WAVE-DOMINATED DELTAIC SYSTEMS OF THE UPPER CRETACEOUS

SAN MIGUEL FORMATION, MAVERICK BASIN, SOUTH TEXAS

APPROVED:
WAVE-DOMINATED DELTAIC SYSTEMS OF THE UPPER CRETACEOUS

SAN MIGUEL FORMATION, MAVERICK BASIN, SOUTH TEXAS

by

BONNIE RENEE WEISE, B.S.

THESIS

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of

The University of Texas at Austin

in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

May, 1979
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I express sincere thanks to my supervisor, Dr. D. G.

Bebout, for all the time and effort he spent in guiding me

throughout this thesis project and for all the encourage­

ment he provided along the way. I thank also my other the­

sis committee members, Dr. A. J. Scott and Dr. R. L. Folk,

for their helpful suggestions and critical review of the

manuscript. I offer thanks to Dr. Scott especially for his

ideas and aid in formulating depositional models and to

Dr. Folk for his enlightening discussions of mineralogy

and diagenesis.

I owe a very special thanks to the Bureau of Eco­

nomic Geology of The University of Texas at Austin for

allowing me time and providing space and materials used in

this thesis project. Many Bureau staff members made use­

ful suggestions during the course of the study, but I es­

pecially thank Dr. R. G. Loucks and Dr. W. E. Galloway for

their many comments. In addition, I thank Dr. Loucks for

his aid in field studies and review of the manuscript. I

also express my deep appreciation for the fine work done

by the Bureau's drafting department, headed by James Macon;

for all the core slabbing and transporting and thin section

work done by the Bureau's Well Sample and Core Library

iii
 iv

personnel; and for other life-saving support, especially

the typing of rough drafts of the manuscript, provided by

Bureau staff members.

Many other people helped in many different ways

during this study, but I especially thank Pam Luttrell for

alerting me to the project; Tom Henderson for providing

cores, well data, and some interesting discussions; all

the good people of Maverick County who helped me gain ac­

cess to outcrop areas; Mike Boyles, who served as student

editor and provided some interesting ideas and helpful

suggestions; and Ann St. Clair, who, on many occasions,

helped talk away the pains and worries inherent in a the­

sis project.

This thesis was submitted to the committee in

April, 1979.
 WAVE-DOMINATED DELTAIC SYSTEMS OF THE UPPER CRETACEOUS

SAN MIGUEL FORMATION, MAVERICK BASIN, SOUTH TEXAS

by

BONNIE RENEE WEISE

ABSTRACT

Sandstone units of the Upper Cretaceous San Miguel

Formation in South Texas are wave-dominated deltaic sequen­

ces deposited during a major marine transgression. San

Miguel sediments were deposited in the Maverick Basin with­

in the Rio Grande Embayment. Cross sections and sandstone

maps reveal that during deposition of the San Miguel For­

mation, the Maverick Basin consisted of two subbasins. A

western subbasin received sediments from the northwest;

the eastern subbasin received sediments from the north.

Net-sandstone patterns show that the thickest parts

of the sandstone bodies are generally strike oriented;

where not eroded, updip sand-feeder systems are indicated

by dip-aligned components. The San Miguel deltas vary con­

siderably in morphology and make up a spectrum of wave­

domina ted delta types. Modern analogs of these San Miguel

deltas include the Rhone, Nile, Sao Francisco, Brazos,

Danube, Kelantan, and Grijalva deltas. Final sandstone

v
 vi

geometries depended on three primary factors: (1) rate

of sediment input, (2) wave energy, and (3) rate of sea­

level change. Delta morphology was determined by all three

factors, but the degree of reworking of deltaic sediments

after delta abandonment was determined by wave energy and

rate of transgression.

The most common vertical sequences in the San Mi­

guel coarsen upward from silt and clay to fine sand. Bur­

rows are the dominant structures. The few primary struc­

tures are of small scale; large-scale cross beds are ob­

served only in outcrop. Strandplain or barrier-island

facies sequences, which prevail in most wave-dominated

deltaic deposits, are incomplete in the San Miguel. In

most places, only the lower shoreface is preserved. The

upper parts of the sequences, which normally bear large­

scale primary structures, were lost by marine reworking

during subsequent transgressions. Intense burrowing des­

troyed any primary structures at the tops of the truncated

sequences.

Most of the San Miguel sandstones are arkoses.

Cements include sparry and poikilotopic calcite, quartz

overgrowths, feldspar overgrowths, illite rims, and kao­

linite. The primary destroyers of porosity are the two

types of calcite cement, which tend to completely cement

the coarsest, best sorted, and originally most porous

 vii

zones of the San Migeul vertical sequences. Zones of sec­

ondary porosity resulted from leaching of' shell material,

calcite cement, and feldspars. Laterally, the zones of

either high secondary porosity or calcite cementation are

unpredictable.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION • • • . 1

DATA AND METHODOLOGY 5

GEOLOGIC SETTING OF THE MAVERICK BASIN . . 8

Basin History. • • . . . . . . . . . • • • . 8
Structural Framework . . . . . . . . . . • . • . 8
Upper Cretaceous Stratigraphy. . . . . . . • . . 14

SAN MIGUEL DEPOSITIONAL PATTERNS . 17

Sediment Sources . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . 17
Depositional Systems and Origin of Sandstone
Geometries-General Comments . . . . . . . . 21
Sandstone Units of the Western Maverick
Subbasin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Transgressive-regressive cycles. . . .• 30
Sandstones A and B . • • • . . . . . . • . . 33
Sandstone C. . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Sandstone D. . . . . . . . . •• 39
Sandstone E. . . . . . . . . • . 41
Sandstone F. . . • . . . . . . . . . .. 43
Sandstone G. . . . . . . . . . . 45
Sandstone I. . . .. 46
Sandstone Units of the Eastern Maverick
Subbasin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Vertical Sequences . . . • . . . • . . . . . 52
Textures . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Structures . . . . . . . . . 57

DEPOSITIONAL MODELS FOR THE SAN MIGUEL FORMATION . . 64

Wave-Dominated Delta Model . . . . . . . . . 64

F acies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Incomplete strandplain-barrier sequences 70
Net-sandstone patterns . . . . . . . 72
Deltaic Deposition During a Major Trans­
gression. . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Modern and AP-cient Depcsi ticnal A.i."1alogs. . . . . 81

viii
 ix

SANDSTONE PETROGRAPHY 92

Mineralogy • • . . ....... . ... 92

Diagenesis • . • . 96

SAN MIGUEL SANDSTONE UNITS AS PETROLEUM RESERVOIRS. . 99

History of Production • . . . . . . . . . . • • . 99
Trapping Mechanisms and Types of Fields . . . 100
Role of Diagenesis in Reservoir Development • 101

CONCLUSIONS . 102

APPENDIX. • . 105

REFERENCES CITED. 113

VITA 117

LIST OF TABLES

Table

1 Stratigraphy and informal names of San

Miguel sandstone units . . . . . . . . 7

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure

1 San Miguel study area and well and outcrop

locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 Structural framework of the Rio Grande

Embayment . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3 Structure on top of the Olmos Formation . 11

4 Location of Cretaceous volcanic plugs,

central and south Texas . . . . . . . . 13
 x

Figure

5 Generalized dip section through the

Maverick Basin showing Upper Cretaceous
stratigraphy . • • . • • . • • • . . 15
6 Strike section Y-Y', simplified from
plate V. . . . . . • • . . . . . 18
7 Depocenters of San Miguel sandstone units
and directions of sediment input . . . . . . 19
8 Strike section Z-Z', simplified from
plate VI • • . . . . . . . • 20

9 Idealized net-sand pattern for a wave­

dominated delta. . . . . . . . . . • . 23
10 Triangular classification of deltaic
depositional systems • . . . 24

11 Delta responses to variations in the

primary factors affecting the geometries
of deltaic sandstone bodies deposited
during major transgressions • . . . • • . 27

12 Dip section B-B', simplified from

plate II . . • . . . . . . . • . . 29

13 The two transgressive sequences of the

San Miguel defined by the order of deposition
of the sandstone units . . . . . . . . . 31

14 Transgressive-regressive cycles shown by a

schematic dip section through the axis of
the western Maverick subbasin. . . . 32

15 Net sandstone, San Miguel unit A . . . . 34

16 Net sandstone, San Miguel unit B . . . . 35

17 Net sandstone, San Miguel unit c . . . . 38

18 Net sandstone, San Miguel unit D . . . . 40

19 Net sandstone, San Miguel unit E . . . . 42

20 Net sandstone, San Miguel unit F . . . . 44

 xi

Figure Page

21 Net sandstone, San Miguel unit G • • 47

22 Net sandstone, San Miguel unit I • 49

23 Net sandstone, San Miguel unit P . 51

24 Example electrical log patterns and
vertical sequences of textures shown in
a core from the San Miguel G unit in the
Wood #1 Weathers well in Zavala County . 54

25 Distribution of various types of SP

patterns shown in the San Miguel G unit. 55

26 Three-dimensional model of a wave-dominated

delta system . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . 65

27 Evolution of incomplete strandplain-barrier

sequences of the San Miguel. . . .. 71

28 Spectrum of San Miguel deltas • . 73

29 Model for deltaic sedimentation in a basin

in which rates of deposition and rates of
subsidence varied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

30 Effects of rising sea level on delta for­

mation compared to those of stable sea
level . • · . • . . . 79

31 Delta abandonment, transgression, and

development of sandy shoals . . . . . 80

32 Depositional environments and net-sand

patterns of the Rhone delta system,
France . . • . • . . . . . . 83

33 Depositional environments of the Sao

Francisco delta, Brazil . . . 84

34 Depositional environments of the Nile

delta system, Egypt. . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

35 Oligocene wave-dominated delta systems . 87

36 Early Miocene wave-dominated deltas of the

Texas Gulf Coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
 xii

Figure Page

37 Wave-dominated delta complex of the Upper

Cretaceous Teapot Sandstone Member of the
Mesaverde Formation, Powder River Basin,
Wyoming • • • . • • • • . • . 90

38 Sequence of diagenetic events in the history

of rock consolidation of the Texas Gulf
Coast Tertiary Frio Formation . . . . . . . . 97

Plate Page

I Cross section A-A'. . (in pocket)

II Cross section B-B'. . . . (in pocket)

III Cross section C-C'. . . . . . . . (in pocket)

IV Cross section X-X'. . . . (in pocket)

v Cross section Y-Y'. . . . . . (in pocket)

VI Cross section Z-Z I • . . . . . .. (in pocket)

VII Photographs . . . . . . . 60

A. Horizontal 0Ehiomoq~ha
B. Vertical burrows, most of which are
OphiomorEha
c. Bed of horizontal laminations with
few burrows

VIII Photographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

A. The San Miguel D sandstone exposed in

a roadcut along U.S. Highway 277 north
of Eagle P3.SS
B. Low-angle cross beds
C. Hummocky cross stratification
D. Deep, vertical Ophiomorpha

IX Photographs . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

A. Typical San Miguel sandstone with

abundant feldspar
B. Leached feldspar grain partially
replaced by calcite
 xiii

c. Poikilotopic calcite cement

D. Quartz overgrowth and sparry calcite cement
E. Leached shell fragments
F. Authigenic kaolinite filling cavity rimmed
with very coarse-grained calcite, particu­
larly poikilotopic calcite
 INTRODUCTION

Many studies have been made of the Cretaceous car­

bonates of Texas, but little has been published on the

Upper Cretaceous terrigenous elastic formations of the

Maverick Basin in South Texas. As one of these elastic

units, the San Miguel Formation has received greater atten­

tion in the last few years from the petroleum industry in

the quest for new oil and gas resources, as well as in the

development of known resources. This formation was first

studied and named by Dumble (1892) for the old San Miguel

ranch on the Rio Grande above Eagle Pass in Maverick Coun­

ty (fig. l; Sellards and others, 1932). Dumble correlated

the San Miguel with the Navarro Group, but Stephenson

(1931) later confirmed, primarily on the basis of the mol­

luscan fauna, that the San Miguel was part of the Taylor

Group.

The San Miguel Formation crops out in a few small

areas in Maverick County (fig. 1) and extends in the sub­

surface to the east, southeast, and south at least into

Atascosa, La Salle, and Webb Counties, where sandstones

of the fqrmation pinch out. Based on the extent of the

sandstone units, total surface and subsurface area of the

San Miguel Formation in Texas is at least 6300 square

1
 5W -4-. .,-~.T"'l-'TTCT"l"T"l'!f"- 1~r raT-r9E- -.lOfrl:-:~~E- -1~~12£}jE
--~ -~- .& 2!<.•L.:,~l-~~ 19~~,_J _J1 ----__· J_.Jtw·, 1~T 1 -r_- -
- I ::--+)_~ :-:1! -. ,· 1 -"-~ ~ 15

1
~Maverick Co , Zavala Co . ~
I· I ~~c;ef ! • • •
~'-.,. I .. __ ·1 · .
_ _ _
i r. -
I v-- F . 1 .
.- :-
1

. .. I . i.
I
~
1
_.x' i.-r I . 1
•
!!;

