Sedimentary Geology, 79 (1992) 3—57 3

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam

Carbonate ramp depositional systems

T.P. Burchette a and V.P. Wright b

a BP Exploration, 4/5 Long Walk, Stockley Park, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB1I 1BP, UK
b Postgraduate Research Institute for Sedimentology, The University, P.O. Box 227, Whiteknights, Reading RG6 2AB, UK

(Received January23, 1992; revised version accepted April 7, 1992)

ABSTRACT

Burchette, T,P. and Wright, V.P., 1992. Carbonate ramp depositional systems. In: B.W. Seliwood (Editor), Ramps and
Reefs. Sediment. Geol., 79: 3—57.

The classification, tectonic settings, stratigraphy and early diagenesis of carbonate ramp systems are reviewed. Carbonate
ramps are common in all geological periods, but were dominant at times when reef-constructing organisms were absent or
inhibited. Ramps can be subdivided into inner-, mid-, and outer-ramp environments. The mid-ramp zone extends from
fair-weather wave base to normal storm wave base, although the water depths which these boundaries represent vary. An
additional outer-slope environment occurs on distally steepened ramps. As with siliciclastic shelves, a range of wave-, storm-,
and tide-dominated ramps can be recognised and this forms the most convenient basis for ramp classification. The carbonate
productivity profile of ramps differs from that of rimmed shelves, with the inner ramp showing lower production rates than
comparable shallow-water facies on rimmed shelves. The zone of greatest organic carbonate sediment production appears to
have shifted from the mid-ramp to the inner ramp since the Late Jurassic.
Carbonate ramps occur in most types of sedimentary basin but are best developed where subsidence is flexural and
gradients are slight over large areas, as in foreland and cratonic-interior basins and along passive margins. The featureless
depositional profiles of many ramps means that sequence geometries are best observed on regional seismic lines. Some show
low-angle sigmoidal or shingled clinoforms, suggesting that ramps may seldom be “homoclinal”, but possess subtle slope
geometries which reflect depositional environments. Because of their low-angle slopes, ramps respond differently to rimmed
shelves during relative sea-level changes although results seem to be strongly dependent on the rate of relative sea-level
change. During a minor fall, shallow-ramp facies belts will simply shift basinwards in a “forced regression”. In contrast, the
whole surface of a steep-sloped, flat-topped rimmed shelf may be exposed so that sediment production ceases or is
drastically reduced. During a major fall, shallow ramp-bounded basins may empty completely. Conversely, ramps also flood
gradually, whereas rimmed shelves do so more rapidly. Homoclinal ramps develop no resedimented lowstand deposits;
rimmed shelves and distally steepened ramps, in contrast, may develop lowstand talus or turbiditic wedges. Distally
steepened ramps may behave more like homoclinal ramps during minor base-level falls and like rimmed shelves during
major base-level falls.
Many ramps consist of layered successions of several ramp sequences stacked one upon the other. Ramp “stacks” of this
sort may show gross vertical accretion, but individual ramp sequences seldom appear to develop in a “keep-up” style, apart
from minor organic buildups, as with many rimmed shelves. Steepening of the outer-ramp margin due to tectonism, slope
inheritance, or differential sedimentation may promote the development of a distally steepened ramp or rimmed shelf.
A wide variety of organisms have constructed buildups in mid- and outer-ramp environments. Isolated buildups may seed
early in ramp development, accrete to wave base or sea level, and continue growth by stacking through successive ramp
sequences so that depositional and diagenetic features within them are in concert with those of the shallow ramp. The
location of isolated buildups on ramps is governed by tectonism, halokinesis, antecedent topography, or by the subtle slope
geometry of the previous ramp sequence. Diagenesis on ramps shows some major variations compared with diagenesis on
steep-sloped, flat-topped carbonate platforms.

Correspondence to: T.P. Burchette, BP Research (140/105),

Chertsey Road, Sunbury on Thames, Middlesex TW16 7LN,
UK.
4 T.P. BURCHETFE AND V.P. WRIGHT

Ramp-bounded basins may form prolific petroleum sourcing and reservoiring systems and offer a range of subtle
stratigraphic play types and lateral facies variations which determine reservoir quality and distribution. Isolated buildups in
the mid- and outer-ramp environments represent one of the commonest petroleum reservoirs in ramp systems and tend to
have their foundations in transgressive systems tracts. Grainstone and packstone reservoirs are widespread and range from
shoreline carbonate sandbodies to major detached shoal complexes or shoals over offshore highs. Grainstone sandbodies
occur in both highstand systems tracts and in prograding lowstand wedges.

Introduction nized (Read, 1982a, 1985). Ramp deposits form

The original concept of the carbonate ramp
(Ahr, 1973), as an alternative to the steep-sloped,
reef-rimmed shelf (Table 1), was of a simple
carbonate depositional system with a low-gradi-
ent slope (<1°) from shoreline to basin. Many
ramp-like carbonate platform have since been
identified in all parts of the geological record and
the continuity in morphology between ramps and
other carbonate platform types has been recog-
the foundation phases for many large-scale car-
bonate platforms and in some settings occur as
major basin fills. They also host significant
petroleum and mineral deposits. Despite their
abundance and undoubted economic importance,
however, carbonate ramps have been the subject
of surprisingly little focussed study and are still
poorly understood.
In this paper we review the major characteris-
tics of carbonate ramp depositional systems and,

TABLE 1
Glossary of main terms as used in this paper a

Term Definition

Carbonate platform An informal term used for all major shallow-water carbonate successions, including ramps, rimmed shelves,
and isolated buildups, particularly where these cannot immediately be assigned to one, or a single one, of
these categories.
Carbonate shelf A carbonate depositional system which develops perceptible constructional relief above the sea floor (tens to
thousands of metres). The transition from shallow water to basin is marked by a distinct break in slope and
occurs over a relatively short distance (metres to a few kilometres). Slope angles vary from a degree or so to
almost vertical.
Carbonate ramp A gentle slope in a carbonate depositional system which extends from the shoreline, or a platform surface, to
the adjacent basin. The angle of slope is commonly much less than 1°(although there may be steeper dips
locally) and may be inherited or constructed.
Buildup A constructional mound consisting of organic skeletal framework and/or bound sediment, commonly further
indurated by inorganically precipitated cement. May develop in a wide range of sizes from metres to
kilometres across, and metres to hundreds of metres high.
Ramp stack Informal term assigned to a vertically layered carbonate succession consisting of stacked ramp sequences.
Ramp slope crest Subtle slope change in a carbonate ramp profile recognizable on some regional seismic lines, and exceptional
outcrops. May coincide in some ramps with fair-weather wave base.
Inner ramp Zone of ramp deposition between upper shoreface (beach or lagoonal shoreline) and fair-weather wave base.
The sea floor in this zone experiences almost constant wave agitation.
Mid-ramp Zone of ramp deposition between fair-weather wave base and storm-wave base, in which bottom sediment is
frequently reworked by storm waves and swells.
Outer ramp Zone of ramp deposition below normal storm-wave base, characterized by mudstone deposition and few
storm beds.

a For more detailed definitions see Ahr (1973) and Read (1980).
CARBONATE RAMP DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS
using ancient and Holocene examples, discuss
likely controls on their development, their tee-
tonic settings, sequence stratigraphy, and hydro-
carbon significance. We also suggest a classifica-
tion for these enigmatic carbonate systems and
address in particular the problem of why ramps
appear to be more abundant in some parts of the
geological record than in others.
Ramps versus shelves: a semantic problem
In the 1960s and early 1970s a range of car-
bonate depositional models were developed based
largely on modern analogues from the Bahamas,
the Florida Shelf, and Yucatan (see Bathurst,
1975; Wilson, 1975). These focussed on “barrier”
reef or shoal-rimmed carbonate systems, the inte-
riors of which consisted of shallow-water, low-en-
ergy “lagoonal” and peritidal deposits formed on
extensive aggrading, flat platform tops. In the
simplest models the rim bordered a steep slope
which dropped away to a deep basin into which
shallow-water carbonates were resedimented. The
geological record contains many successions de-
posited in analogous settings (see e.g. Wilson,
1975).
Ahr (1973) noted that the “rimmed shelf”
models bore little relevance to the interpretation
of many carbonate successions and that a differ-
ent model was necessary, in particular for many
ancient “epeiric” carbonate depositional environ-
ments (Shaw, 1964; Irwin, 1965; Laporte, 1969).
The term ramp was adopted to describe a gently
sloping depositional surface (generally < 1°)
which passes gradually offshore, with no slope
break, from a shallow, wave-agitated setting into
a deeper-water, lower-energy environment. Shoal
deposits in this model occur close to the shoreline
and not at some potentially considerable distance
from the shoreline as in many rimmed shelves;
the Arabian Gulf (Purser, 1973) appeared to rep-
resent a modern environment which conformed
to the ramp ideal, In some respects this ramp
model is also analogous to the familiar continen-
tal “shelf” which is defined as “that part of the
continental margin that is between the shoreline
and the continental slope [or 200 ml... charac-
5
terized by its very gentle slope of 0.1°”(Bates and
Jackson, 1987). The importance of such ramp
profiles in siliciclastic regimes has recently been
appreciated (Van Wagoner et al., 1990).
Read (1982a, 1985) divided carbonate ramps
into two groups, homoclinal (Greek: “same
slope”, i.e. with the same gradient from shoreline
to deeper water) and distally steepened, with an
offshore slope break between the shallow ramp
and the basin. A distally steepened ramp, there-
fore, has a similar configuration to many silici-
elastic shelves and, in hindsight, a more logical
distinction might have been between flat-topped
(aggradational) carbonate shelves, “sloping” car-
bonate shelves (both categories with a slope-
break), and ramps (i.e. homoclinal variety). This
would entail two practical problems, however.
Firstly, ramps and distally steepened ramps have
more in common with each other sedimentologi-
cally than with flat-topped shelves. Secondly, the
two are difficult to distinguish in the rock record
unless the presence or absence of slope or slope
apron deposits can be demonstrated. This distinc-
tion would be additionally hindered where the
shelf-break zone, commonly a tectonic feature,
had been deformed by later tectonism.
Ramp classification
Environmental subdivisions
Several schemes have been offered for the
subdivision of carbonate ramp profiles, using var-
ious water-depth criteria. Markello and Read
(1981), for example, subdivided a Cambrian ramp
in Virginia into three zones: peritidal platform,
surrounding the basin; shallow ramp, above fair-
weather wave base (FFWB); and deep ramp, be-
low FWWB, which passed into a “shale” basin.
In the Triassic Upper Muschelkalk of Germany,
Aigner (1984) recognised a deep ramp environ-
melt with storm deposits, a wave-influenced shal-
low ramp, and a back-bank lagoonal-peritidal
zone. For lower-energy Upper Muschelkalk ramps
of the Catalan Basin, Spain, Calvet and Tucker
(1988) defined a shallow ramp zone above
FWWB, and a deep ramp below, within which
6 T.P. BURCHETFE AND V.P. WRIGHT

they recognized three further subdivisions: proxi-
mal deep ramp mainly above storm wave base
(SWB), intermediate deep ramp between SWB
and a poorly oxygenated zone, and distal deep
ramp below the suboxic zone. Buxton and Pedley
(1989), on Tertiary ramps in the eastern Mediter-
ranean, recognized inner- and outer-ramp zones,
the former within the photic zone and above
SWB, and the latter below this level (see also
Somerville and Strogen, 1992).
Most of these classifications recognize two crit-
ical interfaces: fair weather wave base and storm
wave base. The actual depth of water in which
these boundaries occur in marine environments
varies in relation to local hydrodynamic/climatic
conditions, and with time, but the process do-
mains that they define leave readily identifiable
sedimentary features in the rock record. In Se-
quences deposited in protected settings (e.g. in-
trashelf basins) or tidally dominated settings, or
where bioturbation is pervasive (e.g. Pedley,
1992), location of these depth/energy-related
lithofacies may be more problematic although
they generally are identifiable. Because many an-
cient ramps appear to have been storm-
dominated, these interfaces represent perhaps the
most widely recognisable “yardsticks” in ramp
successions. Since they also represent the main
criteria for the classification of siliciclastic
“shelves”, and because ramps are morphologi-
cally and hydrodynamically similar to siliciclastic
shelves, it seems appropriate to subdivide them in
a similar way. On this basis, and following previ-
ous use (Wright, 1986; Burchette et al., 1990), we
suggest four subdivisions which should be appli-
cable to most ramp successions (Fig. 1 and Table
1):
Inner ramp. This is the zone above FWWB
dominated by sand shoals or organic barriers and
shoreface deposits, and back-barrier peritidal ar-
eas.
Mid-ramp. This is the zone between FWWB
and SWB where the sea floor is affected by storm
waves but not by fair-weather waves. Sediments
show evidence of frequent storm reworking. A
variety of storm-related features typically occur,
including graded beds and hummocky cross-
stratification. Proximal—distal trends can corn-
monly be recognized in ancient mid-ramp de-
posits (Aigner, 1984; Burchette, 1987; Faulkner,
1988).
Outer ramp. This zone extends from the
depth-limit to which most storms influence the
sea floor down to the basin plain. Sediments
show little evidence for direct storm reworking
but a variety of storm-related deposits, such as

