaments according to the wrenching model, the data must be tested to see if it is truly random. A common measure of the discrepancy between two variables, that is, how far the observed data differs from what would be expected under no association, is the chi square(-xf)statistic. Method The number of lineaments per five degree interval was recorded from N 90 E to N 90 W. These values were then substituted into the equation: 1' = 3‘ (Obs-Exp) I gExp where the expected value (Exp) is equal to: Ex = Total number of lineaments p Number of 5 degree intervals The probability if there is no association, of getting a‘xf at least as large as the one calculated is called the level of 16. This is given approximately by the following formula: Level of‘xf= 2H(\I-1LI ) Thus the level of the calculated'xfin this case is: 2H(\I72.425> = 2H(8.51) 45 This value is higher than 4.45, which is the highest number listed for Ti'in the available Normal Distribution table. H(1fi) for 4.45 is .00000429. Interpretation If there were no association between number of lineaments and azimuth direction the chance of getting a sample at least as far from the expected value, as measured by 16 , would be less than .00000429. This test confirms that a relationship does exist but it does not indicate what kind of relationship it is. It merely states the observed pattern of lineament number to azimuth direction is not random. Discussion The preceding tests indicate that the number of lineaments observed and their orientations are independent of lithology, time, and location. These findings are compatible with those of Holst and Foote (1981 b), who found upon measurement of close to 5,000 joints in Devonian age rocks from Charlevoix, Michigan, to Alpena, Michigan, that fluctuations in mean orientation of joint sets were independent of formation, lithology, and distance between sample stations. This is not to infer that in actuality LANDSAT lineaments represent joints. However, Prouty (1975) suggests, upon favorable comparison of frequency analyses performed on 46 lineament azimuths to those on joint patterns from outcrop measurements, that a relationship between the orientations of the two does exist. Length vs Age Possible factors controlling the length of a lineament are rupture strength of the rock and areal size covered by the time interval. Rupture strength, as previously mentioned, could not be ascertained in this study. Areal size however, through use of a planimeter, was determined. Because of the method of placing lineaments that crossed interval boundaries into the interval in which the majority of the lineament length rested, length of lineaments per time interval is biased towards the intervals which cover a larger amount of area (i.e. the larger the area, the greater the probability of having the longer lineaments placed in that interval). An attempt was made to remove some of this bias by dividing the average length of the total number of lineaments observed per time interval by the total area covered by that interval. When corrected for area, it would be expected that all average lengths would be very nearly the same. The results of this test (Table 8) show that seven of the eight time intervals are within one standard deviation of the mean indicating that areal size is a major factor in controlling the average length of lineament per time interval. 47 Table 8 - Average Length Per Time Interval vs. Area Average Length Interval (in miles) Area Length per Unit Area 1 5.28 1.6 3.3 2 4.9 5.4 .91 3 7.52 1.7 4.42 4 6.72 14.1 .48 5 4.9 11.9 .41 6 6.08 3.0 2.03 7 4.64 2.1 2.21 8 1.6 .9 1.78 Mean = 1.94 II I. I—‘ Standard deviation - .40 48 Length vs Azimuth Direction and Age Histograms showing the average length of all lineaments occurring within five degree intervals were prepared for each geologic time interval and for all time intervals combined (Figures 15-23). Generally, the length was affected by the number of lineaments used to calculate the average. As a whole, length does not appear to be related to azimuth direc- tion. 49 AH muswne mud: 0‘ u .26sz 355:. l wJEEUhE mum—own /. -’ m >m wmoczu>c Z ommaoembormcowmwom mv o¢ mnom mwowm~a~m o m a: m— oumwom man: ovommmcwmmohmbcomoom ._ @l / \\ _ _ .m ; r , e .. . , , .# _ a a. d _ _ m I ——~ unwqup mmmm: QP‘DWQMN—D --o c-o-m N— n— «— mud: z. 2.52.: 50 Ga muswam «3:. Z a 7:275 35.27.. 7.. . 2:77:32. ”.7573: m. m E museum; 3 ommoowmbobmmowmmcmm¢0¢mmommwoumuo—m A m a:m—O‘NmNoMmmocmvomwwcmmmobmbocmocm 77/ l 7/ 7 _ 267/5/ 71. as 7.. /m7 78/. 7 m L0 “-5— :7 chz¢>J>wzzmm mmzom 7.: O op mmmm: mDmeVON-‘O #6 “fl N— 1'” cud—I mud: :— 2.52m: 51 AH mnswam Qua—z z a tho-fig ueccu>¢ I m m4:>¢w.—2— Hague w >m @3533. 2 cmmooomrormmommmommvovmnonmwouw—onm D m c—m—cumwonmnovmvommmomMDOPmbonmeom qummewwaH: mmmm: OhIDLO'MNv-‘D -° onto-O) «— n— I mud: :— :2“qu 52 ma muawam mug—t on a theta; 3¢xU>¢ I w 953.93: mum—ow: m >9 wuocxwzu ammooomhohmmommmommvovmnommwowm—o.m /J\\ m\ o—m—oumwcmmmn;m¢cmmmommoohmboamccm //////////////////77 77 77/. 7 27 7 / m7 +7 .7 .1 . / : 7: Q a: 7 .. T zcfizo>wo m0\oz¢ \ 7.]. $4; _ \ m\ ._ :3 77 _:._ o§ =+=””' if? .wsz zqmmmHmmemHz mmzom CIDFCDIDVMN—D c—O —— ~— '03 0“ mud: :— :bczua 53 o7 shaman and: on a .3954 U955»: I m m4¢>zuhz_ uuzuuo m rm wuoczm>c z omnooomvahmocw/mmowmecemmomwwcww—o—w /o w o—muowwuomwmo¢m7vommmoMmeohmhoomMom //// . 7 _ 77.77 7 7 a /./:\ 77/7777 ? 77,7777 \\\:0 7.7 ‘c \O OQI‘IDLD'MNflC ---6 ~— ~— QM o-u— mud: z. 2.52“...— z¢7mmz¢u mmaa: lo :077om O7 z¢7zo>me mmaa: mo a07 54 ON muswam and: o— a 8.3qu 353;: i m m..c>zu.