,;~ :~~~.' 1/LN

!: -~ •'.: )<l . . i .. : ,1·~- :_< ~-~ t 1
1· . I_ z'. . "
L& ~ ~ 11 ~ · ·/
~~~lse J-~. \ '-:._·~ :
. · ~, · 1 j·'I
I / · 'I • l j -
1
1 05

t
I
/
Type
Locoiily
'-)
;~) -
X

~(;, 0
•
j• •
· ·_..:. ·____~ l-.:.~· _
0
•

:
•i
~/

r~
: /

' •
• • 1·
_ l '
i • 1---: •
I • '
-~
•
.--------- d
•j I
. A~cosa
J

I •
Co .
I

-. --,- ,---:Tl_.. ­ ---·-· 11 5

c~ ';J . i _! • 1 . · r ~B' 12.§.

y~~ . 1.·
WELL. LOC ATION~ i . I 13 5

• Well log \ I
• Wall lag a Core '\ z
(\ r.
I

I
r= J i_l)~1i l ~o l I A1

L'
Oulcrop
\
I
-- i •

~~ _ I / Webb C.o , I

~-\-I
L
, ~~\ )
0-?~- \

;l l
\
1.
JI
I

·
I !
, l_a__
Salle - o - -- -
i I
·.Mi:.MuJleJ'
Duval Co (: u.

~~( J . _j}=- ,f ,;~,L__l

1 16 5

-l ..
!.. _. _ _ __ _ L__
'°J,_ I I____
LJ!

11s
·~-----'

Figure ·1. San Miguel study area and well and outcrop locations. A-A B-B', and 1
,
1
C-C' are lines of dip cross sections. X-X Y-Y', and Z·-Z' are lines ,

of strike cross sections. Locat'ion system is the Tobin Grid system

(explanation in Appendix). Each grid equals one 7.5-minute quadrangle.
N
 3

miles (16,000 square kilometers). The formation also ex­

tends an unknown distance in the subsurface of Mexico. On

the basis of vertical sequences, formation thickness, and

environmental relationships, however, the San Miguel For­

mation of this study within Texas does not appear to be

the equivalent of the San Miguel described by Caffey (1978)

in Coahuila, Mexico. Detailed correlations of electrical

logs across the Rio Grande are necessary to clarify the

stratigraphic relationships of the Upper Cretaceous units

in Mexico and Texas.

Although Lewis (1977) presented a general model

for San Miguel deposition, his work (1962, 1977) was con­

centrated on the hydrocarbon traps and stratigraphy of this

formation. The present study was conducted primarily to

interpret sedimentary facies and delineate the depositional

systems of the San Miguel Formation on the basis of elec­

trical log, core, and outcrop data. The main objectives

of this report are to describe (1) the sandstone unit

geometries, vertical sequences, and depositional systems

of the San Miguel Formation with the aid of detailed cross

sections and net-sandstone maps, (2) the Maverick Basin

history during the deposition of the San Miguel, including

transgress£ve-regressive cycles and time relationships of

individual sandstone units, (3) depositional models and

modern and ancient analogs of the San Miguel systems, and

 4

(4) the roles sediment characteristics and depositional

patterns play in oil and gas occurrence.

 DATA AND METHODOLOGY

This study of the San Miguel Formation involved

primarily the use of subsurface data, most importantly 375

electrical logs. Well locations for 305 of these logs used

in net-sandstone map construction are plotted in figure l;

well names are listed in the Appendix. The subsurface in­

vestigation also included study of nine cores from the

wells indicated on figure 1, plus four cores from addi­

tional wells (Appendix) not necessary for the data base

because of their close proximity to other wells. Most of

the cores were examined with the binocular microscope and

logged for textures, structures, and mineralogy. Mineral

percentages, porosities, and grain sizes were estimated

and diagenetic features delineated in 41 thin sections

from selected intervals of the cores.

The outcrop study was minimal because good expo­

sures are few, and workable outcrops occur over only a

very small part of the outcrop area (fig. 1). The best

exposure, where vertical sequences were easily observed,

is in a roadcut along U.S. Highway 277 near its junction

with Texas Highway 1665, approximately 14 miles (22 kilom­

eters) north of Eagle Pass in Maverick County. Outcrops

along the Rio Grande to the west of this roadcut are num­

5
 6

erous but are very highly weathered. The few, very small

outcrops on the Chittim Anticline (fig. 1) also are high­

ly weathered.

Ten preliminary regional cross sections were con­

structed for the Maverick Basin to determine general sand­

stone distribution within the San Miguel Formation. Elec­

trical logs for wells of the cross sections, as well as

for infill wells, were correlated and individual sandstone

units delineated. Because some of the units confusingly

have been given different informal names from one oil

field to another, the units were designated in this study

simply as A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and P (table 1).

After regional control was established with the

preliminary cross sections, three dip and three strike

stratigraphic cross sections were constructed along lines

strategic in illustrating relationships and geometries of

the various sandstone units (fig. 1). These six cross

sections, each with a datum on top of the San Miguel For­

mation, show detailed correlations (pls. I through VI).

Net-sandstone values were determined for the major sand­

stone units and used in constructing net-sandstone maps.

San Miguel depositional systems and basin history were

interpreted on the basis of these maps, the cross sections,

and the core data.

Table 1. Stratigraphy and informal names of San Miguel sandstone
units.

WESTERN SUBBASIN EASTERN SUBBASIN

This Study Other Informal This Study Other Informal

Names Names
H
Q)
I First San Miguel
°'
~
~
H
0 G Torch, King,
>t Fitzsimmons, Sec- younger lobe
~
t!) ond San Miguel p
~
F older lobe Olmos B
~ E Big Wells
~
H D Basal San Miguel
E-1
c Elaine, Atlas
:s B
~
H
Q) A
ro
,....,
0
 GEOLOGIC SETTING OF THE MAVERICK BASIN

Basin History

The San Miguel Formation was deposited in the Mav­

erick Basin, the easternmost part of the Rio Grande Embay­

ment of the Gulf Coast Basin (fig. 2). Walper (1977) sug­

gests the Rio Grande Embayment originated as an aulacogen

resulting from the breakup of Pangaea, intiated during the

Triassic. By Late Jurassic the embayment had become a

distinct negative area receiving sediments from the basin

margins. During the Early Cretaceous, carbonate deposi­

tion began on the broad shelf and dominated until latest

Cretaceous when there was renewed tectonism in source

areas to the west and northwest and an influx of elastics

to the Maverick Basin and other parts of the Rio Grande

Embayment. By late Eocene the embayment was filled, and

the centers of deposition shifted gradually southeastward

into the Gulf Coast Basin (Spencer, 1965).

Structural Framework

The Maverick Basin is separated from the East Tex­

as Embayrnent to the northeast by the San Marcos Arch,

which trends southeastward from the Llano Uplift (fig. 2).

During Cretaceous sedimentation this arch acted as a mild­

8
 9

I
I
I
/
-- .--
./'

Maverick

Updip I imit of
f
base of Tertiary

Figure 2. Structural framework of the Rio Grande Embayment.

Modified from Spencer (1965).
 10

ly positive structure which subsided at a much slower rate

than the basins it separated (Loucks, 1976). The Maverick

Basin is bounded on the north by the Balcones Fault Zone

and on the northwest by the Devil's River Uplift. On the

west side the basin is separated from other basins of the

Rio Grande Embayment by the southeastward-trending Salado

Arch. The alignment of the arch is related to older

trends established by Paleozoic tectonic activity and mod­

ified by folding associated with uplift of the Sierra Mad­

re Oriental during the Laramide orogeny (Murray, 1961).

Several smaller structural features lie within the

Maverick Basin. The most prominent of these is the south­

eastward-plunging Chittim Anticline, which has a definite

expression in the San Miguel outcrop pattern (fig. 3).

The folding occurred during the very latest Cretaceous and

Tertiary (Spencer, 1965) and thus did not affect San

Miguel sedimentation.

The Pearsall Ridge trends northeastward through

the eastern part of Zavala County and the western half of

Frio County (fig. 3). This ridge seems to have been mo­

bile during the Early Cretaceous (Rose, 1972) and remai~­

ed a positive structural feature throughout the Cretaceous

(Lewis, 1977). San Miguel deposition was affected by the

ridge in that the section thickens in the associated syn­

cline north of the ridge.

 Medina Ca.

J
OUTCROP 0 30 Km
t--.r~~~-'----.--1....

!g$$l Olmos 0 20 Mi

CZ] San Miguel

Contour Interval• 500 Ft ( 152.4 M)

Datum' Top of Olmos

Figure 3. Structure on top of the Olmos Formation. The Olmos directly overlies
the San Miguel, and its regional structure closely resembles that of
the San Miguel. Courtesy of Geomap Company.
 12

Very few large faults occur in the Maverick Basin.

Because no extremely thick shale sections had been deposi­

ted above the stable shelf carbonates, the Upper Cretaceous

elastics of the Maverick Basin lack the large growth faults

so common in Gulf Coast Tertiary elastic sequences occur­

ring farther gulfward. The only major faults are those of

the Charlotte Fault system trending northeastward in the

eastern part of the basin and the faults associated with

the Pearsall Ridge and Chittim Anticline (fig. 3). The

Charlotte Fault system may be a southwestward extension of

the Mexia-Talco Fault system of central and northeast Tex­

as. The two fault systems occupy analogous positions with­

in the Gulf Coast Basin and are composed of en echelon

grabens (Murray, 1961). A large normal fault lies along

the north side of the Pearsall Ridge and is downthrown to

the north, accentuating the syncline there (fig. 3). Sev­

eral other normal faults in the basin cut the Chittim Anti­

cline perpendicular to its axis.

Numerous volcanic plugs, often described as "ser­

pentine plugs", affect local structure within the northern

part of the Maverick Basin, especially in Zavala County.

The plugs are at the southernendof an arcuate belt of

plugs which extends approximately 250 miles from Milam

County southwestward to Dimmit County (fig. 4). Most of

the volcanic activity took place during deposition of the

 13

- - Balcones Fault Zone

• Single and clustered

I;
,----'/,_,.,,".
occurrences of I I • \ MILAM I

volcanic plugs
(surface and
subsurface) /
/,
/ ) WILLILSONe •

\_,,~-
I ..';I<_
~ /
,,/

...
''"'TR~VIS ~- """'- ..

/
' HAYS
~ ~,••BASTROP\
~,-.,.
/, /
, /
"' , ~!· I

~ COMAL 'v\CALOWELL)/

, --.-T--=- --:.-"f"
I • ••I
• ,
~----~~BEXAR ~ADALUPE
A
../ ;;--7~ ~
j/
"
1'
JI • •
•KINNEY
•
,• • UVALDE I ME:IN.~
I

I /
/

;' -- -'
;'GONZALES
/,
'. r --=---'.eA&--~-
' I . ·1
.·V _Li':---.
MAVERICK I
. . . . / WILSON/-~/-
\. /'
ZAVALA. • • •
I '
N

I
f
' •• ••• I \.
\ I • • • • FRIO I ATASCOSA '

\ !~-~--·-----!----(~'
•\ iI DIMMIT
Ii LA SALLE
I MC MULLEN
I

1
0 80 Km
""-------· I
L___ _J 0 40 Mi

Figure 4. Location of Cretaceous volcanic plugs, central and

south Texas. Modified from Luttrell (1977).
 14

Austin and lower Taylor Groups. The grouping and align­

ment of the plugs suggest that the magmatic intrusions

followed faults through the Precambrian and Paleozoic rocks

of the Ouachita complex, moved up through fracture zones

related to the Balcones Fault Zone, and finally penetrated

the Austin and Taylor units (Simmons, 1967).

Differential compaction of sediments around the

volcanic plugs produced complex structures involving domes

and tensional graben systems locally in the strata over­

lying the plugs. The plugs also had a definite influence

on sedimentation of the San Miguel. Some San Miguel dep­

ositional sequences thin locally over certain plugs, de­

pending on the rate of differential compaction around and

the degree of topographic expression of the plug.

Upper Cretaceous Stratigraphy

The thickest section of Upper Cretaceous sediments

within the Gulf Coast Basin occurs in the Rio Grande Em­

bayment (Murray, 1957). The generalized dip section

through the Maverick Basin in figure 5 shows the strati­

graphic units for most of the Upper Cretaceous. Carbon­

ates dominated the Cretaceous through Austin deposition,

but with Taylor deposition, elastics began to prevail.

While shallow water carbonates of the Anacacho were being

produced around volcanic islands updip (Luttrell, 1977),

 Anacacho
N Mountains

NAVARRO

(/)
::::>
0
UJ
TAYLOR
u
c:t

~Volcanics ~
UJ
0::
u

0 30Km AUSTIN

0 20MI

EAGLE FORD

Figure 5. Generalized dip section through the Maverick Basin showing Upper
Cretaceous stratigraphy. Modified from Spencer (1965).
 16

shelf muds of the Upson Formation were being deposited

downdip. The three youngest Cretaceous formations, the
San Miguel, Olmos, and Escondido, are dominated by elastics
produced from Late Cretaceous tectonic activity to the west
and northwest. The stratigraphic sequence of Austin, Ana­
cacho/Upson, San Miguel, Olmos, and Escondido Formations
prevails throughout most of the Maverick Basin subsurface.
In the northernmost parts of the basin, however, the Escon­
dido Formation (Navarro Group) directly overlies the Ana­
cacho Formation (lower Taylor Group). An uplift at the
end of Taylor deposition caused erosion of Olmos and San
Miguel strata along that northern margin of the basin
(Spencer, 1965).
 SAN MIGUEL DEPOSITIONAL PATTERNS

Cross sections and net-sandstone maps indicate

that there were two subbasins of the Maverick Basin in Tex­

as during San Miguel deposition. Stratigraphic strike sec­

tion Y-Y' (fig. 6 and pl. V) best shows the separation of

the two subbasins, although not all mapped sandstone units

are present along the line of cross section. Sandstone

units A through I were deposited in a western subbasin

occupying much of Maverick, Zavala, and Dimmit Counties;

the sandstone bodies grouped as P were deposited in an

eastern subbasin centered in Frio County (fig. 7 and table

1). Strike section Z-Z' (fig. 8 and p. VI) crosses the

eastern subbasin closer to its main depocenter and shows

that deposits of sand supplied to the two subbasins over­

lapped through time. The two depositional areas are termed

"subbasins" here because they accumulated two distinct,

although not completely separate, series of sand deposits

supplied from two different sources, rather than because

there was any prominent str~ctural boundary between these

areas.

Sediment Sources

Sediment input to the western subbasin was from

17
 y y'
SW I . . I I I NE
D1mm1t Medina Co. .Atascosa
Maverick Co. 'i Zavala Co. j Frio Co. j
Co. I Co.

Ft M
0 L - - - - , ­ ~o Km
~---, 10 M1 OTO
0

Escondido Tie
c-c'W~ll j•oo
~200
·­ - 1 - - - 1 __ 1___ (_ _ _ l___ j______ j_____ - --- - - - I BOO

Top of
- 1 -=;:o-::::-:--~---·----Eroded---·-·------·
San Miguel
~~-r
-....... ......__........._. --.....

-~•,~"''"'L ~1=:,;;;:;qiif!~£~1!~d 1100

~f~
f400

1600

2000L600

Figure 6. Strike section Y-Y', simplified from plate V. Line of cross section
is shown in figure 1.

r-'
CX>
 KINNEY 1 UVALDE , SEOIMEN~ MEDINA
I 1
INPUT I

l
S~~}~\N~----Ji,F---
~
l _ l
~.. MAvrn1c;q- -------------U.vALA' - - - - - -
i //
\ -T/-FRiol
! ++\

' )j i
<
J>
~
~~---,,, j \.
~,..~{ ') <<
/ .
y---."\
I

IG- l
)\--'(
i / ......./ . \,'',,,,\ !
!

)I
()A ~"·,,..,__,,.,.---,/~
F
1 ·--
/~
J ..----------p----· I
I J
I I

N ~
I
--

-----
__, , /
/
)-Y-
I

I
. ,. "1"" - .
\ ~~. (.)
·............. I /
/ ..., . (__)•' // '
EASTERN
\ SUBBASIN I
I ~ I _,../ I (J
0

q:) l / I

i . "-..{'-.
I l)
')\ II
I
/(/>.~ .;)/~_-_//__ ( \ ·;>-_Jo.=--·"/
/ ·--·-
/WESTERN
tli
I

l__
Jj~~....
••·f; I
'1
---LAs"Allif- - - - _ _
1

1'
MAcT~G~~~~

r
I
, / SUBBASIN .

\ \~-, i I i
' I i I I '
r_,..,, SAN MIGUEL
L__J OUTCROP (,_ / I/
I/
1' I
I
\~ __1__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _01!!1~ I
'"""-\ I I
0
0
10

10
20 30Km
20Mi
\~ i
I
I
I
-------- -- -~-~---------

Figure 7. Depocenters of San Miguel sandstone units and directions of sediment

input. The depocenters are defined by the 70-foot (21-meter) net­
sandstone contours.
 z t
SW I•Zavala•I I NE
Dimmit Co. I Co. I Frio Co. j Atascosa Co.

Fl M
0 20 Km
Tie Well 1-----...-L--...--' 0 0
A-~
---- ---- ....... __ ___ 0 10 Mi

Tie Well 400

c-c'
Eroded 200
Olmos
800

Top of
Son Miguel
1200

400

1600

2000 600

Figure 8. Strike section Z-Z', simplified from plate VI. Line of cross section
is shown in figure 1.

rv
0
 21

the northwest (fig. 7) and very likely resulted from tee-

tonic activity in either northern Mexico or New Mexico.

Sediments, most of which were probably derived from New

Mexico, were introduced to the eastern subbasin from the

north.

Differences in mineralogy which would help verify

different source areas for eastern and western subbasin

sandstone units could not be shown because, for this study,

no cores or cuttings were available for sandstone units of

the eastern subbasin. It is possible, however, that the

f luvial systems feeding the two main Maverick depocenters

originated in the same region, or at least drained similar

kinds of terrain with similar rock types and climates so

that mineralogy and other sediment characteristics of the

two may be very similar. Also, both areas may have re­

ceived volcanic debris either eroded from local highs of

the volcanic plugs or perhaps contributed directly by the

latest volcanic activity in the northern part of the

Maverick Basin.

Depositional Systems and Origin of Sandstone

Geometries - General Comments

The San Miguel sandstone units, interpreted on the

basis of cross sections, net-sandstone patterns, and core

data, represent a series of deltaic deposits reworked to

 22

varying degrees by marine processes during delta building

and by physical and biological processes during subsequent

transgressions. While the thickest parts of the sandstone

bodies are strike aligned, most of the net-sandstone pat­

terns indicate the locations of updip feeder systems.

Delta morphology is influenced by many factors, but

it is primarily the product of an interplay between fluvial

sediment input and the reworking of sediments by wave and/

or tidal processes {Galloway, 1975). The San Miguel dep­

ositional systems in their prograding stages could be

broadly classed as high-destructive, wave-dominated deltas,

which were described by Fisher and others (1969) as deltas

in which "principal accumulation is as a series of coastal

barriers flanking the river mouth, giving a cuspate to

arcuate t~end of the main sand units." In these systems

wave energy is dominant over the rate of sediment input and

tidal energy flux. Most of the sediments discharged into

the marine environment are reworked along strike by wave

processes, so that the main bodies of sand are strike

oriented (fig. 9).

On Galloway's (1975) delta-classification triangle

(f~g. 10), the San Miguel systems plot in the lower left

third but close to the outside of the triangle near the

wave energy flux-sediment input line. The San Miguel

shows no evidence of strong tidal influence; tidal range

 23

,____
I
___I

t
Updip
/
\
Maximum sand axes

0 10 km
I I

0 IOmi
Depositional strike

Figure 9. Idealized net-sand pattern for a wave-dominated delta.

From Fisher (1969).
 24

SEDIMENT INPUT

FLU VIAL
DOMINATED

Mahakam

Orinoco
Nile

WAVE Niger TIDE

Muong
DOMINATED DOMINATED
Rhone !!urdekin
Yolu
Kelan1on
Colorado Fly
Brazos
Sao Francisco Copper

WAVE ENERGY FLUX

Figure 10. Triangular classification of deltaic depositional

systems. Modified from Galloway (1975).
 25

was probably small as it has been throughout most of Texas

Gulf Coast history.

The preserved shapes of the San Miguel sandstone

bodies depended on three primary factors: (1) rate of

sediment input, (2) wave energy, and (3) rate of absolute

sea-level rise (or regional subsidence). All three factors

were important during delta building; the last two fac­

tors also determined the degree of transgressive reworking

after delta abandonment. Wave energy was probably fairly

constant. Shelf slope and basin configuration, two impor­

tant parameters that determine wave energy, did not change

s~gnificantly during San Miguel deposition. Shelf width,

another factor that generally influences wave energy, varied

according to the dip position of the deltas but perhaps

did not result in s~gnificant differences in wave energy

for the various San Miguel systems. Rate of sediment in­

put and rate of sea-level rise were much more variable

than wave energy. The degree of wave reworking depended

not as much on the magnitude of wave energy as on the

amount of time available for reworking, as determined by

the rate of sediment input relative to the rate of sea­

level rise.

The variability of rates of sediment input and

sea-level rise produced a spectrum of delta types from

highly wave-dominated deltas to wave-influenced lobate

 26

deltas. In order for deltas to be built, rate of sediment

input must have been great enough from time to time to

overcome the overall transgression of the San Miguel. How­

ever, the slower the rate of sediment input or the higher

the rate of sea-level rise, then (1) the slower the rate of

progradation, (2) the greater the reworking of deltaic

sediments along strike by marine processes, and (3) the

greater the strike-elongation of the deltaic sand body

(fig. 11). If either the rate of sea-level rise or the

rate of sediment input changed so that sediment input could