Fig. 1. The main environmental subdivisions of a “homoclinal” carbonate ramp. MSL = mean sea level; FWWB = fair-weather
wave base; SWB = storm wave base; PC = pycnocline (not always identifiable in the rock record). Water depths corresponding to
these boundaries are variable.
CARBONATE RAMP DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS 7

sparse, graded, distal tempestites, may occur in
the upper part (e.g. Aigner, 1984; Calvet and
Tucker, 1988). In deeper zones restricted bottom
conditions may develop, perhaps in association
with suboxic basinal waters due to density stratifi-
cation in the basin,
Basin. The identification of truly “basinal” de-
posits is a persistent problem. The character of
the deposits will, of course, depend on the nature
and depth of the basin itself, but generally they
lack coarse “tempestites”. Turbidites are mostly
absent in basins adjacent to ramps. In deep,
rapidly subsiding basins, sediments may be
siliceous, while in shallow basins they may consist
of bioturbated lime mudstones. In restricted
basins, the outer-ramp and basin-centre deposits
may consist of cyclic organic rich facies (Droste,
1990) or may be pervasively bioturbated and mis-
takable for lagoonal facies.
These simple facies subdivisions may be com-
plicated by biological accumulations (e.g. mud-
and reef-mounds) in the deeper- or shallower-
water ramp environments. In distally steepened
ramps, the slope break is commonly located in a
position around the mid- or outer ramp and so
these depositional zones should also be present.
The slope-break in this case should be recogniz-
able in the rock record by evidence for slumping
and slope apron construction; the outer-slope en-
vironment would clearly form an appropriate ad-
ditional subdivision.
Classification
Read (1985) recognized six major ramp types
based on the character of the highest-energy fa-
cies: these were ramps with fringing skeletal
“banks”, barrier—bank complexes, shallow and
deeper water buildups, fringing ooid shoals,
ooid—peloid shoal barriers, and coastal
beach/dune complexes. This classification ad-
dressed at least one critical factor which has the
potential to influence the relatively simple hy-
draulic controls on carbonate ramp environments

Fig. 2. Ternary diagram showing suggested classification for carbonate ramps based on the degree of storm, wave, or tidal influence
which they exhibit in the mid- and inner-ramp zones. An additional axis accommodates the various lithologies which dominate
ramp sediments and seem to reflect the level of environmental energy (see arrow). Several representative ramps have been entered.
See text for source references on the characteristics of individual ramps.
8 T.P. BURCHETFE AND V.P.WRIGHT

when compared with their siliciclastic counter-
parts: organic sediment production. Organisms
create high rates of local sediment supply for
redistribution as sandbodies, form energy barn-
ers, and have changed significantly through time,
both in their role as sediment producers and in
the location and character of the buildups which
they create.
Many thick carbonate ramp successions actu-
ally represent “stacks” (or “sets”) consisting of
several ramp sequences or parasequences and
hydraulic and biological conditions can commonly
he shown to have changed during the period of
ramp development. One major ramp succession
may therefore contain a number of depositional
systems of the sort outlined by Read (1982a), with
additional lateral transitions from one to the other
along its length and at different times within the
ramp stack; the Trucial Coast of the Arabian
Gulf, with its varied shoreline styles, is a modern
example which shows this lateral facies variability
(Purser and Evans, 1973). In another example,
Burchette et al. (1990) documented fluctuating
wave and storm influences on a series of Early
Mississippian inner-ramp deposits in southwest
Britain. A simple term such as “barrier bank” or
“fringing ooid shoal” (Read, 1985) may, there-
fore, be applicable to a local shoaling succession,
but may not define the ramp as a depositional
system. How, then, should ramps in successions
of this sort be classified? Our studies lead us
again to favour a process-related approach based
on the classification already established for silici-
elastic shelves, with the addition of a third dimen-
sion to account for the varied sediment types
which may be dominant in carbonate ramps (Fig.
2).
Modern siliciclastic shorelines can be classified
as wave-, storm-, or tide-dominated or mixed
wave—tide regimes (Hayes, 1979; McRory and
Walker, 1986), the differences being controlled
largely by tidal range and its interaction with
wind and wave energy. The appropriateness of
this classification for carbonate inner-ramp set-
tings has recently been discussed (Burchette et
al., 1990). Modern siliciclastic shelves are classi-
fied as wave, storm, tide, or ocean-current domi-
nated (Johnson and Baldwin, 1986). Most are

Fig. 3. “Homoclinal” carbonate ramp showing main sedimentary facies. Inner ramp: (A) peritidal and sabkha facies with
stromatolitic algae and evaporites; (B) bioturbated and variably bedded lagoonal lime mudstone, packstone, and wackestone; (C)
shoreface or shoal cross-laminated oolitic or bioclastic grainstones and packstones. Mid-ramp: (D) amalgamated coarse, graded
tempestites, commonly with hummocky cross-stratification. Outer ramp: (E) fine-grained, graded tempestites interbedded with
bioturbated or laminated lime or terrigenous mudstone; (F) laminated or sparsely rippled silt-grade carbonate sediment or quartz
silt in a predominantly terrigenous mudstone succession. All these boundaries are gradational.
CARBONATE RAMP DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS 9

storm-dominated and have relatively low tidal
influence. This also appears to have been true of
many carbonate ramp sequences in the geological
record (e.g. Aigner, 1984; Handford, 1986; Calvet
and Tucker, 1988; Faulkner, 1988; Fig. 2) and
may in part reflect the relatively high frequency
of storm events in the tropical and subtropical
latitudes in which most major carbonate plat-
forms accumulate. In the mid-ramp, successions
of this sort (Figs. 3 and 4) exhibit varied storm-re-
lated deposits such as tempestites, hummocky
cross-stratification, and swaley cross-stratification
(e.g. Aigner, 1985; Handford, 1986; Faulkner,
1988), and in the inner-ramp linear sand ridges
(e.g. Johnson and Baldwin, 1986). The Yucatan
Shelf (Ward and Brady, 1973, 1979) represents a
modern example where carbonate sandbodies of
the latter type occur, but ancient carbonate ana-
logues of mid-ramp storm-generated sand ridges
are rare or have possibly been misinterpreted.
Ramp sequences associated with intrashelf basins
commonly show little evidence for significant
storm reworking in the mid-ramp environment
since limits on wave fetch or height have pre-
vented significant storm reworking. Such systems
are best regarded as protected ramps.
Records of tidally dominated ramps are rare.
In tidal regimes, sand waves, ribbons and sheets
may develop, depending on tidal current strengths
and the rate of sediment supply. The Middle
Jurassic oolite-dominated ramps of southern Eng-
land (Sellwood et al., 1985; Sellwood, 1986) and
the Paris Basin (Purser, 1975; Laville et al., 1989)
probably represent such systems, and are charac-
tenized by decametre-scale tabular, cross-bedded
sandbodies, representing shallow tidal sand waves
and deltas. However, contemporaneous inner-
ramp deposits do not appear to be stronglys tidal
(Palmer, 1979; Purser, 1975), suggesting a corn-
plex overall hydraulic regime. Another possible
example of a tidally dominated inner ramp is the
Monteagle Limestone in the Black Warrior Basin
of Alabama (Handford, 1978). A modern example
is the unnimmed northwestern margin of Aus-

Fig. 4. Highly schematic vertical sections through several end-member ramp depositional Systems, showing variation of facies within
inner-, mid-, and outer-ramp depositional environments and how these are related to fair-weather wave base (FWWB) and storm
wave base (SWB). (A) Proterozoic stromatolite-dominated ramp, showing variations in stromatolite morphology with depth. Based
on Grotzinger (1989). (B) Skeletal boundstone-dominated ramp, typical of early Palaeozoic and later Mesozoic successions. Based
on Burchette (1981) and Burchette and Britton (1985). (C) Grainstone-dominated ramp, typical of early Carboniferous and
Jurassic, and some modern ramps. Based on Ahr (1973), Baria et a!. (1982), and Burchette et. a!. (1989). (D) Large-foraminiferan
shoal-dominated ramp, characteristic of those in the Paleogene and Early Neogene. Based on Aigner (1983). Profiles are valid for
several scales of sequence.
10
tralia (Dix, 1989). The marginal successions of
tidally dominated inner ramps should display
prominent peritidal intervals with tidal channels.
Again, successions of this type are either uncom-
mon in the geological record or have been consis-
tently misinterpreted,
Some ramp successions do not easily fit into
the above attempts at classification, either be-
cause of unusual hydraulic conditions or possibly
because of intrinsic differences between siliciclas-
tic and carbonate systems. Fairchild (1989) and
Fairchild and Hetherington (1989), for example,
have described an unusual low-wave energy, mi-
crotidal, storm-dominated ramp from the Ven-
dian of Greenland and Scotland. This regime
generated a succession lacking near-shore shoal
belts, so that low-energy, storm-influenced mid-
ramp deposits passed landward into inner-ramp
stromatolitic and evaporitic lagoons and playas
via a zone of storm reworked sediments corn-
posed of intraclast-rich dolomites.
Ramp facies
Ramp facies reflect the protracted offshore
energy gradients which are a consequence of
gradual water-depth changes (Fig. 3). Inner-ramp
deposits typically consist of oolitic or bioclastic
shoal, barrier, and back-barrier sediments (Figs.
3A—3C). Shoal deposits commonly form sheet-like
grainstone units, reflecting the tendency of high-
stand ramp shoreface sediments to migrate or
prograde rapidly. Lagoonal sediments comprise a
range of mud-, wacke-, or packstone lithologies,
commonly with a restricted biota, while peritidal
sediments are commonly microbially laminated
and in arid climates may become evaporitic. In-
ner-ramp deposits of modern ramp settings differ
from those found in modern flat-topped “keep-
up” shelves in that they are typically restricted to
narrow lagoons. This may be largely a question of
scale and timing, however, since modern ramps
are actually poor analogues for many ancient,
long-lived ramp systems, many of which seem to
have developed into flat-topped, cyclic deposi-
tional systems. Organic buildups in inner-ramp
environments tend to be biostromal, again reflect-
T.P. BURCHETFE AND V.P. WRIGHT
ing the shallow water depths and large substrate
areas.
Mid-ramp deposits (Fig. 3D) consist of van-
able carbonate sediments deposited below fair-
weather wave base and reflect varying degrees of
storm influence depending on the water depth
and the depth of wave base. Fairweather phases
are dominated by suspension fall-out, consisting
largely of lime or terrigenous mud, and are com-
monly bioturbated. Associated grainstone or
packstone sediments consist largely of au-
tochthonous bioclasts and typically show hum-
mocky cross-stratification or form graded tern-
pestite “couplets”. Such successions have been
described in detail by Aigner (1984) and Faulkner
(1988).
The origin of carbonate muds in mid-ramp
environments (Fig. 3D) remains enigmatic and
has been little studied. Although largely of mud-
grade, the volume of carbonate sediment in the
mid-ramp zone of many ancient ramp successions
exceeds that in the inner ramp. This situation is
the reverse of that seen in most other carbonate
depositional systems, where higher rates of car-
bonate production in shallow water ensure that
these environments have the greatest accretion
potential. This may reflect the generation of rela-
tively larger volumes of muddy carbonate sedi-
ment in the offshore environment of ramps com-
pared with the inshore zone. The roles of long-
shore currents in transporting material laterally
from one area to another in the offshore zones of
carbonate ramps, or of storm-generated currents
in transporting material from the shoreline to the
mid- or outer-ramp, as on siliciclastic shelves, are
also largely unevaluated, but are potentially of
major importance. Detailed studies of sediment
composition in the mid- and outer-zones of an-
cient carbonate ramps are clearly required in
order to determine the significance of these dif-
ferent sediment transport paths. Such work could
be compared with studies of comparable modern
carbonate and siliciclastic settings.
The outer ramp is a zone where deposition of
argillaceous carbonate and terrigenous mud from
suspension dominates (Fig. 3E). Only the most
severe storms affect the sea floor and so evidence
for wave reworking is sparse. However, thin lami-
CARBONATE RAMP DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS

nated and rippled beds of carbonate or siliciclas-

tic silt or very fine-grained sand in offshore ramp
sediments may be the expression of storm re-
working (see e.g. Calvet et al., 1990).
The mostly hemipelagic sediment composition
in outer-ramp settings, particularly during rela-
tive sea-level highstands, means that in distally
steepened ramps, slope deposits consist largely of
mud- or wackestone-textured offshore sediments.
They differ from slope aprons or base-of-slope
aprons adjacent to shallow-water platform mar-
gins which are composed largely of shallow-water
materials (cf. Pedley, 1992). Aprons at the slope
toes of distally steepened ramps thus probably
represent less attractive play types for petroleum
exploration than the slope aprons of many rimmed
shelves, unless significant quantities of shallow-
water material are generated at the slope break
during relative sea-level lowstands. The “di- Fig. 5. Bar chart showing the major ramp-dominated periods
agenetic potential” of such deposits, lacking a compared with the time-distribution of reefs (after Heckel,
significant aragonitic component and less readily 1974; James, 1984) and other rimmed shelves. Note that
subjected to meteoric water, is also lower than in ramps are the dominant platform types following major or-
shelf aprons ganic extinctions (crosses). Extinctions were clearly a factor in
determining the relative importance of ramp depositional
systems, although other possible causes (see text) should not
Organic influence on ramps be overlooked.

