Dating the Age of Magnetization of the Sycamore

Limestone Along the South Flank of the Arbuckle

Anticline
by
Chris Browning

Abstract

A study was conducted on a rock outcrop along I-35 to determine the age of the
Sycamore Limestone on the South Flank of the Arbuckle Anticline using a VGP mean method.
Of the ten samples that went through thermal demagnetization, five were used because they
exhibited identifiable principle components on Zijderveld diagrams. An equal area plot shows
the that k and 95 values were quite poor due to subpar grouping of a low sample count. The
VGP mean produced a pole position of (16.2, and 126.5) with Dp and Dm values of 24.9 and
40.4 respectively. A large error was produced on the apparent polar wander path diagram and the
age of the magnetization could only be constrained to between 360 – 235 Mya. Given the large
error, I was unable to determine if the magnetization is primary or secondary. Collecting oriented
samples from the north flank to perform a fold test to better constrain the age of magnetization is
recommended.

Introduction

The purpose of the study is to determine the age of the magnetization of the Sycamore
Limestone in the Arbuckle Anticline. Once the age is determined, it will indicate whether the
magnetization is primary or secondary. If the magnetization is secondary, plausible causes for
the secondary remagnetization will the evaluated. The study interval includes all of the Sycamore
Formation, more specifically
including glauconitic, bioturbated,
and or organic shales and
fossiliferous mudstone and
wackestones.
In the late Proterozoic, the
Southern Oklahoma Aulocogen
causes large crustal displacement,
allowing for the deposition of
sediments in quantities such as
34,000 feet. During the late
Cambrian through Pennsylvanian,
Figure 1: Map of major geologic provinces in Oklahoma. Red star
the oceans would encroach and indicates the location of study.
retract, leaving behind deposits of
limestone, sandstone, dolomite, and shale. Beginning in the early Pennsylvanian, orogeny in the
southern Arbuckle Mountains led to moderate folding, which eventually increased in magnitude
by the late Pennsylvanian to cause severe deformation. It was during this time in which the
Arbuckle Mountains experienced maximum orogeny and as a result, overturned folds and thrust
faults were formed.

Methods

In October 2017, samples of the Sycamore Limestone were drilled at a road outcrop
along I-35. The drilling locations of the limestone were not of any particular importance, the
only requirements being spaced about 100-150 feet apart and easily accessible for a drilling team
to obtain the necessary cores. Eight cores were collected from sites 1 and 3, and ten samples
were collected from site 2. All of the cores were oriented and strike and dip measurements were
taken for sites 1 and 2.
Of the 26 cores that were collected, only ten were used for a thermal demagnetization run.
Readings were taken at 100, 200, 250, 300, and in increments of 25 until 700 in which case
the primary magnetic mineralogy can be determined.
Unfortunately, while processing the data with
Super-IAPD, many of the samples displayed
Zijderveld diagrams in which the principle
components were very difficult to determine. The four
samples from site 1 that were used for the thermal
demagnetization were omitted during data processing.
In addition, I also omitted sample S172-1 from site 2
because I was not entirely convinced that the principal
component showed linear decay.

Results
Principal components were chosen with each
of the samples that went through thermal
demagnetization. The criteria for choosing the
components were: a minimum of four points must be
selected and should show linear decay. Two samples
from site 2 and three samples from site 3 had good
principal components. With the exception of sample
S172-4, all of the other samples show a northwest,
down trend.
From the equal area plot, a VGP mean was
calculated once the site latitude and longitude was
input. A pole position of (16.2, 126.5) was obtained,
however the errors associated with the pole position is
quite large. As seen in Figure 6, the errors indicate an Figure 2: Zijderveld diagram of sample S172-1.
age between 360 Mya and 235 Mya (Any age past 360 This was removed because after the removal
Mya is irrelevant because the rock was deposited of most of the temperature steps, the
principal component did not look linear.
during the Mississippian). This also makes it
impossible to determine whether the principal component that I chose for each sample is primary
or secondary.
 Figure 3: Zijderveld diagrams of samples from site 2. Sample S172-1 was not used for further data processing.

Figure 4: Zijderveld diagrams of samples from site 3. The samples show a consistency with a northwest, down trend.
 Figure 5: Equal Area plot for all samples from site 3 and two samples from site 2. The grouping is fairly tight with
the exception of sample S172-4. As a result, the k and a95 values are poor. The samples are structurally corrected as
shown in the strike and dip columns.

Figure 6: Apparent Polar Wander Path diagram. The red star indicates the calculated pole position and the
transparent red ellipse represents the associated error with the pole position. The error is very large and cannot constrain
the age very well.

Conclusion

The result that was obtained did not yield a definitive age of magnetization, but rather a large
range. First, I would like more samples to run with thermal demagnetization. Data from five
samples out of the ten that I began with were thrown out. Increasing the number of samples to
work with could possibly provide a better grouping of data on the equal area plot and would
certainly reduce the large error on the apparent polar wander path.
Secondly, to reduce the error and constrain the age better, a fold test could be completed.
This requires oriented cores from the north flank of the Arbuckle Anticline, however not only
would the age be better constrained, but it would provide a clearer answer as to whether the
principle components that were picked were primary or secondary.

References

Cole, Tony. “A Surface to Subsurface Study of the Sycamore

Limestone (Mississippian) Along the North Flank of the Arbuckle
Anticline.” The Shale Shakers Digest, 1988, pp. 205–221. AAPG.
Ham, William E. Regional Geology of the Arbuckle Mountains,
Oklahoma. The Geological Society of America, Nov. 1973,
ogs.ou.edu/docs/specialpublications/SP73-3.pdf.
Ham, William E. Structural Geology of the Southern Arbuckle
Mountains. Tulsa Geological Society Digest, 1951,
archives.datapages.com.ezproxy.lib.ou.edu/data/tgs/digest/
data/019/019001/pdfs/68.pdf.
Section Township Range Map Oklahoma, www.sexygatitas.com/tlh-section-township-range-
map-oklahoma.phtml.