no longer keep pace with the overall rise in sea level and

reworking by marine processes, then progradation ceased

and the delta was abandoned.

After delta abandonment, rate of transgression was

very important in determining the degree of physical re­

working of deltaic deposits by marine processes. If trans­

gression was rapid, there was little opportunity for re­

working of deltaic sediments by waves and currents, and

the delta retained most of its original configuration. On

the other hand, a low rate of transgression would have

caused the deltaic sand bodies to remain in shallow, wave­

influenced environments much longer so that original geom­

etries could be altered to a greater extent. These high­

ly reworked sand bodies could have evolved into the off­

shore bar and shelf shoal systems postulated by Lewis

 Factors favoring various deltaic sandstone Effects
geometries during major transgressions
Rote of absolute Sandstone
Wove Rote of Rote of Degree of
sea-level rise geometry
energy* sediment input progrodolion physical reworking
(or regional subsidence) (net-sandstone patterns)

n
low high none high low

\ I @ Arcuote

iT
moderate

I
I \
lJ, I TI
l~w
high
~Cuspate

~
------~ Strike­
elongate

none Absolute sea- level none delta abandonment

rise overcomes
sediment 1nput

*Relatively constant during Son Miguel depos11ton

Figure 11. Delta responses to variations in the primary factors affecting the
geometries of deltaic sandstone bodies deposited during major trans­
gressions. The factors and the parameters they affect, including
sandstone geometry, are all considered continuous spectra. No cer­
tain combinations of factors are implied to yield specific types of
net-sandstone patterns; the figure illustrates how a variation in
any one factor results in a variation in net-sandstone patterns.
Note that in the particular example of the San Miguel, however, wave
energy was relatively constant and thus did not account for varia~
tions in San Miguel sandstone geometries. N
-.....]
 28

(1977) for the San Miguel. The sand available for these

bar or shoal systems, however, would have been that fed

into the areas by dip-oriented f luvial systems rather than

transported totally along strike to the site of final dep­

osition as suggested by Lewis.

Sandstone Units of the Western Maverick Subbasin

Nine major San Miguel sandstone units, named A

through I from oldest to youngest, were delineated in the

western subbasin of the Maverick Basin. Stratigraphic dip

section B-B' (fig. 12 and pl. II) intersects all nine of

these units, crossing the main depocenters of most of them

and following the central dip axis of the western subbasin

(figs. 1 and 7). Dip section A-A' (pl. I), parallel to

but southwest of B-B' (fig. 1), intersects the depocenters

of sandstone units D, G, and I. Net-sandstone maps were

constructed for all of the western units except sandstone

H, which was truncated updip by erosion and appears on

only a few well logs.

Strike sections Y-Y' and Z-Z' (figs. 6 and 8) show

that sand deposition began in the western subbasin earlier

than in the eastern one. Units A through E were deposited

before the eastern subbasin received its first sand.

 B B'
NW I SE
Maverick Co. Zavala Co. Dimmit Co. j LaSalle Co.
Ft M
0 0
I I I
0 20 Km Tie Well Tie Well Escondido Tie Well
0
1-----.....--L--~·_J

10 Mi x-x· Y-Y
1
z-z•
400

Olmos 200
800

Top of

1200
400

1600

2000 600

Figure 12. Dip section B-B', simplified from plate II. Line of cross section
is shown in figure 1.
N
\0
 30

Transgressive-Regressive Cycles

Although each individual sandstone unit is a pro­

gradational sequence, the relative positions of the units

(fig. 12) indicate that there were two main transgressive

sequences (fig. 13) which made up an overall marine trans­

gression (caused by an absolute sea-level rise or regional

subsidence) during the San Miguel. The oldest units in

the western subbasin, A and B, were stacked farthest basin­

ward. Sandstone unit C occurs updip of A and B, and unit

D, even farther updip. These four units make up the first

transgressive sequence (fig. 14).

The second transgressive sequence is indicated by

the positions of units E, F, G, and H. Transgression fol­

lowing deposition of unit E, which took place basinward of

D, b~gan this second cycle. Units F and G, which occupy

roughly the same dip position, were laid down updip of E.

Unit H was deposited farthest updip of these four units

and represented the last minor regression preserved with­

in this second transgressive sequence.

Deposition of unit I completed San Miguel sedimen­

tation in the western subbasin and was followed by another

major transgression before a major progradational sequence

of the Olmos. Thus, the San Miguel Formation represents

an overall marine transgression (fig. 14).

 31

a. First Transgressive Sequence

I I I

- Mav~rick ~~--j ----

Zav~la C~.---i---~rio ~;---1

_)~),
___/I
\c~
~
0
4 I___
i
--------1­
LaSalle Co.
I

3
I
I 182
I
0 30 Km
0 20Mi

b. Second Transgressive Sequence

_______I ____________I _____ \--7" __.
Maverick Co. lj Zavala Co. ' Frio Co. VI I
~·
/.....
i
I

/ ~
8 I 6

---~er - ------1-
I

LaSalle Co. ,

~
N I

J
5
f
Dimmit Co. : 0 30 Km
------------1 0 20 Mi

Figure 13. The two transgressive sequences of the San Miguel

defined by the order of deposition (1 through 8) of
the sandstone units. The first transgressive sequence
(a) involves sandstones A, B, C, and D, and the second
(b) involves E, F, G, and Hof the western Maverick
subbasin. The two lobes of P are approximate time
equivalents of F and G. Unit configurations are in­
dicated by 70-foot (21-meter) net-sandstone contours.
 SE
NW
0 5 10 15km
I, _ _._,-5~·- ·,
O
~ ~

IOmi

transgression

• transgressive

~ regressive(progrado1ional)
Distance Basinward

Figure 14. Transgressive-regressive cycles shown by a schematic dip section

through the axis of the western Maverick subbasin.
w
N
 33

Sandstones A and B

The net-sandstone pattern for unit A, the oldest

of all the San Miguel units, shows that it is a very elongate

and strike-aligned system trending north-northeastward

(fig. 15). Sandstone A, which is at least 43 miles (70

kilometers) long and 8 to 14 miles (13 to 22 kilometers)

wide, is centered in the common corner of Zavala, Frio,

Dimmit, and La Salle Counties. Cross section B-B' (pl.

II) indicates that A is composed of three sandstone bodies

which together show a migration basinward and represent a

minor regressive sequence. At the northern end of the A

unit is vague evidence of an updip feeder system trending

westward. Because most of the unit extends to the south

of this feeder system, longshore currents must have been

from northeast to southwest. Thickness of sandstone is

not uniform along the strike axis of A. The sandstone is

concentrated in three main ''pods", the thickest of which

has 130 feet (40 meters) of net sandstone.

Sandstone B (fig. 16) is very elongate and strike

aligned, and, consequently, is very similar to A. How­

ever, B trends a little more to the northeast than A.

Unit B occupies roughly the same map position as A but

covers a . greater area and extends farther southwestward

almost to the Webb County line. The strike pinchouts of

 34

• •
•
•

• Frio Co. z'

Zavala Co.

• •
•
•
•
•

B •
N

Dimmit Co. Co.

f
•

25 Km

Contour Interval 10 Ft ( 3.05 M) 0 15 Mi

•

Figure i5. Net sandstone, San Miguel unit A.

 35

•
•
•
• z'
•
•
Zavala Co. Co.
•
• •
•
•
•
• •
•

• • •

•
Dimmit Co. LaSalle Co.
•

z
f
I

--------------'
e
Webb Co.

Contour Interval 10 Ft (3.05 M)

•
I

I
0

0
25 K.r:n

15 Mi

Figure 16. Net sandstone, San Miguel unit B.

 36

B are difficult to define because of lack of close well

control in those areas, but the unit is longer than the 54

miles (86 kilometers) estimated between 10-foot (3.05­

meter) contours (no 0-foot contours are shown for any of

the net-sandstone maps constructed in this study) . Another

similarity between A and B is that the two main sandstone

bodies of B, like those of A, seem to show a slight regres­

sion (pl. II). Although sandstones A and Bare essential­

ly coincident in that the two thickest pods of B lie over

the two thickest of A, parts of B may have prograded

slightly farther than A. Perhaps the same local structures

were controlling deposition of both A and B. The only

major difference between A and B is that there is no evi­

dence of a feeder system for B, although the fluvial sys­

tems feeding these deltas were probably small, and fluvial

sandstones could be easily missed with the data base used.

If deltaic origins are assumed for both A and B,

these units during subsequent transgressions were probably

reworked into offshore bars or the "break in bottom slope"

systems postulated by Lewis (1977). Correlation of the

section below these units shows that they pinch out updip

onto what must have been a sharply defined basin margin

at the time of deltaic deposition. With transgression,

however, that feature became a sharp break in bottom slope

where the sand was reworked as an offshore-bar system.

 37

Sandstone c

As part of the first transgressive sequence of the

San Miguel, sandstone C lies updip of the older A and B

units. This sandstone, known as the "Elaine" or "Atlas"

sandstone (table 1) in the petroleum industry, covers

much of southern Zavala and northern Dimmit Counties (fig.

17). The main body of C, with net sandstone of more than

130 feet (40 meters) in places, is strike aligned and

trends northeastward, although it is not nearly as elon­

gate as units A and B. Sandstone C extends more than 45

miles (72 kilometers) along strike and 30 miles (48 kilom­

eters) in the dip direction.

Net-sandstone patterns (fig. 17) indicate that the

shape of the main body of sandstone C is arcuate to cus­

pate. This system shows no effects of a dominant long­

shore current direction and was reworked very little after

delta abandonment. The strike-aligned body on the downdip

side of C probably resulted from the last building epi­

sode, during which sand was reworked along strike. On the

updip side net-sandstone patterns indicate the position

of a feeder system, although most of this system has been

eroded.
 38

I
I

•
Maverick Co. Zavala Co. I Frio Co.
• •
I

•
•
•
• • I
N

•
•
•
I I f
II
•
I z·
•
•
• lI F . -
I rl0 \.0,

--lLas~
Co .

•
I
l

y •
• • •
• • Core

•
Dimmit Co. 25 Km

Contour Interval 10 Ft (3.05 M) • 15 Mi

Figure 17. Net sandstone, San Miguel unit c.

 39

Sandstone D

Sandstone D, farthest updip of the units of the

first San Miguel transgressive sequence, extends over much

of the northern half of Maverick and western Zavala Coun­

ties (fig. 18). Known as the "basal San Miguel" sandstone

(table 1) in this updip part of the basin, unit D is the

main sandstone that crops out in Maverick County (outcrop

is described in "Vertical Sequences" of this report).

Much of the updip part of unit D, including the feeder

system, however, has been eroded.

The D system is spread out in a series of strike­

or iented sandstone bodies representing various delta­

building stages (fig. 18). The thickest part of the sys­

tem, with net sandstone of approximately 95 feet(29 meters),

forms an arcuate trend in eastern and central Maverick

County, south and east of the outcrop. The more basinward

delta phases are not nearly as thick. These thin parts of

the D system probably prograded rapidly over the area of

the underlying C unit because the sands of C did not com­

pact as readily as the surrounding shale. Thus, the rate

of subsidence was slower than it was for the deposition

of the updip parts of the D system.

\\---- - --~~n~ey C~f· . · _() -----'---------~valde ~~---------- : /? I

: ..:. I •
\ 8 I xi
~ OF loATA
••

J
'
>.-'7 Maverick Co.
•
.,
\.
•

~ (._
~
• •
•
N '\~ ~
I
I 0
~
•
l \

f '
'...._ ... Cl\

l~~ •
•

' 0
•
' ~
'-\I
I
• • • k\:>:\I San Miguel outcrop
\...

Contour lnte1 val 10 Ft ( 3.05 M)

''
-­
~'
' •
•
0
I
0
• Core

I I
25 Km
1'
15 Mi

Figure 18. Net sandstone, San Miguel unit 0.

 41

Sandstone E

Sandstone E, known as the "Big Wells" sandstone

(table 1), is the least extensive of all San Miguel sand­

stone units. The system extends only 35 miles (56 kilom­

eters) in the strike direction and 18 miles (29 kilometers)

in the dip direction (fig. 19). The main depocenter, with

net sandstone up to 90 feet (27 meters), lies in the north­

eastern corner of Dimmit County and is slightly updip of

the A and B units of the first transgressive sequence

(fig. 7). Deposition of E farther basinward than D marked

a regression, which was then followed by the second major

transgressive sequence of the San Miguel.

Sandstone E is a system composed of several north­

eastward-trending, strike-aligned bodies (fig. 19), which

represent several delta-building stages. A feeder system

is suggested at the southern end of the E unit, where the

contours were extended because of only one well. If this

feature is actually part of a feeder system, then long­

shore currents were from southwest to northeast, or oppo­

site of that for unit A, which occupied a similar position

in the basin. This change in dominant longshore-current

direction is reasonable considering that the Maverick

Basin shoreline may have been in a situation analogous to

that of the present "coastal bend" part of the South Texas

 42

• z'

Zavala Co.
•
•
•
~ •
•
•
B

LaSalle Co.
• •

N
•
• •

• f
·• Core

0 25Km
1--~.1.--.....-...1..-~....i.....~....J.-~.._.J

0 15Mi
Contour Interval 10 Ft ( 3.05 M) • •

Figure 19. Net sandstone, San Miguel unit E.

 43

coastline (30 to 50 miles or 48 to 80 kilometers south

of Port Aransas), where opposing longshore currents con­

verge. Changes in shoreline configuration need not have

been very great to cause reversals in dominant longshore

current direction at a particular point.

Sandstone F

The main development of sandstone F, which lies

updip of unit E, is in the southwest quarter of Zavala

County (fig. 20), where net sandstone is almost 90 feet

(27 meters). The main, northeastward-trending strike axis

of the system is at least 60 miles (96 kilometers) long.

The conspicuous cuspate shape of unit F indicates origin

as a wave-dominated delta with little or no transgressive

reworking.

The much-eroded updip part of the F unit repre­

sents the earliest phase of the system. As the delta

built southeastward, it reached an elongate, northeast­

ward-trending area over which progradation was very rapid

before building the main part of the system (fig. 20).

The area where rapid progradation took place corresponds

to the main sand depocenter of the underlying D unit. The

sand of D may have compacted much less readily than sur­

rounding shale, resulting in a slower rate of subsidence

and, therefore, a rno~e rapid progradation and a thinner

\ .- - - - - - - - - - - Cot:=::..
Kinney - 0
.... V I VO e
---;----,------------ ---0.
-----------­
U Id C
)
\
..
·:··'.::·.

~
I . • .
\
\ B~l..IMrr
.;::; ..
I
l
. __R_o_si9~AL xsoll~o~~~--
f:
-~
I
,

~\ ~______..
l - Y

l
OF D - -- -
1
Maverick Co./ _ /.) { ; ; j \ _ , ,

l'
' - ...
•
',
'" •
·..·.:.:'.
C.:i I
; •
) "'.:\
\ •
I

\~
Q
~
•
,c 0
I J;>:

{ ~
\
N \ • •
•

f
"' l"\_
- - G>

...
\

)
0
(\' •
• FY?) San Miguel outcrop
I
• •

,,
I

\ Dimmit Co.
•
' ... ~
• •
~ 0 25Km
• I I
I
I I
I
I
I
I

Contour Interval 10 Ft (3.05 M) \Y-~ • 0 15Mi

Figure 20. Net sandstone, San Miguel unit F.

~
ii::>­
 45

deposit of the F unit. This situation may be analogous

to that described above in which unit C influenced deposi­

tion of part of unit D. This explanation for the area of

thinning may not be entirely satisfactory, however, because

two other San Misuel sandstone intervals younger than F

thin across the same feature, and after stacking four elas­

tic systems, the lowest probably would have little or no

influence on the top system.

Another explanation for the area of thinning is

that a minor structural high affected sedimentation. This

structural feature would have had to have been formed af­

ter deposition of unit D, however, because D is thickest

in that area. There is no present structural evidence of

an elongate high, although such a feature probably would

have been masked by the younger Chittim Anticline. One

explanation ruled out for the area of thinning is that of

erosion because several sedimentary cycles thin in the

area but none shows signs of truncation.

Sandstone G

The G unit, known variously in the petroleum in­

dustry as the "Torch", the "King" (Lewis, 1962), the

"second San Miguel", or the "Fitzsi:mmons" sandstone (table

1), is a very large, northeastward-trending, strike-orient­

ed system covering western Zavala, western Dimmit, and

 46

southern Maverick Counties (fig. 21). The G sandstone

spans at least 60 miles (96 kilometers) along strike in

Texas and extends into Mexico past the limits of data for

this study. The main depocenter, with net-sandstone val­

ues up to almost 140 feet (43 meters), lies in southwestern

Zavala and northwestern Dimmit Counties.

Sandstone G, a small regressive stage in the second

major San Miguel transgressive sequence, occupies almost

the same dip position as unit F (fig. 13b). Although the

thickest part of G lies to the southwest of the F depo­

center, the G sandstone overlaps much of the F system and

thins in the same area that F does {fig. 20).

The G sandstone is interpreted as a deltaic system

which was reworked along strike probably both during delta

building and the transgression following delta abandonment.

The position of a feeder system at the northern end of the

sandstone unit indicates that sand transport by strong

longshore currents was toward the southwest.

Sandstone I

Sandstone I, known informally as the "first San

Miguel" sandstone (table 1), is the youngest of the San

Miguel units in the western subbasin of the Maverick

Basin. This elongate, northeastward-trending, strike­

oriented system occupies roughly the same area as unit G

 47

~~-·------
• "'a·
(
Dimmit Co.

N ~A'

LIZ] Son M1guei outcrop

J • Core

0 25i<m

Contour lnter-.ol 10 Ft ( 3.0 5 Ml 0 15Mi

Figure 21. Net sandstone, San Miguel unit G.

 48

(figs. 21 and 22). The outline formed by the 10-foot

(3.05-meter) net-sandstone contour shows that the I system

is at least 60 miles (96 kilometers) long and 22 miles

(35 kilometers) wide. The main sandstone body, with maxi­

mum net sandstone slightly greater than 80 feet (24 meters),

extends almost to the Rio Grande, and a few thin sandstones

possibly extend into Mexico.

A much-eroded older phase of the I system lies up­

dip, analogous to that of unit F (fig. 20). Although net­

sandstone patterns in that updip part of sandstone I were

contoured with a dominant dip alignment, there are too few

data to be certain of the patterns. It is possible that

the updip part may have been reworked along strike like

the downdip younger part of the system. After deposition

of the updip part, the I system prograded rapidly over the

same northeastward-trending area of thinning in eastern

Maverick and western Zavala Counties as did the F unit.

With longshore transport toward the southwest, the

I system built primarily in that direction. As in the G

unit, reworking by waves and the strong longshore currents

had a significant effect on the final sandstone body

shape.

Sandstone Units of the Eastern Maverick Subbasin

San Miguel sand deposition began later in the

 49

Maverick Co.

Dimmit Co.

N
ti.
[SJ San Miguel outcrop

J • Core

0 25 Km
~_.__....,._...__ ..........____...__""T"'
Contour Interval 10 Ft (3.05 M) 0 15 Mi

Figure 22. Net sandstone, San Miguel unit I.

 50

eastern subbasin than in the western subbasin of the Mav­

erick Basin. According to regional correlations, the main

eastern sandstone bodies (grouped as P) are interpreted to

be stratigraphic equivalents of units F and G of the west­

ern subbasin (fig. 13b and pl. V). The thickest sandstone

body of unit P is sometimes referred to as the "Olmos B"

sandstone (table 1). Detailed correlations, however, show

that the P unit interfingers with the San Miguel deposits

of the Western subbasin and is definitely older than the

overlying Olmos. In addition, correlations carried from

the subsurface Olmos section in Atascosa County described

by Glover (1955) show that the P sandstone bodies are old­

er than the Olmos B defined in that eastern part of the

Maverick Basin.

Unit P (fig. 23) is a composite of two main delta

lobes (pls. III, V, and VI), which prograded farther into

the Maverick Basin than did their western counterparts

(fig. 13b). The P deltas were probably more highly con­

structive and closer to lobate in shape than were the

western deltas. Although the systems were wave-influenced,

the rate of sediment input, which was from the north, may

have been greater than that for the western subbasin,

which received sediments from the northwest. Another

possible reason the deltas of the P unit prograded farther

than did the western deltas was th~t the eastern subbasin
 51

I
I

Uvalde Co.
I
I

------1---­ 1

I I

I
Zavala Co. I I