-z— uuzcuo w >m @3553. x ammoawmbobmwommmommvDvmmcmmwowmuanm o m Dum—owmwommmovmccmwmcmmmohmboowcom , m m 4 _ (“C «3.7 _ 7/ 77 77 7 N7, 2377978 mad OIDI‘IDID'DN—D 'mNflc o-l—‘v‘u-l—fl mud: z. zhczum 55 7N waswaa ova:- v— a .30qu 853).. fl m41>zuhz_ uuguo m w >0 wuc¢¢u>¢ z ammooombohmmowwmommvovmncmmucwmncum o m A:muowmuommmcvmvommmowmwObmhcmmocm 7 x 27.77 amiaumaa / \ :7 7177 g .—:m X OFIDIDCMN—D u-D «Ila-la) N— m. o— mud: :— :hczug 56 NN muswflm and: o— a £93.. 3553. I I mdc>zubzu uwzamo L m >0 mwo¢¢w>c 3 ommoonmho. mwogmnommc ovmmomwwowm— o_ m o m A: w—owmwommno¢wv owmmowmmormhoomaom d d _ _ _ _ _ h d 3. H szszmaa wamvnN—u “D ant-Ia) N— m— c— mud: z. .393... 57 mm muswflm and: z 5 E954 ue¢¢u>¢ I m «4555:: uwxcwo m >m mwoczu>c z omwmoombohmoomwmommvovmmommuoum~n:m o w o—m—owmucmmmovmvommmowmmchmhccmacm a, g A : / / mm .; 7 mqflqr.¢ .q‘« E V \ w da sq mm mm ‘\ \\\\ 53 Um|.m3fiw mpzmzqmzHJ mo m©¢mm>¢ 44¢mm>o mohwmvnN—c o— N— n— v— mud: :— :hozua LINEAMENTS VS OIL FIELD TRENDS Past studies, as referenced earlier, have suggested many, perhaps all, of the linear oil fields in Michigan are fault related. It was hOped that since lineaments are prOposed faults, a correlation would exist between lineament azimuths of the Lower Peninsula and those of inferred linear trends extract- ed from oil field structure maps. Ten oil fields were selected for this study on the basis of number of wells drilled, nature of its surrounding township and range baselines, and their position in the Basin (Figure 24). These regulations were set to provide a good amount of well control in the creation of structure maps, an accurate con- version from township and range notation to Cartesian coordi- nates, and a representative sampling from as many areas as possible in the Michigan Basin. Geologic horizons from these oil fields were picked mainly on the constancy with which driller/geologist logs had been able to pick contact boundaries. Efforts centered on getting a sample to coincide chrono- logically with one of the five Phanerozoic time intervals created for this study. Additional horizons were picked for some oil fields in the hope that their lithology might better show a linear trend than other formations of that same field. Criteria used in extracting likely structural trends from the contour maps were largely threefold: 58 59 County Map of Lower Peninsula of Michigan YD amour IILE OTSEGO ALPENA l;rmnno xuxumg been! crook OSCODA AL CONA ISTEE WEXFONO IIBSAUKEE rOSCOMMON «as» OOEIAW WK IOOCO IAOON LAKE OSCEOLA flwumn- roll/M CLARE OLADWIN F OCEANA EWAYGO IECOOfA ISABELLA “IDLAND porter brawn ARENAC MONTCALI ORATIOT DAY taunt/in “ emu TUBCOLA SAGINAV CLINT ON IONIA LAPEEN SANILAC er‘m" DANNY EATON LMN.TON OAKLAND CALHOUN JACKSON LENAWEE OIL FIELD LOCATION MAP oil field names in lower case Figure 24 italics 60 1) Alignment and configuration (elongation) of structural high points (likely fold axes) were connected. 2) Alignment and configuration of depressed areas (likely "karsting" which appears related to faults) were connected. 3) A succession of contours elongated in a particular direction (low or high points included) were connected. Density of well control was also an important factor. Especially on the flanks of the oil fields, where the edge effects created by the gridding method used by the SURFACE II mapping program were magnified. Despite efforts towards providing uniformity of method in data gathering, interpretation of these linear trends was largely subjective. Hence, the lines depicting the linear trends (Figures 25-55) are dashed to show they are inferred. Statistical Method The number of lineaments and inferred linear trends per five degree intervals was recorded from N 90 W to N 90 E and a harmonic analysis was run on each set of data. The program used for this analysis required the data to be read in as x and y coordinates. The data was converted to the Cartesian system through the use of the equations: x = cos(d) x number of lineaments or trends y = sin(d) x number of lineaments or trends where d = the midpoint of a five degree interval starting with N 90 E as 0 and N 90 W equaling 180. It was also necessary to 61 Q + L HKRON 0 IL FIELD IUSCOLR COUNTY. HICflIOflN STRUCTURE TOP or COLDHHTER CONIOUR INTERVHL = 10 FT. = l NILE P4 9 = HELL SITE SCRLE-l.50 IN. Figure 25 62 *2 “pam JAM: u + uduc a u .2“ aw.a|u4¢um .hm ca n 4¢>¢uwza «sapzou Jchwmmz me me» uxnbuzmhm 2:323: .5230 .390”?— DJMLm 4H9 zomxm Figure 26 63 z uhun 44m: u o u4.= a u .2. ou.—nm4¢un .bm on u 4c>¢u~z~ aaohzou um¢u>¢¢h no Lab “Kabuamhm 2:383: .txaou Soon?— o.._u u .._ .3 o 2053 Figure 27 Figure 28 Page 64 Figure 29 Page 65 Figure 30 Page 66 Figure 31 Page 67 Figure 32 Page 68 Figure 33 Page 69 Figure 34 Page 70 Figure 35 Page 71 Figure 36 Page 72 Figure 37 Page 73 Figure 38 Page 74 Figure 39 Page 75 Figure 40 Page 76 Figure 41 Page 77 Figure 42 Page 78 Figure 43 Page 79 Figure 44 Page 80 Figure 45 Page 81 Figure 47 Page 83 Figure 48 Page 84 Figure 38 Page 74 Figure 39 Page 75 Figure 40 Page 76 Figure 41 Page 77 Figure 42 Page 78 Figure 43 Page 79 Figure 44 Page 80 Figure 45 Page 81 Figure 47 Page 83 Figure 48 Page 84 Figure 49 Page 85 Figure 50 Page 86 Figure 51 Page 87 ‘—*. Figure 52 Page 88 Figure 53 Page 89 Figure 54 Page 90 Figure 55 Page 91 92 calculate the x and y coordinates from 180-360 degrees because the definition of a closed shape was needed. In addition, all values had to be normalized to occur in the northeast quadrant of the Cartesian system before