Sedimentary Geology 190 (2006) 97 119 www.elsevier.

com/locate/sedgeo

The Table Rocks Sandstone: A fluvial, friction-dominated lobate mouth bar sandbody in the Westphalian B Coal Measures, NE England
Brian R. Turner a,, Gillian N. Tester b,1
a

Department of Earth Sciences, Durham University, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK b Shell U.K. Exploration and Production, London, WC2R ODX, UK

Abstract Westphalian B (Duckmantian) alluvial Coal Measures along the Northumberland coast, NE England, comprise coal-capped coarseningupward crevasse-splay sequences of shale, siltstone and sandstone, interbedded with a number of major distributary channel sandbodies, including the Table Rocks Sandstone. Lithofacies, architectural analysis and outcrop geometries divide the Table Rocks Sandstone into flaggy sandstone, massive sandstone, heterolithic, and mudstone facies associations, each comprising up to 7 lithofacies types. The three sandy facies associations are characterised by lenticular bed geometries on different scales producing a hierarchy of lensoid packages and associated bounding surfaces, all showing typical offset stacking patterns: (1) lenses, represent individual lenticular cross-bed sets, bounded by 1st order surfaces; (2) packages of lenses, called lens clusters are bounded by 2nd order surfaces, and are the basic architectural building block of the sandy facies associations; and (3) vertically stacked lens clusters called amalgamated lens clusters, bounded by 3rd order surfaces. The Table Rocks sandbody has a laterally extensive, irregular, lobate subsurface plan geometry, it displays a radial palaeocurrent pattern with 180 dispersion, and it forms part of a 14-m thick coarsening-upward regressive sequence. It is interpreted as a composite, lobate crevasse-splay delta system that prograded into a shallow interdistributary fresh to brackish water lake up to 14 m deep. The shallow lake water, fluvial input, and extensive development of traction structures such as cross-bedding and ripple cross-lamination suggests a frictiondominated delta, in which the four facies associations can be interpreted in terms of discrete elements of the mouth bar environment. The flaggy sandstone facies association represents the main, axial part of the mouth bar system, the erosively based massive sandstone facies association major subaqeous distributary channels, the lithologically more variable heterolithic facies association the medial mouth bar, and the mudstone facies association the distal mouth bar fringe and prodelta. Within this environmental setting amalgamated lens clusters are interpreted as small, discrete mouth bar sand lobes, whose offset, imbricate stacking pattern reflects channel spacing and bifurcation, the rate of channel shifting, or shallow depths and lack of accommodation space. Thus, lens clusters are interpreted as discrete growth elements of the mouth bar sand lobes, and lenses as individual bedforms making up these growth elements. Because of the high rate of channel shifting, lack of extensive erosion of the mouth bar lobes, and deposition of low discharge fines, the lobes retained much of their original depositional geometry, thereby providing advantageous gradients for offset deposition and stacking of adjacent sand lobes. Although the delta complex was maintained by frequent crevassing from the feeder channel, and by subsidence due to contemporaneous compaction and/or local tectonism, it was deeply incised on two occasions by subaqeous channels in response to high magnitude floods or falling lake level. 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Alluvial architecture; Mouth bar sandbody; Westphalian; NE England

Corresponding author. E-mail address: b.r.turner@durham.ac.uk (B.R. Turner). 1 Present address: Amerada Hess, 30 Grosvenor Place, London SW1X 7HY. 0037-0738/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.sedgeo.2006.05.007

98

B.R. Turner, G.N. Tester / Sedimentary Geology 190 (2006) 97119

1. Introduction During Westphalian times, northern England consisted of a low relief, humid, coastal alluvial plain, remote from open marine influences, drained by predominantly low sinuousity, low gradient sandy distributary channels flowing south and southwest down the regional palaeoslope, either directly or via numerous crevasse-splays which built-out into shallow water (< 20 m deep) interdistributary lakes, as small delta systems (Fielding, 1984; Haszeldine, 1984; Chen, 1990; Guion et al., 1995; Fulton and Williams, 1988; Turner and Smith, 1995; O'Mara, 1995). Delta abandonment and colonisation of the delta top by peat vegetation, was followed by a rise in base level and increased accommodation space as lake waters drowned the peat mire, preserving it beneath lacustrine sediments as thin (< 15 m), coal-capped coarsening-upward deltaic sequences of shale, siltstone and sandstone (Turner and

Richardson, 2004). One of the best exposures of Westphalian B Coal Measures (Duckmantian Stage) in Britain occurs along the Northumberland coast between Tynemouth and Seaton Sluice (Fig. 1, top left inset). The exposed succession occurs between the Hutton and High Main coal seams within the lower part of the 270 m thick Westphalian B succession in Northumberland (Fig. 2). It comprises 110 m of shale, siltstone and sandstone arranged in vertically stacked coarseningupward sequences, capped by a seatearth and coal seam, interbedded with a number of prominent sandbodies, each one named after their outcrop locality (Fig. 2). The most extensively exposed sandstone in the succession is the Table Rocks Sandstone located on the coast 0.3 km south of Whitley Bay (Fig. 1, top left inset). The lower part is only exposed at low tide between the foreshore and the sea wall; the upper part is exposed in a low cliff, 515 m high, that runs NWSE for some 600 m between the promenade and the seawall. This cliff,

Fig. 1. Generalised geological map of the Table Rocks area showing the outcrop of the Table Rocks Sandstone and the location of the study section. The inset map top left shows the location of Table Rocks on the Northumberland coast and the inset map top right shows the location of the measured sections in Fig. 3.

B.R. Turner, G.N. Tester / Sedimentary Geology 190 (2006) 97119

99

Fig. 2. Correlation of the lower Westphalian B Coal Measures between Tynemouth and Seaton Sluice, showing the location of major sandbodies in the succession. The arrows, which represent the palaeocurrents responsible for deposition of the sandbodies, are vector means based on a minimum of 20 readings (After Turner and Smith, 1995).

which provides ideal exposures for mapping lithofacies geometries, forms the basis of this study. Stratigraphically the Table Rocks Sandstone lies between the Low Main and Bensham coal seams (Figs. 1 and 2), with the Low Main coal at the base of the sandstone being locally washed out. Within this interval the Table Rocks Sandstone varies in thickness from 14 m along the coast to 24 m in the Shiremoor Farm borehole 4 km SW of Table Rocks (Fig. 1, top left inset). The Table Rocks Sandstone was interpreted as a low sinuosity distributary channel-fill sandbody by Haszeldine (1981), and a similar interpretation has been placed on comparable sandbodies in the local Westphalian succession in northeast England (Elliott, 1975; Fielding, 1986; Guion and Fielding, 1988). However, Dunne and Hempton (1984) emphasised that distributary mouth bar sandbodies may be overlooked or misinterpreted as fluvial channels in the rock record, especially where proximal and distal facies relationships are poorly constrained. Olsen (1993) described mouth bar sandbodies from the fluvio-deltaic Upper Cretaceous Atane Formation in west Greenland, noting their similarity to distributary channel sandbodies. The purpose of this paper is to test the existing depositional model for the Table Rocks Sandstone on the basis of its detailed lithofacies architecture, mapped

and logged at outcrop, and its subsurface characteristics. The results of the analysis, together with comparisons with ancient and modern analogues, provide the basis for reinterpreting the depositional environment of the Table Rocks Sandstone as a mouth bar sandbody rather than a low sinuousity distributary channel sandbody. 2. Sedimentology The Table Rocks Sandstone is a moderately sorted, fine to medium and locally coarse-grained pebbly, micaceous, authigenic kaolinite-rich feldspathic arenite and sublitharenite. Thin section grain-size analysis shows that the dominant grain-size falls mainly within the medium and less commonly fine grain-size classes (Table 1), with 4 to 28% of coarse-grained sand. At outcrop the sandbody can be divided into four facies associations, based on detailed measured type sections (Fig. 3), outcrop geometry and internal facies architecture: flaggy sandstone facies association (FA.F), massive sandstone facies association (FA.G), heterolithic facies association (FA.H) and mudstone facies association (FA.M). The location of these type sections is shown in Fig. 1 (top right inset) and the distribution of the facies associations in the cliff and adjoining foreshore section to the south are shown in Fig. 4.