Atascosa Co.

l z'

-.-- -I, - - - - - - - - ­
z 1

LaSalle Co. McMullen Co.

Dimmit Co.
I
I
25 Km
1· 0
15 Mi
Contour interval 20 Ft (6.10 Ml • 0

Figure 23. Net sandstone, San Miguel unit P.

 52

was closer to the San Marcos Arch and regional subsidence

was much slower and sea level more stable.

The two main delta lobes of unit P, which occupy

most of Frio County (fig. 23), were combined for net-sand­

stone determinations because it is difficult to pick the

boundary between the two where the sandstones closely over­

lap. Correlations show, however, that the older and thick­

er of the two lobes makes up most of the western part of

the P unit. This older P lobe shows the thickest (approx­

imately 160 feet, or 49 meters) single upward-coarsening

sandstone sequence of any San Miguel unit (pl. VI, Parker

#1-R Oppenheimer). The second lobe was developed in the

eastern side of the area covered by the P unit.

Vertical Sequences

The cores available for study were from the C, D,

E, G, and I sandstone units of the San Miguel; unfortunate­

ly, all the cores were taken from the main depocenters of

the units or the nearby flanks and only a couple of cores

were available for each unit. Thus the core distribution

did not allow observation of lateral changes within the

systems. Electrical logs did, however, document lateral

changes within each system but indicated great similarities

in vertical sequences, especially in the main depocenters,

of the various sandstone units.

 53

Textures

Both cores and electrical logs indicate that the

main sandstone bodies are dominated by upward-coarsening

cycles such as in figure 24. Figure 25 illustrates the

distribution of log pattern types of sandstone G. Indi­

vidual vertical sequences in the main depocenter of the G

unit dominantly show more than one upward-coarsening cycle

(log pattern A). Updip and downdip, however, the sequences

. generally show single upward-coarsening cycles (log pat­

tern B). These upward-coarsening cycles, multiple or sin­

. gle, either have a sharp upper boundary or show a finer

zone at the top that is a little more gradational into the

shale above. On the fringes of the system, sandstones

show either very thin upward-coarsening sequences (log pat­

tern C) or thin synunetrical peaks on the logs. This dis­

tribution of vertical sequences is expected if the delta

progrades in more than one phase; the thickest "stack" of

cycles should be in the center of the overall sandstone

body. Most of the other San Miguel sandstone units, how­

ever, do not show the multiplicity cf cycles but rather

consist of single upward-coarsening cycles in the depocen­

ters as well as in the outer parts of the sandstone bodies.

Upward-fining or blocky log patterns (log patterns D),

which suggest channel deposits, are common in the area

 SP DEPTH
.
SHORT NORMAL
MEAN SAND
GRAIN SIZE TEXTURE POROSITY

% Sand
6
ohms· jm fS VFS 0 4P 3~.. .~e . . 'e. 0%

... .. ... ... .. .. .

···· ...
.... ······ ·· ····..
.......
···· ·· · ·· · ····

Calcite-cemented
~

'(----­-1---LL ~---\·~coo• .
--­

WOOD#I WEATHERS
....

ZAVALA CO.

Figure 24. Example electrical log patterns and vertical sequences of textures
shown in a core from the San Miguel G unit in the Wood #1 Weathers
well in Zavala County.

Ul
.i:i.
 55

I
Ma.enc- Co. Za.ola Co.
D
D
c cc

c
c

LOGS

B C

o
t
10 ~o Km l
0 '°
Net sandstone values in feet
15 Mi

'-,
\
J-­
Figure 25. Distribution of various types of SP patterns shown
in the San Miguel G unit. SP curves show multiple
upward-coarsening cycles (A), single upward-coarseni'ng
cycles (B), very thin upward-coarsening cycles or
symmetrical peaks (C), and upward-fining or blocky
patterns (D).
 56

where net-sandstone contours indicate a feeder system.

The dominant upward-coarsening cycles are reflected

primarily by a decrease in amount of clay upward rather

than a marked increased in mean "sand" grain size. The

mean "sand~ grain size generally coarsens from coarse silt

at the bases of the cycles to very fine or fine sand at the

tops (fig. 24). Mean grain size in all of the Wood #1

Weathers core is within the very fine sand fraction, al­

though the base (not shown) of the "sandstone" sequence

probably has a mean grain size of coarse silt. Amount of

clay decreases from the high percentages in the silty

shale below the sandstone bodies to essentially zero per­

cent in the upper parts of the upward-coarsening cycles

(fig. 24). The clay is distributed in wispy laminations,

lenses, and burrow-wall linings rather than disseminated

throughout.

Porosity, determined from thin-section estimates

and core analyses, shows an overall increase upward with

the decrease in clay content (fig. 24) and generally ranges

from approximately 10 percent upward to 25 to 30 percent.

Although most of the porosity is intergranular, the highest

porosities occur in zones where shell fragments and feld­

spar grains have been leached. Original porosity was des­

troyed by calcite cementation in some zones, commonly the

coarsest, most well-sorted zones of the cycles (fig. 24).

 57

These cemented zones give very low self-potential (SP) and

very high resistivity values on the electrical log (fig.

24). If only the SP curve is considered, such a zone may

be misinterpreted as a shale bed rather than clean, well-

sorted sand. Thin limestone beds, which are sandy or silty

micri tes and biomicri tes are also non-porous. Most o.f

these beds are only 6 to 12 inches (15 to 30 centimeters)

thick and are not recognizable on the electrical log.

To summarize textural characteristics, the San

Miguel sandstones are very fine grained, ranging from

coarse siltstone to fine sandstone. Although clay percen­

tage ranges widely, sorting is good to very good within

the "sand" mode. Most of the sand grains are angular to

very angular because silt and very fine sand are not easily

rounded. Many of the grains (quartz slivers and feldspar

crystals) are elongate and oriented parallel or subparal­

lel to bedding planes.

Structures

Cores from the San Miguel sandstone units, some of

which penetrate most of the sandstone body, show that bur­

rows are the dominant structures throughout. In the lower

parts of the upward-coar~ening cycles, burrows are so dense

,,,--­

that individual burrows are indistinct, and certain zones

appear to be completely homogenized. The burrows are

 58

mostly h~j..zontal (pl. VII-A) and generally become more

distinct upward. Where vertical burrows (pl. VII-B) are

present, they occupy the coarsest-grained parts of the ver­

tica~>s~_c~~on. In zones of distinct burrows, Ophiomorpha

(pl. VII-A and -B), very similar to the burrows of certain

modern callianassid shrimp, is the most easily recognized

and one of the most conunon types.

No large-scale primary structures are observed in

the cores. The parts of the vertical sections that are not

completely churned by burrowing show that horizontal and

irregular laminations are the most abundant primary struc­

_,,./
tures; however, small-scale cross beds are common in some

of the cores. Thin zones (6 to 12 inches or 15 to 30

centimeters) of horizontal laminations with few or no bur­

rows punctuate the thick, burrowed sequences in some of

the cores (pl. VII-C). The bases of the unburrowed zones

are sharp, but the tops have burrowed contacts. These

thin zones probably represent sediments deposited very

rapidly by storms.

Large-scale primary structures are observed only

in outcrops. In the only outcrop where most structures

are not obscured by weathering, a small part of the D

sandstone is exposed (pl. VIII-A). The section shows very

friable, clay~_y__, _bµ.i;:row~d silts tone beds ( 6 to 18 inches

or 15 to 45 centimeters thick) alternating with well­

59

Plate VII

A. Horizontal Ophiomorpha. These burrows, very

similar to those of modern callianassid
shrimp, have walls with smooth interiors and
exteriors formed of a single layer of round
mud pellets. Core slab from G sandstone,
Wood #1 Weathers, Zavala County.

B. Vertical burrows, most of which are Ophio­

morpha. Core slab from E sandstone, Delray
#6-14 Rogers, Dimmit County.

C. Bed of horizontal laminations with few bur­

rows. The base of the bed (at the break
between the lower two core pieces) is a
sharp contact. The upper contact is bur­
rowed. Core slab from I sandstone, Lone
Star #1 Bray, Dimmit County.
 60

•
cm an
0 0
2
I
A 4
2
6
8

B c
61

Plate VIII

A. The San Miguel D sandstone exposed in a road­

cut along U.S. Highway 277 approximately 14
miles (22 kilometers) north of Eagle Pass,
Maverick County. In the lower part of the
roadcut section, burrowed, clayey siltstone
beds alternate with cross-bedded sandstone
units. At the top of the section is a mas­
sive sandstone unit.

B. Low-angle cross beds in sandstone units shown

in plate VIII-A. Scale is 12 inches (30.5
centimeters).

C. Hummocky cross stratification in sandstone

units shown in plate VIII-A. Scale is 12
inches {30.5 centimeters).

D. Deep, vertical Ophiomorpha penetrating one

of the sandstone units shown in plate VIII­
A. Scale is 12 inches {30.5 centimeters).
A B

D
 63

sorted, cross-bedded sandstone (1 to 2.5 feet or 30 to 96

centimeters thick). At the top of the section is a massive

sandstone unit.

The sand$tone units with primary structures are

characterized by low-angle cros~ ~~~s (pl. VIII-B), large­

sc~le trough cross beds, and possible hummocky cross strat­

ification (pl. VIII-C) described by Harms and others (1975)

as being produced in very fine sand by storm waves. A few

distinct deep vertical burrows (Ophiornorpha) penetrate

these units (pl.VIII-D), but the tops of the beds are

much more densely burrowed.

 DEPOSITIONAL MODELS FOR THE SAN MIGUEL FOR..~TION

Wave-Dominated Delta Model

The depositional systems of the San Miguel Forma­

tion are best described as wave-dominated deltas built as

minor progradational deposits during a major transgression

caused by an absolute rise in sea level or regional sub­

sidence. Although the different San Miguel deltas vary in

overall sandstone geometry, the three-dimensional model in

figure 26 illustrates the sand-body construction and facies

of several "lobes" or subdeltas of a wave-dominated system

and can be applied in general to all the San Miguel units.

Sediments were debouched into the marine environment

through only one or two active distributaries. The sand

was immediately pushed by waves to the sides of the distrib­

utary mouth, and worked into a series of strandplain, bar­

rier, or spit deposits. Because of this reworking by

waves and longshore currents, the main sand bodies of wave­

dominated systems are strike oriented.

Contrary to this deltaic model, Lewis (1977) con­

sidered all the San Miguel sandstone units (western sub­

basin only) to be totally strike-fed systems. In his sedi­

mentary model, he shows three main areas of sand deposi­

tion, two of which were 25 and 45 miles (40 and 72 kilom~

64
 FACIES

~ Beach ridges .

[JI] Oistributary channel ([[[] Channel-mouth bar

Crevasse splay ['.HJ/HDelta front (shoreface)

Pd Delta plain with Prodelta or shelf
L 3 ponds or marshes

Figure 26. Three-dimensional model of a wave-dominated delta sys­

tem. In cooperation with A. J. Scott.
 66

eters) offshore. If those depositional systems were total­

ly strike fed, the sand-transporting currents could not

have been the normal longshore (nearshore) currents as sug­

gested by Lewis but rather contour currents of some type.

In no known modern example do contour currents, or rarely

any other strike-directed currents transporting sand over

long distances, deposit sand bodies in upward-coarsening

sequences more than 120 feet (37 meters) thick, as are

found in the San Miguel (western subbasin). Upward­

coarsening cycles shown by eastern subbasin sandstones are

even thicker ..

Facies

The overwhelmingly dominant deltaic sand facies

in wave-dominated deltas is the delta front, or actually

shoreface facies of strandplain or barrier systems within

the delta (fig. 26). The associated eolian facies (not

shown in figure 26) ~nd beach facies may make up a sig­

nificant part of modern strandplain sequences but are the

first to be removed by either subaerial erosion or trans­

. gressive reworking. Therefore, these facies may be lack­

ing in ancient wave-dominated deltaic sequences.

Fluvial facies are minor in the San Miguel sys- ·

terns.. Few electrical logs show characteristic channel

patterns in the updip parts of the San Miguel sandstones.

 67

Although there are exceptions, wave-dominated deltaic sys­

tems, according to Fisher (1969), are fed typically by

relatively small- to moderate-size fluvial systems. Those

fluvial systems feeding the San Miguel deltas, particularly

those of the western subbasin~ were probably small and con­

tributed sediments at slow rates. Unfortunately, most of

the San Miguel fluvial systems have been eroded, except

the parts farthest downdip.

Delta-plain facies are poorly developed in the San

Miguel wave-dominat~d deltas. No lignites or coals have

been interpreted from San Miguel electrical log patterns,

and none of the cores studied penetrated recognizable

delta-plain deposits. Delta-plain shales, however, may

not be distinguishable from marine shales on the electrical

log. Instead of vast flats with marshes, the subaerial

part of the delta consisted primarily of series of beach

ridges which were reworked during subsequent transgres­

sions. Fisher (1969) _ stated that abundant organic depos­

its characteristic of the more highly constructive, river­

dominated systems like those of the Mississippi are lack­

ing in wave-dominated deltas, but factors other than del­

ta type also determine abundance of organic deposits,

most importantly climate. Lack of organic deposits could

suggest an arid climate for the Sart Miguel, but the over­

lying Olmos contains abundant coals. San Miguel organic

deposits, as well as crevasse-splay deposits and the

 68

beach and eolian facies mentioned above, may have been re­
moved during subsequent transgression.

Rivers feeding wave-dominated deltas generally

have higher sand to mud ratios than do high-constructive

elongate and lobate deltas (Fisher, 1969). Therefore, the

thickness of the prodelta mud facies basinward of the del­

ta front is not as great as in other deltaic settings.

In emphasis, the principal sand facies of a wave­

dominated delta is that of the delta front, or shoreface.

Because most of the sand discharged from the distributary­

channel mouth is reworked along strike, channel-mouth bar

deposits are very minor. The environments represented in

the San Miguel cores are primarily the lower shoreface

and upper offshore. In the well-exposed outcrop of the

upper part of the D sandstone, physical and biogenic struc­

tures suggest an upper shoreface environment. Vertical

changes in physical structures and the types and abundance

of biogenic structures in the San Miguel sandstone sequen­

ces fit well the trend outlined by Howard (1972) in his

studies of Upper Cretaceous nearshore deposits exposed in

the Book Cliffs and Wasatch Plateau of Utah and Recent

environments along the Georgia coast. According to

Howard's trend, the highly churned lower parts of the San

Miguel sequences represent the low-energy environment of

the upper offshore. Higher in the upward-coarsening se­

 69

quences, horizontal beds and abundant, distinct burrows

are characteristic of the lower shoreface. Horizontal

Ophiomorpha, abundant in the San Miguel cores, are restrict­

ed to this lower shoreface facies (Howard, 1972). The sand­

stones exposed in the San Miguel outcrop were deposited in

a higher energy environment than those studied in cores,

as indicated by the abundance of large-scale primary struc­

tures and the few, very deep, vertical Ophiomorpha. Like

the Book Cliffs example, low-angle cross beds, interpreted

as truncated, wedge-shaped sets (Howard, 1972) dominate

this fairly high-energy environment. Trough cross beds

and the hummocky cross beds mentioned earlier also are

present, although Harms and others (1975) interpret a

lower shoreface environment for the hummocky stratification.

Although the trace fossil Ophiomorpha is character­

istic of nearshore, shallow-water marine environments

(Weimer and Hoyt, 1964) its presence alone is not diagnos­

tic. For example, Ophiomorpha is found in deposits inter­

preted as turbidites of a deep-sea fan (Crimes, 1977) and

bathyal grain-flow deposits (Kern and Warme, 1974) and in

abandoned distributary channels and a variety of bay

facies (A.J. Scott, personal communication). Nevertheless,

the vertical changes in the abundance and orientation of

the. Ophiomorpha in the San Miguel cores favor the shore­

face interpretation.
 70

Incomplete Strandplain-Barrier Sequences

A complete strandplain or barrier sequence has a

vertical succession of facies of offshore, lower shoreface,

upper shoreface, beach, and dunes (fig. 27a). As mentioned

above, however, the upper part of such a sequence is highly

subject to removal before preservation of the depositional

system. The San Miguel upward-coarsening units are such

truncated sequences with only shoreface, most conunonly

lower shoreface, deposits preserved. The primary mechan­

ism of destruction was reworking by marine processes dur­

ing the transgressions that followed progradation of each

San Miguel delta. Most of the upper parts of the original

sequences, which contained large-scale primary structures,

were removed (fig. 27b); if any primary structures re­

mained in the upper foot or two after truncation, they

were probably destroyed by intense bioturbation as water

depth increased and the sand bodies then sat within a

quiet, shelf environment (fig. 27c).

The amount of this transgressive reworking depends

heavily on the rate of transgression, with slower rates

resulting in greater reworking. Whether or not all of

the beach and upper shoreface could have been destroyed

also depended on the original thickness of those facies.

Although the San Miguel depositional systems are con­

 a. b. c.
COMPLETE STRANDPLAIN­ INITIAL TRANSGRESSION SUBSEQUENT TRANSGRESSION
BARRIER SEQUENCE Dominance of Shelf Deposition
Physica I Processes and Bioturbation

Eroded

Upper
Shore face

Lower
Shoreface

Appro~1male
Scale

Offshore
(Shel fl
] :~ ::~~1

Figure 27. Evolution of incomplete strandplain-barrier sequences of the San

Miguel. The upper part of the original complete sequence (a) was
eroded and reworked by physical processes during initial trans­
gression (b). During subsequent transgression primary structures
remaining at the tops of the truncated sequences were destroyed by
bioturbation (c}. Profiles of the columns represent SP curves
expected from the sequences.
 72

sidered to have been wave-dominated, that does not mean

the wave energy was necessarily high in the absolute sense,

but only that it was high relative to the rate of sediment

input. If neither of these factors was very high, then

most of the original strandplain sequence might have been

bioturbated, and only a small amount of reworking was re­

quired to destroy the thin section bearing large-scale

cross beds. Perhaps removal of only 10 to 20 feet (3 to 6

meters) of the strandplain sequences occurred.

Net-Sandstone Patterns

The idealized net-sandstone patterns of a wave­

domina ted delta (fig. 9) have a cuspate shape resulting

from the wave-reworking of sand from the distributary mouth

into strike-aligned bodies. Variations of this basic type,

however, should be expected. Based on net-sandstone pat­

terns, the San Miguel sandstone units make up a wide spec­

trum of wave-dominated delta types (fig. 28), which are

arranged according to the degree of reworking by marine

processes. The spectrum does not necessarily show an

order of increasing wave energy nor decreasing sediment

input but rather simply an order of increasing dominance

by marine processes without regard to the actual magni­

tudes of the factors involved.

Four of the San Miguel units are used to illustrate

 0 50 Km Contour Interval= 20 Ft (6 .10 M)
1---' I I '1 I 1'

0 30 Mi

SAN
MIGUEL p c F
UNIT
SHAPE LOBATE ARCUATE/CUSPATE CUSPATE STRIKE - ELONGATE

Least :----- ----_REWORKING BY MARINE PROCESSES-------~Greatest

- - - - - - --- - v

Figure 28. Spectrum of San Miguel deltas. Net-sandstone patterns show a range
from the lobate P unit to the strike-elongate G unit, resulting from
differences in the degree of reworking by marine processes. Rela­
tive magnitude and direction of sand transport are indicated by the
weight and direction of the arrows.
.......
w
 74

delta shapes within the spectrum. The end member showing

the least amount of wave-reworking is illustrated by sand­

stone P, which is a composite of two lobes. Sandstone P

perhaps should be described as wave influenced rather than

wave dominated. As wave-reworking increases, the delta

front assumes a more arcuate shape as exemplified by the

main body of sandstone C. The F unit most nearly resembles