Impact offramebuilders on ramps

Although carbonate ramps are common in all
geological periods, there have been times during
the Phanerozoic when they constituted the most
prominent carbonate platform type (Fig. 5). This
temporal alternation between ramps and other
platform types, particularly framework reefs, is
poorly understood. One possibility is that major
extinctions, oceanographic (e.g. upwelling, eu-
trophication), or climatic factors may have been
responsible for the exclusion of frame-building
organisms from shallow water environments and
may have favoured the massive oolite production
which characterise the ramp-dominated time in-
tervals. The resulting decrease in biological car-
bonate productivity in such settings, and the
change in production profile from shoreline to
basin, would have (temporarily) eliminated the
ability of carbonate platforms to develop shelf
morphologies and favoured ramp development.
The widespread oolite-dominated ramps of the
Mississippian and Jurassic probably reflect low
rates of biological carbonate production in shal-
lower-water environments at these times (Wright
and Faulkner, 1990). Both correspond to periods
when shallow-water framework reefs were glob-
ally absent or scarce. The appearance in the later
Mississippian, for example, of more effective reef
constructors saw a widespread transition in plat-
form style to rimmed shelf morphologies (Ahr,
1989) (Fig. 5). The same phenomenon also ap-
pears to have occurred again in the Jurassic. In
modern environments a similar effect is achieved
in areas of environmental restriction and this may
be the basis for the antithetic relationship which
exists between ooid generation and biological
productivity in Holocene settings (Lkyd et al.,
1987; Shinn et al., 1990). The Trucial Coast of the
Arabian Gulf, and Shark Bay in Western Aus-
tralia, constitute case-examples where, because of
high ambient salinity, corals and other typical
Fig. 6. Plot of predominant organism distribution versus time showing how the role and location of organic sediment producers on
ramps has changed. Note how the main sediment producers appear to have migrated from mid- to inner-ramp niches since the Late
Jurassic. This coincides with the rise of the calcareous pelagic foraminifera, although it is unclear whether a causal relationship can
have existed. Bottom inset shows ramp subenvironments defined in this paper. Bar widths provide a qualitative guide to the relative
sedimentary importance of each group of organisms. Data derived from numerous sources.
CARBONATE RAMP DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS
Late Cenozoic carbonate producers are excluded
or are less prolific than at the margins of open
marine platforms such as the Bahamas or the
Florida Shelf, allowing the maintenance of ramp
profiles. On the other hand, the southern coast of
Australia is a high-energy, distally steepened ramp
which, because of an essentially temperate cli-
mate, also lacks the key prolific inshore carbon-
ate sediment producers although sea-grass banks
are important locally in inshore areas (James and
Bone, 1991).
The above hypothesis is without doubt too
simplistic. The answer may lie in the productivity
of ramp systems as a whole. If shallow-water
ramps had similar productivity profiles to other
platform types, they would presumably also show
marked potential to aggrade rapidly into shelves
even in the absence of a reefal rim. The fact that
many persisted as ramps may in some cases re-
flect overriding tectonic or eustatic controls (see
later section), but would mostly seem to support
the view that the rate of carbonate sediment
production on many ramps is lower and more
evenly distributed than in systems in which
framebuilding organisms produce most of the
sediment. The proportionately higher productiv-
ity of the mid-ramp setting would also favour
maintenance of the shallow ramp profile, while
the whole ramp system progrades, although the
ability of the system to accrete vertically would be
reduced. The latter point has been demonstrated
using two-dimensional computer simulations
(Elrick and Read, 1991; Read et al., 1991). These
show that models in which sediment production
(or accumulation) is uniform across the ramp
produce more “homoclinal” geometries, while
those which use higher rates of sediment produc-
tion in the inner ramp produce steeper ramp
slopes or rimmed shelves and a flat-topped plat-
form morphology.
From the Late Jurassic onwards, there has
been an interesting shift in the locations pre-
ferred by bioclastic carbonate sediment producers
on ramps from mid- to more inner-ramp settings
(Fig. 6). Sea-grass banks, for example, have been
important features and sources of sediment in
inner-ramp environments only since the late
Palaeogene and Neogene and must have had a
13
dramatic effect on ramp sediment production
profiles, possibly leading to local rates of carbon-
ate production as high as those of coral—algal
reefs (Davies, 1970; Read, 1974; Belperio et al.,
1988). They do not appear to have had counter-
parts on ancient ramps. Crinoids, stromato-
poroids, and bryozoans, on the other hand, were
major sediment producers in mid-ramp environ-
ments during the mid- and late Palaeozoic, but
have no modern counterparts which are as effec-
tive sediment producers in these zones (Fig. 6).
The evolution of calcareous pelagic foraminifera
in the Cretaceous may also have had wide-re-
aching implications for the development of ramps
facing oceanic basins in that sedimentation rates
in post-Cretaceous outer-ramp environments may
have been significantly elevated in comparison
with their pre-Cretaceous counterparts.
Organisms contributing to buildups on ramps
A wide range of organisms have constructed
biological buildups in ramp settings throughout
the Phanerozoic (Fig. 6). Stromatolites were im-
portant mound builders in inner-, mid-, and
outer-ramp settings of ramps in the Precambrian
and early Palaeozoic (Cecile and Campbell, 1978;
Markello and Read, 1981; Ricketts, 1983;
Moshier, 1986; Wright et al., 1990). Grotzinger
(1989) has reviewed mound occurrence in the
Precambrian when stromatolites developed both
in inner-ramp settings, as fringing biostromes,
and as isolated buildups in mid-ramp locations or
even as conical pinnacle reefs of 50 m relief in
outer-ramp environments. In the Cambrian and
Ordovician, biological buildups were prominent
features in both shallow and deeper ramp settings
(Read, 1982b). In both, crinoids, bryozoa and
unidentified lime mud generators were impor-
tant. The micrite-dominated core facies of these
buildups resemble those of Mississippian
Waulsortian facies.
Silurian ramps contain reef mounds formed by
corals and stromatoporoids (e.g. Heckel, 1974;
Wilson, 1975) and in the Devonian, outer-ramp
buildups were dominated by stromatoporoids and
in some areas are up to several kilometres across
(e.g. Sears and Lucia, 1979). Ramp mounds in the
Mississippian are mostly distinctive, deeper-water 1985). Framework reefs are virtually unknown
Waulsortian mudmounds (Lees and Miller, 1985; from this time (James, 1984), although current
George and Ahr, 1986; King, 1990) which devel- and wave-formed crinoid banks were prominent
oped in a range of water depths (Lees and Miller, in mid- to outer-ramp settings (Wright and
CARBONATE RAMP DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS 15

Faulkner, 1990). Pennsylvanian and Early Per-
mian ramp mounds were dominated by phylloid
algae and Problematica such as Tubiphytes, while
later Permian mounds were constructed largely
by stromatolites (e.g. Heckel, 1974; Wilson, 1975).
Triassic ramps were marked by the occurrence of
outer-ramp mudmounds and mid-ramp cninoid
banks (e.g. Aigner, 1984; Calvet et al., 1990).
Reid (1987) has described microbial-coral mounds
from the Triassic of Canada.
Deeper-water buildups were widespread on
Upper Jurassic ramps in several areas. Minor
coral-stromatoporoid or thrombolitic bioherms
occur on low-energy ramps of the eastern North
Atlantic margins and developed in water depths
of possibly several hundred metres (Jansa et al.,
1989; Ellis et al., 1990). Similar coral-microbial
mounds occur on an Upper Jurassic ramp in
southern England (Sun and Wright, 1989). Stro-
matolite-sponge and coral buildups occur widely
in the Maim of southern Germany (Barthel, 1969;
Meyer and Schmidt-Kaler, 1983) and have also
been described from the Upper Jurassic Smack-
over ramp of the US Gulf Coast (Baria et al.,
1982; Harris and Crevello, 1983). The latter de-
veloped on basement or salt-controlled highs bas-
inward of inner-ramp oolite shoals.
During the Cretaceous both rudist bivalves
and larger benthic foraminifera were important
components in mid- and inner-ramp buildups
(Scott, 1990; Fig. 6). In the Gulf Coast mid-Creta-
ceous a variety of rudist buildups are associated
with ramps (e.g. Sunniland, Edwards, and Devils
River Formations) at the margins of intrashelf
basins. In higher-energy, wave-swept inner-ramp
settings the communities comprised capninids and
radiolitids, while requienids were dominant in
lagoonal biostromes. Larger benthic foraminifera,
orbitolinids, alveolinids and nummulites, were
important contributors to buildups throughout the
late Cretaceous and early Tertiary, especially in
inner- and mid-ramp settings (e.g. Aigner, 1983).
Buxton and Pedley (1989) have discussed the
distribution of foraminifera, corals, and algae in
the Tertiary of the Tethyan and Mediterranean
realms, noting displacement down-ramp of some
forms during the Tertiary by new genera in shal-
lower-water niches.
Outer- and mid-ramp buildups appear to be
more widespread in cratonic-intenior basins than
in other settings and are commonly developped
as swarms of hundreds of small mounds each a
few hundred metres to several kiiometres across.
They also occur in intrashelf basins and in some
passive margin and foreland basin settings, a!-
though in these latter locations they commonly
have a tectonic or halokinetic foundation.
Buildups are rarer on ramps in extensional set-
tings (e.g. Gerard and Buhrig, 1990), on small
ramps, or in hypersaline intrashelf basins. The
reasons for this distribution are probably as var-
ied as the settings in which they occur, but it