100

B.R. Turner, G.N. Tester / Sedimentary Geology 190 (2006) 97119

Table 1 Textural, compositional and poroperm data for the flaggy sandstone and heterolithic facies associations of the Table Rocks Sandstone Facies association FA.F FA.F FA.F FA.F FA.F FA.F FA.F FA.F FA.H FA.H FA.H FA.H FA.H FA.H FA.H FA.H FA.H Lithofacies sample F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F2 F2 Mean grain size (m) 214 214 250 250 214 250 250 177 125 151 151 177 177 151 300 177 250 Sorting Dentrital grains 49.6 54.8 54.6 54.0 53.4 53.6 53.8 53.8 36.6 61.0 59.0 60.8 58.4 54.2 57.6 51.6 53.4 Cement (%) 34 31.6 38.4 33.0 31.6 27.6 28.2 30.6 62.2 31.0 33.2 27.0 24.8 43.6 32.0 40.4 29.4 Primary porosity (%) 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.2 Secondary porosity (%) 16.0 12.8 6.4 12.6 14.2 18.6 18.0 15.6 1.2 8.0 7.8 11.8 16.8 2.2 11.8 7.8 17.0 Total porosity (%) 16.4 13.6 7.0 13.0 15.0 18.8 18.0 15.6 1.2 8.0 7.8 12.2 16.8 2.2 12.2 8.0 17.2 Estimated permeability (mD) 44.23 11.21 0.36 11.86 17.4 83.61 65.43 14.63 0.0 0.25 0.21 4.16 22.22 0.00 10.51 2.32 50.63

0.77 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.84 0.87 0.84 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.84 0.87

Up to seven component lithofacies have been recognised within the four facies associations (Table 2, see Tester, 1991 for additional details). The vertical relationships between the facies associations, their internal lithofacies components and the proportion of facies types within specific facies associations are shown in Table 3. 2.1. Flaggy sandstone facies association (FA.F) This is the dominant facies association in the Table Rocks Sandstone. It has a characteristic well bedded flaggy appearance at outcrop and is underlain by the mudstone or less commonly the massive sandstone facies association, and overlain by the massive sandstone facies association, except in the south where it passes laterally into the heterolithic facies association (Fig. 4). Internally it is dominated by small (55%) and large-scale (25%) cross-bedded sandstone facies (F1, F2) with lesser amounts (< 11%) of heterolithic, ripple cross-laminated sandstone (F3), carbonaceous mudstone (F6), sandy mudstone (F4) and intraclast conglomerate facies (F7) (Table 3 and Fig. 5), all of which vary laterally in thickness and have a lenticular bed geometry, especially the cross-bed sets (Fig. 6A). The lenticular shape of the sets is further emphasised by the down-dip thinning and wedging of the foresets into tangential bottomsets (Fig. 6B). Small trough-shaped sets are also present but very much subordinate to lenticular sets (Table 2). The flaggy sandstone facies association comprises two end member facies: large-

scale cross-bedded sandstone facies (F1) (Fig. 3A); and a small-scale cross-bedded sandstone facies (F2) (Fig. 3B). Plots of cross-bed set length:thickness (Fig. 7A) show that individual large-scale sets range from 0.35 to 1.2 m in thickness and 1085 m in length; small-scale sets from 0.05 to 0.35 m in thickness and 570 m in length (Table 2). Although no statistical correlation exists between length and thickness (Fig. 7A) there is a general increase in length and thickness of large-scale sets with grain-size (Table 2). The large- and small-scale cross-bedded facies-dominated parts of the facies association become interbedded with one another in narrow transition zones. Within these transition zones there is an erosional contact between the large-scale cross-bedded facies and the small-scale cross-bedded facies below. Although the small-scale cross-bedded facies passes laterally into the large-scale cross-bedded facies outside the transition zones, it is more commonly associated with other facies components, especially thin topset and foreset drapes. Thus it assumes a more heterolithic character than the large-scale cross-bedded facies. Foreset azimuths measured in the lower and upper parts of this facies association show a wide spread of readings between NNE and SSE, but with a dominant easterly trend (Fig. 4). 2.2. Massive sandstone facies association (FA.G) This has a massive appearance at outcrop, and can be divided into two, erosionally-based, channel-like sandbodies: one at the northernmost end of the outcrop (FA.

B.R. Turner, G.N. Tester / Sedimentary Geology 190 (2006) 97119

101

Fig. 3. Measured type sections for the flaggy sandstone (A, B), massive sandstone (C), heterolithic (D) and mudstone (E) facies associations (see Figs. 1 and 4 for location of type sections).

Fig. 4. Distribution of facies associations and location of type sections in the Table Rocks Sandstone at Table Rocks (see Figs. 1 and 3). The section locations run from northwest to southeast, and correspond to their locations shown in Fig. 1, except for sections A and B which represent the two end members of the Flaggy Facies Assocation. Details of these type sections are shown in Fig. 3.