the cuspate delta, where almost all of the sand debouched

from the distributary is reworked along strike. One other

consideration here is that although the delta shape is

largely determined by the degree of reworking, the number

of distributaries also is an important factor controlling

the overall shape of the delta system, and this may account

for some of the differences between units C and F. Sand­

stone G serves as the end member showing the most extreme

marine reworking by waves and the longshore currents they

set up. Progradation into the basin was slow as the delta

built primarily along strike in the direction of the dom­

inant longshore current. The other five San Miguel del­

tas not shown in the spectrum (fig. 28) would plot between

F and G near the "highly reworked" end.

The degree to which marine reworking during trans­

gressions subsequent to delta building affected original

net-sandstone patterns is difficult to judge. Again, as

in the case of vertical sequences, the result would depend

 75

on the rate of transgression. Generally, the effect of

transgressive reworking is to spread the upper parts of the

sand into thin bodies, but the main trends of the net-sand­

stone patterns are retained. One other primary factor con­

trolling the degree of reworking besides rate of transgres­

sion is bottom topography. For example, units A and B were

positioned at a rise in bottom slope; instead of being

spread out in both strike and dip directions by transgres­

sive reworking, these sand bodies were worked up against

the rise and spread out only in the strike direction. Much

of the extremely strike-elongate shapes of A and B, how­

ever, may have been attained during delta construction.

These sytems were built where bottom slope was steeper and

wave energy consequently higher than farther updip on the

more nearly level part of the shelf where the other San

Miguel systems were deposited.

Deltaic Deposition During a Major Transgression

The San Miguel deltas were deposited during two

main phases of an overall marine transgression. Deltaic

systems formed during net transgressions, net regressions,

or times of stable sea level show definite differences in

both morphology of the individual systems and their re­

lationships to the other delta systems deposited during

the same sea-level trend. Curtis (1970) illustrated

 76

models for deltaic sedimentation in a Miocene basin in

Louisiana in which rates of deposition and rates of subsi­

dence (or for equal effects, absolute sea-level rise)

varied (fig. 29). Curtis considered three scenarios based

on the ratio of the rate of deposition to the rate of sub­

sidence where (1) the rate of deposition exceeds the rate

of subsidence, or absolute sea-level rise (Rd/Rs>l), (2)

the rates are equal (Rd/Rs=l), and (3) the rate of deposi­

tion is less than the rate of subsidence (Rd/Rs <l). Dep­

osition of the San Miguel deltas during the two transgres­

sive phases generally fits the third model (fig. 29c).

The ratio of the two rates can be used to predict

delta morphology. Transgression is expected to cause mod­

ification of deltas by marine processes and a dominance of

strike-aligned coastal and nearshore marine sand bodies

(fig. 29c). Another result of transgression may be the

stacking of sands of different phases or subdeltas of a

particular delta system. The model in figure 26 shows the

result of abandonment of distributary channels and changes

in the sites of progradation. When a channel avulses,

the abandoned area is transgressed, and sand reworked a­

long strike from the new distributary mouth, perhaps pri­

marily in the process of spit accretion, is deposited on

top of the barrier, spit, or strandplain deposits of the

older delta "lobe". Thus, there is a stacking of facies

 77

DELTA COMPLEX: DIP SECTION DELTA COMPLEX: STRATIGRAPHIC MAP INDIVIDUAL DELTA : MORPHOLOGY

A' > A

IRd I I
Rs> 1

A'
B' Sao la•1'1 > B b

c' c
EXPLANATION
Alluvial and fluvio -deltaic
sands and silts

Deltaic sands, silts and clays

l Rd I I·
Rs< 1
Prodeltaic and marine clays
c•

Figure 29. Model for deltaic sedimentation in a basin in which

rates of deposition and rates of subsidence varied.
The model, based on Miocene deltas of Louisiana,
shows the differences in morphology and spatial re­
lationships of delta systems deposited at times of
different ratios in the rate of deposition to the
rate of subsidence: (a) the rate of deposition was
greater than the rate 'of subsidence (Rd/Rs > l),
(b) the rates were equal (Rd/Rs = l ), and {c) the
rate cf deposition was less than the rate of subsi­
dence (Rd/Rs < 1). In the center co1umn, shore 1i nes
of the various delta lobes are numbered chronologi­
cally, with that of the oldest lobe indicated as 1 11 11
•

Modified from Curtis (1970).

 78

and the possibility of accumulating relatively thick sand

deposits (fig. 30). If sea level were stable, the series

of subdeltas in phases I, II, and III in figure 30 would

have prograded much farther into the basin to produce an

extensive sheet sand instead of thick strike-aligned sand

deposits.

As shown in figure 29c, successive delta systems

in a transgressive sequence are positioned farther and

farther updip. If the supply of sediments is abruptly

shut off, as when there is a major avulsion of the fluvial

system upstream, the delta system is abandoned, and a rel­

ative, as well as the absolute, rise in sea level takes

place (fig. 31, phase IV). The upper part of the abandoned

delta deposits will be physically reworked as sandy shoals

on the shallow shelf (fig. 31, phase V). With renewed

sediment input, another delta system will be constructed

farther updip. Thus, rather than producing a continuous

landward migration of facies, an absolute rise in sea

level will result in isolated sand packages positioned

success~vely updip.
Although deposition of the San Miguel units took

place during an overall transgression (absolute sea-level

rise or regional subsidence), the major sandstone bodies

of the San Miguel units are not transgressive sandstones.

Thin transgressive sandstones, composed of the material

 79

STABLE SEA LEVEL R !SING SEA LEVEL

II

:m:

Figure 30. Effects of rising sea level on delta formation com­

pared to those of stable sea level. Rising sea level
produced a stacking of the sands of the subdeltas of
phases I, II, and III (cross section B-B1
On the
).

other hand, if sea level were stable, the delta system

would have prograded much farther into the basin and
produced a sheet sand (cross section A-A'). In co­
operation with A. J. Scott.
 80

ISL AVULSION AND ABANDONMENT

Rapid encroachment of
sea along delta margins

"'SL DEVELOPMENT OF SANDY SHOALS

Drowned valley

/
I
I
I .......... __ _­

Figure 31. De1ta abandonment, transgression, and development

of sandy shoals. In cooperation with A. J. Scott.
 81

reworked from the delta deposits in addition to some shelf

mud, however, do occur at the tops of the delta deposits

and are shown on many .of the electrical logs as the finer

zone above the upward-coarsening sequences.

Modern and Ancient Depositional Analogs

A number of modern wave-dominated deltas are recog­

nized by cuspate shapes and the dominance of strike-aligned

sand systems, but, like the San Miguel deltas, they show a

considerable range in de1ta morphology. Examples of these

modern deltas, some of which Galloway (1975) plotted on his

delta-classification triangle (fig. 10), are the Sao

Francisco (Brazil), Brazos (Texas), Kelantan (Malaysia),

Rhone (France), Nile (Egypt), Danube (Romania), and Grijal­

va (Mexico).

No ideal modern analog of the San Miguel deltas

exists; the modern deltas, however, do show many similari­

ties in general morphology and sand distribution to those

of some of the San Miguel deltas. Also, like the San

Miguel deltas and the model presented above, the dominant

f acies in these modern examples are those of coastal bar­

riers and strandplains.

The Rhone delta, a very good modern example of a

wave-dominated system, has been the subject of several

studies, the most significant of which have been by Kruit

 82

(1955) and Oomkens (1967, 1970). Two meandering distribu­

taries, the Grand and Petit Rhone, have built two lobes of

the delta (fig. 32). The moderately high wave energy is

enough for most of the f luvially introduced sediments to

be reworked into a series of coastal barriers, which make

up the largest part of the delta. Net-sand patterns

(fig. 32) are similar to those of some of the San Miguel

delta systems, for example, sandstone E (fig. 19).

The shape of the Sao Francisco delta (fig. 33),

built by one distributary, is strikingly similar to that

of San Miguel delta F, as indicated by the F net-sandstone

patterns (fig. 20). The Sao Francisco delta is subject to

extremely high-energy waves, and the fluvially formed sand

bodies dominant in other types of deltaic deposits have

been replaced almost entirely by sand bodies produced by

marine processes (Coleman and Wright, 1975). Unlike the

San Miguel units, very little of the Sao Francisco delta

deposits is burrowed (Coleman and Wright, 1975); the Sao

Francisco deposits perhaps are being formed under much

higher energy conditions than were any of the San Miguel

systems and have not undergone biological reworking dur­

ing transgression.

The Nile River delta (fig. 34) resembles the San

Miguel unit C (fig. 17). Although the Nile is cuspate in

shape at the mouths of the two distributaries, the

 0 30 Km EXPLANATION
~---'----.--'--.......,
0 20 Mi N ~ Distributary channel facies

Eill] Overbank - lnterdistributary facies

f [±]
ITililI1
Marsh - Lacustrine facies

Coastal basin facies

f-'::.:·..~:.::·::i Coastal barrier sand facies

v·.···')/J Open shelf - Prodelta facies

___..-15---­
Sand isolith (meters)

Figure 32. Depositional environments and net-sand patterns of the Rhone delta
system, France. From Fisher (1969).
 84

~\\\\\J Uplands

t;-~1 Marsh - mangrove

N

f:\\.~/J1
rm
Eol ion dunes

Beach ridges
f
k.···:>··; I Channel deposits

r )•_•<\;,) Floodplain

0 20 Km

0 10 Mi

Figure 33. Depositional environments of the Sao Francisco delta,

Brazil. From Colemen and Wright (1975).
 MEDITERRANEAN SEA

~ Distributary channel facies N

• Coastal barrier-strandplain

[IlJ] Coastal basin f

[~~] Coastal lowlands (salt marsh-alkali flat)
30 Km
i::/J Delta plain
0
I
0
.,
20 Mi

D Shelf and prodelta

Figure 34. Depositional enviropments of the Nile delta system, Egypt. From
Fisher and others {1969). (X)
U1
 86

Rosetta and the Danietta branches, the overall delta shape

is arcuate like the main body of the San Miguel c delta.

Mediterranean waves and a prevailing longshore current from

west to east redistributed channel-mouth bar sand of the

Nile delta into a series of flanking coastal-barrier and

strandplain deposits (Fisher and others, 1969).

The extremely strike-elongate San Miguel systems,

such as unit G, possibly have a modern counterpart in the

delta of the Senegal River, Senegal, Africa, which is dom­

inated by waves and strong, unidirectional longshore cur­

rents. The high wave energy of the Atlantic, combined

with strong longshore currents, redistributes sand into

long, linear bodies that parallel the coastline (Coleman

and Wright, 1975). The distributary patterns and the high

mud load of the Senegal River, however, are probably very

different from those of the rivers that fed the San Miguel

deltas.

Like modern wave-dominated delta systems, ancient

examples of wave-dominated delta systems are fairly com­

mon. Several of these systems have been delineated in

the Gulf Coast Tertiary. Fisher (1969) interpreted part

of the upper Wilcox (Eocene) of the Texas Gulf Coast as

wave-dominated delta systems in which much of the sand

accumulated as coastal barrier or strandplain facies.

Oligocene examples in Texas (fig. 35) include deltas of

 87

a.

b. Houston• UPPER FRIO DELTA

(BIG GAS SANO)

LOWER FRIO DELTAS Old~~

~ Freeport O~ ~~}f.,0
r;,v'v~
-Present shoreline

c.

f
Present shoreline

0 801<m
i--------l
0 50 Mi

Figure 35. Oligocene wave-dominated delta systems of (a) the

middle Vicksburg of the upper Texas coast, (b) the
lower and upper Frio of the upper Texas coast, and
(c) the upper Frio of South Texas. Modified from
Smith (1975).
 88

the middle Vicksburg (Gregory, 1966, and Fisher, 1969), the

lower and upper Frio (Big Gas Sand) of the upper Texas

Coast, and the upper Frio of South Texas (Smith, 1975). Two

Early Miocene wave-dominated deltas (fig. 36) occupied the

same coastal positions as the modern Brazos delta of the

Texas Coast and the Sabine River mouth at the Texas­

Louisiana border (Smith, 1975).

The Upper Cretaceous of the Western Interior is

dominated by a variety of elastic sequences including flu­

vial, deltaic, barrier, and nearshore and offshore marine

depositional systems. Most of the deltas have not been

classified specifically, but at least two of the sandstone

formations have the characteristics of wave-dominated del­

tas. Isbell and others {1976) have interpreted the delta­

ic part of the Teapot Sandstone Member of the Mesaverde

Formation, Powder River Basin, Wyoming, as a strandplain/

high-destructive delta complex dominated by wave action

and longshore currents (fig. 37). Sediment characteris­

tics and burrows shown in cores are very similar to those

of the San Miguel units. The Upper Cretaceous Castlegate

Sandstone of Utah and Colorado is another Western Interior

example of a high-destructive (marine-dominated) delta

system (Smith, 1975). The rows of beach ridges and the

strike-elongate delta-front sands (Van de Graaf£, 1972)

suggest the deltaic deposition was dominated by wave en­

 89

r.T7) BARRIER -
LJLl STRANDPLAIN

0 SO Km

0 SO Mi

Figure 36. Early Miocene wave-dominated deltas of the Texas

Gulf Coast. The deltas occupied the same coastal
positions as the modern Brazos delta (a) and the
Sabine River mouth (b). Modified from Smith (1975).
 90

106° 104°
I I

0 50 Km
0 50 Mi l
I
I

l
I
I

l I
I
N
I
f
I
I

I~
'O

\! 1­

~:E '·16-
- CJ)

~ <{
3:'~
I CJ)
Casper•
I~
,z
I

Figure 37. Wave-dominated delta complex of the Upper Cretaceous

Teapot Sandstone Member of the Mesaverde Formation,
Powder River Basin, Wyoming. Modified from Isbell
and others (1976).
 91

ergy. Perhaps with further study, some of the other recog­

nized deltas of the Upper Cretaceous of the Western Interior

will prove to be of the wave-dominated variety. Also, some

of the numerous Late Cretaceous and other age sandstones

which have been interpreted as barrier island and offshore

bar deposits may actually be parts of wave-dominated delta

systems.
 SANDSTONE PETROGRAPHY

Mineralogy

Visual estimates of framework mineral percentages

in thin sections (stained for feldspars) of San Miguel

sandstones C, D, E, G, and I indicate that these rocks are

dominantly arkoses (pl. IX-A), according to Folk's (1968)

sandstone classification. The few thin limestones are very

sandy micrites and biomicrites. In the sandstones, various

types of quartz make up 50 to 75 percent of the primary

framework grains, but most is of the straight extinction

to slightly undulose variety. Feldspars, including ortho­

clase, microcline, perthite, albite, and calcic plagio­

clase, account for 20 to 45 percent of the framework min­

erals. Rock fragments, primarily chert and volcanic rock

fragments, make up the remaining 5 to 15 percent of the

primary framework grains.

Calcic plagioclase, most of which is not twinned,

is dominant over albite and potassium feldspar. This abun­

dance of calcic plagioclase, which is normally extremely

subordinate to other feldspar types, is suggestive of a

volcanic source. Local Upper Cretaceous volcanoes may

have contributed significantly to San Miguel sediments.

Cores from sandstones C and G show some predictable

92
93

Plate IX

A. Typical San Miguel sandstone with abundant

feldspar. f = feldspar, q = quartz. Thin
section from G sandstone, Wood #1 Weathers,
Zavala County.

B. Leached feldspar grain partially replaced

by calcite. c = calcite, 1 = leached
porosity. Thin section from G sandstone,
Wood #1 Weathers, Zavala County, Crossed
nicols.

C. Poikilotopic calcite cement. Parts of two

single calcite crystals, each cementing many
sand grains, are shown under crossed nicols.
Loose packing of grains indicates early
cementation. Thin section from G sandstone,
Wood #1 Weathers, Zavala County.

D. Quartz overgrowth (o) and sparry calcite

cement (c). Formation of the quartz over­
growths preceded that of the sparry calcite.
Thin section from C sandstone, Wood #1
Weathers, Zavala County. Crossed nicols.

E. Leached shell fragments (1). Thin section

from D sandstone, Chaparrosa #3 Johnson,
Zavala County.

F. Authigenic kaolinite (k) filling cavity

rimmed with very coarse-grained calcite,
particularly poikilotopic calcite (c).
Thin section from G sandstone, Wood #1
Weathers, Zavala County. Crossed nicols.
 94

c D

F
 95

and common trends in mineralogy. The greatest percentages

of quartz are found in the coarsest parts of the sandstones.

Conversely, the amounts of feldspars and rock fragments

decrease upward with increasing mean framework grain size.

Feldspars tend to be concentrated in the silt fraction

because they are softer and more easily abraded than quartz;

quartz is concentrated in the sand fraction (Folk, 1968).

Likewise, rock fragments are generally more easily broken

down than quartz and, thus, are concentrated in the smaller

grain size fractions.

Common miscellaneous framework grains include

heavy minerals plus some constituents which are indicators

of a marine environment, includi~g glauconite pellets,

phosphatic fecal pellets (probably fish coprolites), and

both whole and fragmented shells that indicate an open­

marine fauna. Glauconite is present in all cores but

varies considerably in percentage. Shell material in most

cores, however, is concentrated in thin zones no more than

a few feet thick. Pelecypods and gastropods are most

abundant in these shelly beds. Scattered in some of the

cores are a few scaphopods, echinoids, hydrozoans, and

foraminifers.

Biotite is the most abundant heavy mineral and is

common in most of the cores. Some of the biotite flakes

appear to have the hexagonal shape typical of volcanic

 96

biotite. Other detrital heavy minerals include muscovite,

zircon, hornblende, pyroxene, and opaques, probably magne­

tite.

Diagenesis

The most conunon cements of the San Miguel sandstones

are sparry and poikilotopic calcite and quartz overgrowths.

Other diagenetic minerals are kaolinite, feldspar (rare

overgrowths), illite (clay rims), pyrite, and hematite.

The quartz overgrowths are present throughout most of the

cores studied, but are not as important volumetrically as

calcite cement. The cleanest and originally most porous

and permeable zones in the sandstones are commonly cemented

tightly with calcite.

The diagenetic sequence in the San Miguel fits the

general sequence worked out by Loucks, Bebout, and Gallo­

way (1977) for Gulf Coast Tertiary Frio sandstones (fig.

38). In the San Miguel sandstones, leaching of feldspars

and their replacement by calcite was common (pl. IX-B),

but the timing of this diagenetic event is difficult to

determine. The poikilotopic calcite was an early cement

as indicated by the loose packing of grains (pl. IX-C).

Where illite rims outline some of the grains, quartz over­

growths are also present. No rims have been observed on

the outside of the overgrowths, however, suggesting that

 FELDSPAR LEACHING
6 REPLACEMENT BY CALCITE

POIKILOTOPIC CALCITE CEMENT

COMPACTION
1--------------- - - - - - ­
CLAY COATS OR RIMS ON QUARTZ GRAINS
U)------------­
w
(!)
<C{
1­
FELDSPAR OVERGROWTHS
(/')

;z
QUARTZ OVERGROWTHS
0
;:
<{
Cl
--
- - - - · - - - - - - - -SPARRY -
CALCITE
­
....J CEMENT
0
(/')
:z FELDSPAR 1 VOLCANIC ROCK
0
(...)
FRAGMENT 8 CALCITE LEACHING
:.<'.
(...) FELDSPAR REPLACEMENT BY KAOLINITE 8 KAOLINITE
0 CEMENT
a::
--------------
FE - RICH CALCITE 8 DOLOMITE CEMENT

Near Surface Shallow Subsurface Moderate Subsurface Deep Subsurface

M 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Ft 0 4000 8000 12,000 16,000
DEPTH (ESTIMATED)

Figure 38. Sequence of diagenetic events in the history of rock consolidation

of the Texas Gulf Coast Tertiary Frio Formation. Modified from
Loucks and others (1977).
 98

formation of the clay rims preceded that of the overgrowths.

The quartz overgrowths preceded the sparry calcite (pl. IX­

D). Leaching of shell material (pl. IX-E) and of calcite

cement followed formation of the sparry calcite. The

greatest porosity shown in the San Miguel sandstones is

generally in zones of leached shells andinthe zones of

leached feldspars. Authigenic kaolinite occupies the cen­

tral parts of some primary intergranular pore spaces as

well as those of larger cavities (pl. IX-F), indicating it

was a very late cement in this diagenetic sequence. San

Miguel sandstones, however, probably were never buried to

depths as great as those at which late kaolinite formation