Fig. 7. Schematic cross-sections through various styles of sedimentary basin showing the locations and character of associated
carbonate ramps. The inner ramp only is shaded in each example. (A) Extensional basin: I = ramps developed on the shallow dip
slopes (“rollovers”) of fault block; 2 = small rimmed shelf developed along steep footwall escarpment of fault block; 3 = ramp
progradation limited by synsedimentary antithetic fault in dip slope; 4, 5 = buried sediment fans generated through erosion of, and
sediment production on, the footwall escarpment. (B) Passive margin: 1, 2 = ramps developed as prograding wedges in older
post-rift sequences; 3 = ramp in younger post-rift sequences; 4 = remnant rift topography and halokinesis localise development of
isolated shoals/reefs in the mid- and outer ramp; 6 = ramp inherits distally steepened margin along the shelf slope break of
underlying carbonate shelf; 7 = base of slope apron developed at the base of escarpment. (C) Foreland and compressional back-arc
basins: I = stacked ramps seed on gentle slope at margin of depressed foreland and prograde into the basin. 2. Multiple
unconformities develop in the mid- and inner-ramp areas over the peripheral bulge. 3. Outer ramp and basin may show episodes of
sediment starvation coincident with major subsidence phases. 4. Siliciclastic wedge generated through erosion of thrust stack. D.
Intracratonic basin. 1. Low-gradient margin, generally with low rates of subsidence promote extensive ramp development;
2 = swarms of isolated buildups (“pinnacle reefs”) form in mid- and outer-ramp environments, commonly along clinoform edges;
3 = basinal deposits commonly bioturbated.
 16 T.P. BURCHEI-rE AND V.P. WRIGHT

would seem that the lower the energy and the
gentler the depositional slope, the more likely
isolated buildups are to develop and survive,
Tectonic setting
The low carbonate-sediment productivity of
most ramps (Elrick and Read, 1991) means that,
regardless of other factors, optimal situations for
ramp development are those in which subsidence
is continuously or episodically slow, gradients are
slight, and basinal water depths are relatively
shallow. Ramps therefore occur consistently in
tectonic regimes charactenised by gentle flexural
subsidence, such as orogenic forelands, the mar-
gins of shallow intrasheif/intracratonic basins,
gentle cratonic downwarps, post-rift phases of
passive margins, and the dip slopes (hanging-wall
“rollovers”) of extensional fault blocks. Ramps
are known from all of the above settings and
models are outlined below (Fig. 7). Ramp devel-
opment in these settings is reinforced where un-

Fig. 8. (A) Example of a ramp in an extensional basin which has prograded over infilled half-graben topography. This is only
possible where siliciclastic or carbonate basinal sediments reduce the amount of accommodation space available in the basin and
generate a suitably low-gradient substrate for carbonate ramp growth. (B) Subsequent reactivation of faults disrupts the ramp,
creating local steep scarps from which material is reworked into debris and turbiditic deposits. Footwall uplift locally exposes the
ramp carbonates to karstification. Disruption in this example was accompanied by renewed influx of siliciclastic sediment which
contributed to the extinction of the platform. Based on Mississippian examples in Ebdon et aL (1990).
CARBONATE RAMP DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS
favourable environmental conditions (e.g. high
rates of elastic input, hypersalinity, or a cool
climate) inhibit rapid carbonate production. In
some of these regimes, subsidence. may be period-
ically high and this may be reflected in the short
duration and small size of ramps, or a layered
character, comprising alternating prograding
progradational and drowning events (see e.g.
Ebdon et al., 1990). Large ramps on passive-
margins or in foreland or cratonic interior basins
commonly form linear sediment prisms trending
for hundreds of kilometres along the basin mar-
gin.
Extensional basins
Subsidence rates in active extensional basins
are high, with the development of marked topog-
raphy, which inhibits ramp development, but pro-
motes the growth of rimmed shelves and isolated
buildups. Due to footwall uplift the rate of silici-
elastic sediment input may be high, particularly in
humid climates. Carbonate platforms of all types
are thus restricted to drowned rifts with low
elastic supply, arid settings where elastic input is
only periodic, or to intrabasinal highs isolated
from marginal elastic sediment input. Locally car-
bonates may be intercalated with shallow-marine
fan-delta sediments as in the Miocene of the Gulf
of Suez (e.g. Burchette, 1988). Marine rift basins
in arid climates also commonly become restricted
(cf. Tertiary of the Red Sea), a characteristic
accentuated by their compartmentalization, so
that ramps in such settings may be dominated by
hypersaline facies.
The availability of shallow-dipping substrate is
limited in extensional basins and this contributes
to the small sizes of ramps in such settings (Fig.
7~t). Small ramps, a few kilometres or tens of
kilometres across, typically develop in transfer or
fault tip-zones, where throws and gradients are
minimal (Hurst, 1987), or on the dip slopes of
tilted fault blocks (Fig. 7A), and prograde into
the adjacent half-grabens (see e.g. Gawthorpe,
1986; Simo, 1986; Burchette, 1988), while ele-
vated footwalls facing the deepest portions of
half-grabens are occupied by small rimmed
shelves (Burchette, 1988) or distally steepened
ramps (e.g. Chatellier, 1988; Jacquin et al., 1991).
17
Antithetic faulting, or the development of sub-
basins within dip slopes, may control the distance
ramps can prograde or may contribute to distal
steepening of the shallow slopes (Fig. 7A).
Most ramps associated with extensional set-
tings develop during quiescent phases or in the
post-rift stage when subsidence becomes largely
flexural, high subsidence rates are restricted to
the basin centre, and relief is reduced or infilled.
At this stage ramps may prograde from the rift
margin across buried extensional faults which, if
reactivated, may influence deposition and diagen-
esis (e.g. Ebdon et al., 1990) (Fig. 8). Where fault
trends remain active, areas of small or flexural
displacement may be the sltes of ramp, rather
than rimmed shelf development, as in the Sil-
urian of North Greenland (Hurst and Surlyk,
1984).
Examples of ramps in extensional (Table 2)
settings are known from: the Cambrian of Sicily
(Bechstädt and Boni, 1989); the Silurian of North
Greenland (Hurst and Surlyk, 1983, 1984); the
Mississippian of the Bowland Basin (Gawthorpe,
1986) and the Widmerpool Gulf (Ebdon et al.,
1990) in northern England; the mid- to Late
Permian of the Finnmark Shelf, northern Norway
(Gerard and Buhnig, 1990); the Early Tniassic
(Anisian) of the Dolomites, Italy (Bosellini and
Hsü, 1973); the Early Cretaceous of the Ver-
cours, French Alps (Jacquin et a!., 1991); the
Late Cretaceous of the south-central Pyrenees
(Simo, 1986); the Palaeocene of the Sirte Basin,
Libya (Bebout and Pendexter, 1975); and the
Early Miocene of the Gulf of Suez (Burchette,
1988).
Major strike-slip zones possess many of the
characteristics of the settings discussed above.
Smaller strike-slip extensional basins are rarely
more than 50 km across and have deep, narrow
geometries and normal fault-bounded margins.
They are characterized by high rates of subsi-
dence and are typically infilled by coarse silici-
elastic alluvial or submarine fans, lacustrine sedi-
ments, or evaponites (Reading, 1980; Allen and
Allen, 1990). The high subsidence rates, high
rates of elastic input, and small substrate areas
make these regimes unfavourable for widespread
ramp development. A possible ancient example
18 T.P. BURCHETrTE AND V.P. WRIGHT

TABLE 2
A compendium of published information on selected carbonate ramp systems, including data on their geometry, development, and
setting

Stratigraphic Location Age Duration Tectonic setting Width Length Thick-

name (m.y.) (km) (km) ness (m)

PRECAMBRIAN:
Wonoka Adelaide Late Proterozoic — Early post-rift — 100 H- 700
Formation Geosyncline,
S. Australia

Huqf Group E. Central Oman Infracambrian — Intrashelf basin — — 1500

due to extension
along passive
margin

CAMBRIAN:
Shady Dolomite Virginia, U.S.A. Early Cambrian 15 Post-rift 800 1600 +

Nebida S.W. Sardinia L. Cambrian 10 (est.) ?Passive margin 40 (est.) 100 400
Formation

ORDOVICIAN:
Whiterock W. Utah E.—M. — Passive margin 600 1000 60
Series Ordovician modified
by fault
reactivation

SILURIAN:
Washington N. Greenland Silurian 20 (est.) Passive margin 150—200 200 + Several
Land 100
Group

Henryhouse N.E. Anadarko Late Silurian — ?Post-rift (remnant 40—50 ?200 50

Formation Basin, of Oklahoma
Oklahoma aulacogen)

Heldergerg Central Appala- Late 8—10 Late-stage 100—300 300 + Max. 140
Group chians, Virginia— Silurian—Early foreland basin,
New York Devonian ramps on both
cratonic and
orogenic margins
CARBONATE RAMP DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS 19

Character Facies types Distinctive features Dominant Climate/ Source

accretion paleolatitude reference
style

Storm-dominated Lime silts, calcareous sand-
stones, stylonodular clayey
lime siltstones. Intraclast
conglomerates, glauconitic
limestones. Stromatolites.
Mixed siliciclastic/carbonate. ?Vertical Arid Haines, 1988
?Milankovitch cyclicity. Pervasive
hummocky cross-lamination.
Condensed glauconitic deposits
at each shoaling cycle base.

?Wave and tidally Laminated dolomite,
influenced dolomitized grainstones,
stromatolites, evaporites,
bituminous dolomites,
intraclast breccias,
tempestites
Adjacent to major salt basin. — Arid Wright et al.,
Local development of 1990
stromatolite bioherms
and biostromes.

— Nodular lime wacke-, pack- Mud mounds in few-km Vertical Sub-arid Barnaby and
stones, stacked archaeo- wide zone between inner (ramp stack) Read, 1990;
cyathid mounds, cyclic red and outer ramp. Read, 1989
beds proximally, peritidal Evolves from ramp to
laminites rimmed shelf.
Ramp shows cyclic shoaling.

Highly tectonized Terrigenous mudstone, Archaeocyathid mounds Vertical ?Humid Bechstädt and
archaeocyathid mounds, locally isolated in terrigenous Boni, 1989
oolites mudstones.

Foundation for Calathic algal build- Massive siliciclastic ?Vertical Humid and Ross et al.,
major carbonate ups, calc. siltstones, co-sedimentation. storm 1989
buildup mud mounds, dominated

— Stromatoporoid biostromes, Lateral transition Vertical — Hurst and

oolitic grainstones, lime into rimmed and Surlyk, 1983,
mudstones, intraclast escarpment shelf. Location 1984
floatstones, terrigenous controlled by unfaulted flexure.
mudstones

?Tidal Oolite, crinoid-bryozoan Dolomitized beneath uncon- Vertical ?Sub-humid Morgan, 1985
pack-, wacke-stones, formity. Possible tidal channels
calcareous mudstones mappable in oolite shoals from
subsurface thickness data.

Wave- and ?tide- Skeletal grainstones, coral-
dominated stromatoporoid mounds,
bioclastic-peloidal wacke-,
pack-stones, peritidal lime
mudstones, calcareous
sandstones and shale,
siliceous mudstones
Ramps developed on both Lateral and ?Sub-humid Laporte, 1969;
eastern and western margins vertical Read, 1980;
of foreland basin. Rates of pro- (stacked ramp) Dorobek and
gradation 35—50 m/1000 yr. Three Read, 1986
transgressive/regressive
sequences.
20 T.P. BURCHETrE AND V.P. WRIGHT

TABLE 2 (continued)

Stratigraphie Location Age Duration Tectonic setting Width Length Thick-

name (m.y.) (km) (km) ness (m)

DEVONIAN:
Nisku West Canada Basin, Frasnian — Cratonie-interior 150 200 50—100
Formation Alberta basin basin

Grosmont W. Canada Basin, Late 2—3 (est.) Cratonie-interior 200 + 800 . 170
Formation Alberta Devonian (late basin at
Frasnian) passive margin

CARBONIFEROUS:
Caballero Sacramento Mnts., E. Mississippian 10 (est.) Extensional, with 100 + 40 + 30
Formation New Mexico ramps on dip
slopes of fault
blocks

Station Derbyshire, U.K. Late <10 Small intrashelf 10 20 (est.) 700

Quarry Mississippian basin (basin fill)
Beds (Brigantian) ea. 15 km wide

Lisburne Arctic Alaska Late 20 (est.) ?Passive margin. 150 1100 + 4—500
Group Mississippian
(Meremecian and
Chesterian Stages)

Exshaw/Banff West Canada Basin, Mid-Mississippian — Extensional 230 + 900 + 150—800

Formation Alberta (Tournasian) (?intracratonie)

Lower SW. Wales E. Mississippian 23 Back-are basin— 50 150 1000

Carboniferous (Tournaisian— foreland (max.)
Limestone Holkerian) basin

Lodgepole Williston Basin, Mississippian — Cratonic-interior 300 1000 + 500

Group western USA/ basin
southern
Canada

Pitkin Limestone Ozark Mountains, Late Mississippian 8 (est.) Foreland basin 80—150 300 + 50 +
and northern Arkansas
Fayetteville Shale

Morgan Northern Utah and Mid-Pennsylvanian 8—15 Cratonie-interior 200

Formation Colorado basin
CARBONATE RAMP DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS 21

Character Facies types Distinctive features Dominant Climate/ Source

accretion paleolatitude reference
style

Muddy bound- Stromatoporoid pack-, Stacked ramps with buildups Vertical ?Sub-arid/ Watts, 1990
stone ramp. ?Lee- wacke-stones, shale, developed during drowning (ramp stack) arid
ward. Progrades downslope coral/strom. events
on seismic. buildups

?Leeward Calcareous mudstones,
coral-stromatoporoid float-
stones, Amphipora/peloidal
packstones, laminated
mudstones, evaporites
(Hondo Formation possibly
in small intrashelf basin)
Pronounced shoaling cyclicity on Lateral and Arid. 20°N. Cutler, 1983
10—25 m scale superimposed on 5 vertical (pro-
longer term cycles. Each cycle gradational
shows internal steepening from ramp stack)
homoclinal to distally steepened
ramp morphology. Progrades over
correlative Ireton shale basin fill.