the harmonic analysis could be performed. The technique utilized in this analysis yields a mathe- matical model that will regenerate the shape of the outline of the data. An explanation of this method is given by Erlich and Weinberg (1970). The results of each analysis were plotted on semilogarith- mic graph paper with harmonic amplitude on the ordinate scale and harmonic number on the abscissa (Figure 56). To determine the power of each amplitude peak Fisher's test of significance in harmonic analysis was used. This test determines the probability that given in a normalized form with result of the randomness of the suggests the proper application extend its use to encompass all of them are meaningful. the largest of the amplitudes, respect to the data, is the data. Shimshoni (1971) of Fisher's test would be to amplitudes to ascertain which Using tables provided by Shimshoni, it was found that all peaks observed for the inferred 95% level of significance. observed for harmonic numbers 4, oil field trends attained a While only the spectral peaks 6, 2, 16, 18, 20, 12, 28, 30, 14, and 32 achieved 95% significance for the lineament data. Points due to the randomness of encompassed by triangles. the data on Figure 56 are 93 HARMONIC AMPLITUDES LO.‘ ‘0 l \ e l/ ° '_ L \ . /.__\ . o e \ . \ 1x ’ I / \ \ I \e \ ‘0— \ Q I l / Q \ I l / \I l / A l M \ I l / .0k1 l/ o—o 2:55;?" O-—O LINEAMENTS ‘00. I T I I j I I I I I T I I I I I T 2468nonzmleuezozzzazezeaoazu HARMONIC NUMBER GRAPH OF HARMONIC ANALYSIS Figure 56 94 Interpretation Differences in the two equations (each graphed line) may arise from the size of the data, the areal extent of the data, and data compilation procedures. The problem of data size deals with the number of features used in each analysis. There are 937 lineaments, while there are only 152 linear trends. The larger number of lineaments allows a great deal of noise through randomness to affect the shape equation. Areal extent of the data pertains to source area from which the data were drawn. The lineament data are regional in nature while the oil field trends are local. Due to the diversity of stress propagation and intensity throughout the Michigan Basin, a regional set of data would contain many features not present in a more localized area. Finally, data compilation procedures can result in differ— ences in the data. Lineaments were measured directly off a map prepared from LANDSAT imagery printouts. Linear trends, as mentioned previously, were "inferred" from computer generated contour maps. The former method is objective while the latter is subjective. The number of linear trends and their azimuth directions would probably vary from one interpretation to another. Excluding all points due to randomness in the lineament data and those of their corresponding harmonic numbers for the oil field data, it is found that 7 of the 11 remaining pairs 95 of harmonic amplitudes are within close proximity of one another. In view of this fact, despite the overall difference in the equations defining the outline shape of each set of data, it must be concluded the relationship between oil field linear trends and lineaments is more than coincidental. FURTHER STUDY Retesting of the relationship between oil field structural trends and lineaments may yield more positive results by chang- ing two factors, areal size of study and contour interval, or by performing digital filtering. 1) Areal size could be changed so that instead of testing all lineaments against a group of oil fields, the number of lineaments within a prescribed radius around an oil field could be compared to linear trends observed in that oil field. 2) The contour interval used in constructing the structure maps could be reduced to 5' for all maps. In this way subtle linear trends might become more evident and larger trends could be enhanced. Attempts to do so resulted in overcrowding of the contours as drawn by the plotter on the preferred scale of the maps. If the scale were en- larged sufficiently this overcrowding would not be evident. 3) Digital filtering offers a potential for selection of linear trends in a more objective manner by decreasing background (i.e. weak structural trends) thereby making the major trends more pronounced. 96 CONCLUSIONS Certain conclusions can be advanced with respect to the results of the tests made in this study: 1) The number of lineaments observed per geologic time interval is primarily independent of lithology, location and age of rocks. 2) The lineament azimuths do not fit the wrenching deformation model for any direction of principle stress. 3) The chi square statistic suggests a relationship between azimuth direction and number of lineaments observed. Preferred orientation probably exists in a low ordered state. 4) Length of lineaments is primarily independent of lithology, location and age of rocks. 5) There is no apparent relationship between length and azimuth direction of the lineaments. 6) Although there are differences in the graphed harmonics, there appears to be sufficient evidence to conclude a relationship between lineaments and inferred trends from oil fields does exist. 