occurs in the Frio (fig. 38; Loucks and others, 1977). A

. general rock consolidation sequence delineated from a more

recent study by Loucks, Dodge, and Galloway (1979) of

Tertiary sandstones including those of the Frio shows, in

addition to the deep, late stage of kaolinite formation,

an earlier stage of kaolinite formation at shallow depths

equivalent to those for the San Miguel. As discussed

above, however, diagenetic relationships do indicate that

within the San Miguel diagenetic sequence kaolinite was

one of the last cements precipitated.

 SAN MIGUEL SANDSTONE UNITS AS PETROLEUM RESERVOIRS

History of Production

Interest in the San Miguel fairly early in the his­

tory of the Gulf Coast oil industry was aroused by the rec­

ognition in outcrop of the large Chittim Anticline. The

first well to test the San Miguel was drilled in Maverick

County in 1912. This and subsequent test wells, however,

showed that the shallow San Miguel sandstones held mostly

very low gravity oil. Cornmerical production was not es­

tablished until the late 1940's when the Del Monte Field

in Zavala County was discovered and developed (Lewis, 1977).

Higher gravity oil was found as other, deeper, San Miguel

sandstones were tested. In addition, improved recovery

techniques allowed some of the low gravity oil to be

produced.

Fifty-four fields in the Maverick basin have pro­

duced hydrocarbons from one or more of the San Miguel sand­

stones. Total oil produced from the San Miguel as of

January 1, 1979, is 67, 327, 264 barrels (The Railroad

Commission of Texas, 1977 and 1978). As pointed out by

Lewis (1977), most of the production has been from fields

discovered since 1970. The San Miguel E sandstone has been

the biggest producer, yielding over half the total oil

99
 100

produced from the San Miguel Formation.

Trapping Mechanisms and Types of Fields

Lewis (1977} described two basic kinds of hydrocar­

bon traps in the San Miguel sandstones: (1) structural

traps formed over volcanic plugs and (2} stratigraphic

traps formed by the updip pinchouts of porous sandstones.

Fields involving the structural traps are small, consist­

ing of only a few wells, but they account for most of the

San Miguel fields. Examples of fields of this type are

the Elaine, Torch, Holdsworth, Indio, South Batesville,

and Del Monte fields. In the first phases of exploratory

drilling, the plugs were found accidentally. Later, mag­

netic surveys were used to locate the plugs, which showed

up as anomalies (Simmons, 1967). Now seismic data are the

most important tools used to find these plugs.

Many of the fields described by Lewis (1977) as

stratigraphic-type fields actually involve both strati­

graphic and structural traps. The elongate, strike-align­

ed San Miguel sandstone bodies in many places are surround­

ed by shale, making excellent stratigraphic traps. Many

of the actual reservoirs, however, are restricted to the

areas where these sandstone bodies lie across structural

noses, so that there is closure in the strike directions

in addition to the updip sandstone pinchouts. The strati­

 101

graphic-type fields, such as Sacatosa in Maverick County,

are fewer but much larger than the fields developed over

the volcanic plugs. Most of the San Miguel oil has been

produced from these large fields, the greatest of which is

Big Wells field producing from the E sandstone in Dimmit

County.

Role of Diagenesis in Reservoir Development

Diagenesis plays an important role in determining

reservoir quality of the San Miguel sandstones. Cementa­

tion destroyed porosity in some places, while in others,

porosity was created by the leaching of feldspars and shell

material or re-established by the leaching of earlier ce­

ment. Unfortunately, there are no predictable diagenetic

patterns related to facies distribution. Shoreface facies

constitute almost all of the sandstone bodies and lateral

facies variations within the sandstones are not great. As

reported above, tightly cemented parts of a sandstone body

generally are the most well-sorted zones, but this cemen­

tation certainly does not occur everywhere in every sand­

stone unit. Likewise, occurrence of the most highly

porous zones, where leaching is significant, is thus far

unpredictable as shown in areas of close core control.

 CONCLUSIONS

1. The Maverick Basin in South Texas during deposition of

the San Miguel Formation consisted of two subbasins; a

western subbasin received sediments from the northwest and

an eastern subbasin received sediments from the north.

Sand deposition began earlier in the western subbasin than

in the eastern subbasin.

2. The San Miguel Formation is characterized by an overall

transgression consisting of two major transgressive phases,

as indicated by the positions of individual sandstone units.

The main bodies of the sandstones, however, are not trans­

gressive sandstones, but rather are progradational, rep­

resenting minor regressive sequences punctuating the over­

all transgression.

3. Sandstone units of the San Miguel are interpreted as

a series of deltaic deposits reworked to varying degrees

by marine processes both during delta building and during

subsequent transgressions.

4. The San Miguel deltas are broadly classed as wave­

dominated deltas, although they actually make up a spec­

trum ranging from wave-influenced lobate deltas to deltas

highly modified by wave processes and elongated in strike

102
 103

directions.

5. Sandstone geometries were dependent primarily on delta

type, although the final shapes of the various units were

influenced to different degrees by transgressive reworking.

Major factors determining delta type were (1) rate of

sediment input, (2) wave energy, and (3) rate of sea-level

rise. Wave energy and rate of sea-level rise also were

determining factors of the degree of transgressive rework­

ing. Wave energy remained relatively constant, while the

rates of sediment input and sea-level rise varied to pro­

duce the spectrum of sandstone geometries.

6. Dominant facies interpreted for the San Miguel sand­

stones are those of the delta front, or shoreface. Abun­

dance of burrows throughout most vertical sequences and a

general lack of large-scale primary structures characteris­

tic of beach and upper shoreface deposits indicate the San

Miguel sandstones are incomplete strandplain or barrier

sequences. Tops of original, complete sequences were phys­

ically reworked during transgressions; biological rework­

ing destroyed primary structures at the tops of the trun­

cated sequences.

7. The San Miguel strike-oriented sandstone bodies make

excellent stratigraphic traps for hydrocarbons, although

most of the known stratigraphic-type reservoirs are gen­

 104

erally restricted to areas where structural traps also are

involved.

8. Hydrocarbon reservoir quality in some zones is affected

considerably by sandstone diagenesis, but the lateral dis­

tribution of diagenetic effects is unpredictable.

 APPENDIX

Below is an example of a Tobin Grid, which corres­

ponds to one 7.5-minute quadrangle. Each grid is divided
into nine sections, numbered as shown. These sections are
not shown on the base map in figure 1, but their boundaries
can be estimated within each grid. In the data base of
this study, no more than one well is used per section so
that each well has a unique, three-part Tobin Grid number.

IOS-IE IOS-2E
2'I
I • I
I
llS-2E-1
I
I I
-----4-----:t----­
41 51 6
llS-2E-4
I
I
I
I I •
I
----n1-----i----­
91 81 7
• I
llS-2E-9 : I
I
I
llS-IE I llS-2E •

105
 106

Wells plotted on figure 1:

Tobin Grid Name

7S-4E-7 International #1 Kincaid

75-SE-6 Ford & Hamilton #1 Nunley
7S-6E-3 Tenneco #1 Ney
7S-6E-8 Glasscock #1 Carle Mercantile
7S-7E-5 Pan Am #1 Ward
7S-7E-7 Tenneco #1 Wilson
7S-7E-9 Pan Am #1 Muennink
7S-8E-3 Houston Oil and Minerals #1 Neumann
7S-8E-6 Johnston #1 Howard "A"
7S-9E-4 Cities Service #lA Briscoe
7S-9E-5 Hughes & Hughes #1 Cadenhead
7S-9E-8 Progress #1 Haas
7S-10E-4 Hughes & Hughes #1 Plachy
7S-10E-8 Moncrief #1 Collins
8S-3W-9 General Crude #1 Dunbar
8S-2E-5 Steeger, et al. #1 Smyth
8S-2E-8 Wofford #1 Bonnett
8S-4E-5 King & Heyne #1 Kincaid
8S-4E-7 Wilcox #6 Gilligan
8S-4E-8 Zink, et al. #1 Vanham
8S-4E-9 Intex #1 Vanham
8S-5E-2 Gorman #6 Woodley
8S-SE-4 Humble #1 Kincaid
8S-SE-7 Tenneco #1 Machen
8S-5E-9 Rowe #1 Kincaid
8S-6E-2 Galaxy #1 Leoncita
8S-6E-5 Pagenkopf & Jamieson #1 Blackaller
8S-6E-6 Tenneco & Pennzoil #1 Goad
8S-7E-3 Humble #1 Wilson
8S-7E-7 Tenneco & Pennzoil #1 Wilbeck
8S-7E-8 Jergins #1 Goad
8S-8E-3 Morrison #1 Boggus
8S-8E-5 Michelson #2 Jones
8S-8E-9 Lake #1 Gracey & Wegenhoff
8S-9E-2 Pan Am #1 Lilly
8S-9E-3 Douglas #1 Watson
8S-9E-4 Pennzoil #1 Akers
8S-9E-5 Tenneco & Pennzoil #1 Edgar
8S-10E-l Clark #1 Jones
8S-10E-4 Wilson #1. Kuykendall
8S-10E-6 Sabine #1 Tomblin
8S-10E-7 Producers of Nevada, et al. #1 Wright
8S-10E-9 Shell #1-E Hardin
8S-11E-8 Beard & Turnbull #1 Graf
 107

Tobin Grid Name

8S-12E-l Brown, et al. #1 Katesmorak
8S-12E-8 Gorman #1 Gorman Fee
8S-12E-9 Killam #1 Schraeter
9S-3W-l Harrison #B-7 Saner
9S-3W-2 Harrison #B-6 Saner
9S-3W-6 Southworth & Wood #2 Chittirn
9S-3W-7 Southworth & Wood #3 Chittim
9S-2W-2 Monsanto #1 Saner
9S-2W-3 Monsanto #3 Saner
9S-2W-4 Southworth & Wood #6 Fessman
9S-2W-5 Southworth & Wood #5 Fessman
9S-2W-7 Southworth & Wood #2 Wozencroft
9S-2W-9 Manor & Midwest #1 Chittim
9S-1W-4 Norton & Grage #32 Chaparrosa
9S-1W-5 Chaparrosa #1 Johnson (Core - D)
9S-1W-6 Norton & Grage #23 Chaparrosa
98-lW-7 Norton & Grage #17 Norton-Chaparrosa
9S-1W-8 Norton & Grage #39 Chaparrosa
9S-1E-l Getty #1 Greele
98-lE-3 Tenneco #2 Matthews
9S-1E-4 Tenneco #1 Matthews
9S-1E-7 Brown (Electrothermic) #2 Matthews
9S-1E-8 Electrothermic & Dougherty #A-1 Matthews
9S-2E-5 Tipperary #1 Atwood
9S-2E-6 Beer #11 Pryor
9S-2E-7 Humble #2 Pryor
9S-2E-8 Continental #1 Pryor
9S-3E-6 Reece #1 Brewster
9S-3E-8 Haas #1 Bartlett
9S-4E-3 Wilcox #1 Voight
9S-4E-6 Winn #1 Kirchner
9S-4E-9 Brill #1 Hope
9S-5E-l Kirkwood #lA Brown
9S-SE-2 Winn #1 Murphy
9S-5E-3 Moncrief #1 Sawyer
9S-5E-8 Jocelyn-Varn #1 Schoolfield C
9S-6E-2 Moncrief #2 Rheiner
9S-6E-4 Tenneco #1 Mack
9S-6E-7 Morgan #1 Half£ & Oppenheimer
9S-7E-l Tenneco #1 Stoker
9S-7E-4 Forest #1 Halff & Oppenheimer
9S-8E-l Smith #1 Berry
9S-8E-3 Pronto #1 Gracey
9S-8E-8 Mabee #1 Newsom
9S-8E-9 Pronto #1 Halff & Oppenheimer
9S-9E-l Humble #2 Houston
9S-9E-4 Magnolia #1 McKinely
 108

Tobin Grid Name

9S-10E-8 Killam #1 Favor

9S-11E-2 Placid #1 Eisenhauer
9S-11E-8 Humble #1 Matocha
9S-12E-6 Texas Crude #1 Berry
9S-12E-8 Humble #1 Moursand
9S-12E-9 Skelly #1 Winkler
10S-4W-6 McCabe-Turner, et al. #1 Kincaid
10S-4W-7 Texas Gas (Winn) #1 Kincaid
10S-4W-8 Belco #3 Kincaid
10S-3W-4 Lockhart #1 Mangum
10S-2W-3 Continental #N Chittim Test
10S-2W-5 Continental #606-1 Chittim
10S-2W-9 Continental #209-1 Chittim
lOS-lW-1 Norton & Grage #14 Norton
lOS-lW-2 Norton & Grage #15 Norton
lOS-lW-4 Shell #2 Plumley
lOS-lW-5 Cain #1 Plumley
lOS-lW-7 Shield & Steeger #1 Stuart-Griffin
lOS-lW-8 Texas #1 Stuart
lOS-lW-9 Continental #608-1 Chittim
lOS-lE-4 Norton & Grage #2 Norton
lOS-lE-5 Norton & Grage #5 Norton
lOS-lE-6 General Crude #1 Guyler
lOS-lE-9 Minton, et al. #1-C Rosenberg, et al.
l0S-2E-3 Little #1 Scroggins
10S-2E-6 Burr & Crews #1 H & F
10S-2E-9 Texas #3 Northeastern Farming
10S-3E-l Superior #1 Raine
10S-3E-5 Winn #2 Holdsworth
!OS-3E-7 Walsh & Watts #1 Holdsworth
10S-3E-8 Hughes & Hughes #1 Holdsworth "B"
lOS-4E-5 Harvey #1 Whitecotton
10S-4E-6 Leona #1 West
10S-4E-7 Retarna #1-44 Glasscock
10S-4E-8 Mobil #1 Byrne
l0S-4E-9 Ancon & Beamon #2 Gates
lOS-SE-3 Northern & Phillips-Stringer #1 Dunbar
lOS-SE-7 Hllillhle #C-1 Marrs McLean
10S-5E-8 Texas #2 West
10S-6E-l Tenneco & Pennzoil #1 Halff
lOS-6E-4 Bounty #1 Hausser
10S-6E-5 Humble #1 Park
lOS-6E-9 Anderson #1 McCarthy
10S-7E-3 Parker #1-P Halff & Oppenheimer
10S-7E-7 Flamingo (Pronto) #1 Bennett
!OS-7E-9 Tipperary #3 Massey
10S-8E-6 Hawkins #1 Whitworth & Mills
 109

Tobin Grid Name

10S-8E-9 Danwoody #1 White

10S-9E-5 Pan Am #1 Oppenheimer-Lang
10S-9E-7 Southwestern #2 McKinney
10S-9E-8 Flournoy #1 Carnes
lOS-lOE-1 Humble #3 Nixon
lOS-lOE-3 Stanolind #1 Garcia
lOS-llE-4 Gulf #1 Reese
11S-4W-6 Shaw #2 Wipff
11S-3W-l Continental #M Chittim Test
11S-3W-7 Continental #74-1 Chittim
11S-3W-8 Continental #97-2 Chittim
11S-2W-l Continental #4-5 Chittim
11S-2W-4 Continental #44-4 Chittim
11S-2W-5 Continental #65-12 Chittim
11S-2W-8 Continental #71-9 Chittim
llS-lW-1 Petroleum #1 Flanagan
llS-lW-2 Texas #2 Stuart
llS-lW-5 Shamrock #1 Van Cleve
llS-lW-6 Arriba #1 Zowarka
llS-lW-8 Steeger #1 Chittim
llS-lW-9 Continental #570-1 Chittim
llS-lE-1 Winn #1 Cross
llS_;,lE-2 Michelson #A-4-1 Norton
llS-lE-3 Winn & H & J #1 Maegen
llS-lE-4 Dixon #1 Benham
llS-lE-5 Steeger #1 Stewart
llS-lE-6 Steeger #1 Carr
llS-lE-7 Steeger #1-1-14 Stewart
llS-lE-8 Ford #1 Stewart, et al.
llS-lE-9 Wood #1 Weathers (Core - C and G)
11S-2E-l Dixon #1 Kirk
11S-2E-2 Buttes & Beamon #S-1-81 Cross
11S-2E-4 Ford & Hamilton #1 Neel
11S-2E-6 Winn & Musselman #1 Compton
11S-2E-7 Winn & Texas Seaborad #1 Jackson
11S-2E-8 McCardy #1 Ward
11S-2E-9 Little #1 Fee
11S-3E-3 Charter #1 Cross "S" Ranch
11S-3E-5 General Crude #1 Donnelly
11S-3E-7 Davis #1 Weaver
11S-3E-8 Little, et al. #1 Rutledge
11S-3E-9 Moore #1 Northeastern Farming
11S-4E-4 Tipperary #A-2 Buchana~
11S-4E-5 Ladd #29-1 Blalock
11S-4E-6 Davis #1 Chinn & Asnby
11S-4E-7 Delray #1-25 Baggett, et al. {Core - E)
 110

Tobin Grid Name

11S-4E-9 Brown #1 Heitz

llS-SE·-1 Pan Am #1 Buerger
llS-SE-6 Sun #1 Thompson
llS-SE-8 Sun #2 Garner
11S-6E-3 Hughes & Hughes #1 Whitwell
11S-6E-8 Harkins #1 Dunn
11S-7E-2 Kirkwood & Morgan #1 Bell
11S-7E-5 Harkins #1 Avant
11S-8E-2 Pan Am #1 Culpepper
11S-8E-3 Harkins #1 Thompson
11S-9E-l Harkins, et al. #1 Shiner
11S-9E-S Sunray DX #1 Shiner, et al.
llS-9E-7 Skelly #lA La Salle
llS-lOE-3 Texas Co. #lB NCT-2 Kothmann
llS-lOE-4 Harkins #1 Atchison
llS-lOE-9 Texas #1 La Salle
12S-3W-2 Tiger #6 Halsell Fnd.
12S-3W-4 Exsun #1-A Halsell
12S-3W-5 Exsun & Tideway #2-A Halsell
12S-3W-6 RKG Engineering #16-1 Halsell
12S-3W-8 Ontex #1 Keisling
12S-2W-l National Assoc. #A-1 Halsell
12S-2W-2 Caddo #111-1-C Halsell
12S-2W-5 Union #29-1 Halsell (Core-I)
l2S-2W-7 Texan Royalty #1 Sullivan
12S-1W-l Howeth, et al. #1 Myers
12S-1W-2 Shamrock #1-602 Halsell
12S-1W-4 Shamrock #1-663 Halsell
12S-1W-5 Wellington #B-2 Sullivan
12S-1W-6 Shamrock #C-2 Eubanks
12S-1W-7 Caddo #1-1 Hamilton
12S-1W-8 BTA #1 Stowe
12S-1W-9 Wilbanks #16-1 Halsell
12S-1E-l Steeger #1 Davis
12S-1E-3 Continental #1 O'Meara
12S-1E-5 One Star #1 Bray (Core-C, G, and I)
12S-2E-2 Safari #1 Crane
12S-2E-5 BTA #1 77D4 JU-P Cardin
12S-2E-7 Gulf #1 Bowman
12S-3E-3 Houston Oil & Minerals #1 Allee
12S-3E-4 Texsun #1 Reynolds & Wilson, Humble
12S-4E-l Delray #6-14 Rogers (Core - E)
12S-4E-3 Steeger #1 Groos Nat'l Bank
12S-4E-4 Deep Rock #1 Barker
12S-4E-8 Superior #2 Henry
l2S-5E-5 Texas #1 Standifer
12S-SE-6 Continental #1 Alder
 111

Tobin Grid Name

12S-SE-7 Shell #1 Matthews

12S-SE-9 Cockrell & Continental #1 Rogers
12S-6E-l South Texas #1 Brownlow
12S-6E-2 Lovelady #1 Smith
12S-6E-3 Lovelady #1 Pena
12S-6E-4 Lovelady #1 Fuller
12S-6E-5 Hytech #1 Gonzales
12S-6E-8 South Texas #1 Schulze
12S-7E-3 Mobil #1 McNabb
12S-8E-l Harkins #1 Burns
12S-8E-8 Harkins #1 Am. Nat. Bank Austin
12S-9E-l Tidewater (Auld, et al.) #2 Wilson
12S-11E-l Pan Am #1 Franklin
12S-11E-5 Maguire & Del Mar #1 Franklin
12S-12E-2 Gilcrease & Viking #1 Houston
12S-12E-6 Colorado #1 Roark
12S-12E-9 Stanolind #1 Henry
13S--3W-5 Coastal States #1 Schwartz
13S-3W-6 Ozark #B-8 Cage
13S-3W-8 McGoldrick, Smith, & Gill #1 Hagen
13S-2W-l Whitener #3-W Baker
13S-2W-3 Continental #54-1 Cage
13S-2W-5 Continental #90-1 Cage
13S-1W-l Lovelady #1 McKnight
13S-1W-3 Rio Grande #1-29 Risinger
13S-1W-4 Shamrock #12 Fitzsimmons
13S-1W-8 Sutton #C-1 Eubanks
13S-1E-l Galaxy #1 McKnight
13S-2E-l Bowman, et al. #1 Richardson
13S-2E-2 Pan Am (Amoco) #1 Frost National Bank
13S-2E-5 MGF #1 Barrow
13S-2E-9 Hughes & Hughes #1 Garner Est.
13S-3E-l Stringer #1 King Tr. 2
13S-3E-2 Pan Am (Kallina) #1 Bowman
13S-3E-7 Western #1 Tumlinson
13S-4E-3 Stringer, et al. #1 Taylor, et al.
13S-4E-6 Snyder #1 Hendrichsen "A"
13S-4E-8 Belco #1 Coffield
13S-8E-4 Brown #1 Storey
13S-9E-6 Mound #1 Naylor & Jones
13S-9E-7 Gulf #1 Naylor & Jones
13S-11E-3 Fasken #1 Henry
13S-11E-6 Humble #1 Martin
13S-11E-8 Fasken #1 Dilworth
14S-2W-5 Shamrock #1-39 Cage
14S-2W-6 Shamrock #1-62 Cage
14S-2W-8 Shamrock #1-96 Cage
 112

Tobin Grid Name

14S-2W-9 Shamrock #1-66 Cage

14S-1W-3 Shamrock #8 Fitzsimmons
14S-1W-6 Harkins #1 George
14S-1W-8 Gulf #1 Fitzsimmons, et al.
14S-1W-9 Shamrock #8 Fitzsimmons
14S-1E-3 Haynes & Y.T. #1 Fitzsimmons
14S-2E-6 Western, et al. (Tarina) #1 Briscoe
14S-2E-8 Coquina #B-1 Briscoe
14S-3E-l Western #1 Dillon
14S-4E-4 Superior #2 Wortham
14S-4E-5 Superior #3 Wortham
14S-5E-2 Lightning #1 Silver Lakes
14S-8E-l Plymouth #1 Archbishop of San Antonio
14S-8E-4 Pan Am #C-1 Cooke
14S-9E-l Standard of Texas #2 South Texas Syndicate
14S-9E-3 Pan Am #1 Foerster
14S-10E-3 Sutton #1 South Texas Syndicate
15S-2E-6 Richardson #A-1 Gates Ranch
lSS-SE-9 Sutton #1 Kone
15S-6E-2 Lyman #1 Petty
15S-7E-3 Less #1 Martin
16S-1E-3 Nordan (Beer) #1 Briscoe
16S-4E-5 Rowe #1 Garner
17S-1E-6 Capano #A-1 Apache
17S-1E-7 Capano (Sutton) #A-2 Rachal
17S-2E-8 Capano #A-1 Palafox
17S-3E-6 Ginther, Warren & Maguire #1 Middleton

Additional core wells:

9S-1W-5 Chaparrosa #3 Johnson (San Miguel D)

12S-1E-5 Lone Star #2 Bray (San Miguel C and I)
12S-4E-l Delray #8-14 Rogers (San Miguel E)
 REFERENCES CITED

Caffey, K.C., 1978, Depositional environments of the Olmos,

San Miguel and Upson Formations (Upper Cretaceous),
Rio Escondido Basin, Coahuila, Mexico: Univ. Texas,
Austin, unpublished Master's thesis, 86 p.

Coleman, J.M., and Wright, L.D., 1975, Modern river deltas:

variability of processes and sand bodies, in Brous­
sard, M.L., ed., Deltas, models for exploration:
Houston Geol. Soc., p. 99-150.

Crimes, T.P., 1977, Trace fossils of an Eocene deep-sea

sand fan, northern Spain, in Crimes, T.P., and
Harper, J.C., eds., Trace Fossils 2: Geological
Journal Spec. Issue No. 9, p. 71-90.

Curtis, D.M., 1970, Miocene deltaic sedimentation, Louisi­

ana Gulf Coast, in Morgan, J.P., ed., Deltaic sedi­
mentation, moderil"and ancient: Soc. Econ. Paleon­
tologists and Mineralogists Spec. Pub. No. 15,
p. 293-308.

Durnble, E.T., 1892, Notes on the geology of the valley of

the middle Rio Grande: Geol. Soc. America Bull.,
v. 3, p. 219-230.

Fisher, W.L., 1969, Facies characterization of Gulf Coast

Basin delta systems, with some Holocene analogues:
Gulf Coast Assoc. Geel. Socs. Trans.,v. 19, 239-261.

, Brown, L.F., Jr., Scott, A.J., and McGowen, J.H.,

- - -1969, Delta systems in the exploration for oil and
gas: A research colloquium: Univ. Texas, Austin,
Bur. Econ. Geology, 210 p.

Folk, R.L., 1968, Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks:

Austin, Hemphill's, 170 p.

Galloway, W.E., 1975, Process framework for describing

the morphologic and stratigraphic evolution of del­
taic depositional systems, in Broussard, M.L., ed.,
Deltas: models for exploration: Houston Geol Soc.,
p. 87-98.

113
 114

Glover, J.E., 1955, Olmos sand facies of southwest Texas:

Gulf Coast Assoc. Geel.Socs. Trans., v. 5, p. 135­
143.
Gregory, J.L., 1966, A Lower Oligocene delta in the sub­
surface of southeastern Texas, in Shirley, M.C., ed.,
Deltas in their geological framework: Houston Geol.
Soc., p. 213-227.

Harms, J.C., Southard, J.B., Spearing, D.R., and Walker,

R.G., 1975, Depositional environments as interpreted
from primary sedimentary structures and stratifica­
tion sequences: Soc. Econ. Paleontologists and
Mineralogists Short Course No. 2, Dallas, 161 p.

Howard, J.D., 1972, Trace fossils as criteria for recog­

nizing shorelines in the stratigraphic record, in
Rigby, J.K., and Hamblin, W.K., eds., Recognition of
ancient sedimentary environments: Soc. Econ. Paleon­
tologists and Mineralogists Spec. Pub. No. 16,
p. 215-225.

Isbell, E.B., Spencer, C.W., and Seitz, T., 1976, Petro­

leum geology of the Well Draw Field, Converse Coun­
ty, Wyoming, in Landon, R.B., ed., Geology and en­
ergy resourceS-of the Powder River: Wyoming Geol.
Assoc. Guidebook, 28th Annual Field Conference,
p. 165-174.
Kern, J.P., and Warme, J.E., 1974, Trace fossils and
bathymetry of the Upper Cretaceous Point Loma For­
mation, San Diego, California: Geol Soc. America
Bull., v. 85, p. 893-900.

Kruit, C., 1955, Sediments of the Rhone delta: Part I,

Grain size and microfauna: K. Nederl. Geol. Mijn­
bouwk. Gen. Verhand., v. 15, p. 357-514.

Lewis, J.O., 1962, Torch Field, Zavala County, Texas:

South Texas Geol. Soc. Bull., v. 2, n. 5, p. 5-14.

Lewis, J.O., 1977, Stratigraphy and entrapment of hydro­

carbons in the San Miguel sands of southwest Texas:
Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Socs. Trans., v. 27, p. 90­
98.
Loucks, R.G., 1976, Pearsall Formation, Lower Cretaceous,
South Texas: depositional facies and carbonate
diagenesis and their relationship to porosity:
 115

Univ. Texas, Austin, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,

362 p • .