102

Table 2 Summary description of the sedimentary lithofacies in the flaggy sandstone (FA.F), massive sandstone (FA.G), heterolithic (FA.H) and mudstone (FA.M) facies associations in the Table Rocks Sandstone Facies type and code Large-scale cross-bedded sandstone (F1) Description Lenticular cross-bed sets arranged in nested, laterally offset stacking patterns; sets preferentially deposited on thinner flanks of set below. Individual lens-shaped sets are 0.351.2 m in lateral extent, organised into lenticular cosets. Individual set boundaries generally sharp and partly erosive; upper boundary gently undulating or convex-up in flow parallel sections; lower boundary more irregular and concave-up, concordant with shape of underlying lens; local pebbly lags to sets. Foresets internally graded, concave-up with marked thinning and flattening downdip from 20 at the top <10 at the base; forests pass downdip into the subhorizontal, tangential bottomsets without any concomitant decrease in grain-size; rippled toesets; rare reactivation surfaces; parting lineations on some foresets. Mica and carbonaceous plant material concentrates along toesets and bottomsets. Facies shows wavy bedding, soft sediment deformation, and is overlain by F2 and F3 facies lenses. FA.G. Cross-bed set lenses commonly pass laterally into F2; margins of lenses reworked into adjacent lenses; pervasive carbonate cement; horizontal joints and microfaulting; sets have strongly developed toeset fines and mudstone interclast strewn forests. FA.H. F1 mainly confined to lower part; individual sets organised into 45 nested lenses up to 0.8 m thick and 1020 m long, separated by drapes of F3, F4 and F6; rippled toesets and locally deformed forests. Trough and tangentially-based planar cross-bed sets, arranged in cosets; sharp-based lenticular bed geometries arranged in lenticular nested bundles that are also lenticular. Other facies commonly present, include F3, F5, F7, and F1. Fine, commonly rippled toesets pass laterally into F2, F3 and F5 lens clusters. FA.F. Dominant facies type; 0.050.35 m thick sets, contain siderite concretions (3 cm in diameter) and mudstone intraclasts up to 5 cm long on forests, imbricate in the upstream direction. FA.G. Confined to topmost metre; occurs between and may be cut-out by F1; major component of transition zone between FA.G (north) and overlying FA.F. FA.H. Most common in upper part; individual sets lenticular and occur as complex of nested lenses interbedded with F3 and less commonly F1; laterally extensive rippled toesets ( 5 m) and rippled upper surface to lenses with F6 and F4 drapes. Occurs as toesets and topset drapes, 23 cm thick and up to 17 m long, within and between F2 and occasionally F1. Lenticular geometries; sharp-based toesets and gradational tops; topsets have sharp to gradational bases and sharp tops; commonly cut-out laterally by erosion by overlying F1 and F2. FA.G. Best preserved in upper part beneath contact with FA.H (south); removed by erosion at northern end. FA.H. Laterally extensive topsets (17 m long) mostly in lower part. FA.M. Occurs laterally extensive units (up to 58 cm thick) with sharp and locally erosive bases and sharp; striped dark and light carbonaceous and sand-rich laminae; coal l enticules and starved ripples; thin carbonaceous mudstone drapes. Occurs as topset drapes to F1, F2 and F3; sharp bases and sharp eroded tops. Topsets drape topography of underlying bed, but cut-out laterally by other facies; reworked along margins of F1 lenses. FA.G. Lens-shaped geometry, <1 m long, enclosed by F1 in lower part and F2 in upper part. FA.H. Occurs as carbonaceous and coaly-rich bioturbated drape overlying F1-dominated part of FA.H; pinches out northward into stacked F1 and F2 of FA.F. FA.M. Incompletely exposed thickness of 0.32 m at base of FA.M; sheet-like geometry; passes laterally into F3. Occurs along margins of lenticular cross-bed sets and cosets of F1 and F2; sharp bases and tops, locally eroded by base of overlying facies; may comprise amalgamated topset drapes. Grades laterally into/or interfingers with F2 or F3. FA.G. Occurs at base and top of FA.G. in north; basal one is lens shaped and infills scour hollow along contact with FA.F. passing laterally northwards into F3 and F7; upper laterally more extensive and lens-shaped, draping erosion surface along top of underlying F2. Similar geometries and relationships to F4; more common in FA.H. and FA.M. FA.M. Forms 12 cm thick units at top; drapes upper surface along top of underlying F2. FA.F. Erosively-based, lenticular units, 20 cm thick and up to 4 cm long, incised into F1 and F2. Contains mudstone (up to 15 cm long), coalified wood and reworked siderite nodules 0.53 m across, set in a medium-coarse sandstone matrix. It forms toesets and basal lags to cross-bed sets; laterally cut-out by, and passes into F1 and F2. FA.G. Single 8.5 cm long lens, filling scour hollow at base of FA.G. (north). Lower surface concave-up, forming erosive base to F1. Cut-out by and passes laterally into F1 in north; in south partly eroded by F1 before passing into F5. Minor association with F1, mostly as toesets. FA.H. Gradationally overlies and forms top of cross-bed set as a 0.58 cm thick unit, draping set and filling hollows on its upper surface; overlain by F3 drape; laterally passes into F1. Mudclasts aligned with low angle forests which contain foreset parallel leaves and plant debris.

B.R. Turner, G.N. Tester / Sedimentary Geology 190 (2006) 97119

Small-scale cross-bedded sandstone (F2)

Ripple cross-laminated sandstone (F3)

Sandy mudstone (F4)

Heterolithic (F5)

Carbonaceous mudstone (F6) Intraclast conglomerate (F7)

B.R. Turner, G.N. Tester / Sedimentary Geology 190 (2006) 97119

103

Table 3 Vertical relationships between facies associations and their component facies types and proportion of facies types within each facies association

G1) and one at the southernmost end (FA.G2) (Fig. 4). However, the erosional margin of the FA.G1 sandbody is only exposed in the cliff face where it cuts down for more than 5 m into the flaggy sandstone facies association (Fig. 4). Both sandbodies overlie the flaggy sandstone facies association with the northernmost one passing gradationally upwards and wedging out laterally into the flaggy sandstone facies association, which has locally reworked the top of the massive sandstone facies association. The transitional zone between them is dominated by the small-scale cross-bedded sandstone facies in the north whereas in the south FA.G2 has a gradational or locally sharp boundary with the overlying heterolithic facies association (Fig. 6C). Massive sandstone facies association sandbodies are composed predominantly of large-scale cross-bedded

facies (80% of all facies types) with minor (< 6%) ripple cross-laminated, small-scale cross-bedded, heterolithic and intraclast conglomerate facies (Table 3 and Figs. 6D and 8). Soft sediment deformation structures are common, including convolute laminations, microfaulting and wavy laminations < 1 m thick. The poorlydefined large-scale cross-bedded facies reflects the low granulometric contrast and pervasive carbonate cement, the latter producing a distinct pock-marked surface weathering pattern. Cross-bed foresets are commonly deformed and littered with mudstone intraclasts, especially in their lower part. Cross-bedding is particularly conspicuous at the top of FA.G1 near the type section locality (Fig. 4), where the uppermost metre is dominated by the small-scale cross-bedded facies. Plots of length:thickness for all lithofacies types (Fig. 7B)

104 B.R. Turner, G.N. Tester / Sedimentary Geology 190 (2006) 97119

Fig. 5. Outcrop geometry and internal facies architecture of the flaggy sandstone facies association (see Table 2 for facies descriptions).

B.R. Turner, G.N. Tester / Sedimentary Geology 190 (2006) 97119

105

Fig. 6. A. Lenticular geometry of large-scale cross-bed sets in the flaggy sandstone facies association. Note the concordance of the base of the sets with the underlying sets and the lateral offsetting between sets. B. Concave-up shape and marked thinning and flattening downdip of lenticular crossbed foresets, flaggy sandstone facies association. C. Sharp contact between massive sandstone facies association below and cross-bedded heterolithic facies association above. Note the diagenetic siderite concretions along the contact by hammer. D. Shale intraclasts and lenses along scoured base of the massive sandstone facies association at the northern end of the outcrop. E. Pinch and swell of cross-bed sets near the base of the heterolithic facies association, showing typical lenticular bed geometries and thin, fine-grained interbeds between some sets. F. Thin, carbonaceous-rich silty mudstone interbed beneath cross-bed set in coarse-grained cross-bedded sandstone of the heterolithic facies association.

show a greater degree of data clustering and improved correlation coefficients for the finer grained lithofacies (F2 and F3) than in the flaggy sandstone facies association. This suggests the possibility of predicting lithofacies length from thickness for these finer grained lithofacies. Coarser grained lithofacies (F1) length:

thickness relationships are less predictable, possibly due to the more variable hydrodynamic regime under which they were deposited. All component facies types have a characteristic lenticular geometry, as in the flaggy sandstone facies association. Foreset azimuths of large-scale cross-bed

106

B.R. Turner, G.N. Tester / Sedimentary Geology 190 (2006) 97119

Fig. 7. Plots of lithofacies length:thickness for the (A) flaggy sandstone facies association and (B) massive sandstone facies association (FA.G)(see Table 2 for facies descriptions).

