Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Montgomery, S. L. Articles by Pollastro, R. M. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

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

¹ 1511 18th Avenue East, Seattle, Washington 98112; scott.montgomery@prodigy.net
² Humble Instruments & Services, Inc., Humble Geochemical Services Division, P.O. Box 789 Humble, Texas 77347; danjarvie@humble-inc.com
³ Star of Texas Energy Services, Inc., P.O. Box 131866 Spring, Texas 77393-1866; kb@staroftexasenergy.com
⁴ Central Energy Resources Team, U.S. Geological Survey, P.O. Box 25046, MS 939, Denver, Colorado 80225; pollastro@usgs.gov

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

We thank Tom Ewing for his informative discussion to our recent article on the Barnett Shale. Ewing provides an excellent, useful review of geologic data concerning uplift and burial history in the Fort Worth basin. His discussion of this specific topic improves upon our own, adding significant detail that should aid future analyses of the Barnett. In particular, his inclusion of a major Mesozoic erosional event as a correction to our burial history curve for Eastland County (figure 7) is welcome. We also credit Ewing for noting the limits to existing data. He emphasizes that the amount of late Paleozoic subsidence and the precise timing of post-Permian uplift remain unknown, and that, as a consequence, reconstructions of burial history must therefore include both facts and inferences.

At the same time, we find problematic other interpretations in Ewing's discussion. One of these involves the use of burial history information (sedimentary and tectonic loading) to explain maturation patterns in the Barnett Shale. The other issue of concern relates to the westward extent of Ouachita thrusting.

As emphasized in our article, Barnett maturity levels in many parts of the Fort Worth basin are too high and variable to be explained by the present-day basin setting. No consistent relationship exists between depth of burial . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]