~~~-' Bebout, D.G., and Galloway, W.E., 1977, Relation­

ship of porosity formation and preservation to sand­
stone consolidation history-Gulf Coast Tertiary Frio
Formation: Gulf Coast Assoc. Geel Socs. Trans., v.
27, p. 109-120.

-~~' Dodge, M.M., and Galloway, W.E., 1979, Sand­

stone consolidation analysis to delineate areas of
high-quality reservoirs suitable for production of
geopressured geothermal energy along the Texas Gulf
Coast: Univ. Texas, Austin, Bur. Econ. Geology,
report for U.S. Dept. of Energy, Contract No. EG­
77-5-05-5554.

Luttrell, P.E., 1977, Carbonate facies distribution and

diagenesis associated with volcanic cones-Anacacho
Limestone (Upper Cretaceous), Elaine Field, Dimmit
County, Texas, in Bebout, D.G., and Loucks, R.G.,
eds., CretaceouS-carbonates of Texas and Mexico­
Applications to subsurface exploration: Univ. Texas,
Austin, Bur. Econ. Geology Rept. of Invest. 89,
p. 260-285.

Murray, G.E., 1957, Geologic occurrence of hydrocarbons in

Gulf Coastal orovince of the United States: Gulf
Coast Assoc. Geo!. Socs. Trans., v. 7, p. 253-299.

, 1961, Geology of the Atlantic and Gulf Coast Prov­

- - -ince of North America: New York, Harper Bros.,
629 p.
Oomkens, E., 1967, Depositional sequences and sand dis­
tribution in a deltaic complex: Geologie en Mijn­
bouw, v. 46, p. 265-278.
, 1970, Depositional sequences and sand distribu­
- - - t i o n in the postglacial Rhone delta complex, in
Morgan, J.P., ed., Deltaic sedimentation, modern
and ancient: Soc. Econ. Paleontologists and Mineral­
ogists Spec. Pub. No. 15, p. 198-212.

The Railroad Commission of Texas, 1977, Annual Report of

the Oil and Gas Division, 587 p.

, 1978, Various open file records of 1978 oil pro­

---
 116

duction for District 1, Oil and Gas Division.

Rose, P.R., 1972, Edwards Group, surface and subsurface

Central Texas: Univ. Texas, Austin, Bur. Econ.
Geology Rept. of Invest. 74, 198 p.

Sellards, E.H., Adkins, W.S., and Plummer, F.B., 1932,

The geology of Texas, v. !-Stratigraphy: Univ. Texas
Bull. 3232, 1007 p.

Simmons, K.A., 1967, A primer on "Serpentine Plugs" in

South Texas, in Ellis, W.G., ed., Contributions to
the geology ofSouth Texas: South Texas Geol. Soc.,
p. 125-132.