sets in both channel sandbodies indicate deposition by currents flowing predominantly to the SE, but with a spread of about 180 (Fig. 4). A conspicuous feature of this facies association is the presence of large, diagenetic siderite concretions up to 2 m in diameter concentrated along its erosive base together with carbonaceous plant debris and shale intraclasts, especially in FA.G1 (Fig. 6D). This concentration of siderite concretions is attributed to enhanced permeabilities at this level. Although permeabilities have not been measured along this specific surface, due to inaccessibility, estimates along and above a similar scoured, intraclast strewn surface immediately below it, in the flaggy sandstone facies association yield values of 83.61 and 65.43 mD respectively, much higher than elsewhere in the flaggy sandstone and heterolithic facies associations (Table 1). 2.3. Heterolithic facies association (FA.H) This occurs at the top of the Table Rocks Sandstone, where it is underlain by the flaggy sandstone and

massive sandstone facies associations; along strike it passes into the flaggy sandstone facies association (Fig. 4). It is dominated by large-scale (45%) and small-scale (25%) cross-bedded facies (Fig. 9) with minor (< 11%) sandy mudstone, ripple cross-laminated sandstone, carbonaceous mudstone, intraclast conglomerate (with a 25% mudstone intraclast component), and heterolithic facies (Table 3). Large-scale cross-bedding dominates the lower part and small-scale cross-bedding the upper part. The boundary between them is a transitional zone marked by a single thick bed of carbonaceous/coaly, bioturbated sandy mudstone (Fig. 3D). Cross-bed set geometry is very similar to that in the flaggy sandstone facies association (Fig. 6E), except that here they are more commonly separated by thin beds of ripple crosslaminated sandstone, sandy mudstone and carbonaceous mudstone facies (Fig. 6F). Individual sets are characterised by tangentially-based foresets, mudstone and coal intraclasts, and soft sediment deformation structures. Fine-grained lithofacies, particularly sandy mudstone, are more common than in the flaggy sandstone

B.R. Turner, G.N. Tester / Sedimentary Geology 190 (2006) 97119

Fig. 8. Outcrop geometry and internal facies architecture of the massive sandstone facies association (see Table 2 for facies descriptions).

107

108 B.R. Turner, G.N. Tester / Sedimentary Geology 190 (2006) 97119

Fig. 9. Outcrop geometry and internal facies architecture of the heterolithic facies association (see Table 2 for facies descriptions).

B.R. Turner, G.N. Tester / Sedimentary Geology 190 (2006) 97119

109

and massive sandstone facies associations, especially in the upper part which is generally finer grained and lithologically more variable than the flaggy sandstone facies association. In the lower part of the facies association foreset azimuths indicate flow to the SW and SE, whereas in the upper part they show a more variable trend towards the SE, NW and NE. Foreset azimuths measured at the type section show a wide spread of readings but with two distinct modes to the N and E (Fig. 4). 2.4. Mudstone facies association (FA.M) This occurs at the base of the sandbody, and is only exposed at low tide on the foreshore (Fig. 4), where it forms the lower part of a coarsening-upward sequence comprising sandy mudstone (30%) grading upwards into ripple cross-laminated sandstone (60%), capped by a 15 cm thick drape of carbonaceous mudstone (10%) (Table 3, Fig. 3E). The mudstone is cut out laterally along strike from the type section by the small-scale cross-bedded sandstone facies at the base of the overlying flaggy sandstone facies association. Some of the ripple cross-laminated sandstone contains sand-and carbonaceous-rich laminae, whilst others contain coaly lenticles and locally isolated starved ripples. The mudstone facies association is transitional between the mudstones beneath the sandbody and the overlying flaggy sandstone facies association, but owing to the limited length and depth of exposure outcrop bed geometries are uncertain. 3. Bed geometries Tracings on overlays of a photomontage of the outcrop show lenticular bed geometries on several scales, both parallel and perpendicular to palaeoflow, producing a hierarchy of lensoid packages and associated bounding surfaces (Fig. 10). Although these lenticular bed geometries are most pronounced in the flaggy sandstone facies association they also occur in the other sandy facies associations, and totally dominate the internal architecture of the Table Rocks Sandstone. They serve to distinguish the outcrop from most conventional models of intrachannel sandbody architecture (Allen, 1983: Miall, 1988) which are generally much more complex than those recorded here. Three types of bounding surface separate the lenses (Fig. 10). First order surfaces surround individual lenticular crossbed sets, which are termed lenses. These intersect second order surfaces at low angles and, in the absence

of reactivation surfaces, represent essentially continuous sedimentation of individual bedforms. Second order surfaces intersect third order surfaces at a low angle and enclose packages of several largescale lenticular cross-bed sets, commonly associated with lenses of small-scale cross-bedded or ripple crosslaminated sandstone facies. These compound lensoid packages, hereafter referred to as lens clusters (Fig. 10), are the basic architectural building block of the sandy facies associations, especially the flaggy sandstone facies association, and are of equivalent status to the more complex macroforms of Miall (1985, 1988). They are characterised by fining and thinning upwards of the constituent sets, which also show laterally offset stacking patterns suggesting preferential deposition of successive lensoid cross-bed sets on the thinner flanks of the underlying lens. Individual cross-bed sets within lens clusters generally have sharp, non-erosional bases, coincident with the topography of the underlying set, and gently undulating or convex-up set boundaries (Table 2). Ripple cross-laminated foreset fines, and less common remnants of shale-dominated topset drapes and toeset fines are a characteristic feature of the sets, especially in the flaggy sandstone and massive sandstone facies associations. Topset fines units dominate, with more than 60% being < 5 m long. Most toeset fines units are between 2 and 8 m long with a concentration in the 24 m range (Fig. 11). Topset drapes may overlap the margins of the underlying set, producing isolated lateral transitions between the two facies states. However, topset and toeset shales are not randomly distributed throughout the facies association, but tend to concentrate in groups along the margins of lens clusters. A characteristic feature of lenses and lens clusters is that their margins are often poorly defined, making it difficult to determine where one ends and the other begins. Consequently, lateral relationships tend to be complex, with nested lenses of large-scale cross-bedded facies commonly passing along strike into nested lenses of the small-scale cross-bedded facies. Within lens clusters foreset azimuths of constituent lenses vary by up to 78 around a dominant current direction (Fig. 12). Major third order bounding surfaces enclose several vertically stacked, laterally offset lens clusters referred to here as amalgamated lens clusters. These are between one to three orders of magnitude larger than the constituent lens clusters (Fig. 10). 4. Subsurface information A set of engineering survey boreholes was drilled along the coast at Whitley Bay in 1970, some of which

110

B.R. Turner, G.N. Tester / Sedimentary Geology 190 (2006) 97119

Fig. 10. Hierarchical bed geometries and bounding surfaces recognised in the Table Rocks Sandstone. Scales are approximate and based mainly on values for the flaggy sandstone facies association.

penetrated the Table Rocks Sandstone. Although the borehole records (Tester, 1991, Appendix C) lack sufficient sedimentological detail to determine the 3dimensional architecture of the sandbody, there is sufficient information available from the 12 boreholes nearest the outcrop section to enable a set of lithological logs to be drawn up and interpreted in terms of the facies scheme adopted in this study (Fig. 13). The borehole records confirm that the base of the Table Rocks Sandstone is gradational or locally erosional. However, erosional contacts are laterally impersistent and cannot be traced between adjacent boreholes less than 20 m apart; elsewhere the sandstone grades down into a mudstone-dominated sequence containing siltstone and sandstone interbeds. The sandstones are fine to medium-

grained with individual beds up to 40 cm thick, many containing argillaceous partings or lenses and mudstone intraclasts. Lenticular bed geometries are the norm for all subsurface lithofacies types, particularly the sandstones, which contain lenticular beds up to 4.5 m thick, which can be correlated between as many as three adjacent boreholes. 5. Depositional environment The Table Rocks Sandstone has a laterally extensive, irregular, non-linear, lobate subsurface plan geometry (Land, 1974). It forms a coarsening-upward sequence with the underlying mudstone facies association which overlies organic rich, interdistributary bay and peat

B.R. Turner, G.N. Tester / Sedimentary Geology 190 (2006) 97119

111

Fig. 11. Histogram of topset and toeset fines (mostly shale) for the flaggy sandstone and massive sandstone facies associations.

