Arkansas Public Service Commission

Abstract White Bluff is immediately north of Lock and Dam No. 5, about 15 mi (24 km) upriver from the city of Pine Bluff, Jefferson County, Arkansas. The best method to reach the bluff is by boat along the Arkansas River. Launching ramps are available at the Tar Camp Public Use Area, approximately 1.5 mi (2.4 km) upriver from White Bluff. Tar Camp Public Use Area is accessible via Redfield River Road from Redfield, which is on Arkansas 365. U.S. 65 parallels Arkansas 365 and the two are connected by Arkansas 46 (Fig. 1). Access to the top of the cliffs from the west is not recommended because of their steepness and the uncertain footing on the poorly consolidated materials. Other excellent exposures of the Jackson are present in less-steep cliffs on the west bank of the river at Red Bluff and South Red Bluff, approximately 2 mi (3.2 km) to the north (Fig. 1).

All across the United States, electric utilities are now faced with the prospect of prematurely abandoning partially completed nuclear units. While there are many reasons for this dilemma,[ the ratemaking implications are profound. They force regulators to make the unsavory decision as to the appropriate allocation of the fixed costs sunk in the abandoned projects between ratepayers and stockholders.' If a significant number of these plants are abandoned, the dollars at stake (estimated to be as large as $66 billion') in any ratemaking division of accountability are staggering.

Research Article| July 01, 1986 Comment and Reply on “Ouachita trough: Part of a Cambrian failed rift system”: COMMENT Keith B. Ketner; Keith B. Ketner 1U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225 Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Raymond L. Ethington; Raymond L. Ethington 2Department of Geology, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211 Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar John E. Repetski; John E. Repetski 3U.S. Geological Survey, National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560 Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Reuben J. Ross; Reuben J. Ross 4Department of Geology, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado 80401 Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Charles G. Stone Charles G. Stone 5Arkansas Geological Commission, 3815 West Roosevelt Road, Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Author and Article Information Keith B. Ketner 1U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225 Raymond L. Ethington 2Department of Geology, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211 John E. Repetski 3U.S. Geological Survey, National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560 Reuben J. Ross 4Department of Geology, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado 80401 Charles G. Stone 5Arkansas Geological Commission, 3815 West Roosevelt Road, Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 Publisher: Geological Society of America First Online: 01 Jun 2017 Online ISSN: 1943-2682 Print ISSN: 0091-7613 Geological Society of America Geology (1986) 14 (7): 627. https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(1986)14<627b:CAROOT>2.0.CO;2 Article history First Online: 01 Jun 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation Keith B. Ketner, Raymond L. Ethington, John E. Repetski, Reuben J. Ross, Charles G. Stone; Comment and Reply on “Ouachita trough: Part of a Cambrian failed rift system”: COMMENT. Geology 1986;; 14 (7): 627. doi: https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(1986)14<627b:CAROOT>2.0.CO;2 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyGeology Search Advanced Search Abstract No Abstract Available. This content is PDF only. Please click on the PDF icon to access. First Page Preview Close Modal You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.

The Arkansas Valley is an east-west trending synclinorium bounded on the north by the Ozark uplift and on the south by the Ouachita Mountain anticlinorium. The Valley is an eastward extension of the McAlester basin of southeastern Oklahoma. Pennsylvanian Atoka sediments form the principal outcrops in the Arkansas Valley. The Atoka measures 20,000 feet or more near the Ouachita front. Post-Atoka Pennsylvanian sediments (Hartshorne through Boggy) aggregate 3,000 feet in the western part of the Valley. Cambrian through Pennsylvanian Morrow sediments thicken southward from 5,000 feet or less in the Ozarks to an estimated 25,000 feet of correlatives in the Ouachitas. Little is known of the pre-Pennsylvanian section in the Arkansas Valley because of inadequate drilling densities. Morrow shales, sandstones, and subordinate limestones were deposited mainly under shallow-water marine conditions. Morrow facies changes occur southeastward in the subsurface and eastward on the outcrop. Meagerly fossiliferous dark shales and lenticular sandstones constitute the Atoka in the Valley. Regional Atoka facies changes have not been observed. Numerous east-west trending anticlines and synclines have surface expression in the Arkansas Valley. Many are faulted parallel with their axes. Steeply dipping flanks of the folds are indicated on the surface mostly by sharp ridges, and open synclines are expressed by flat-topped mountains. Folds in the southern part of the Arkansas Valley are tight and asymmetrical, with steeper north flanks. Dips of 50° or more are common. Progressively northward, the structures are less tightly folded and more nearly symmetrical. The folding was initiated during the Ouachita orogeny as early as Middle Pennsylvanian time and terminated after Boggy time. A major fault system marks the structural boundary between the Valley and the Ozarks. These faults are normal and predominantly downthrown toward the south with displacements up to 3,000 feet. The structural boundary between the Arkansas Valley and the Ouachitas is more difficult to define. Faults near the Ouachita front are predominantly downthrown toward the north. High-angle reverse faults and low-angle thrusts are the common types in that region. Major faulting in the Arkansas Valley was not initiated until Atoka time or later. Only dry gas is produced in the Arkansas Valley, chiefly from the Atoka but increasingly from the Morrow. The gas is sweet, generally high in methane and low in nitrogen. Currently there are 41 designated gas fields in the Arkansas Valley. Daily production averages 50 million cubic feet. Cumulative production since the first commercial well in 1902 totals 300 billion cubic feet. Reserves are in excess of 800 billion cubic feet. Pennsylvanian production is expected to be expanded both eastward and southward in the Arkansas Valley. Pre-Pennsylvanian sediments, especially the Mississippian End_Page 126------------------------------ and Arbuckle correlative sections, are prospective targets for oil or gas. End_of_Article - Last_Page 127------------