97 APPENDIX A LIST OF LINEAMENT DATA Length is in inches, one inch = 16 miles All azimuth measurements are in degrees divergent from north 98 LIST OF LINEAMENT DATA UPPER JURASSIC (#1) AZIMUTH LENGTH AZIMUTH LENGTH o E .21 29 w .22 o E .22 30 w .23 3 E .13 30 w .22 12 E .32 32 w .32 30 E .14 35 w .07 46 E .12 35 w .20 61 E .41 46 w .14 64 E .43 52 w .50 69 E .47 57 w .66 74 E .55 63 w .18 88 E .35 65 w .49 4 w .79 74 w .44 11 w .18 75 w .43 13 w .32 75 w .57 14 w .31 82 w .50 14 w .17 86 w .33 29 w .21 ‘ 88 w .41 99 LIST OF LINEAMENT DATA UPPER TO LOWER PENNSYLVANIAN (#2) AZIMUTH LENGTH AZIMUTH LENGTH O E .15 16 E .18 O E .21 16 E .26 O E .35 16 E .28 O E .28 17 E .30 2 E .10 17 E .42 2 E .20 17 E .18 2 E .18 18 E .21 2 E .19 19 E .20 5 E .60 21 E .18 6 E .39 23 E .32 8 E .26 24 E .16 8 E .15 28 E .67 9 E .13 29 E .32 10 E 1.08 30 E .28 11 E .23 31 E .53 11 E .13 31 E .65 11 E .28 32 E .30 11 E .13 35 E .33 12 E .11 35 E .28 13 E .19 35 E .13 13 E .22 37 E .29 13 E .17 37 E .30 14 E .12 41 E .13 14 E .48 41 E .20 14 E .18 41 E .12 15 E .37 42 E .19 15 E .23 43 E .53 100 LIST OF LINEAMENT DATA UPPER TO LOWER PENNSYLVANIAN (#2) AZIMUTH LENGTH AZIMUTH LENGTH 44 E .13 66 E .48 45 E .37 66 E .36 45 E .42 66 E .93 45 E .39 66 E .78 46 E .63 67 E 1.07 46 E .17 68 E .19 46 E .23 68 E .23 46 E .17 69 E .30 46 E .22 69 E .43 46 E .30 69 E .21 47 E .23 69 E .33 47 E .28 71 E .56 48 E .21 71 E .27 48 E .58 72 E .16 50 E .22 73 E .61 50 E 1.22 75 E .20 50 E .11 75 E .08 51 E .23 76 E .35 52 E .97 77 E .17 52 E .18 78 E .80 56 E .34 79 E .17 56 E .24 81 E .17 58 E .13 88 E .19 60 E .65 88 E .23 60 E .12 90 E .30 60 E .13 90 E .23 62 E .68 90 E .11 101 LIST OF LINEAMENT DATA UPPER TO LOWER PENNSYLVANIAN (#2) AZIMUTH LENGTH AZIMUTH LENGTH 90 E .34 30 W .40 90 E .13 31 W .17 3 W .38 31 W .38 5 W .30 32 W .20 6 W .28 32 W .23 6 W .13 37 W .19 7 W .25 38 W .33 8 W .32 38 W .37 11 W .23 39 W .32 11 W .60 39 W .18 12 W .12 39 W .15 14 W .17 43 W .59 15 W .38 48 W .27 16 W .22 48 W .15 17 W .26 48 W .33 18 W .23 48 W .15 18 W .30 48 W .70 19 W .29 50 W .18 19 W .27 50 W .37 20 W .38 51 W .32 23 W .29 51 W .23 24 W .18 51 W .42 25 W .20 51 W .33 25 W .34 52 W .20 25 W .20 53 W .27 28 W .23 53 W .26 28 W .15 54 W .20 102 LIST OF LINEAMENT DATA UPPER TO LOWER PENNSYLVANIAN (#2) AZIMUTH LENGTH AZIMUTH LENGTH 54 w .30 68 w .23 55 w .16 69 w .33 56 w .43 71 w .15 56 w .27 72 w .31 56 w .42 72 w .26 57 w .98 73 w .14 57 w .20 74 w .45 59 w .31 74 w .66 59 w .26 75 w 1.02 59 w .38 75 w .18 59 w .08 77 w .27 61 w .35 81 w .23 61 w .42 p 82 w .22 61 w .20 84 w .33 62 w .33 84 w .20 62 w .15 84 w .23 62 w .27 86 w .13 63 w .22 86 w .14 64 w .31 87 w .21 64 w .28 87 w .18 65 w .18 88 w .20 67 w .22 88 w .41 103 LIST OF LINEAMENT DATA UPPER MISSISSIPPIAN (#3) AZIMUTH LENGTH AZIMUTH LENGTH 4 E 1.04 53 E 1.24 4 E .28 54 E .29 5 E .18 56 E .28 6 E .85 57 E .34 12 E .43 58 E .27 21 E .31 60 E .17 21 E .29 60 E 2.10 22 E .17 63 E .62 22 E .38 64 E .30 22 E .26 64 E .22 26 E .24 69 E .32 26 E .30 69 E 2.08 30 E .45 88 E .37 30 E .28 88 E .20 30 E .19 l W .38 32 E .53 5 W .34 36 E .33 6 W .26 38 E .26 8 W .60 43 E .32 15 W .23 44 E .24 15 W .70 46 E .18 15 W .23 47 E .38 21 W .24 49 E .23 30 W .98 49 E .75 40 W .69 49 E .33 41 W .36 52 E .33 42 W .49 53 E .23 43 W .64 104 LIST OF LINEAMENT DATA UPPER MISSISSIPPIAN (#3) AZIMUTH LENGTH AZIMUTH LENGTH 44 W .93 66 W .12 44 W .22 67 W .85 48 W 1.35 72 W .43 48 W .25 78 W .57 50 W .83 83 W .31 50 W .24 83 W .52 57 W .71 84 W .15 63 W .23 105 LIST OF LINEAMENT DATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN, MISS. AND/OR DEVONIAN (#4) AZIMUTH LENGTH AZIMUTH LENGTH O E .39 18 E .30 O E .30 19 E .20 O E .72 19 E .50 2 E .33 21 E .39 3 E .30 21 E .42 3 E .10 21 E .23 4 E .13 21 E .17 4 E .34 21 E .14 5 E .32 22 E .85 6 E .29 22 E .46 6 E .31 22 E .17 6 E .12 23 E .41 7 E .22 23 E .18 7 E .44 23 E .66 9 E .66 23 E .56 9 E .23 23 E .41 9 E .28 24 E .17 10 E .65 24 E .20 10 E .26 25 E .66 11 E .58 26 E .37 12 E .79 26 E .24 13 E .58 26 E .22 14 E .23 27 E .29 16 E .19 27 E .11 16 E .28 28 E .27 17 E .79 29 E .79 18 E .10 29 E .21 106 LIST OF LINEAMENT DATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN, MISS. AND/OR DEVONIAN (#4) AZIMUTH LENGTH AZIMUTH LENGTH 30 E .34 42 E .34 31 E .52 42 E .45 31 E .45 42 E .98 31 E .24 42 E .54 31 E .44 42 E .21 33 E .25 44 E .46 33 E .17 44 E 2.28 33 E .31 45 E .27 34 E .43 45 E .37 34 E .34 45 E .15 35 E .44 45 E .33 36 E .39 46 E .30 36 E .43 46 E .10 37 E .18 47 E .26 37 E .12 47 E .85 38 E .11 48 E .24 38 E .35 48 E .26 38 E .29 48 E .31 39 E .38 48 E .50 40 E .23 49 E .13 40 E .18 49 E .16 40 E 1.18 49 E .25 40 E .31 50 E .58 40 E .37 50 E .17 40 E .31 50 E .13 41 E .27 50 E .24 42 E .24 52 E .39 107 LIST OF LINEAMENT DATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN, MISS. AND/OR DEVONIAN (#4) AZIMUTH LENGTH AZIMUTH LENGTH 52 E .24 62 E .31 52 E .27 63 E .16 52 E .12 63 E .29 52 E .90 64 E .22 53 E .34 64 E 2.01 54 E .26 64 E .39 54 E .23 66 E .30 54 E .31 66 E .24 54 E .23 66 E .35 54 E .58 66 E .21 55 E .88 66 E .87 55 E .29 66 E .17 55 E .17 67 E .40 58 E .27 67 E .15 58 E .45 67 E .08 58 E .41 67 E .12 58 E .31 68 E .19 58 E .20 68 E .17 58 E .36 68 E .28 59 E .76 68 E .27 59 E .76 68 E .26 59 E .19 68 E .20 59 E .11 69 E .35 60 E .67 70 E .23 62 E .51 70 E .21 62 E .24 71 E .16 62 E .22 72 E .34 108 LIST OF LINEAMENT DATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN, MISS. AND/OR DEVONIAN (#4) AZIMUTH LENGTH AZIMUTH LENGTH 72 E .41 90 E .18 73 E .38 90 E .26 73 E .40 90 E .16 74 E .24 90 E .34 74 E .30 90 E .28 74 E .23 90 E .16 75 E .42 3 W .22 75 E .83 3 W .18 76 E .23 4 W .10 76 E .15 4 W .19 77 E .87 4 W .28 77 E .41 4 W .25 78 E .38 4 W .30 79 E 1.38 4 W .62 80 E .37 5 W .32 80 E .62 6 W .68 82 E .23 7 W .26 82 E .38 7 W .67 83 E .23 8 W .20 83 E .30 8 W .52 85 E .28 9 W .32 86 E .23 9 W .26 87 E .78 9 W .61 87 