swamp deposits (Tester, 1991). Vertically stacked, laterally offset lensoid cross-bed sets and coset packages, with high width to depth ratios (Fig. 10) and low variance palaeocurrent measurements (Fig. 12), are separated by bounding surfaces and associated fines. However, the overall proportion of fines is low and they are preferentially preserved along the margins of lensoid packages in the deeper, topographically lower parts of the depositional system. Nevertheless, the preservation of these fines, the lack of major erosion surfaces within and between lensoid packages, and the dominance of cross-bedding reflects high energy traction currents and rapid aggradation of sand, with relatively little sediment and biogenic reworking during deposition. The presence of soft sediment deformation features is consistent with rapid deposition of loosely packed sand from major distributaries causing sediment liquefaction and instability (Roberts, 1997). Three-dimensional exposures in the Table Rocks Sandstone show subordinate small-scale bedforms with

strongly curved plan geometries, which probably originated as 3-D sinuous crested dune bedforms, and more common larger scale bedforms with less curved plan geometries dominating the succession. The latter bedforms have very high length to width ratios ranging from 25 to 44, and they resemble large linguoid dunes (Singh et al., 1993) and low relief simple bars (Allen, 1983). Depending on local flow conditions both bedforms may have developed with the bars possibly evolving into dunes as noted by Singh et al. (1993) in the Khosi River. The bedforms probably formed towards the lower velocity end of the dune-plane bed transition during short term discharge fluctuations (single flood event), possibly as part of a longer term flood cycle which may have been responsible for deposition of lens clusters (see discussion below). The ability of the flow to maintain periods of relatively high current velocities suggests that it was relatively shallow but not completely unconfined. These conditions commonly occur where fluvial channels enter a standing body of water, thereby promoting rapid deposition of sediment at the river mouth under semi-confined flow conditions. Most suspension fines would be carried beyond the river mouth and deposited along the more distal margins of the mouth bars, and in the receiving basin. The three sand-dominated facies associations were deposited by currents flowing to the E, SE and NE in a radial pattern (Fig. 4) across the local and regional southerly palaeoslope (Haszeldine, 1984; Guion and Fielding, 1988). This radial pattern, with 180 dispersion, is typical of delta mouths (Allen, 1968, Fig. 5.40) and suggests that the Table Rocks Sandstone was probably deposited by several channels rather than a single channel. Subsurface borehole data, held by the British Geological Survey, reveals the presence of a linear channel sandbody with a low width:thickness ratio oriented EW between the Low Main and Bensham coal seams, 23 km west of Table Rocks, which we interpret as a large crevasse channel initiated

Fig. 12. Palaeocurrent data for two adjacent overlapping lens clusters in the flaggy sandstone facies association.

112

B.R. Turner, G.N. Tester / Sedimentary Geology 190 (2006) 97119

Fig. 13. Location of boreholes and their litholog characteristics for the Table Rocks Sandstone.

by a levee breach in one of the major fluvial distributary channels flowing to the south, as depicted in Fig. 14. We interpret the Table Rocks Sandstone to have been deposited in front of this crevasse channel as part of an irregular, lobate, composite crevasse-splay delta system prograding into, and filling a shallow, low energy interdistributary bay lake (Fig. 14). Such sandbodies can be up to 20 km in lateral extent and comprise proximal, medial and distal parts (Mjos et al., 1993). Similar large proximal crevasse splay channels recognised by Field-

ing (1986) in the nearby Durham Coalfield were straight, up to 400 m wide and 2 km long. Collier (1989b, Fig. 4) also shows an 18 m thick coarseningupward interdistributary bay crevasse-splay/minor delta sequence in the Westphalian C of the Northumberland Coalfield. Similar crevasse subdeltas in the Mississippi range from 5 to 20 m thick and cover areas up to 300 km2 (Roberts, 1997). The succession beneath the Table Rocks Sandstone (Fig. 2) was interpreted as a fluvially-dominated

B.R. Turner, G.N. Tester / Sedimentary Geology 190 (2006) 97119

113

Fig. 14. Conceptual depositional model for the Table Rocks Sandstone, showing the inferred location of the facies associations recognised (numbered 14). Note that the amount of fine-grained facies components (see Table 2) increases significantly in the heterolithic and mudstone facies association.

muddy lacustrine delta by Haszeldine (1984) who considered most coalfield fines to have been deposited in this way. However, these deltas differ significantly from the Table Rocks delta in that the mouth bar sandbody is < 2 m thick and composed of rippled and bioturbated fine sandstone and siltstone. Crevasse delta systems commonly show a gradational relationship with the underlying bay-fill and peat swamp deposits, or they may have sharp or locally erosive lower boundaries due to traction current activity at the bar front (Fielding, 1984; Elliott, 1986). The lack of rootlets and other emergent facies suggests that deposition here was entirely subaqeous. Sediment was deposited rapidly in the more proximal part of what was originally a more extensive shoal water delta system conceptually similar to that described by Van Heerden and Roberts (1988) from the Atchafalaya Delta. Proximal, composite crevasse-splay sandstones tend to be thicker, more confined and lenticular compared with their medial and distal counterparts (Mjos et al., 1993).

Distributary channels on the Westphalian alluvial plain were mainly mixed load channels confined by clay-rich cohesive banks and therefore were relatively stable features that shifted only slowly (Guion and Fielding, 1988). This, together with the complex plan geometry of the Table Rocks Sandstone, suggests that the crevasse system may have been active over a long period of time, thereby allowing for development of a significant crevasse delta system and the build-up of a relatively thick (1214 m) composite mouth bar sand complex comparable to the Westphalian C example figured by Collier (1989b). In view of the coarse grainsize of much of the Table Rocks Sandstone, the main distributary feeder channel must have carried a significant coarse bedload component, unlike most major distributary channels on the Westphalian alluvial/delta plain which carried mainly fine-grained sediment in suspension (Fielding, 1986; Turner and O'Mara, 1993). The removal of so much bedload from the main distributary further implies that the crevasse breach was consistently tapping into the deeper part of the

114

B.R. Turner, G.N. Tester / Sedimentary Geology 190 (2006) 97119

supply channel system, or that a considerable amount of bedload material was carried in turbulent suspension. 6. Delta development and deposition The four facies associations making up the Table Rocks Sandstone can be interpreted in terms of discrete elements of the delta mouth bar environment (Fig. 14). Thus, the dominant flaggy sandstone facies association represents the main, axial part of the mouth bar system, the erosively-based massive sandstone facies association major subaqeous distributary channels, the lithologically more variable and finer grained heterolithic facies association the medial part of the mouth bar and the mudstone facies association the distal mouth bar fringe and prodelta. 6.1. Lens clusters and amalgamated lens clusters Within this environmental setting the hierarchical lensoid bed geometries, which have a similar spatial and temporal structure, represent genetically related sediment packages. Variations in scale of these packages provide insights into the processes shaping the fluvial

system and can be regarded as an expression of temporal variations in discharge in the supply channel at different levels, primarily controlled by regular, relatively short term stage variations (Elliott, 1986; Broadhurst, 1988). Thus, the vertically stacked, laterally offset amalgamated lens clusters, separated by third order bounding surfaces (Fig. 15) were probably deposited over several flood cycles as the lens clusters amalgamated into larger scale bedforms, the third order bounding surface between them representing significant phases of channel shifting/migration. They are interpreted as small, discrete mouth bar sand lobes (Fig. 15) deposited by fluvial, flood stage, bed-friction dominated processes at the mouths of low sinuosity secondary feeder channels, at least 100200 m wide and up to 8 m deep. Such lobes are known to aggrade rapidly following major flood events in the supply channel (Roberts et al., 1980). The abundance and imbricate stacking of the coalesced mouth bar sand lobes reflects (1) the relatively close spacing of the distributary channels, which in turn may reflect the low angle of channel bifurcation; (2) the rapid, continuous shifting (abandonment), extension and bifurcation of the channels; and (3) the shallow depths (limited accommodation space) of the low energy lake

Fig. 15. Conceptual model showing the interpretation of lenticular bed geometries in the Table Rocks Sandstone. (see text for details and Fig. 10 for details of bed geometries and hierarchical bounding surfaces).