— Argillaceous crinoid- — — — Smith, 1982;

bryozoan calcarenites, Ahr, 1989
crinoidal grainstones,
Waulsortian mounds

— Bioclastic wacke-, pack-,
and grain-stones,
resedimented carbonates,
dolomitized laminates,
nodular lime mudstones
Basin fault controlled. Northern Vertical ?Sub-humid Gutteridge,
margin homoclinal ramp, (ramp stack) 1989
southern margin distally
steepened (fault control). Basinal
facies suboxic and cyclic.

— Spicule-pellet lime mud- Shoaling cycles representing Vertical Arid. ?30°N. Armstrong, 1974;
stones, crinoid-bryozoan shoreline progradation. Lower (ramp stack) Bird and Jordan,
wacke-, packstones, local part argillaceous. Exposure 1977; Lepain
fasciculate corals, oolites between cycles. et al., 1990

?Leeward. Bioclastic and oolitic Distally steepened in west Lateral Sub-arid/ Chatellier, 1988
Progrades on grainstones, pelloidal and (fault controlled). Most sub-humid
seismic. bioclastic wacke-, pack-, lithofacies argillaceous.
and mud-stones Adjacent to shale basin.

Windward Oolites, bioclastic Barrier islands and shoals Vertical Alternating Wright, 1986;
grainstones, lagoonal (ramp stack) arid/humid Burchette
lime mudstones, et al., 1990
offshore shales

?Wave Silty mudstone, laminated Shoaling beach depositional Vertical and Arid Wilson, 1975;
dominated peloidal mustone, oolitic and sequences in gross transgressive lateral Lindsayand
bioclastic pack-, grainstones regressive cycles terminating in (ramp stack) Kendall, 1985
basin-filling evaporites

Storm- Oolitic grainstones, bioclastic Adjacent to deep flysch basin. Lateral ?Sub-humid. Jehn and
dominated pack-, grainstones with HCS, Forms coarsening-upwards (ramp sheet). 5—15°N. Young, 1976;
grading and bioturbation sequence (progradational). Storm Overall slope Handford,
effects pervasive. Wave base data. angle 1986
0.08_0.140.

Leeward w.r.t. Oolitic grain- and crinoidal Cyclic alternation of aeolian Vertical. Arid Driese and
trade winds? wacke-, pack-, and grain- sandstones and ramp carbonates. 5—7°N Dott, 1984
Storm- or diurnal stone. Evaporites. Aeolian No carbonate aeolianites.
wave-dominated, quartz sandstones.
22 T.P. BURCHETIE AND V.P. WRIGHT

TABLE 2 (continued)

Stratigraphic Location Age Duration Tectonic setting Width Length Thick-

name (my.) (km) (km) ness (m)

PERMIAN:
Un-named N. Platform, Midland L. Permian 16.5 Foreland basin 50 50 750
Basin, SE. (early Wolf- modified by
New Mexico campian) reactivation of
basement features

Un-named E. Finnmark, Early to — Late synrift/ 100 300 + up to

Barents late Permian early post-rift 200
Shelf, Norway

TRIASSIC:
El Brull— Catalan Basin, E. Muschelkalk 2—3 each Extensional 10 + 1000 120
Capafona Spain (Anisian/ sequence
Units Ladinian)

Upper S. German Basin Mid-Triassic 1—2 (est.) Extensional 150 450 + 30 +

Musehelkalk (Anisian) (cratonic
interior)

JURASSIC:
Mem Martins Lusitania Basin, Kimmeridgian/ 3—4 (est.) Early post-rift 20 + 25 + 100 +
Formation Portugal Berriasian

Hanifa Southern Arabian L. Oxfordian/ 2 (est.) Intrashelf basin 100 — 30—40

Formation Gulf E. Kimmeridgian on passive
margin

Smackover U.S. Gulf Coast U. Jurassic, — Early passive — — 300

Formation Oxfordian margin

JURASSIC:
Un-named Iberian Chain, Spain M.—U. Jurassic, 12 Extensional 200 140 + 220
Callovian— (max.)
Oxfordian

CRETACEOUS:
Mishrif Southern Arabian Gulf Cenomanian— 7 Cratonic-interior 100 400 + 200
Formation earliest basin at (max.)
Turonian passive margin
CARBONATE RAMP DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS 23

Character Facies types Distinctive features Dominant Climate/ Source

accretion paleolatitude reference
style

Foundation for Dolomitized lime muds Stacked and distally Vertical Humid Mazzulo and
a major carbonate and packstones. Black steepened ramps. Thinly (ramp stack) Reid, 1989
buildup shales. Redbeds, karst. interbedded over shale basin
fill.

— Stromatolitic and hydrozoan
mounds, bioclastic/fusulinid
wacke-, pack-, and grain-
stones, evaporites in L.
Permian
Shallow-water carbonates back- Vertical Arid Gerard and
step between E. and L. Permian. (ramp stack) Buhrig, 1990
Numerous buildups up to 2 km
across, location controlled by
faults. Karsted.

Two sequences Bioclastic and oolitic Organic/cement buildups (La Vertical, Arid/semi-arid, Calvet and
with cyclic facies grainstones, lime Riba reefs) seeded in TST some lateral low storm Tucker, 1988;
arrangement mudstones, downslope activity Calvet et at.,
buildups 1990

Storm-dominated Oolitic grainst., oncolite Graded grainstone sheets, marl Vertical Arid, hurri- Aigner, 1984
packst., bioclastic pack-, intercalations, shoaling (ramp stack) caine belt.
wackestone, marlstones sequences. Adjacent to shale 35—43°N.
basin and siliciclastic hinterland.

Overlies shale- Bedded bioclastic Resedimented breccias in Lateral ?Semi-arid/ Ellis et at.,
basin fill paekstones and portion suggests steepening humid 1990
wackestones

Basinal facies Bioturbated lime mud- Source facies developed Vertical Arid Moshrif, 1984;
hydrocarbon stones, subaqueous cyclically in transgressive Droste, 1990
source section

?Windward Oolitic/peloidal grain- Development influenced by Lateral Arid Baria et at.,

Progrades on stones, lime mud-, pack- halokinesis and fault 1982
seismic, stones, evaporites movement. Downslope
buildups. L. Smackover is
source facies.

?Leeward, marly 1. Bind. (echinoderms, Welt-developed lowstand ?Lateral ?Semi-arid— Aurell, 1991
ahermatypic corals). depos./glauconitic condensed humid
2. Oolitie grst., coralgal sections
reefs, bioclastic grsts. (ech.,
foram., sponge, molluscs).

?Leeward. Basinal Pelagic basin, bioclastic Uplifted and karsted due to Lateral Humid Burchette and
facies hydrocar- pack-, grain-, and peripheral bulge growth, and Britton, 1985
bon source rock. wacke-stones, lime mud- Syn-sedimentary salt doming. vertical
Progrades on stones. Local rudist Source facies developed
seismic. biostromes. cyclically in transgressive phases
24 T.P. BURCHETFE AND V.P. WRIGHT

TABLE 2 (continued)

Stratigraphic Location Age Duration Tectonic setting Width Length Thick-

name (my.) (km) (km) ness (m)

TERTIARY
Darai Limestone SW. Papua Late Oligocene— 15 (est.) Foreland basin 500 1000 + 2000
New Guinea mid-Miocene ca. 700 kin- (max.)
wide

Rudeis Formation Gulf of Suez Burdigalian/ 3 (est.) Syn-rift 10 15 + Max. 80

Langhian

Un-named West Florida Tertiary— 25 Passive margin 200 800 + up to

Slope present adjacent to 1000
enclosed oceanic
basin (Gulf
of Mexico)

QUATERNARY:
Trucial Coast Southern Arabian Recent 0.008 Foreland basin 200 400 + Few

Gulf cm—few
metres.
60 with
Pleisto-
cene.

Shark Bay Western Australia Recent 0.008 Passive margin 100 200 <3

Yucatan Mexico, Gulf of Tertiary— 25 Passive margin ca. 200 600 + <2
Peninsula Mexico present

occurs in the Cretaceous of the Pyrenees
(Puigdefàbregas and Souquet, 1986). Small
short-lived ramps might conceivably form at a
late stage in such basins, when much of the initial
topography has been eliminated or in areas where
flexural subsidence rather than faulting is domi-
nant.
Passive continental margins
The rift to drift transition is characterized by
relatively uniform subsidence rates which de-
crease exponentially as the passive margin ma-
tures (Pitman, 1978; Harding, 1983; Ingersoll,
1988). Once syn-rift relief has been eliminated,
this regime is characterized by large areas over
the old rift shoulders with very gradual slopes
(Fig. 7B) which favour the development of car-
bonate ramps or low-gradient rimmed shelves
hundreds of kilometres across and trending po-
tentially thousands of kilometres along strike.
Phases of siliciclastic sediment-starvation during
early passive margin development also favour
widespread carbonate deposition. However, this
CARBONATE RAMP DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS 25

Character Facies types Distinctive features Dominant Climate/ Source

accretion paleolatitude reference
style

Monsoonal, leeward Coralline algal—large foram Drowned due to rapid sub- Vertical Humid. Davies et at.,
or oblique to winter pack-, wacke-, grainstones. sidence during late starved- 14—19°S. 1989;
trade winds Local mounds. Transition to basin stage. Subsequently Pigram et at.,
elastic basinal facies. covered by elastics which 1989
overflowed foredeep. Thick
over foreland flexure.

Mixed carbonate Burrowed sandy foram Covers fault-block dip slope Vertical Semi-arid/ Burchette,
siliciclastic pack-, grainstones, coral/ behind reefat rimmed margin arid 1989
algal biostromes on footwall escarpment

Leeward with winter Winnowed planktic foram Intraformational slumps, hard- Vertical Humid. Multins et al.,
storms. Progrades sand, foram ooze, nodular grounds, bioherms, karst during 20—28°N. 1988
on shallow seismic. ooze, rare turbidites lowstands. Distally steepened over
inherited margin

Windward (winds Oolitic barriers and beaches, Outer ramp topography Lateral Arid. 25°N. Purser and
seasonal). Wave- lagoon, sabkha, muddy generated by salt diapirs. Evans, 1975;
and tide-dominated, mid- and Outer ramp. Max. Windward—leeward Purser, 1975
water depth ca. 100 m. facies distribution over these.
Restricted basin.

Leeward Oolitic barriers and shoals. Hypersatine basin Lateral Semi-arid/ Logan, 1974
Seagrass banks, pellet arid. 25°S.
grainsts., bioct. sands,
stromatotites.