E .48 10 W .22 88 E .35 10 W .23 88 E .62 10 W .17 89 E .39 11 W .56 109 LIST OF LINEAMENT DATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN, MISS. AND/OR DEVONIAN (#4) AZIMUTH LENGTH AZIMUTH LENGTH 12 W .29 21 W .46 12 W .70 21 W .24 12 W .09 22 W .14 12 W .40 22 W .47 13 W .49 22 W .29 13 W .19 24 W .19 13 W .25 25 W .17 14 W .20 25 W .09 14 W .44 25 W .23 14 W .28 27 W .23 14 W .20 29 W .19 15 W .43 31 W 1.15 16 W 1.02 31 W .31 16 W .17 31 W .20 17 W .22 31 W .33 17 W .21 32 W .53 18 W .19 32 W .43 18 W .36 32 W .40 18 W .77 32 W .15 19 W .31 34 W .60 19 W .18 34 W .15 19 W .34 34 W .21 19 W .10 34 W .55 20 W .32 35 W .23 20 W .22 38 W .13 20 W .35 38 W .40 21 W .45 38 W .13 110 LIST OF LINEAMENT DATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN, MISS. AND/OR DEVONIAN (#4) AZIMUTH LENGTH AZIMUTH LENGTH 38 W .18 48 W .28 38 W .27 48 W .27 38 W .16 48 W .15 38 W .15 48 W 1.38 38 W 1.05 49 W .67 39 W .42 49 W .69 40 W .19 49 W .36 40 W .55 50 W .20 40 W .26 50 W .20 40 W .27 50 W .38 41 W .27 50 W .50 41 W .13 50 W .35 41 W .87 51 W .20 42 W .19 51 W .57 42 W .16 51 W .30 42 W .12 52 W .66 42 W .50 52 W .51 44 W .25 52 W .17 45 W .16 52 W .33 45 W .19 53 W .17 46 W .26 53 W .21 46 W .64 53 W .65 46 W .53 53 W .69 47 W .47 53 W 1.42 47 W .62 53 W .40 47 W .35 54 W .61 48 W .22 54 W .42 111 LIST OF LINEAMENT DATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN, MISS. AND/OR DEVONIAN (#4) AZIMUTH LENGTH AZIMUTH LENGTH 55 W .25 66 W .23 55 W 1.18 66 W .30 56 W .19 67 W .28 56 W .23 67 W .19 56 W .31 68 W .33 56 W .80 68 W .12 57 W .42 69 W .51 57 W .34 69 W .24 57 W .25 70 W 1.00 57 W .52 70 W .34 59 W .66 71 W .25 59 W .52 71 W .30 59 W .25 71 W .98 59 W 1.86 72 W .23 59 W .42 72 W .50 60 W .88 72 W 1.77 60 W .16 72 W .12 60 W .34 72 W .16 60 W .30 74 W .20 61 W .51 74 W .62 61 W .44 74 W .46 62 W 1.05 74 W .24 63 W .18 75 W .30 64 W .22 75 W .19 64 W .28 76 W .57 66 W .38 76 W .20 66 W .54 76 W .26 112 LIST OF LINEAMENT DATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN, MISS. AND/OR DEVONIAN (#4) AZIMUTH LENGTH AZIMUTH LENGTH 76 W 1.00 81 W .15 77 W .56 81 W .22 77 W .40 81 W .28 78 W .30 82 W .21 78 W .17 82 W .30 78 W .22 83 W .40 78 W .26 85 W .19 79 W .20 86 W .61 80 W .26 86 W .15 86 W .18 113 LIST OF LINEAMENT DATA UPPER DEVONIAN (TOP) T0 UPPER CAMBRIAN (BOTTOM) (#5) AZIMUTH LENGTH AZIMUTH LENGTH O E .21 52 E .27 0 E .17 58 E .19 0 E .57 60 E .10 2 E .21 60 E .08 2 E .30 67 E .36 5 E .22 76 E .40 16 E .15 77 E .62 20 E .16 82 E .23 21 E .22 1 W .30 21 E .16 2 W .30 25 E .21 2 W .22 31 E .21 2 W .26 32 E .18 3 W .23 33 E .85 3 W .16 33 E .27 3 W .18 40 E .41 3 W .17 40 E .32 3 W .31 40 E .42 3 W .44 40 E .23 3 W .35 42 E .73 6 W .38 42 E .25 7 W .25 43 E .25 7 W .25 44 E .27 8 W .18 44 E .28 8 W .46 46 E .40 9 W .25 48 E .21 9 W .27 52 E .14 11 W .24 114 LIST OF LINEAMENT DATA UPPER DEVONIAN (TOP) TO UPPER CAMBRIAN (BOTTOM) (#5) AZIMUTH LENGTH AZIMUTH LENGTH 11 W .33 28 W .24 12 W .37 28 W .23 12 W .22 . 31 W .13 13 W .27 32 W .32 13 W .21 32 W .30 14 W .21 32 W .23 16 W .17 32 W .55 16 W .22 32 W .35 16 W .97 33 W .25 17 W .25 33 W .16 18 W .28 34 W .13 18 W .28 35 W .18 19 W .17 37 W .21 21 W .34 38 W 1.84 21 W .26 40 W .48 21 W .23 41 W .08 21 W .30 41 W .25 22 W .31 43 W .33 22 W .29 43 W .26 22 W .33 45 W .16 23 W .30 45 W .29 24 W .18 46 W .25 25 W .42 46 W .13 27 W .41 47 W .12 28 W .18 49 W .95 28 W .30 49 W .23 28 W .28 49 W .20 115 LIST OF LINEAMENT DATA UPPER DOVONIAN (TOP) TO UPPER CAMBRIAN (BOTTOM) (#5) AZIMUTH LENGTH AZIMUTH LENGTH 49 W .27 72 W .26 50 W .89 74 W .41 51 W .31 75 W .39 51 W .36 75 W .16 52 W .19 75 W .14 53 W .35 75 W .20 55 W .43 75 W .41 55 W .46 76 W .45 59 W .22 79 W .21 60 W .32 82 W .36 60 W .25 85 W .24 62 W .15 86 W .72 64 W .39 87 W .26 66 W .17 88 W .27 67 W .36 89 W .38 68 W .14 89 W .27 70 W .39 89 W .31 116 LIST OF LINEAMENT DATA PRECAMBRIAN Y-Z (#6) AZIMUTH LENGTH AZIMUTH LENGTH 0 E .19 75 E .26 7 E .11 80 E 1.35 8 E .67 82 E .41 11 E .25 82 E .12 11 E .09 83 E .20 17 E .31 5 W .27 18 E .89 6 W .43 20 E .34 14 W .43 22 E .12 15 W .20 22 E .27 21 W .26 24 E .29 21 W .57 36 E .39 27 W .53 36 E .22 42 W .26 42 E .30 50 W .40 56 E .39 65 W .39 59 E .41 66 W .19 61 E .32 71 W .39 63 E .35 72 W .89 69 E .31 72 W .21 72 E .30 86 W .35 74 E .77 117 LIST OF LINEAMENT DATA PRECAMBRIAN X (#7) AZIMUTH LENGTH AZIMUTH LENGTH O E .14 24 W .16 13 E .22 30 W .25 22 E .14 33 W .20 29 E .30 34 W .24 30 E .35 35 W .20 30 E .13 35 W .18 40 E .21 36 W .19 41 E .32 38 W .32 43 E .21 38 W .36 45 E .25 42 W 1.17 45 E .24 52 W .41 50 E .32 61 W .29 50 E .30 63 W .40 51 E .39 67 W .34 84 E .25 73 W .36 21 W .24 88 W .20 22 W .27 118 LIST OF LINEAMENT DATA PRECAMBRIAN W (#8) AZIMUTH LENGTH AZIMUTH LENGTH 22 E .27 78 E .45 38 E .29 15 W .51 42 E .24 40 W .40 43 E .18 64 W .28 46 E .30 65 W .10 58 E .32 66 W .30 62 E .53 88 W .21 76 E .35 APPENDIX B FORTRAN PROGRAM FOR COORDINATE CONVERSION OOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOO 119 FORTRAN PROGRAM FOR COORDINATE CONVERSION This program is designed to mathematically convert data from Section, Township and Range notation into Cartesian Coordinates (Good, 1964). It has been modified so as to pinpoint the data location within the section by using the quarter section notation, the distance in feet from the North or South line of the quarter section and the distance in feet from the East or West line of the quarter section. Prior to input of data, all Township and Range numbers should be normalized so they fit into the Northeast quadrant of the Cartesian Coordinate system. Because it is assumed the area being studied is perfectly square, use of this program should be reserved for small scale maps and should not be used in areas where Township and Range baselines are offset. In reality few, if any, areas defined by Township and Range notation are perfectly square. However this method provides a much closer approximation of the data point location than does the conventional % section, % of a % section and % of a % of a % section nomenclature (i.e. NW SE SW, SW NE NW, ect.). Program Towr(input,output,tapel=input,tape2=output, +tape8,tape20) Dimension st(36),sr(36) Integer tshp,ran tt=5.5 Do 10 nn=l,36 st(nn)=tt If(nn/6)*6.NE.nn) Go To 10 tt=tt-1 . 