B.R. Turner, G.N. Tester / Sedimentary Geology 190 (2006) 97119

115

basin (Postma, 1990, 1995). In the Atchafalaya Delta mouth bars were initially confined to sites of channel bifurcation (Van Heerden and Roberts, 1988). This may also have been a major control on the location and geometry of Table Rocks mouth bars, with variations in size reflecting different channel dimensions and the spreading angle of the effluent, which is about 1617 for friction-dominated effluent (Wright, 1977; Kostaschuk, 1985). Flood discharge may have been sufficient during delta building to displace some of the lake water basinward, thereby allowing high energy, shallow water, friction-dominated processes to extend for considerable distances down the delta front. Although channel shifting and relocation was followed by deposition of thin layers of finer grained sediment over abandoned subaqeous mouth bar lobes (especially along their deeper margins) as local discharge waned, this was insufficient to mask the underlying lobe topography. Channel abandonment and fusion of rapidly deposited adjacent mouth bar sand lobes formed a composite, lobate mouth bar sandbody characterised internally by amalgamated overlapping lenses. Comparable modern subdeltas deposited by single crevasse channels such as those of the Mississippi (Coleman, 1981) and Atchafalaya (Van Heerden and Roberts, 1988) are up to 2500 m wide and may take tens to hundreds of years for their formation. Lens clusters are interpreted as discrete growth elements of the mouth bar sand lobes (Fig. 15) deposited by short term events (possibly single flood cycles) under decelerating, basinward directed currents, as evidenced by the upward thinning and fining of many of their internal cross-bed sets. The low variance of palaeocurrent readings between and within individual lens clusters and paucity of argillaceous fines suggests a low sinuousity, mobile channel system in which individual channels had high width to depth ratios and relatively shallow flow depths. Deposition of lens clusters was followed by a sudden reduction in flow velocity concomitant with deposition of the thin, sharply-based rippled topset drapes and finer suspension deposits suggesting a very mobile continuously shifting, aggrading system. They compare with the stacked, fining-upward flood-generated cycles building the Atchafalaya delta mouth bars (Van Heerden and Roberts, 1988), except that the Atchafalaya examples are thinner and finer grained. These conditions probably reflect fluctuations in discharge and sediment supply to the active mouth bar, due to short term variations in flood intensity and periodicity within the feeder channel, as documented by Van Heerden and Roberts (1988) for the Atchafalaya Delta. These fluctuations may have

been seasonal or on a slightly longer time span and record climatically controlled major flood events such as the 10 year flood when delta building is at a maximum (Van Heerden and Roberts, 1988). 6.2. Mouth bar 6.2.1. Controls on mouth bar geometry The stacking patterns and scale of amalgamated lens clusters suggests predominantly autocyclic controls on mouth bar depositional geometry, possibly accentuated by compaction. These may have been the high rate of channel shifting, which is a characteristic feature of many friction-dominated deltas (Bhattacharya and Walker, 1992), the lack of extensive erosion and reworking of the rapidly deposited lobes, and deposition of low discharge fines. As a result the lobes retained much of their original depositional geometry, thereby providing laterally advantageous gradients. Similar lateral offsetting of lensoid sand lobes has been documented by Nemec et al. (1988) from Cretaceous mouth bar sands in Spitsbergen and by Roberts (1997) for subsidence-driven Mississippi lacustrine deltas. 6.2.2. Mouth bar evolution A conceptual model for the evolution of the Table Rocks crevasse delta system is shown in Fig. 16. The mudstone-dominated facies association was deposited some distance from the crevasse channel mouth, along the distal fringes of the mouth bar complex (Fig. 16, Stages 13) as the system prograded basinwards. Alternations of sand and mud reflect periods of fluctuating discharge with sand carried beyond the river mouth during floods and mud, representing normal background sediment input, being deposited mainly from suspension settling between major floods. Sandstone lenses enclosed within the mudstone-dominated sequence below the main sandbody seen in boreholes adjacent to the outcrop (Fig. 13), are interpreted as small, early mouth bar lobes deposited by periodic sandy incursions of flood waters during a period of steady but sluggish initial growth of the delta (Fig. 16, Stage 1) preceding the main phase of crevassing and more rapid delta development (Fig. 16, Stage 2). This resembles the initial phase of growth of many shallow water bayhead deltas (Van Heerden and Roberts, 1988). On two occasions deep incision and channeling of the mouth bar was followed by emplacement of the subaqeous massive channelised sandstone facies association (Fig. 16, Stage 3). Although the one at the northern end of the outcrop (Fig. 4, FA.G1) is characterised by more unidirectional, closely spaced

116

B.R. Turner, G.N. Tester / Sedimentary Geology 190 (2006) 97119

Fig. 16. Conceptual model showing the evolution of the Table Rocks crevasse delta system from inception and regression to transgression and abandonment. Note that two phases of subaqeous channel emplacement (Stage 3) may have occurred (FA.G1, FA.G2).

palaeocurrent readings than in the other facies associations, the dominant depositional processes during channel filling were still friction-driven, as evidenced by the abundant cross-bedding. The lensoid cross-bed set geometry indicates similar hydrodynamic conditions to those of the flaggy sandstone facies association, apart

from the generally greater flow depths and higher energy conditions, evidenced by the dominant largescale cross-bedding, with silt and mud rarely preserved except as toeset fines. The cause of this incision is uncertain due to lack of adequate upstream exposure, but it may be attributed to: (1) major, low frequency,

B.R. Turner, G.N. Tester / Sedimentary Geology 190 (2006) 97119

117

abnormally high magnitude floods promoting rapid basinward progradation across the mouth bar sands or (2) falling lake level and low stand channel incision into the proximal mouth bar sands (Fig. 16, Stage 3). Deposition of large-scale cross-bed sets in the lower part of the heterolithic facies association was interrupted by an abrupt cessation of discharge, followed by temporary abandonment and suspension deposition of mud (Fig. 3D). The mud was then reworked and redeposited as intraclasts by the higher energy currents responsible for initiating deposition of the small-scale cross-bed sets dominating the upper part of the facies association (Fig. 3D), which was itself interrupted by reduced flows and deposition of a thick sandy mudstone representing another phase of temporary abandonment. These local variations in discharge, superimposed on an overall decrease in hydraulic energy (as evidenced by the more variable palaeocurrent patterns in the upper part of the facies association) point to a shift in active lobe sedimentation over time punctuated by phases of reduced flow in response to shifting and abandonment of the channels supplying the lobe margins with sediment (Fig. 16, Stages 12). Haszeldine (1981) records a shallowing-upward interdistributary bay-fill sequence from Collywell Bay north of Table Rocks (Fig. 1, top left inset), in which he recognises the possible influence of density underflows and inertia-dominated river mouth processes during bay-filling, consistent with the receiving lake waters being fresh. Such processes did not operate during deposition of the Table Rocks mouth bar sandstone which, at this locality, was totally dominated by bed friction processes at all stages of flow, not just at low stages of flow as in the Mississippi delta (Coleman and Wright, 1975) and Carboniferous Namurian deltas of northern England (Martinsen, 1990). Collinson (quoted in Martinsen, 1990) argues for low frequency of flooding in the distributary channel as the main control on the dominance of bed friction processes at the mouth. 6.2.3. Climatic influence, flood discharge and flood magnitude Palaeobotanical and sedimentological evidence (Scott, 1978; Broadhurst et al., 1980) suggests that the climate during Coal Measure times was characterised by regular periods of high precipitation and run-off (Fielding, 1984) consistent with high frequency, regular discharge. Moreover, the presence of gleyed palaeosols in the Coal Measures (Guion and Fielding, 1988; Besly and Fielding, 1989) and rhythmic interbedding in