Storm-dominated. Thin veneer of ooid—pel.- Topography inherited from ? Sub-humid Logan et at..
Seasonal oblique lithoclast sand. Grades to Tertiary platform 1969
windward. Low tidal pelagic ooze at margin. Oct.-
energy, strong skel. sandwaves, coastal
marine currents. barriers.

may reduce basinal sedimentation which, with
continued subsidence, is likely to promote the
development of rimmed shelves (Fig. 7B). Rem-
nant syn-rift topographic highs may become the
loci of isolated buildup or shoal growth in mid- or
outer-ramp situations.
Examples of ramps developed in this tectonic
setting are numerous (Table 2) and include the
Proterozoic Wonoka Formation of South Aus-
tralia (Haines, 1988) and much of the early
Palaeozoic around the North American craton.
The latter includes: the Early Cambrian Shady
Dolomite of the Virginian Appalachians (Bova
and Read, 1987; Barnaby and Read, 1990); Mid-
dle to Upper Cambrian algal carbonates of the
Moore Hollow Group, central Texas (Ahr, 1971);
the Early Ordovician Ellenburger Formation of
Texas (Loucks and Anderson, 1980; Galloway et
a!., 1983); the Ordovician of the Appalachians
(Read, 1989) and the mid-western U.S.A. (Ross
et al., 1989); and the Late Mississippian and
Pennsylvanian of Alaska (Armstrong, 1974; Bird
and Jordan, 1977). Ramps also developed exten-
sively during the Late Jurassic, as with the Oxfor-
26
dian Smackover Formation of the U.S. Gulf Coast
(Budd and Loucks, 1981), and the Late Jurassic
and Early Cretaceous of Tethyan and Atlantic
passive margins along the eastern continental
shelf of North America (Jansa, 1981; Ellis et al.,
1985; Gamboa et al., 1985; Hubbard et a!., 1986),
North Africa, and the Middle East (e.g. Watts
and Blome, 1990).
Rift basins are commonly the sites of halite
deposition (Rona, 1982) and subsequent stages of
the basin fill may be affected by salt pillowing,
diapirism, and associated growth faulting (Fig.
7B). Such phenomena are commonly accentuated
by sediment loading as depositional systems pro-
grade (Humphris, 1979; Jackson and Talbot,
1986). Distal portions of ramps developed over
buried rift basins may therefore be affected by
basement, compactional, or halokinetic highs
which promote the development of scattered iso-
lated organic buildups or grainstone shoals, or
modify the seismic expression of the ramp (Fig.
7B). This has occurred, for example, in the
Smackover Formation (Ahr, 1973; Baria et a!.,
1982; Meendsen et al., 1987) and in the Permian
of the southern Barents Shelf (Gerard and Buhrig,
1990).
Rimmed shelves which develop during the later
stages of passive margins may be hundreds of
kilometres across and have significant relief above
the surrounding basin floor along the slope break
(Jansa, 1981). Where drowned, such flat-topped
platforms can be succeeded by equally large-scale
ramp depositional systems which may prograde
locally, as in the case of the Tertiary—Holocene
ramp of the West Florida Shelf (Mullins et a!.,
1988), to the previous platform margin to form a
distally steepened ramp with a distinct base of
slope apron (Fig. 7B). Another modern passive-
margin ramp of this character occurs on the Yu-
catan Peninsula (Logan, 1969; Read, 1985) which
displays both high-energy windward and low-en-
ergy leeward shoreline aspects.
Compressional basins
In marine foreland basins, carbonate ramps
commonly form as linear belts seeded along the
peripheral “bulge” (Fig. 7C) where slope gradi-
T.P. BURCHETTE AND V.P. WRIGHT
ent and subsidence rates are lowest. This setting,
isolated by the foredeep from the main siliciclas-
tic source area in the thrust zone (cf. Pigram et
a!., 1989), also experiences relatively low rates of
terrigenous sediment supply. Ramps within fore-
land basins may be a hundred kilometres or more
across; a modern example is the southern coast-
line of the Arabian Gulf. In some situations,
pre-existing passive margin or even older base-
ment features in the foreland may be reactivated
as subtle extensional topography which can mod-
ify ramp growth.
The peripheral bulge may experience episodes
of uplift and subsidence in response to thrust
emplacement. Ramps associated with the devel-
oping bulge may be subject to repeated episodes
of uplift and drowning, the process generating
complex karsted unconformities in mid- and in-
ner-ramp areas (see e.g. Mussman and Read,
1986; Read, 1989; Brett et a!., 1990; Fig. 7C).
The foreland basin setting for carbonate ramps
is one seen repeatedly in the geological record
(Table 2). Examples of ramps in such settings are:
the mid-Ordovician Trenton Limestone of On-
tario (Brookfie!d and Brett, 1988); the Late Or-
dovician/Early Silurian of the Appalachians
(Read, 1989); the Silurian to Carboniferous of the
Timan-Pechora Basin in the foreland to the Urals
(Ulmishek, 1988); the Late Mississippian Pitkin
Limestone and Batesvi!le Formation of Arkansas
deposited on the foreland to the Ouachita Moun-
tains (Glick, 1979; Gutschick and Sandberg, 1983;
Handford, 1986); the Lower Permian (L. Wolf-
campian) of the North Platform of the Midland
Basin, New Mexico, deposited on the foreland to
the Marathon foldbe!t (Ross, 1986; Mazzullo and
Reid, 1989); the Oligocene Asmari Formation of
the Arabian Gulf in front of the Zagros Moun-
tains (Szabo and Kheradpir, 1978); the Oligocene
of the Gulf of Papua (Pigram et al., 1989); and
the later Tertiary of southeastern Sicily (Pedley,
1981).
Ramp systems also develop in compressional
back-arc basins where depositional gradients on
the cratonward side are gentle. Ramps in these
settings may be up to many tens of kilometres
across and several hundreds of kilometres along
strike. Examples of such systems occur in: the
CARBONATE RAMP DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS
Early Silurian of the eastern Arctic Islands and
western North Greenland (Hurst and Surlyk,
1984); the mid-Silurian of the Welsh Borderlands
and Gotland (Anderton et a!., 1979); the Missis-
sippian (Tournaisian) of the western Rocky
Mountains (Gutschick et a!., 1980; Gutschick and
Sandberg, 1983); the Mississippian of southwest
Britain (see e.g. Leeder, 1987; Burchette et a!.,
1990); and in the Late Jurassic and Early Creta-
ceous of the Neuquén Basin of western Ar-
gentina (Mitchum and Uliana, 1985; Legarreta,
1991).
Cra tonic-interior basins
Cratonic-interior basins are broad, persistent
depressions which may overlie older rifts or sags
between upwarps or basement blocks, or are lo-
cated adjacent to orogens, and are characterized
by slow overall rates of flexural subsidence (Klein
and Hsui, 1987). Although cratonic-interior basins
may be over 1000 km across, few contain more
than several kilometres of sediment (Allen and
Allen, 1990) so that depositional gradients are
gentle and basina! water depths mostly shallow
(Fig. 7D). Because of their relative isolation, such
basins also commonly become evaporitic. The
geometries of carbonate depositiona! systems
within such basins are biased towards ramps or
low-gradient rimmed shelves which are commonly
characterized by numerous isolated buildups in
the mid- and outer-ramp environments (Fig. 7D;
data in Table 2).
Examples of cratonic-interior basins in which
carbonate ramps of several ages form a major
proportion of the basin fill are the Palaeozoic
Michigan, Illinois and Williston Basins of the
central U.S.A., the Devonian/Mississippian West
Canada Basin of Alberta, and the Rub al Khali
Basin of Arabia. Documented examples of ramps
in such settings include: the Precambrian—
Cambrian of Oman (Wright et al., 1990); the
Proterozoic, Cambrian and Ordovician of eastern
Siberia; the Silurian of the Michigan Basin (Sears
and Lucia, 1979, 1980); the Frasnian Grosmont
and Nisku Formations of the Winterburn Basin
of Alberta (Cutler, 1983; Watts, 1988); the
Duperow Formation of the Williston Basin (Wil-
27
son, 1975); the Mississippian Strawn Formation
of the Michigan Basin (Whitaker, 1988) and the
Lodgepole and Madison Groups of the Wi!!iston
Basin (Wilson, 1975; Smith, 1977; Lindsay and
Kendall, 1985). The Visby Silurian ramp carbon-
ates of Scandinavia may have accumulated in a
cratonic-interior basin adjacent to the Caledonian
Orogen (cf. Riding, 1981) and a similar origin
seems likely for the Ordovician and Silurian of
the Illinois basin (Klein and Hsui, 1987). The
Early Cretaceous Habshan Formation (Connally
and Vest, 1985) and the mid-Cretaceous Mishrif
Formation (Burchette and Britton, 1985) of the
southern Arabian Gulf are additional examples.
Intrasheif basins
Larger intrasheif basins
Intrashelf basins are shallow (mostly <200 m
deep), relatively short-lived sedimentary basins
up to a few hundred kilometres across which
develop within major carbonate platforms and
are commonly only indirectly connected via the
shallow platform top, or a re-entrant, with the
open ocean environment. Such basins are com-
monest along passive continental margins and
their origin appears to be largely tectonic (e.g.
late movement on extensional faults, over
marginal basins, or between basement !inea-
ments), although their development may be modi-
fied by subsequent carbonate platform growth.
Flat-topped carbonate shelves seldom posses
ramp-like depositional slopes, but intrashelf
basins within such systems are commonly bounded
by ramp margins (Fig. 9). This is perhaps one of
the few situations where true ramps are likely to
be backed by broad shelf-lagoons (see Markello
and Read, 1981). Due to sediment supply from
the platform top, highstand leeward margins in
such settings might conceivably show much higher
rates of progradation than windward margins.
Shoal belt deposits in intrashelf basins may re-
flect either tidal activity, important on wide plat-
forms (Pratt and James, 1988), or wave activity on
the windward margins. Middle Albian rudist
banks in the East Texas Embayment, for exam-
ple, developed preferentially on the windwards
sides of the basins (Scott, 1990). The basin fills of
28 T.P. BURCHETFE AND V.P. WRIGHT

shallow intrashelf basins may be mistaken for the
deposits of lagoons.
Because of their isolated nature, intrashelf
basins may become evaporitic during relative
sea-level !owstands and the sites of organic-rich
sedimentation during transgressions or relative
sea-level highstands (e.g. Droste, 1990; Fig. 9).
Where poorly connected to the open marine envi-
ronment and surrounded by evaporitic platform
tops, intrasheif basins may become hypersaline at
other times too, due to either the lack of mixing
caused by very shallow wave bases and/or density
stratification caused by dense brines discharged
from the surrounding platform top. With source
and inner-ramp reservoir in juxtaposition, such
settings are commonly prolific hydrocarbon sys-
tems. Where basin development is associated with
high rates of relative sea-level rise, the surround-
ing platform may be stimulated to vertical growth,
with the development of isolated “pinnacle reefs”
within the basin and margins bounded by rimmed
shelves rather than ramps. These two processes
act to reinforce the expression of the basin.
Documented examples of intrashelf basins
(Table 2) with well-developed ramp-like margins
occur in: Cambrian and Ordovician platforms of
the Appalachians (150,000 km2 Markello and
Read, 1981; Mazzullo and Read, 1989); the
Tethyan Triassic (Dolomia Principale) of south-
em Europe and the Middle East (M. Burchell,
pers. commun., 1991); and several basins (e.g.
East Texas, McKnight, and South Florida basins)
behind the mid-Cretaceous Stuart City platform
margin (Fisher and Rodda, 1969; Tyler and Er-
win, 1976; Mitchell-Tapping, 1986; Scott, 1990).
All of these occur within major rimmed-shelf
complexes developed at passive continental mar-
gins and were infilled by smaller carbonate plat-
forms with ramp-like depositional slopes. An in-
teresting example of a small intrashe!f ramp ex-
ists in a Late Mississippian carbonate platform in
Derbyshire, England (Gutteridge, 1989). The
platform formed over a series of extensional fault
blocks which were reactivated in the early Brigan-
tian to form a small basin 5—10 km wide, with a
suboxic centre. On the margins small ramps de-

Fig. 9. Ramps in intrashelf basins. (A) During flooding and highstand. Ramps prograde centripetalty from the basin margins during
highstand. Basin may become density-stratified with the development of cyclic suboxic or anoxic basin centre sediments. These
commonly correspond with parasequence-scale cycles in the shallow ramp. (B) During lowstand. Sea-level draw-down may lead to
isolation of the basin and towstand deposition of subaqueous evaporite sediments. The surrounding platform may be exposed and
karsted. SL1 and SL2: relative sea-level stands.
CARBONATE RAMP DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS 29

veloped which were originally homoclinal, but
were later tectonically modified to a distally
steepened profile (Gutteridge, 1989).
Salt-withdrawal basins
Salt-withdrawal basins are seldom more than a
few tens of kilometres across and may develop as
peripheral sinks to individual salt diapirs or as
broader depressions up to several tens of kilome-
tres across flanked by time-equivalent diapiric
uplifts. Salt withdrawal basins may occur within
major carbonate platforms at passive margins, or
in cratonic-interior or foreland basins, where the
overlie significant halite deposits. Only small (<
20 km across), low-energy ramp systems may de-
velop at the margins of such basins. Small ramps
developed around the margins of the Sir Abu
Nuair salt withdrawal basin in the upper part of
the Cretaceous Mishrif Formation of the south-
em Arabian Gulf (Burchette and Britton, 1985).
Other likely examples exist in the Upper Creta-
ceous Austin Chalk around the Hainesville Dome
in south Texas (Halbouty et a!., 1979) or the Late
Jurassic Smackover Formation of the U.S. Gulf
Coast (Hughes, 1968).
Ramp geometry and seismic character
Carbonate depositional systems exhibit widely
variable slope shapes, ranging from near vertical
escarpments. several kilometres high to epeiric
platforms with little relief, and show correspond-
ingly variable responses to relative sea-level
changes (Kenter and Schiager, 1989). Carbonate
ramps represent just one end-member in this
continuous spectrum. The major factors which, in
our view, control the development of carbonate
ramp sequences are listed in Table 3.
Field outcrops are rarely large enough (e.g.
illustrations in Hurst and Surlyk, 1984) to view
major portions of ramp depositiona! systems, so
that gross ramp geometries are seldom observ-
able other than on regional seismic lines. Many
ramps are too extensive, thin (Table 2), and tea-
tureless for sequence geometries and stratigra-
phies to be determined even from seismic data
without the use of special processing or display
techniques (cf. Chevron Standard, 1979). It is
therefore commonly necessary to determine ramp
sequence stratigraphies and geometries from
widely spaced vertical sections using regional sed-
imento!ogical, biostratigraphic and seismic data
to support interpretations. This involves analysis
of facies successions and the unequivocal identifi-
cation of sequence boundaries on all scales in
core or field sections from which a model for the
larger ramp sequence architecture can be con-
structed. In some cases clinoforms (not necessar-
ily seismic) and sequence geometries have been
successfully mapped using careful wireline log,