0 10 Continue rr=5.5 nr=1 nr=nr+l 12 Continue rr=rr+l.0 Do 13 kc=1,6 sr(nr)=rr rr=rr+l.0 nr=nr+l 13 Continue rr=rr-1.0 11 Continue COO OOOOOOOOO 0000 000 C C C 120 FORTRAN PROGRAM FOR COORDINATE CONVERSION (continued) The preceeding sequence of commands sets the values needed to define the coordinates of the centers of each of the 36 sections. iob=O l7 Read(l.l4)tshp,ran,nsec,a,b,ft1,dirl,ft2,dir2,elev +h1,he,h3 14 Format( ----- ) Reads in input data. Format is variable. tshp=Township #, ran=Range #, nsec=Section #, a=the N or S component and b=the E or W component of the quarter section. ftl and ft2 are the distance in feet from the N or S (dirl) and the E or W (dir2) quarter section lines respectively. elev=feet above sea level and hl,h2,h3,..., are the drilling depths at which each target formation was encountered. If(EOF(l).NE.O) Go To 15 Checks for end of input data iob=iob+l If(hl.EQ.O) hl=e1ev If(h2.EQ.O) h2=elev If(h3.EQ.O) h3=e1ev The above If statements check for missing data ts=Float(tshp)-1.0 ra=Float(ran)-l.0 rl=6.0*ra tl=6.0*ts If(a. If(a. If(a. If(a. If(b. If(b. If(b. If(B. .1hN. .1hN. .1hS .1hS .1hE .1hE .1hW. .1hW. AND. AND. .AND. .AND .AND. .AND. AND. AND. dirl. dirl. dirl. .dirl. dir2. dir2. dir2. dir2. . th) .1hS) .1hS) .th) .1hE) .1hW) .1hW) .1hE) y1=.5-((ft1/2640.)/2.) yl=(ftl/2640.)/2. yl=(ftl/2640.)/2.-.5 yl=-(ftl/2640.)/2. xl=.5-((ft2/2640.)/2.) x1=(ft2/2640.)/2. x1=(ft2/2640.)/2.-.5 xl=-(ft2/2640.)/2. x=xl+rl+sr(nsec) Y=yl+t1+st(nsec) The preceeding sequence converts the data from Township and Range notation to Cartesian (X,Y) Coordinates. 0000 0000 0000 000000 121 FORTRAN PROGRAM FOR COORDINATE CONVERSION (continued) If(iob.NE.l) Go To 19 xmin=x xmax=x ymin=y ymax-y Go to 21 19 If(xmin.GT.x) xmin=x If(xmax.LT.x) xmax=x If(ymin.GT.y) ymin=y If(ymax LT.y) ymax=y 21 Continue Checks for minimum and maximum X and Y values to be used in 9 scaling routine. zl=elev-hl 22=elev-h2 z3=elev-h3 Determines the feet relative to sea level at which each target formation occurs. Write(8,16)x,y,zl,22,z3 16 Format( ----- ) Creates a file on which the converted coordinates and associated formation values are saved. Go to 17 15 Continue Rewind 8 xdif=xmax-xmin ydif=ymax-ymin If(xdif.GE.ydif) cnstan=xdif If(ydif.GE.xdif) cnstan=ydif 24 Read(8,22)x, ,zl,22,z3 22 Format( ----- ) If(EOF(8).NE.O) Go To 23 xscal=(x-xmin)*(12/cnstan) yscal=(y-ymin)*(12/cnstan) The above sequence is used to scale the converted coordinates to fit into an area 12" by 12". (area size is variable and is subject to the discretion of the user) 0000 0000 122 FORTRAN PROGRAM FOR COORDINATE CONVERSION (continued) Write (20,25)xsca1,yscal,zl,22,23 25 Format( ----- ) Creates a file on which the scaled coordinates and associated formation values are written. Go to 24 23 Continue Write(2,18)iob,xmin,xmax,ymin,ymax 18 Format( ----- ) Lists values needed to define parameters on subsequent SURFACE 11 runs. End APPENDIX C LOCATION OF OIL FIELDS 123 LOCATION OF OIL FIELDS AKRON OIL FIELD TUSCOLA COUNTY Akron Township T 14 N, R 8 E Sections l9,20,21,28,29,30,32,33 Wisner Township T 14 N, R 7 E Sections 22,23,24,25,26 BEAVER CREEK OIL FIELD CRAWFORD-KALKASKA COUNTIES Beaver Creek Township T 25 N, R 4 W Sections 7,8,16 through 21,27,28,29 Garfield Township T 25 N, R 5 W Sections 12,13 BLOOMINGDALE OIL FIELD VAN BUREN COUNTY Bloomingdale Township T l S, R 14 W Sections 1,2,3,6 through 18,24 Columbia Township T l S, R 15 W Sections 1,2,10 through 16,23,24 Pine Grove Township T l S, R 13 W Section 18 FREEMAN-REDDING OIL FIELD CLARE COUNTY Freeman Township T 18 N, R 6 W Sections 3,4 Redding Township T 19 N, R 6 W Sections 27,28,29,32,33,34 KAWKAWLIN OIL FIELD BAY COUNTY Monitor Township T 14 N, R 4 E Sections l,2,3,11,l2 Kawkawlin Township T 15 N, R 4 E Sections 26,27,28,29,33,34,35,36 Bangor Township T 14 N, R 5 E Sections 4,5,6,7,8,9 124 LOCATION OF OIL FIELDS (continued) MUSKEGON OIL FIELD MUSKEGON COUNTY Muskegon Township T 10 N, R 16 W Sections 3 through lO,15,l6,l7,21,22 Laketon Township T 10 N, R 17 W Sections 1,11,12,13,14 PORTER OIL FIELD MIDLAND COUNTY Porter Township T 13 N, R 1 W Sections 7,8,9,10,14 through 23,26,27,28 Jasper Township T 13 N, R 2 W Sections 1,2,3,ll,12 Greendale Township T 14 N, R 2 W Sections 34,35 ROSE CITY OIL FIELD OGEMAW COUNTY Foster Township T 24 N, R l E Sections l4,20,2l,23,24,25 Foster Township T 24 N, R 2 E Sections l9,20,21,27 through 35 Rose Township T 24 N, R 2 E Sections 27,34,35 Klacking Township T 23 N, R 2 E Sections 2,3,11 WALKER OIL FIELD KENT-OTTAWA COUNTIES Walker Township T 7 N, R 12 W Sections 19,20,27 through 34 Walker Township T 6 N, R 12 W Sections 3,4,5,6 wyoming Township T 6 N, R 12 W Sections 2,3,4,7,8 125 LOCATION OF OIL FIELDS (continued) WALKER OIL FIELD (CONT.) Tallmadge Township T 7 N, R 13 W Sections 