overbank deposits (Fielding, 1984) suggests regular seasonal flooding of the channels and floodplain (Dubiel, 1992). We would argue that a more significant factor here may have been the amount of sediment transported as bedload and in particular, the coarse grain-size of much of the bedload (Bogen, 1983; Orton and Reading, 1993; Postma, 1995), which inhibited grain transport by turbulent suspension in the river effluent. Theoretical studies indicate that sand with grain diameters similar to those of the Table Rocks Sandstone can be transported as bedload at shear velocities of between 1.55 cm/s 1 (Komar, 1987). Climate during the Westphalian was seasonal and humid, with sufficient year round rainfall to support perennial water courses with regular discharges (Fielding, 1986), and luxuriant vegetation. This, together with the lack of significant relief on the extensive alluvial plain (O'Mara, 1995) may have been important factors in limiting flood magnitude. In the Atchafalaya delta, for example, abnormally large floods during early delta development significantly increased the sand component of the suspended load and produced exceptionally thick subaqeous and subaerial levee deposits on top of the mouth bar sands (Roberts et al., 1980; Van Heerden and Roberts, 1988). The lack of such levee deposits associated with the Table Rocks mouth bar sands (cf. Olsen, 1993), the relatively small-scale and simplicity of the bedforms (Table 2), and lack of significant internal scour surfaces, supports the view that abnormally large floods seldom occurred during progradation of the Table Rocks delta. Moreover, confining levees tend to be more poorly developed in bedload-dominated channels (Orton and Reading, 1993), especially rapidly shifting ones, and this in turn promotes channel bifurcation and the development of a lobate delta system. However, other parameters controlling bed friction dominated mouthbar processes include low depositional slopes and shallow water depths near the river mouth, and the salinity of the lake waters (Hyne et al., 1979; Postma, 1995). Haszeldine (1984) and Fielding (1984) argued on sedimentological grounds that Westphalian B deltas were freshwater lake deltas characterised by low depositional slopes of < 5. However, geochemical studies by Chen (1990) and Samuels (1993) on local Coal Measure shales from this same part of the succession indicate that the lake waters were fresh to brackish with fluctuating, but low levels of salinity, which may have been of a seasonal nature (Bogen, 1983). Such salinity conditions are known to encourage frictional processes and the development of middle ground bars (Hyne et al., 1979; Orton and Reading, 1993).

118

B.R. Turner, G.N. Tester / Sedimentary Geology 190 (2006) 97119

6.3. Bay filling Lack of subaerial facies components during deposition and bay-filling (Fig. 16) implies a relatively rapid rate of subsidence during progradation, and the maintenance of gradient advantages. This view is consistent with the observed stacking and coalescence of mouth bar sand lobes seen in sections parallel and perpendicular to flow, the inferred rapid channel shifting and the relatively thick mouth bar sandbody and bay mudstones (cf. Haszeldine, 1981). Possible causes of this subsidence include compaction of clay-rich facies contemporaneous with progradation (Roberts, 1997) and fault activity. The thickness of individual deltaic sequences provides a rough estimate of water depths, especially where progradation was rapid, sediment supply exceeds subsidence, and erosion by basinal processes is negligible (Klein, 1974). This suggests that lake water depths at Table Rocks were of the order of 14 m; not significantly different from the 10 m estimated by Haszeldine (1981). Based on the relationship in Allen (1968, Fig. 6.4) the thickness of cross-bed sets (F1 and F2) in the flaggy sandstone facies association indicates a range of water depths in the axial part of the depositional system from 5 to 18 m. Haszeldine (1984) advocated a tectonic control on subsidence because of the location of deltas lateral to fault controlled SE-trending distributary channels. In contrast Guion and Fielding (1988) and Fielding (1986) indicate that the only tectonic control on sedimentation at this time was local reactivation of some major EW trending faults; a view supported by the work of Collier (1989a,b) who inferred structurally controlled downwarping of the depositional surface during the Table Rocks to Seaton Sluice sandbody time interval (Fig. 2). Fielding (1984), for example, attributed the rare vertical stacking of channel sandbodies in the Durham coalfield to local, tectonically controlled subsidence. Soft sediment deformation features in the Table Rocks Sandstone (Table 2) have been linked to movement on the nearby 90 Fathom fault (Fig. 1) (Jones, 1967) which forms part of a major zone of crustal weakness across NE England defining the southern margin of the Carboniferous Northumberland Basin. Tectonic processes exerted an important influence on Westphalian B sedimentation and these have been well documented from the Northumberland Basin (Collier, 1989a,b) and southern North Sea (O'Mara, 1995). Thus, contemporaneous tectonic activity and fault reactivation, possibly on the adjacent 90 Fathom fault (Fig. 1) (Collier, 1989a), provide the most likely explanation for the locally high subsidence rates and deposition of the relatively thick Table Rocks

mouth bar sandstones and delta front/prodelta mudstones. Acknowledgements This work is based on part of the second authors PhD thesis at the University of Keele, funded by the Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC) of the United Kingdom. We are grateful to reviewers Gilbert Kelling and Roger Smith for their suggestions and constructive comments on the manuscript. References
Allen, J.R.L., 1968. Current Ripples. North-Holland, Amsterdam. 433 pp. Allen, J.R.L., 1983. Studies in fluviatile sedimentation: bars, bar complexes and sandstone sheets (low sinuosity braided streams) in the Brownstones (L. Devonian), Welsh Borders. Sedimentary Geology 33, 237293. Besly, B.M., Fielding, C.R., 1989. Palaeosols in Westphalian coalbearing and red-bed sequences, central and northern England. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 70, 303330. Bhattacharya, J.P., Walker, R.G., 1992. Deltas. In: Walker, R.G., James, N.P. (Eds.), Facies Models: Geoscience Canada, vol. 1, pp. 157178. Reprint Series. Bogen, J., 1983. Morphology and sedimentology of deltas in fjord and fjord valley lakes. Sedimentary Geology 36, 245267. Broadhurst, F.M., 1988. Seasons and tides in the Westphalian. In: Besly, B.M., Kelling, G. (Eds.), Sedimentation in a Synorogenic Basin Complex: the Upper Carboniferous of Northwest Europe. InBlackie, Glasgow, pp. 264272. Broadhurst, F.M., Simpson, I.M., Hardy, P.G., 1980. Seasonal sedimentation in the Upper Carboniferous of England. Journal of Geology 88, 639655. Chen, M., 1990. Sedimentology, coal petrology and sedimentary geochemistry of Westphalian B Coal Measures, West Chevington opencast site, NE England. Unpubl. PhD Thesis, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. Coleman, J.M., 1981. Deltas, Processes of Deposition and Models for Exploration. Burgess Publishing Company, Minneapolis. 124 pp. Coleman, J.M., Wright, L.D., 1975. Modern river deltas: variability of processes and sandbodies. In: Broussard, M.L. (Ed.), Deltas, Models for Exploration. InHouston Geological Society, Houston, pp. 99149. Collier, R.E., 1989a. Tectonic evolution of the Northumberland Basin; the effects of renewed extension upon an inverted extensional basin. Journal of the Geological Society of London 146, 981989. Collier, R.E., 1989b. Modelling the role of differential compaction and tectonics on Westphalian facies architecture in the Northumberland Basin. In: Arthurton, R.S., Gutteridge, P., Nolan, S.C. (Eds.), The Role of Tectonics in Devonian and Carboniferous Sedimentation in the British Isles. Yorkshire Geological Society Publication, pp. 189199. Dubiel, R.F., 1992. Architectural facies analysis of nonmarine depositional systems in the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation, southeastern Utah. In: Miall, A.D., Tyler, N. (Eds.), ThreeDimensional Facies Architecture of Terrigenous Clastic Sediments and Its Implications for Hydrocarbon Discovery and Recovery.