Fig. 10. Scale sections through the Frasnian Grosmont Formation, a carbonate ramp in the West Canada Basin, based on log
correlations. Note that the section with only small vertical exaggeration (top) shows insignificant geometry, but that with large
exaggeration (bottom) the ramp exhibits subtle sigmoidal “clinoforms”. Note too how slope angle and slope height show cumulative
increase upwards through the sequence. Vertical thickness of the Grosmont Formation c. 200 m. After Cutler (1983).
30 T.P. BURCHETFE AND V.P. WRIGHT

TABLE 3
Major controls on the development of carbonate ramp systems

Control Expression Significance

Antecedent slope Low-gradient slope inher- Important in alt settings. Evidenced by the tectonic locations in
ited from preceding ted- which ramps occur; exclusively those which generate tow gradient
- tonic or depositionat slopes and relatively stow subsidence rates, such as orogenic fore-
regime, lands and passive margins.

Water depth Basinal water depth or
basinal sedimentation rate,
Shallow basins are commonly characterized by gentle depositionat
slopes and moderate to high basinal sedimentation rates (sediment
production can comfortably fill all available accommodation space).
Shallow basin margins promote ramp development by limiting
accommodation space.

Sediment produc - Rate of in situ sediment Ramps are low productivity carbonate systems and may therefore
tion generation. Biogenic vs. in- drown readily. Ramp sediment production rates show lower shore to
organic sediment. basin differential than in rimmed shelves. Sediment production and
redistribution on ramps is still poorly understood.

Base-level changes Rates of relative sea-level
rise/tall due to subsidence
or eustacy.
Ramps drown readily even without ecological “inhibition”. Rapid
base-level rises cause incipient drowning whereas high-productivity
rimmed shelves can continue to accrete vertically or may evolve from
ramp. Many ramps are thin and “stacked”, reflecting such incipient
drowing events.

Presence/absence Evolutionary or environ-
framebuilders mental trends which deter-
mine presence/absence of
major shallow-water car-
bonate producing organ-
isms.
Ramps have been common in alt periods but dominant when
reef-constructors were rare or inhibited. High rates of sediment
production associated with reefs enable “keep-up” -sedimentation
during rapid base-level rises. Framework construction promotes the
development of rimmed shelves.

Oceanographic Windward/teewardness,
regime tides. storms, wave energy,
oceanic currents, etc.
Windward ramps are wave- and storm-dominated and grainy sedi-
ment is maintained at the shoreline. Wind-entrained sediment may
form aeolian dunes. Leeward ramps seem to be low energy and
muddy with tow grainstone content. Tidal ramps have not been
widely documented.

Fig. 11. Tracings of portions of regional seismic lines showing the geometries of various carbonate ramps. (A) Nisku Formation,
Frasnian, West Canada Basin (Chevron Standard, 1979), a low-energy boundstone-dominated muddy ramp. Thickness of ramp unit
c. 200 m. This squeezed line shows gently sigmoidal ctinoforms which represent largely outer-ramp deposits (OR) with inner-ramp
(IR) more proximally. This section contains several Nisku depositional sequences. Several small reflector-free areas (R) represent
outer-ramp reefat buildups. (B) Banff Formation. Mississippian, West Canada Basin (Chatellier, 1988). Thickness c. 150 m. This
shows welt-developed clinoforms and a strongly progradational character with minor aggradation. Grainstone ramp. (C) Smackover
Formation, U. Jurassic, U.S. Gulf Coast (unpublished). Thickness c. 300 m. This line shows well developed sigmoidal clinoforms
indicating strong progradation with minimal aggradation. Oolite grainstone ramp. (D) Upper Jurassic, continental shelf, eastern
U.S.A (Gamboa et at., 1985). Thickness c. 100—200 m. Sigmoidal clinoforms indicate a progradational ramp with some aggradation
(TR top ramp). The Jurassic ramp may become distally steepened and is succeeded by a reefal sequence (R). (E, F) Portions of
two lines from an Upper Jurassic/Lower Cretaceous grainstone carbonate platform, Neuquen Basin, Argentina (Mitchum and
Utiana, 1985). Thickness of units 1—2 c. 200 m. (E) Initial ramp (1, between arrows) shows a wedge-like geometry with
parallel-continuous internal character which thins towards the basin (to left). (F) More distal portion of ramp (1, between arrows)
overlain by low-gradient rimmed shelf sequences (2—5). (G, H) Portions of two lines from the mid- and Late Permian of the
Finnmark area, Barents Shelf, Norway (Gerard and Buhrig, 1990). Thickness c. 200 m. These show areas of mounding, representing
algal-dominated isolated buildups up to 1—2 km across, which pass laterally into continuous and discontinuous parallel facies of the
outer ramp. FR = top ramp.
CARBONATE RAMP DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS
biostratigraphic, and sedimentological correla-
tions (e.g. Stoakes, 1980; Cutler, 1983; Burchette
and Britton, 1985; Chate!lier, 1988; Dix, 1990)
(Fig. 10). Distinctive features, such as condensed
sections and subaerial exposure surfaces in proxi-
mal situations, and hardgrounds in distal loca-
tions, can be used to enhance such interpreta-
tions together with biostratigraphic correlation.
This technique for addressing ramp stratigraphy
31
is clearly only viable where an adequate database
exists.
-
Ramp geometries
The thin depositiona! profiles of carbonate
ramps provide little opportunity for the develop-
ment of pronounced sequence geometries. Gross
ramp geometries determined from seismic data
32 T.P. BURCHETFE AND V.P. WRIGHT

and geological studies are sheet- or lens-like (Fig.
11), up to several hundred metres thick and tens
to hundreds of kilometres across, thinning gently
towards both the basin centre and basin margin.
On laterally compressed displays of regional seis-
mic lines, many carbonate platforms classified as
ramps, paradoxically, resemble “flattened”
rimmed shelves, and have plat tops, with subtle
slope “crests” (or “offlap breaks”) and gently
sigmoidal clinoforms (Figs. 1 1A— 1 1D) which are
visible in both time and depth displays and may
be mappable. In contrast to many rimmed shelves,
topset reflectors are commonly insignificant or
absent or seismically unresolvable (Figs. hA—
11C). Many ramps are thus divisible even on
seismic lines into shallow, “slope”, and deep mor-
phological segments, possibly corresponding to
the inner-, mid-, and outer-ramp zones of our
classification. On this basis, it seems doubtful
that homoclinal ramps in the strictest sense actu-
ally exist, although the term ramp for very low-
gradient slopes remains perfectly valid. Whether
the seismic ramp “slope crest” corresponds to the
shal!owest-water sediments, as on most rimmed
shelves, or represents the transition from inner to
outer ramp (i.e. fair-weather wave base, which
may be in tens of m water), as seems more likely,
or can even be recognised as a definite facies
change in the field or core, seem to be major
untested aspects of carbonate ramp sedimenta-
tion. The presence of downslope buildups gener-
ally has little effect on the gross geometry of
ramp depositional systems (Fig. 11A), except
where they amalgamate as a trend to form a shelf
margin or evolve to larger structures following
drowning of the ramp as, for example, in the
Devonian of the West Canada Basin (ci. Murray,
1966; McGillavray and Mountjoy, 1975).
Where each ramp highstand system is strongly
progradationa!, the geometry may seem sheet-like
or tabular over large distances (e.g. Jurassic
Smackover Formation) and the thickest part of
one depositional sequence lies basinward with
respect to that in the preceding sequence (see
e.g. Mitchum and Uliana, 1985). Internally, thick
ramp successions commonly comprise a number
of discrete ramp sequences with similar geome-
tries. In some basins, ramp sedimentation and
progradation appears to have been facilitated by
terrigenous muds which infilled most of the avail-
able accommodation space and so allowed shal-
low-water ramps to prograde (Figs. 8, 12). Such
terrigenous sediment commonly seems to have
been introduced to the system by lateral trans-
port. Examples are the Nisku, Grosmont, and
Calmar Formations in the Winterburn Basin (see
e.g. Chevron Standard, 1979; Stoakes, 1980; Cut-
1cr, 1983); the Mississippian ramp stack in south-
west Britain (Burchette et al., 1990; Burchette,
1992); and the Mississippian Limerick ramp in
western Ireland (Somerville and Strogen, 1992).
Carbonate ramps in such settings may form the
marginal portions of large-scale basinwards-thick-
ening siliciclastic or mixed carbonate—siliciclastic
wedges.
The role of windwardness versus !eewardness
in determining platform geometry, convincingly
demonstrated for isolated buildups and rimmed