14,15,22 through 28,33,34,35,36 Tallmadge Township T 6 N, R 13 W Sections 1,12 Georgetown Township T 6 N, R 13 W Sections 1,2 Georgetown Township T 7 N, R 13 W Section 35 WEST BRANCH OIL FIELD OGEMAW COUNTY West Branch Township T 22 N, R 2 E Sections 18,19,20,21,26,27,28,29,34,35,36 Ogemaw Township T 22 N, R 1 E Sections 10,13,14,23,24 Churchill Township T 22 N, R 3 E Section 31 Horton Township T 21 N, R 2 E Sections 1,2 Mills Township T 21 N, R 3 E Sections 5,6 APPENDIX D OIL FIELD LINEAR TREND 126 OIL FIELD LINEAR TRENDS West Branch: Coldwater - N 41 E, N 44 W, N 53 W, N 77 E, N 57 E, N 84 E, N74E,N44W. Sunbury - N 43 E, N 61 W, N 62 W. Traverse - N 88 E, N 14 E, N 44 E, N 64 W, N 66 W. Walker: Coldwater - N 20 E, N 28 W, N 45 E. Traverse — N 48 W, N 61 W, N 69 W, N 78 W, N 69 E. Bloomingdale: Coldwater - N 24 E, N 63 E, N 6 W, 40 W, N 58 E, N 63 E, N 85 E, N 88 E, 7 17 W. Traverse - N 41 E, N 46 E. Muskegon: Coldwater - N 2 W, N 84 E, N 74 W. Traverse — N 9 W, N 41 E, N 67 E, N 50 W, N 86 W. Freeman-Redding: Saginaw - N 54 w, N 1 E, N 56 w, N 1 E, N 1 E, N 3 E, N 75 E, N 82 w, N 82 E, N 89 w, N 66 E. Bayport - N 44 E, N 67 E, N 88 N, N 88 w, N 35 w, N 55 E, N 90 E. Marshall - N 48 w, N 45 E, N 41 E, N 25 E, N 88 w. Coldwater - N 26 W, N 59 E, N 90 E, N 75 E, N 88 W. Traverse - N 37 W, N 53 W, N 66 W. 6.82.92: Marshall - N 85 E, N 57 W, N 22 E, N 17 W. Coldwater - N 61 W, N 49 E, N 15 W, N 30 W, N 38 E, N 57 W. 127 OIL FIELD LINEAR TRENDS (continued) Akron (cont.): Traverse - N 44 W, N 38 E, N 77 E. Rose City: Coldwater - N 41 W, N 10 W, N 32 E, N 42 E, N 64 W. Sunbury - N 58 W, N 84 W. Traverse - N 89 E, N 57 W. Saginaw - N 78 E, N 89 E, N 26 W, N 58 W. Bayport - N 50 E, N 43 E, N 47 w, N 66 N, N 41 E, N 33 E, N 47 E, N 30 w, N 53 w, N 42 E, N 8 E, N 87 E. Coldwater - N 54 W, N 57 E, N 4 W, N 45 W, N 33 E, N 70 E. Traverse - N 16 E, N 52 W, N 58 E, N 7 E, N 53 E, N 35 E, N 41 W, N 89 E, N 33 W, N 44 W. Kawkawlin: Saginaw - N O E, N 2 W, N 3 W, N 22 E, N 65 W, N 87 W, N 44 W, N 73 E. Coldwater - N 13 E, N 28 w, N 68 E, N 69 E, N 66 E, N 50 E, N 46 E, N 61 w, N 27 w. Sunbury - N 79 E, N 48 E, N 50 W. Traverse - N 45 W, N 62 W, N 50 E, N 80 E. Beaver Creek: Marshall - N 10 E, N 54 W, N 88 E. Coldwater - N 2 E, N 52 W, N 40 E, N 88 E. Traverse - N 51 W, N 43 E, N 90 E, N 81 E, N 85 E, N 3 E. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Blackwell, David, 1969, Basic Statistics, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, New York, 143 p. Cambray, F. W., 1981, Personal Communication. Cannon, W. F., and Gair, J. E., 1970, A Revision of Stratigraphic Nomenclatures for Middle Precambrian Rocks in Northern Michigan: Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., v. 81, pp. 2843-2846. Cassinis, R., 1977, Applications of Satellite Studies for Structural Geology in Italy: Remote Sensing of the Terrestrial Environment, The Colston Papers, v. 28, pp. 169—182. Chase, C. G. and Gilmer, T. H., 1973, Precambrian Plate Tectonics- the Mid—Continent Gravity High: Earth Planet. Sci. Let., v. 21, pp. 70-78. Cohee, G. V., 1948, Cambrian and Ordovician Rocks in Michigan Basin and Adjoining Areas: Amer. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull., v. 32, n. 8, p. 1434. Coons, R. L., Wolland, G. P., and Hershey, G., 1967, Structural Significance and Analysis of Mid-Continent Gravity High: Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull., V. 51, pp. 2381-2399 Dastanpour, Mohammad, 1977, An Investigation of the Carbonate Rocks in the Reynolds Oil Field, Montcalm County, Michigan: Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University. Dorr, J. A., and Eschman D. F., 1971, Geology of Michigan: University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 476 p. Eicher, D. L. and McAlester, A. L., 1980, History of the Earth: Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 413 p. Ells, G. D., 1969, Architecture of the Michigan Basin: Mich. Basin Geol. Soc. Ann. Field Excursion, pp. 60-88. 128 129 , 1962, Structures Associated with the Albion- Scipio Oil Field Trend: Mich. Geol. Survey. Enslin, W. R. and Hill-Rowley, R., 1977, Guide to Aerial Imagery of Michigan: Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report, n. 340. Erlich, R. and Weinberg, B., 1970, An Exact Method for Characterization of Grain Shape: Jour. Sed. Pet., v. 40, n. 1, pp. 205-212. Fowler, J. H. and Kuenzi, W. D., 1978, Keweenawan Turbidites in Michigan (Deep Borehole Red Beds): A Foundered Basin Sequence DevelOped During Evolution of a Protoceanic Rift System: Jour. Geophs. Res., V. 83, n. B12, pp. 5833-5843. Good, D. 1., 1964, Mathematical Conversion of Section, Township and Range Notation to Cartesian Coordinates: Kan. St. Geol. Sur. Bull., n. 170, part 3, 30 p. Grigoryev, A. A., 1973, Direction of Lineaments from the Nimbus-III Infrared Data Derived in the 0.7 to 1.3 Spectral Region: Rem. Sens. Earth Res., v. 2, pp. 997—1003. Hamrick, R. J., 1978, Dolomitization Patterns in the Walker Oil Field, Kent and Ottawa Counties, Mich: Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University. Halls, H. C., 1978, The Late Precambrian Central North American Rift System-A Survey of Recent Geological and Geophysical Investigations in Tectonics and GeOphysics of Continental Rifts: Eds. Ramberg, I. B., and E. R. Newman, Pub. D. Reidel Pub, Comp., Dordrecht, Holland. Hinze, W. J. and Merritt, D. W., 1969, Basement Rocks of the Southern Peninsula of Michigan: Mich. Basin Geol. Soc. Ann. Field Excursion, pp. 28-59. Hobbs, B. E., Means, W. D., and Williams, P. F., 1976, An Outline of Structural Geology, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York, 571 p. Hobbs, W. H., 1904, Lineaments of the Atlantic Border Region: Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., v. 15, pp. 483-506. Holst, T. B., 1981a, Joint Orientation Analysis in the Northern Michigan Basin: Abstracts & Proceedings, 27th Annual Meeting, Institute on Lake Superior Geology. 