Quick
Search: 
 
advanced search
 GSW Home    GeoRef Home    My GSW Alerts    Contact GSW    About GSW    Journals List    Help 
AAPG Bulletin SEARCH
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

AAPG Bulletin; June 2006; v. 90; no. 6; p. 963-966; DOI: 10.1306/02090605132
© 2006 American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ewing, T. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

DISCUSSION AND REPLY

Mississippian Barnett Shale, Fort Worth basin, north-central Texas: Gas-shale play with multi–trillion cubic foot potential: Discussion

Thomas E. Ewing1

1 Bexar Geological Surveys, 13011 Hunters Ledge, San Antonio, Texas 78230; tewing@fronteraexploration.com

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

Montgomery et al. (2005) have written a very useful, information-filled review article on the state of knowledge of the Barnett Shale play in north Texas, a topic of great current interest and importance. One error exists, however; the burial history that they present shows no uplift during the early and middle Mesozoic and strong uplift after the Cretaceous, whereas the geologic record indicates major pre-Cretaceous uplift. This error substantially affects the discussion of the maturation history of the Barnett and should be corrected in the literature. I will also briefly discuss the implications of pre-Cretaceous erosion and Ouachita thrusting to Barnett maturity in the deep Fort Worth basin.

SUBSIDENCE HISTORY OF EASTLAND COUNTY AND THE LLANO ARCH

In Montgomery et al.'s (2005) figure 7, they show a time-depth burial history diagram for Eastland County that is contrary to what is known about the area. In that figure and in the text, they indicate that the Barnett was rapidly buried during the Pennsylvanian and Early Permian, remained at depth with no uplift or subsidence except for minor subsidence in the Early Cretaceous, then was uplifted some 1.8 km (6000 ft) between the middle Cretaceous and the Eocene (with very slight subsidence to the present).

The surface geology of Eastland County and surrounding areas (Barnes, 1972) shows that flat-lying Lower Cretaceous strata (Antlers Sand and overlying Edwards Group marine carbonates) lie unconformably above units, ranging from the Strawn Group (Mingus Formation, Desmoinesian regional age) in the southeast to the lower Cisco Group (Graham Formation, Virgilian regional age) in the . . . [Full Text of this Article]




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
AAPG BulletinHome page
R. M. Pollastro, D. M. Jarvie, R. J. Hill, and C. W. Adams
Geologic framework of the Mississippian Barnett Shale, Barnett-Paleozoic total petroleum system, Bend arch-Fort Worth Basin, Texas
AAPG Bulletin, April 1, 2007; 91(4): 405 - 436.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)