Carbonate Platform Facies Models’
J. FRED READ*
ABSTRACT
Various types of carbonate platforms are characterized
by distinctive profiles, facies, and evolutionary sequences.
Ramps may be homoclinal or distally steepened, and may
have fringing or barrier shoal-water complexes of ooid-
pellet sands or skeletal banks. Homoclinal ramps pass sea-
‘ward into deeper water without major break in slope, and
nck deep-water breccias. Distally steepened ramps may be
low energy, and characterized by widespread, shallow,
subwave-base mud blankets, or high energy with coastal
beach/dune complexes and widespread skeletal sand blan-
kets. Slope facies may contain abundant breccias of slope-
derived clasts.
Rimmed shelves have relatively flat tops, and marked
break in slopes at the high energy, shallow-shelf edge
where they 10 deep water. Such shelves may be
ggraded with peritidal facies extending over much of the
shelf, or incipiently drowned, depending on magnitude of
sea level fluctuations. They may be uceretionary, or bypass
types that include gullied slope, escarpment, and high-
relief erosional forms. Intrashelf basins occur on some
shelves, controlling distribution of reservoir and source
beds. Isolated platforms are surrounded by deeper water
and may be located on rifted continental margins, or on
submarine volcanoes. Most have high-relief rimmed
‘margins.
Platforms that have been subjected to rapid sea level
rise may be incipiently drowned, and characterized by
raised rims, elevated patch or pinnacle reefs, and wide-
spread subwave-base carbonate or fine clastic blankets.
‘Completely crowned shelves develop where the shelf is
submerged to subphotie depths, terminating shallow
water deposition, and commonly resulting in blanketing
of the shelf by deeper water facies. Some margins show
extensive down-to-basin faulting that is contemporaneous
with carbonate deposition, or associated with thick pro-
‘grading clastic sequences.
‘The various types of platforms change in response to
‘variations in sedimentation, subsidence or sea level rise,
and may form distinctive evolutionary sequences. The rel
atively few models presented appear to accommodate
‘©Copyright 1985. The American Association of Petroleum Geog ll
rights cores
"Maruca received, October 27,1963, accepled, May, 1964
“Deparment of Geciogial Soles, Virgina Pelvtchnie Intute and
State Divers Blacksourg, Vega 24081
"Thi papers an ougrowth of notes propae ox AAPG Fal Education Con.
erence shor courses. Mary peope kdl provceareprns a propin, Js-
tlssion and eas, ncuding WM A Me Brady 8. Coling [Link].
Creve, FN. Ginsburg, [Link],C.G. St. ©. Kendal 8. W Logan, H.T
Mulins,©, Neumann, W Schlager. Wendie, L Wisor, and my sudens
pst and present thank Doma Wiliams (yping] ang Morn Es (eating)
"he papr was proparod ring tenure ot grants EAR 7917219 and 3108577
trom Natal Soance Foundation
‘most geological examples, some of which contain major
reservoir facies.
INTRODUCTION
Carbonate platform models are important aids in
understanding distribution of carbonate facies and to a
lesser extent, primary porosity distribution, preservation
of which largely is a function of diagenetic history. Many
ofthe zerms that are commonly used to describe the differ
‘ent platforms have various meanings to geologists. This
lack of uniformity of usage has hampered the geologic
application of platform facies models and has inhibited
ur understanding of the different facies sequences. This
paper outlines major types of carbonate platforms, their
facies distribution and criteria for their recognition, and
examines influence of sea level and tectonies on platform
evolution. The models outlined here are end members of a
spectrum of carbonate-platform types, and are useful
because relatively few types accommodate most geologic
‘examples, However, real examples should not be forced to
fit the model, because it is commonly the difference
between the real example and the model that provides
insight into platform evolution.
The classification of platform margins outlined here is
based on that used by Ahr (1973) who recognized differ-
ences between rimmed shelves and ramps; Ginsburg and
James (1974), who outlined characteristics of rimmed and
drowned shelves; and Wilson (1975) who provided the
first comprehensive model of platform margins. The clas-
sification outlined in Read (1982) uses the terms platform
{a general term), ramp, rimmed shelf, isolated platform,
and drowned platform to describe geomorphic, two-
dimensional features (Figure 1).
The following facies are briefly described to avoid later
repetition,
Tidal-flat compler.—Facies ate generally arranged in
cyclic, upward shallowing units 1-10 m (3-33 ft) thick.