Smith, A.E., Jr., 1975, Ancient deltas: Comparison maps

(Appendix), in Broussard, M.L., ed., Deltas, models
for exploratIOn: Houston Geol. Soc., p. 529-555.

Spencer, A.B., 1965, Upper Cretaceous asphalt deposits of

the Rio Grande embayment: Corpus Christi Geol. Soc.
Guidebook, 67 p.

Stephenson, L.W., 1931, Taylor age of San Miguel formation

of Maverick County, Texas: Arner. Assoc. Pet. Geol.
Bull., v. 15, p. 793-800.

Van de Graaf£, F.R., 1972, Fluvial-deltaic facies of the

Castlegate Sandstone (Cretaceous), east-central
Utah: Jour. Sed. Petrology, v. 42, p. 558-571.

Walper, J.L., 1977, Paleozoic tectonics of the southern

margin of North America: Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol.
Socs. Trans., v. 27, p. 230-241.

Weimer, R.J., and Hoyt, J.H., 1964, Burrows of Callianassa

majbr Say, geologic indicators of littoral and
shallow neritic environments: Jour. Paleontology,
v. 38, p. 761-767.
Tt-iE U I i::.R 1Y OF,
TEXAS AT AUSTIN

MAY 2 3 1979
GEOLOGY LIBRARY
 McCABE - TURNER
8 KIRKWOOD a MORGAN l>
#I Kincaid
IOS- 4W-6

i
~
l>
<
fTl
:j
:;:o
l'Tl (')
="
CONTINENTAL ~
# M Chitt:m - - - r (')
!~@~! 9
llS-3W-I r
x I
x

CONTINENTAL
.. . • ...,<T I #44 - 4 Chittim
11 r:~~ 11 S - 2 W - 4 CONTINENTAL
-+-----::--=-::-:---# 65 -12 Chittim
CONTINENTAL 11 S - 2 W-5
#71-9 Chittim
lft-"lltfl---IHl+~r'VV'--..,.._,..,~15....._..~ llS-2W-8
8_
m~
0-rO ~~J~.:1

NATIONAL ASSOCIATED
PETROLEUM
I
i~~~;l--~-ti11:~~1--~-......;r"l\./'-'......-V-~'l"''\.H~§_.._ ___ ~~~ #A-I Halsell
12S-2W-I
-I
<.n
iii
11in:1
c:>~hi SHAMROCK ~
0 !~ lfij #1-663 Halsell--r
~um 12S-IW-4 r
-<I
-<
,11r
'.Tl
:"'
0 SHAMROCK
~. #C-2 Eubanks
12S-IW-4
~ CADDO
,... I
;t:
3 # 1-1 Hamilton
12S-IW-7

'fl
il
r- . [
GALAXY
#I McKnight
~ ~~~~
g: 13S-IE-I
0
. :::·
~·Ill·~ 0

~ t ~

~ MGF
~'0 8 I I # I Barrow
- I 13S-2E-5

II o
I ~
~ I ~
z I -1
~
Ci) o II (')
c r 0
f!! 3: I .
g I ~
I 8
I ~
I g
I -t
I m
I I WESTERN ~
~ I #I Dillon ~
g I 14 S - 3 E - I r
- I N
I ~
I N
I
I : J I # SUPERIOR
f ~- ~ 1 ',~~'.";~'.:'at
f' °' 1 SUPERIOR
8 - , .:,_ "3 w.. tham, ot al
- 8 14S-4E-5
~:.:r
0 i
, Q
ff ·~
r
:;·
cl
'O ~m
00
0 ::E
::J ­
n
0 ....
CJ)
-
a
::J
::Ji
-U>
3: .ci'<J)
.ci' c Cll
.... n
c Cll ­
!!. -o·
::J
-----
r
l>
Cf)
l> G'> -ti!
r 3: ~m
r s )::a
LYMANN fTl -< (I)~
I L I
#I Petty l>_ l'¢
~
I Cl (') ~~
0 0
15S-6E-2 C.:> > ;;o
o_ o_ 9
ic c:!e
"'U (0
-_, ~~
r !~
co zo
.,,
~ 00 m ~ N 0 m ~ ~ N m l>
g g g g g g g g g g o~ --t
fTI
I I I I I I I
~ gi ~ g: ~ 03 H
0 0 0 0 0 °0 ~
~
fJ)
 GENERAL CRUDE ­
!~:i1~: mm 1@:: #I Dunbar CD
1
8S-3W-9
0
0
o_ llli;i
I

:r
HARRISON
#8 - 6 Saner
r 9S-3W-2
:;·
CD HARRISON
0 #8-7 Saner
9S-3W-1 ~
0
-
0,,. ~
,,. rn
,,. :::0
CD
SOUTHWORTH S WOOD
0 #6 Fessman ?5
:A
s:l· 9S-2W-4
()
-
,,.
::r
SOUTHWORTH S WOOD 9
I 0 #5 Fessman
0-, r-0 ::(
81~ :l 9S-2W-5
o_ 0
:l

.o·
,, :Ji
c
-
..,
CD
A /\. A - SOUTHWORTH S WOOD
I I # 2 wozencroft
I\)
UI- """T"" o"""' 9S-2W-7
,8 0
:, o_ o_
6

~
ITI

o­
~- I
' ' A

-1
NORTON S GRAGE _ _ ITI
#I Norton
r
r
~

:~:~~~
IOS-IW-1
8_ x
._N I
0 x
~

Ah NORTON S GRAGE
I -i #5 Norton
-~~ ~~ IOS-IE-5
0
......, o_
~::::?'

GENERAL CRUDE
~I I #I Guyler
IOS-IE-6 -t N
8o_
m~
)::>
~
ITI r
A ­ TEXAS _ ~ );>
I '""'" #3 Northeastern Forming- n
-~ --~,,.---, "'"z!'im~mr1s--
~S-2E-9 ~
I
0.
g_ ~

BUTTES 8 BEAMON
#1-81 Cross"s"
US -2E-2

a~~v
WINN S MUSSELMAN
-i #I Compton
tHfit1~ - I' llS-2E-6
l1' ,Ul ~ v--V--­ I I

lA -l MOORE
-~'~~ -1 #I Northeastern Farming
llS-3E-9
8_
LITTLE, ET AL .
~
. _,., . . . . . . ._ I 1 -j #I Rutledge
0 \ I llS-3E-8
0
-I o_
0
-0
(/) ITI
J> (/)
z 0 (")
r 0
s: 3:: z
(5 2
c ~ 0
ITI 0
r CD
~
i DEEP ROCK
;~rnum I I #I Barker
UI v-~ r-~
0 0 12S -4E-4
0 0
o_ o_

-I 0
) j m~
11 I SUPERIOR ~ ~
I
.m
.. I~ f'
II UI
g
0
-
I
~-
0
0
I #2 Henry
12 S-4E-8
-- r
N
~ .,;
n
0
~ I
N_

.~M.
SHELL
Ill -1 #I Matthews
12S-5E-7

Ci) ~~
3: ~~-
~
!< ct>z
J/I
COCKRELL a CONTINENTAL i ?j~
-1 #I Rogers - - - - - (..:)
"° >:::o
12S-5E-9 c~
U> gj~
r Ul
zo
. :ri
)> -u I _,-
CJ)
r
SOUTH TEXAS )>
)>
#I Schulze r CD -f
12S;_6E-8 r -m
~ oo m ~ N m m ~ ro fT1
0 0 0
o0 0 0 0 0 ­
o0._ _._ _._ __.
__o __ 8__ o__ __o __ o __ o __ o__ o _ og o
__,.__ ..._ _._ _._ __. __,.__ __.· ..... () t:::t
p
m ui ~ ~ ro o~
0 ~
00
o0 o0 o o0 o0 0
 THE UNIVERSITY OF.
TEXAS AT AUSTIN

MAY 2 3 1979
GEOLOGY LIBRARY

PLATE ill

MEDINA co. FRIO CO. LA SALLE CO.

TIE WELL Y-Y' 'tlE WEr Z-Z' Line of cross section
c (J')
w
r shown on figure I C'
w (!)
(.)

>
Q: Cl)
:::> 'O
re
d5~ (J')
I
gl() _J <(
>.
Cl)
w g<:I'
(/) -~ I i'?
(J')
111<X>
(J')
W111 I
(J')
<( II) I 0111<:1'
"-I
-c:v
_J ·- I
(J')a>W w-ow Q: ow ..J-w NCllW O~w
W-m
- I I
r om e> om
(!)(.)I or, g~~ z...:m
z<C I
z <.>m
(!) :E I
I-<( (J') :::>-(J') Q:-(J') o-U'l w-'U'l <C-U'l
u#r-­ r#r-­ a..#r-­ o:ll:a> a..#<X> ~#m

feet meters
0 0
Line of cross section shown on figure I

1000° -6000' 200

6000° -
3<!)00'

t
100
l-1000' ESCONDIDO
- 5000' 400
-1000'
_J_ -- ­ =2Q_O_Q~----------- 600
200

Eroded OLMOS - 6000° 800

•
1000 300
SAN MIGUEL

400
2000' - 6000° 1400

- 4poo'
- 2000° 0 6 12km
1600
0 3 6mi 500

2000!.... - 7000' 1800

{
- 2000' - 3000'

~ 2000 600
 SHAW
# 2 Wipff x
0 II S-4W-6
0
o_
(/)
J> ITI
0 (/)
z r ()
3: 0
3: z
Gi 0 0
c (/)
ITI 0
r 0
-t 3::
ml>
CONTINENTAL ~ <
# M Chittim - - ­ ~ fT1
llS-3W-I r ;tJ
I
gl I 1:" ()
o_ fl I J>_ ="
I
I ()
I p
I CONTINENTAL
~=~=~l~ . ~l I # 209-1 Chitt im
=:I I IOS-2W-9
I
::~~,1
I
g_
:ifI f
:il l l . l l '~ _,I
!:l o,
f~ o,
til 0 CONTINENTAL
# 606-1 Chittim
IOS-2W-5

SHELL
#2 Plumley
IOS-IW-4
NORTON 8 GRAGE
# 15 Norton -t
IOS-IW-2 -
fTI

NORTON 8 GRAGE ~
# 14 Norton -­r
IOS-IW-1 r
m
~
NORTON 8 GRAGE m_
<X> # 17 Norton- Chaparrosa
9S-IW-7 N
l>
<
l>
r
<X> l>
3
() ...
TENNECO p -t::C
CJ> #I Matthews G'> 3:
'?"
9S-IE-4 ~~
3 s ~ (/) :z
I
I
go_
r
§;;c: ~
><
-t,,,
I ;· ,.::o
en CD ~
I ':S' c c: !!?
GfTTY 0 0
(/) -4
E_ (.0 -t-<
~I #I Greele :J
I -o
9S-·IE-1 0 Q w z""
~
Io :J 0 I -_,
I o_ en
~~- -Ill

I CD
ITI I CD
'~°"Ill!l
I -c;·
:J
00.
CD
I -u
0. I r
I
I WOFFvrrn
#I Bonnett
~
x fT1
I s::: ~ 8S-2E-8
~-
c ~'r
~M~rrf§ !. l<1
~ oo Oi ~ i\5 o oo m ~ "' ;­
o0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 CD
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o­

m 01 ~ <>I "' o 03
0 0 0 0 Q CD
8 0 0 0 0 ­
~
Ill
 COASTAL STATES -<
#I Schwartz
N
0 13S-3W-5
0
o_
OZARK
#B-8 Cage
13S-3W-6

CONTINENTAL
#54-1 Cage
13S-2W-3

3:
~
rTI
:::0
UNION (')
I , #29-1 Halsell
o~
12S-2W-5 "
g_ (')
p

o -r o ftRf:I .....
0
oo_- ­ JSHAMROCK :E m
I #1-663 Halsell--~
12S- IW-4 r
J>
I
J>_
UI
SHAMROCK
#1-602 Halsell
0 12S-IW-2
HOWETH, ET AL
l=I Myers
125-IW-I

WOOD
-----
0 #I Weathers
~-- - ..,,-.,,...,..,..,.
~. I 115-IE-9
0
o_
N
0
,,,.
3 -
I #I Stewart
N
0
~STEEGER
llS-IE-5
0
o_

--+----- ~- YJv WINN

I #I Cross " S "
115- IE-I
.....
,,..
0
t :e
-o TEXAS m
­ , #3 Northeostern Forming-:=
IOS-2Er9
m
I
m

J~v· BURR a CREWS N

~ ... #I Freed l>
8 IOS-2E-6
o_
~
r
l>
!:1· .....

H~ (')

I·• 2. 9
(/)
0
:J
HAAS
3::~
#I Bartlett
c 9S-3E-8
1:1 c
: !!.

REECE
I . #I Brewster
-..- ~ rt.ilt.!~#-tift.----'71!---~---'--V-w-,.,-..,.,v 9S-3E-6
0
0 I
o_ 'j[f:
I
I
I WILCOX
j #I Voight
~~
I~ 9S-4E-3
0
I ~-WV
o_ I g
I
j
I
I N
I ~ WILCOX
1~~ #6 Gill iom
8S-4E-7
;-------,
ROWE
#I Kincaid
I
N 8S-5E-9
~g_ -~
I II
I :::0
I
--------11--.-­ TENNECO 6 PENNZOIL 0
#I Machen (')
I n
~ 8S-5E-7 p
I~
~9- I
I
I
I IT1
(/)
(")
PAGENKOPF a JAMIESON
~ ,~ 0
I I z #I Blockoller
~ -N ~ ­
o~ 2 8S-6E-5
0 0
o_ (/) I 0
0
I
I
I
I
I
HUMBLE
I #I Wilson
-..r~~ 8S - 7E -3
0 f ==r~
o_ I o_
I
I
I
I
I
I
(/) I
J> I
z I
l ~
3:: I rTI
- MORRISON 0
C>
c ~ !-~ #I Boggus
IT1 0 ............_,, 8S-8E-3
z
r I J>
1i!i.ll! I o
I o (')
1~:~1l''j IT1 p
0 I
Q.
... r
Q. ... :;·
t11tf1
,01
' -::r•
0
• 0
:J ­
,;·:· ,I ~, on .....
:J ;; IT1
1::::: _.. DOUGLAS
::;:t F· #I Watson
Ci' .. :e
:1:11 ij c .. 8S - 9E-3
--~
G
~~
......!l
....,' r
-5· PAN AMERICAN
I :J #I Lilly 0
I .....
I ~-~F:'!'fl:"'-'l: 8S-9E-2 0 ..... ::c
~ 8_ ~ ..... "1
I ~c
\ <l>Z
I
a6 ~ ><
N> .... IT\
I ~ > ;io
~
I c; !!?
\ - <D ~~
\ -o
z.,,
I c.D
I ......
I
I
I
I
N
0
8_ ~ CLARK ~
(1 I #I Harlan- Nelson l>
(/)
SS-IOE-1 (')
0
(/)
J>
N ­ -u
8 ~ § ~ ~- ;'
o o o o o o~ o r
p~
§ g g rn
-<
o!..
.....
... ~
 WESTERN
I I
N
'~ 111 Briscoe
§_ I
§_ 14S-2E-6
-~­
I '
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
I -4
I r;;
I
--- - =::
IT1
I I I ' II Dillon
1WESTE~ rr
I 14S-3E-I
§_ I )>
---{T,-­ I
I
)>_
I
I

I I I
~WESTERN
I I 111 Tumlinson
§_ 13S-3E-7
Iii l1r ~ I I ~­ §_

STRINGER 8 PETROLEUM, ET AL.

I I I II Taylor, et al.
~ ~~ 13S-4E-8
~\
h - §_
u\:\ 0
\ qj ::! ~­
111
~
ii.l i!:;·.
~) ~~ SUPERIOR ~ -4
1:1 J I I I 12 Henry 1
i:i lj .________._§_ §_­ 12S-4E-8 1
!JJ
I
':i 11 m_
8
111 l~ 1::

!ii 111::1
:,:~J
1.:1 !l
!:· ll DELRAY
l:J . I
I 1116-14 Rogers
~
0 12S-4E-1
~~­ 8_
!If DELRAY
I 11-25 Baggett
~;:;:,.,:.::
M N llfim I ~
8_ llS-4E-7

-----
N
)::>
SUN
12 Garner ~
llS-SE-8
§_I :::::r;::: L
rmt ~,ljlH~
r_: 1.f'::~ 1. f~ _I. ~­ £:
===·' 0
SUN
0
t: II Thompson
llS-SE-6 ----­
,!i ~ ~:l
PAN AMERICAN
II Buerger
I IS-SE-I
HUGHES 8 HUGHES
II Whitwell
1IS-6E-3

ANDERSON
Ill McCarthy
IOS-6E-9
F~~
I -
I
HUMBLE
~t-----------L II Pork
~~:11 1§ IOS-6E- 5
I -
0-.-0 I
I
I
I
l'i I
il:j
Ii
~
PARKER
111-R Oppenheimer
(JI
IOS-7E-3
I_0 I
~
I
~ fTl
z (/) .,,
0 ()
~ r 0 :::0
G) ~ z 0
c 0 2
(/)
~i fTl 0
.... 0
8
1:3
,,.,.
3

- MABEE
I I t ~ II Newsom
~~ 9S-SE~8
I II . fTl I
- .., I
A·­··' g_ I
~I
::!
IT1

MAGNOLIA ~
ti I McKinney r
9S-9E-4 • r
0
I
o_

1
,1:1!
....
:;·
CD
0
-l
- ( '>
a c:> 3: ~~
= {;
:; KILLAM § ~ <Iii
!!. II Favor Oi( N ~~
0 ~ >:::o
:::J 9S-IOE-8
~
----- cCD c:!e
0 =s­
-'-----fl "O
0
"'0
IE
~
)::> <D
-_, ~~
'io
:::J (f) ...
~>< <D
CJ) 0 0
:::J
-
0
=>
0
(f)
:s:: .a·- )::>
~
CD 0
""c~ 0

~ I ~

1
~a a~~ HUMBLE
Ill Matocha -0
N_r
9S-llE-8
~
rn
I\) - -
<Jl I\) ro ~ ­
§ 8 8 8 o offi. t::1
8 8 8 °I (/)