B.R. Turner, G.N. Tester / Sedimentary Geology 190 (2006) 97119 Concepts in Sedimentology and Paleontology, vol. 3. Society of Economic Paleontology and Mineralogy, Tulsa, pp. 103110. Dunne, C.A., Hempton, M.R., 1984. Deltaic sedimentation in the Lake Hazar pull-apart basin, south-eastern Turkey. Sedimentology 31, 401412. Elliott, T., 1975. The sedimentary history of a delta lobe from a Yoredale (Carboniferous) cyclothem. Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society 40, 505536. Elliott, T., 1986. Deltas. In: Reading, H.G. (Ed.), Sedimentary Environments and Facies. Blackwells Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp. 113154. Fielding, C.R., 1984. Upper delta plain lacustrine and fluviolacustrine facies from the Westphalian of the Durham coalfield, NE England. Sedimentology 31, 547567. Fielding, C.R., 1986. Fluvial channel and overbank deposits from the Westphalian of the Durham coalfield, NE England. Sedimentology 33, 119140. Fulton, I.M., Williams, H., 1988. Palaeogeographic change and controls on Namurian and Westphalian A and B sedimentation at the southern margin of the Pennine Basin. In: Besly, B.M., Kelling, G. (Eds.), Sedimentation in a Synorogenic Basin Complex: the Upper Carboniferous of Northwest Europe. Blackie, Glasgow, pp. 178199. Guion, P.D., Fielding, C.R., 1988. Westphalian A and B sedimentation in the Pennine Basin, UK. In: Besly, B.M., Kelling, G. (Eds.), Sedimentation in a Synorogenic Basin Complex: the Upper Carboniferous of Northwest Europe. Blackie, Glasgow, pp. 85101. Guion, P.D., Banks, N., Rippon, J., 1995. The Silkstone Rock (Westphalian A) from The East Pennines, England: implications for sandbody diagenesis. Journal of the Geological Society of London 152, 819832. Haszeldine, R.S., 1981. Westphalian B coalfield sedimentology in northeast England and its regional setting. Unpubl. PhD Thesis, University of Strathclyde, UK. Haszeldine, R.S., 1984. Muddy deltas in freshwater lakes, and tectonism in the Upper Carboniferous coalfield of N.E. England. Sedimentology 31, 811822. Hyne, N.J., Cooper, W.A., Dickey, P., 1979. Stratigraphy of intermontane lacustrine delta, Catatumbo river, Lake Maracaibo, Venezuela. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 63, 20422057. Jones, J.M., 1967. The geology of the coast section from Tynemouth to Seaton Sluice. Transactions of the Natural History Society of Northumbria 16, 153192. Klein, G., 1974. Estimating water depths from analysis of barrier island and deltaic sedimentary sequences. Geology 2, 409412. Komar, P.D., 1987. Selective grain entrainment by a current from a bed of mixed sizes: a reanalysis. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 57, 203211. Kostaschuk, R.A., 1985. River mouth processes in a fjord delta, B.C., Canada. Marine Geology 69, 123. Land, D.H., 1974. Geology of the Tynemouth District. Memoir of the Geological Survey of Great Britain. 176 pp. Martinsen, O.J., 1990. Fluvial, inertia-dominated deltaic deposition in the Namurian (Carboniferous) of northern England. Sedimentology 37, 10991113. Miall, A.D., 1985. Architectural element analysis: a new method of facies analysis applied to fluvial deposits. Earth Science Review 22, 261308. Miall, A.D., 1988. Architectural elements and bounding surfaces in fluvial deposits: anatomy of the Kayenta Formation (Lower

119

Jurassic), southwest Colorado. Sedimentary Geology 55, 233262. Mjos, R., Walderhuag, O., Prestholme, E., 1993. Crevasse-splay sandstone geometries in the Middle Jurassic Ravenscar Group of Yorkshire, UK. In: Marzo, M., Puigdefabregas, C. (Eds.), Alluvial Sedimentation: Special Publication, International Association of Sedimentologists, vol. 17, pp. 167184. Nemec, W., Steel, R.J., Gjelberg, J., Collinson, J.D., Prestholm, E., Oxnevad, I.E., 1988. Anatomy of collapsed and re-established delta front in the Lower Cretaceous of eastern Spitzbergen: gravitational sliding and sedimentation processes. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 72, 454476. Olsen, T., 1993. Large fluvial systems: the Atane Formation, a fluviodeltaic example from the Upper Cretaceous of central west Greenland. Sedimentary Geology 32 (85), 457473. O'Mara, P.T., 1995. Correlation, facies distribution and sequence stratigraphic analysis of the Westphalian B Coal Measures in Quadrant 44 of the southern North Sea. Unpublished MSc Thesis, University of Durham. Orton, G.J., Reading, H.G., 1993. Variability of deltaic processes in terms of sediment supply with particular emphasis on grain size. Sedimentology 40, 475512. Postma, G., 1990. Depositional architecture and facies of river and fan deltas: a synthesis. In: Colella, A., Prior, D.B. (Eds.), Coarse Grained Deltas: Special Publication of the International Association of Sedimentologists, vol. 10, pp. 1327. Postma, G., 1995. Sea-level-related architectural trends in coarsegrained delta complexes. Sedimentary Geology 98, 312. Roberts, H.H., 1997. Dynamic changes of the Holocene Mississippi River delta plain: the delta cycle. Journal of Coastal Research 13, 605627. Roberts, H.H., Adams, R.D., Cunningham, R.H.W., 1980. Evolution of sand dominant subaerial phase, Atchafalaya delta, Louisiana. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 64, 264279. Samuels, H., 1993. Westphalian B cyclothems between St. Mary's Island and Seaton Sluice, Northumberland. Undergraduate Honours Project, University of Durham. Scott, A.C., 1978. Sedimentological and ecological control of Westphalian B plant assemblages from West Yorkshire. Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society 41, 461508. Singh, H., Parkash, B., Gohain, K., 1993. Facies analysis of the Kosi megafan deposits. In: Fielding, C.R. (Ed.), Current Research in Fluvial Sedimentology. Sedimentary Geology 85, 87114. Tester, G.N., 1991. Sedimentology and reservoir characteristics of selected Upper Carboniferous sandbodies. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Keele. Turner, B.R., O'Mara, P.T., 1993. Fluvial Channel types in the Coal Measures of northeast England: implications for hydrocarbon exploration in the southern North Sea. Abstract. 5th International Conference on Fluvial Sedimentology, Brisbane, p. 135. Turner, B.R., Richardson, D., 2004. Geological controls on the sulphur content of coal Seams in the Northumberland Coalfield, Northeast England. Coal Geology 60, 169196. Turner, B.R., Smith, D.B., 1995. The Carboniferous and Permian rocks between Tynmouth and Seaton Sluice. In: Scrutton, C.S. (Ed.), Northumbrian Rocks and Landscape. Yorkshire Geological Society Field Guide, pp. 92104. Van Heerden, I.L., Roberts, H.H., 1988. Facies development of Atchafalaya delta, Louisiana: a modern bayhead delta. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 72, 439453. Wright, L.D., 1977. Sediment transport and deposition at river mouths: a synthesis. Geological Society of America Bulletin 88, 857868.