Sequences in humid zones are mainly subtidal-intertidal
‘burrowed limestone with supratidal cryptalgal laminites,
and may have inland freshwater algal marsh deposits,
coal, or siiciclastics. Sequences in arid zones have bur-
rowed to nonburrowed lagoonal limestone and cryptalgal
heads, overlain by abundant intertidal sheetlike cryptalgal
Jaminites, supratidal evaporites, or eolian-fluvial clastics.
Lagoonal facies (present behind barrier complexes). —
‘These are mainly bedded pellet limestone or lime mud-
stone, or cherty, burrowed skeletal packstone to
mudstone, with local biostromes of colonial metazoans.
Minor, thin interbeds of peritidal fenestral or cryptalgal
carbonates reflecting periods of shallowing of lagoon to
tide levels.
‘Shoal-water complex of banks, reefs, and ooid/pellet
shoals. —These may occur as shallow-tamp skeletal banks2 Carbonate Platform Facies Models.
PERSIAN GULF
SHARK BAY _
ss
AMAS
GREAT CHAGOS.
° 50 KM
sof
| VE =100
se Mie
dor
FT TS Cogs
Figure 1—Profiles of carbonate ramps, rimmed shelves, and drowned platforms plotted at same scale. Persian Gulf and Shark Bay
are homoclinal ramps. Yucatan is distally steepened ramp with local buildups on outer platform. Florida and Queensland are rimmed
shelves, andthe Bahamas and Great Chagos are isolated platforms. Note Queensland and Great Chagos also reflect incipient drown
ing. Queensland transect oblique to shelf trend. Blake Plateau is a drowned shelf.
‘or lime-sand shoals, or shelf-edge skeletal reefs and lime
sands, to be described in detail later. These may pass grad-
ually downslope into deep-ramp facies. On steeply sloping
shelf edges, they pass downslope into foreslope and stope
deposits marginal to deep shelf or basin.
Deep shelf and ramp facies.—These consist of chert
modular bedded, skeletal packstone or wackestone, with
abundant whole fossils and diverse open-marine biota.
‘They may have upward-fining, storm-generated beds.
Water depths range from 100 40 m (33to 130‘). The lith-
otope is largely below fair-weather wave base, but it may
be influenced by storm waves.
Slope and basin facies.— Adjacent to steeply sloping
platforms, foreslope and slope deposits have abundant
breecias and turbidites interbedded with periplatform lime
and terrigenous muds. Adjacent to most ramps, slope and
basin deposits are thin-bedded, peripiatform lime and ter-
rigenous muds that generally have few sediment-gravity
flow deposits. Basinal deposits in Paleozoic rocks com
monly are shale, with carbonate content increasing toward
the platform. Basinal deposits in Mesozoic and Cenozoic
rocks may be shale or pelagic limestone. Slope and basin
floor may be anoxic and lacking benthic organisms; thus,
deposits will be laminated and nonburrowed. Where slope
and basin waters are oxic, deposits may be burrowed and
fossiliferous.
‘CARBONATE RAMPS
Carbonate ramps (Figures 1, 2) have gentle slopes (gen-
erally less than 1°) on which shallow wave-agitated facies
of the nearshore zone pass downslope (without marked
break in slope) into deeper water, low-energy deposits
(Ahr, 1973). They differ from rimmed shelves in that con-
tinuous reef trends generally are absent, high-energy lime
sands are located near the shoreline and deeper water brec-
You might also like Shallow-marine Sandstone Reservoirs, Depositional Environments, Stratigraphic Characteristics and Facies Model: A Review Numair Ahmed Siddiqui, Abdul Hadi A. Rahman, Chow Weng Sum, Wan Ismail Wan Yusoff and Mohammad Suhaili bin Ismail Department of Geoscience, Faculty of Geoscience and Petroleum Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Perak, Malaysia PDF
Shallow-marine Sandstone Reservoirs, Depositional Environments, Stratigraphic Characteristics and Facies Model: A Review Numair Ahmed Siddiqui, Abdul Hadi A. Rahman, Chow Weng Sum, Wan Ismail Wan Yusoff and Mohammad Suhaili bin Ismail Department of Geoscience, Faculty of Geoscience and Petroleum Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Perak, Malaysia
27 pages