About This Item

Share This Item

The AAPG/Datapages Combined Publications Database

West Texas Geological Society

Abstract


2ND EDITION, CYCLIC SEDIMENTATION IN THE PERMIAN BASIN, 1972
Page 81

Abstract: Tectonic Versus Eustatic Control of Pennsylvanian Cyclical Sedimentation in North-Central Texas1

Dan E. Feray1

Abstract

The cyclical character of the Pennsylvanian of north central Texas is not typical of the classic cyclical sedimentation of the Pennsylvanian of the midcontinent area of the United States. The cyclic nature of the Pennsylvanian of north central Texas varies from dominantly terrigenous clastics to dominantly biogenic limestones in regard to both large Previous HitcyclesNext Hit (series units) and small Previous HitcyclesNext Hit (groups and formations). The lateral continuity of the Previous HitcyclesNext Hit is discontinuous to varying degrees both parallel and normal to the margins of the depositional site.

The origin of the cyclic nature of the sediments must take into consideration (1) tectonic activity of the source areas and depositional site, (2) variation in supply of sediment to the depositional site, and (3) eustatic changes in Previous HitseaNext Hit Previous HitlevelNext Hit. The evaluation of these factors must be made first on a regional basis including areas adjacent to the area of study, and secondly on a stratigraphic basis including Previous HitsequencesNext Hit both older and younger than the sequence being studied.

Evaluation of the Pennsylvanian of north central Texas on the above basis indicates (1) no eustatic control of cyclical sedimentation (2) tectonic and possibly climatic control of cyclical sedimentation with varying intensity of influx of terrigenous clastics from the source areas and biologic activity in the depositional sites, (3) shifting of sites of maximum subsidence and cyclical sedimentation from east to west during the Pennsylvanian, and (4) variation in character of cyclical deposits from the classic midcontinent Previous HitcyclesNext Hit as a result of more intense tectonic activity in the Texas-New Mexico-Oklahoma area.

The above conclusions do not rule out the existence of eustatic changes of Previous HitseaNext Hit Previous HitlevelTop due to either glacial or tectonic control. These conclusions indicate a need for continuing study of the cause and effect of transgressions and regressions involved with the interplay of eustatic (glacial or tectonic) and tectonic processes. It is concluded that both processes may be taking place at the same time, with eustatic control dominant in one area while tectonic sedimentation controls another or even adjacent area.


 

Acknowledgments and Associated Footnotes

1 Presented to the West Texas Geological Society Symposium on Cyclic Sedimentation, October 19, 1967

1 Dan E. Feray: Consulting Geologist

© 2024 West Texas Geological Society