130 Holst, T. B. and Foote, G. R., 1981b, Joint Orientation in Devonian Rocks in the Northern Portion of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan: Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., Part 1, v. 92, n. 2, pp. 85-93. Hoppin, R. A., 1974, Lineaments: Their Role in Tectonics of Central Rocky Mountains: Amer. Assoc. Petr. Geol. Bull., v. 58, n. 11, pp. 2260-2273. Hyde, M. K., 1979, A study of Dolomite/Calcite Ratios Relative to the Structures and Producing Zones of the Kawkawlin Oil Field, Bay County, Michigan: Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University. Jackson, R. P., 1958, Dolomitization and Structural Relations of the Deep River, North Adams and Pinconning Oil Fields, Michigan: Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University. James, H. L., 1955, Zones of Regional Metamorphism in the Precambrian of Northern Michigan: Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., v. 66, pp. 1455-1487. James, H. L. 1972, Note 40-Subdivision of Precambrian: an Interim Scheme to be used by U.S. Geological Survey: Amer. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull , v. 56, pp. 1128-1133. Kaiser, E. P., 1950, Structural Significance of Lineaments: Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., v. 61, pp. 1475-1476. Kirkham, V. R. D., 1937, Theory of‘Origin of the Oil and Gas Bearing Folds in Michigan and Theory of Origin of Oil and Gas: Mich. Oil and Gas News, May 15. Lattman, L. H., 1958, Techniques of Mapping Geologic Fracture Traces and Lineaments on Aerial Photographs: Photogramm. Eng., v. 24, n. 4, pp. 568-576. Lockett, J. R., 1947, Development of Structures in Basin Areas of Northeastern United States: Amer. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull., v. 31, pp. 429-446. Michigan Basin Geological Society, 1969, Stratigraphic Cross Sections, Michigan Basin. Michigan Geological Survey, 1978, Michigan's Oil and Gas Field's 1977: Mich. Geol. Survey Ann. Stat. Summary n. 28. , 1968, Bedrock of Michigan: Mich. Geol. Survey Small Scale Map n. 2. 131 , 1964, Stratigraphic Succession in Michigan: MicH. Geol. Survey, Chart 1. Moody, J. D. and Hill, M. J., 1956, Wrench Fault Tectonics: Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., v. 67, n. 9, pp. 1207-1246. Moody, J. D., 1973, Petroleum Exploration Aspects of Wrench Fault Tectonics: Amer. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull., v. 57, n. 3, pp. 449-476. Newcombe, R. S., 1933, Oil and Gas Fields of Michigan: Mich. Geol. Survey, Publ. 38, G. Ser. 32. Nowroozi, A. A., 1966, Table for Fishers Test of Significance in Harmonic Analysis: Geophys. J. R. astr. Soc., v. 12, pp. 517-520. Paris, R. M., 1977, Developmental History of the Howell Anticline: Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University. Pirtle, G. W., 1932, Michigan Structural Basin and its Relationship to Surrounding Areas: Amer. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull., v. 16, pp. 145-152. Prouty, C. E., 1970, Michigan Basin Paleozoic Evolutionary Development: Geol. Soc. Amer. Abst. with Programs, v. 2, n. 7, pp. 657-658. Prouty, C. E., 1972, Michigan Basin Development and the Appalachian Foreland: Abst. Int. Geol. Cong., 24th Session, p. 97. Prouty, C. E., 1975, An Interpretation of Major Intrabasinal Structures-Michigan Basin: Mich. Acad. Sci. Arts, 79th Annual Meeting, Ann Arbor, Michigan. , 1976, Michigan Basin-A Wrenching Deformation Mode1?: Geol. Soc. Amer. Abst. with Programs, v. 8, n. 4, pp. 505. , 1976, Implications of Imagery Studies to Time Origin of Michigan Basin Linear Structures: Abst. Amer. Assoc. Pet. Geol., 6lst Ann. Meeting, pp. 102. Prouty, C. E., 1981, Personal Communication. Rudd, R. D., 1974, Remote Sensing: A Better View: Duxbury Press, North Scituate, Mass., 135 p. Sampson, R. J., 1978, SURFACE 11 Graphics System (Revision One): Kansas Geol. Survey, Lawrence, Kan., 234 p. 132 Shimshoni, Michael, 1971, On Fishers Test of Significance in Harmonic Analysis: GeOphys. J. R. astr. Soc., v. 23, pp. 373-377. Syrjamaki, R. M., 1977, The Prairie du Chien Group of the Michigan Basin: Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University. Ten Have, L. E., 1979, Relationship of Dolomite/Limestone Ratios to the Structure and Producing Zones of the West Branch Oil Field, Ogemaw County, Michigan: Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University. Trow, J. W., 1981, Personal Communication. Walters, R. F., 1969, Contouring by Machine: A User's Guide: Amer. Assoc. Pet. Geol., v. 53, n. 11, pp. 2324-2340. Werner, E., 1975, Long Lineaments of the Appalachians and their Geologic Relations: Geol. Soc. Amer. Abst. with Programs, v. 7, n. 4, p. 548. , 1977, Photolineament Mapping in the Appalachian Plateau and Continental Interior Geological Provinces- A Case Study: Remote Sens. Earth Res., v. 5, pp. 403-417. Withington, C. F. and Jacobeen, F. H., Jr., 1973, Possible Implication of Lineaments in the Atlantic Coastal Plain as seen by Satellite Imagery: Remote Sens. Earth Res., v. 2, pp. 981-996. MICHIGAN STATE UNI lllllllllglgllllyll llllllllllfiis 151