Fig. 12. Schematic section through the Frasnian succession in the West Canada Basin, showing how accommodation space created
during the early Frasnian (Cooking Lake, Leduc, Duvernay Formations) transgression was infilled by a progradationat sequence
set, each sequence of which consists of distal terrigencus mudstones (stippled) and proximal carbonates (bricks). Infitling of
accommodation space in this fashion is the only way in which late Frasnian age shallow-water ramps (Grosmont, Nisku Formations,
and Camrose Member) could prograde into the basin. Length of section c. 150 km. After Stoakes (1980).
CARBONATE RAMP DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS
shelves (e.g. Purser, 1973; Eberli and Ginsburg,
1987, 1988), has yet to be properly investigated
with respect to carbonate ramp systems. Presum-
ably, leeward ramps might show stronger progra-
dation or even lower slope angles, with a ten-
dency towards more tabular geometries, and less
abundant grainstone than those in windward set-
tings. Moreover, in windward locations, sediment
can be removed from the coastal environment by
longshore drift or wind deflation of beaches or
shoals. To illustrate this point, we estimate that
the volume of oolitic sediment removed by defla-
tion from beaches and shoals along the windward
Trucial Coast of the Arabian Gulf, and incorpo-
rated in the onshore dune belt of the Rub al
Khali, would have been sufficient to allow addi-
tional progradation of the shoreline by up to 20
km.
A large proportion of hemipelagic mud and
silt adjacent to carbonate platforms is redis-
tributed from their flat tops by storm action
(Neumann and Land, 1975; Pilskaln et al., 1989;
Wilbur et a!., 1990). On leeward platform mar-
gins, deeper water sediment drifts of such mate-
rial formed by ocean currents may generate
large-scale, low-gradient sediment bodies with a
wedging, ramp-like geometry. These may be con-
fused with shallow-water carbonate ramps if fa-
cies information is unavailable. Seismic examples
of such features from the margin of the Great
Bahama Bank have been published by Mu!!ins et
a!. (1980).
Seismic character of carbonate ramp successions
Seismic stratigraphic and seismic facies inter-
pretations of many ramps are hindered by the
small thicknesses of ramp sequences and their
subdued morphologies (see Table 2). For this
reason, good-quality seismic data are essential for
their effective analysis. For example, ramps occur
widely as the foundation phases to major carbon-
ate platforms, or in evaporite-filled basins, and
consequent seismic-energy loss in the overlying
successions means that ramps in such situations
are commonly inadequately imaged for detailed
study.
Carbonate ramps possess no unique seismic
33
reflection characteristics. Seismic facies variations
between predominantly inner- and predominantly
outer-ramp zones may be distinguishable in situa-
tions where ramp sequences have stacked to build
a substantial basin-margin prism of distinctive
lithology. In such cases, high-amplitude continu-
ous events (with parallel, subparalle!, or basin-
wards-divergent seismic reflectors), lateral ampli-
tude changes, or tuning effects might provide
clues to the existence of inner-ramp units interca-
lated with mid- or outer-ramp mudstones. Such
interpretations can clearly be made with greater
confidence if facies transitions are suggested by
regional geological data. Individual prograding
inner-ramp units will be mostly below vertical
seismic resolution but their occurrence can be
predicted in a limited fashion if it is known where
they might be located in sedimentary sequences
as these relate to possible seismic geometries
(Burchette et a!., 1990).
Inner-ramp seismic reflectors tend to be paral-
lel (locally basinwards-divergent), fairly continu-
ous and regular (Fig. hA). In the outer ramp,
reflectors are mostly continuous and regular, but
may diverge slightly towards the basin margin
(Figs. 1 hA, 1 1B). The basina! ramp section gener-
ally has parallel, continuous character or may
consist of a seismically unresolvable condensed
section. Reflector amplitudes may decrease ba-
- sinwards if lithologies become shalier (see e.g.
Sheridan, 1981). In thicker, lens-like, portions of
the ramp, low-angle, gently sigmoidal or shingled
clinoforms may be present (Mitchum et al., 1977)
which show distinct toplap and little resolvable
topset (Fig. 11), indicating low rates of vertical
aggradation. These features are clearest on
“squashed” regional lines (Figs. hA, hiB, hiD),
which accentuate the subtle geometries, and oth-
erwise may be interpreted as parallel or subpara!-
le! continuous reflectors (e.g. Figs. ihE, 1 iF).
Areas of reflection-free, mounded, or chaotic
character (Figs. h hA, 1 iF), particularly in mid- or
outer-ramp locations, or associated with base-
ment or salt highs, may point to discrete organic
buildups or grainstone shoals. Such zones may
occur one above the other, indicating stacking of
bioherms influenced by compaction, tectonism, or
halokinesis. As in other settings, isolated buildups
34
are identifiable by a variety of direct and indirect
criteria (Fig. 1 iF), including interval thickening,
reflective outlines, drape, on!ap/down!ap, and
various velocity effects resulting in acoustic
impedance contrasts between the buildups and
the encasing facies (Bubb and Hat!e!id, 1977).
Their small size means that they may appear only
on single lines in a regional survey, making initial
size and shape determination problematic, or be
missed completely. The context and geometry of
zones with this response are clearly important.
When mapped, such zones should form isolated
lenses rather than regional trends, but where
“swarms” of closely spaced mounds are present
in areas of wide seismic grid spacing, the false
impression of a continuous platform margin may
be created. On distally steepened ramps such
zones may signify resedimented slope deposits
and will generally occur near the base of the
sequence or within the slope,
Sequence stratigraphy and controls on ramp de-
velopment
Sedimentary expression of parasequence and Se-
quence boundaries
Due to the presence of a gentle depositiona!
slope and the absence of a slope break, major
exposure and flooding surfaces on ramps are gen-
erally diachronous. The flat tops of rimmed
shelves, in contrast, flood or become exposed
rapidly during relative sea-level changes so that
events are expressed uniformly over the platform
surface. Studies of Late Mississippian flat-topped
shelves and isolated platforms in southwest and
central Britain (V.P. Wright et al., unpublished
data), for example, have shown that paleokarsts
and paleosols developed uniformly at sequence
boundaries during relative sea-level !owstands and
that the buildups drowned rapidly during subse-
quent rises. Early Mississippian ramps, however,
show marked variations in the degree of pale-
okarst and paleoso! development in transects up
the regional dip, with the most mature in proxi-
ma! areas. Drowning in the latter cases was
demonstrably protracted, due to the ramp geome-
try, and occurred via a migratingbrackish interval
which is characterized by early dolomitization.
T.P. BURCHETIE AND V.P.WRIGHT
In many ramps, inner-ramp deposits are car-
bonate-dominated while outer-ramp sediments
comprise siliciclastic mudstones. Prominent cx-
amples include the Frasnian Nisku Formation of
the West Canada Basin (Watts, 1988), the Early
Mississippian ramp of southwest Britain
(Burchette, h987), and the Late Jurassic and Early
Cretaceous of the Vercours, southern France
(Jaquin et al., 1991). Drowning at sequence
boundaries in such cases is commonly marked, as
in siliciclastic systems, by abrupt upward facies
shifts from inner-ramp shoreline carbonates to
outer-ramp terrigenous mudstones or argilla-
ceous limestones which then shoal upwards, as a
result of progradation, to the next inner-ramp
unit. Identification of flooding surfaces in succes-
sions with such facies contrasts can be less prob-
lematic, particularly on wireline logs, than in
clay-free successions where one carbonate unit
rests directly upon another. Rimmed shelf sys-
tems show this relationship more rarely, at least
on the high-order sequence at parasequence scale,
for the simple reasons that shallow-water facies
in these settings drown less readily or are signifi-
cantly elevated above the basin floor where most
fine-grained siliciclastic sediment accumulates.
Such transitions abound in ramp shoreline sue-
cessions, but they do not always hold sequence
stratigraphic significance. The presence of dis-
tinctive lithologies (soils, calcretes, karst) or read-
ily identifiable condensed sections (sedimentary
ironstones, g!auconites, phosphates, black shales,
possibly with concentrated biotic assemblages),
may allow the further recognition of sequence
boundaries and flooding surfaces, respectively
(Loutit et a!., 1988; Burchette, h992). The pres-
ence of clearly defined condensed sections can be
particularly useful where nearshore sediments and
the overlying transgressive offshore facies are of
similar lithology.
Sequence and parasequence organization
As in other depositional systems, the internal
sequence architecture and sequence stacking pat-
terns of carbonate ramps (Fig. 13) reflect the
frequency and scale of base-level excursions and
the response of the depositional system to changes
Fig. 13. Likely sequence stratigraphic components of a “homoclinat” carbonate ramp using the example of a grainstone-donlinated system with outer-ramp buildups and a
well-developed lowstand systems tract. Note that lowstand inner-ramp grainstones rest abruptly upon outer-ramp mudstones (although erosion may be slight), and well-developed,
backstepping shorelines in the transgressive systems tract, These may comprise barrier or beach grainstones on a high-energy ramp or be packstone-dominated on a tow-energy
ramp. The locations of outer- and mid-ramp buildups may be influenced by the “slope crest” morphology of the underlying sequence or by extrinsic factors such as hatokinesis or
tectonism. In the mid-ramp zone, the vertical succession generated by ramp progradation’coarsens up from outer-ramp mudstones to inner-ramp grainstones overtain by thin
tagoonal sediments. The offshore equivatent of the transgressive systems tract may be a phosphatic or glauconitic condensed section.
36
in accommodation space on several scales. The
basic building blocks of ramp sequences similarly
consist of small-scale shoaling depositional cycles
(cf. Elrick and Read, 1991; Read et a!., 1991).
The relatively small thickness of “third-order”
ramp sequences, rarely more than 200 m, reflects
the generally limited accommodation space avail-
able in the adjacent basins during their develop-
ment. Individual ramp sequences also show little
potential for vertical (-keep-up) growth during
flooding events, except locally as small, isolated
buildups (e.g. Read, 1985). Whole ramp “stacks”,
how~ver,may show cumulative vertical accretion
in response to long-term relative sea-level rises
(e.g. Burchette et al., 1990), generating layered
successions, with a range of subtle geometries
comprising superposed, strongly progradationa!
ramp sequences separated by incipient drowning
or backstepping events characterized by deeper-
water facies.
In common with siliciclastic systems, the sedi-
mentary character, and to a degree the architec-
ture, of carbonate ramp systems tracts are depen-
dent on the environmental energy of the basinal
setting in which the they develop. Some “high-en-
ergy” ramps show clear transgressive systems
tracts characterized by discrete stacked or back-
stepping (retrogradational) fourth- and fifth-
order sequences, followed by rapid progradation
in the late transgressive and highstand systems
tracts in which high-order sequences are less
clearly defined (i.e. flooding events are less clearly
expressed) (Fig. 13). “Low-energy” ramps also
exhibit transgressive and highstand systems tracts,
although with poorly defined packstone-dominat-
ed fourth- and fifth-order sequences in both. The
following paragraphs represent summaries of the
main characteristics of ramp depositional systems
tracts in an “idealized” ramp sequence.
Characteristics of lowstand systems tracts
Carbonate ramps show varied responses to rel-
ative sea-level fall, depending on the rate and
magnitude of the fall, the duration of the low-
stand, the accommodation space remaining within
the basin, and the character of inner-ramp sedi-
ments. In response to a small relative sea-level
T.P. BURCHETFE AND V.P. WRIGHT
fall (4/5th order), facies belts on a homoclina!
ramp are likely to shift basinwards in an offlap
fashion. A tract of the inner ramp will become
exposed (Figs. 10, hhB), but a broad substrate will
remain over the sites of the previous mid- and
outer ramp to form the shallow-water portion of
a strongly progradationa! system. Because of the
low slope angle, there may be little change in the
character of ramp sediments between highstand
and !owstand systems tracts. It may thus be diffi-
cult to distinguish between shoreface or shoal
sediments of the highstand systems tract and those
of any subsequent !owstand succession unless this
is revealed by the distribution of karst, ca!cretiza-
tion, or zones of meteoric diagenesis, and the
proximal part of the lowstand inner-ramp tract
may be amalgamated with the distal portion of
the previous highstand inner ramp (Fig. 13).
A larger relative sea-level fall (3rd order), cx-
ceeding the depth of fair-weather wave base, is
necessary for lowstand inner-ramp sediments to
be completely divorced from those of the previ-
ous highstand systems tract, but the expression of
such a “forced regression” will be strongly depen-
dent on the rate of the fall, the gradient of the
slope, and the depth of the basin. Where relative
sea-level fall is rapid, there may be abrupt “out-
of-sequence” shallowing of the depositional envi-
ronment over the mid- and outer ramp (Fig. 13),
indicating the development of a !owstand pro-
grading wedge. Probable examples of this have
been documented in oo!itic grainstones (Van
Steenwinkel, h990) and outer-ramp Waulsortian
buildups (Faulkner, 1989; Burchette et al., 1990)
in the Mississippian of Europe and might be
sought in ramp sequences elsewhere. An example
from a distally steepened ramp has been docu-
mented from the Early Cretaceous of the Ver-
cours, southern France (Jacquin et al., 1991). The
whole of the inner ramp becomes exposed and
karstified during a 3rd-order lowstand, and fluvia!
si!iciclastic sediments may also overlie or incise
into the previous highstand inner-ramp sediments
(cf. Wright, 1986). Because slope angles on homo-
clinal ramps are so low, lowstand “slope fans” or
“aprons” of resedimented material do not de-
velop, although these may be a feature of some
distally steepened ramps (Jacquin et a!., 199h). In
CARBONATE RAMP DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS
restricted basins, relative sea-level lowstands may
lead to the deposition of evaporites. One example
occurs in the Jurassic Hanifa Formation of the
Arabian Gulf (Wright et a!., 1990; Droste, 1991).
In these situations, prograding sabkha and sub-
aqueous evaporite complexes may develop,
- be capped by thin condensed sections consisting
Characteristics of transgressive systems tracts
On high-energy ramps, cumulative small-scale
fluctuations within a longer-term relative sea-level
rise may generate a set of stacked or backstep-
ping and onlapping (retrograde) fourth- or fifth-
order sequences consisting of beach, barrier-is-
land, or barrier-shoal carbonate grainstones and
associated shoreface and transitional sediments
(Fig. 13) (e.g. Burchette et al., 1990; Elrick and
Read, 1991). Such units are generally a few me-
tres to tens of metres in thickness, commonly
preserved intact by “in-place drowning”, and
dominated by bioc!astic sediment production (e.g.
Aigner, h984, p. 150). Shoreline progradation for
several kilometres may occur even within ramp
transgressive systems tracts. Clearly, the style and
continuity of backstepping depends on the rate
any relative sea-level rise and sediment rework-
ing, and situations occur in which shorelines are
laterally widely spaced in dip section, closely
spaced, or vertically stacked, or even replaced by
simple ravinements overlain by offshore carbon-
ate sands. For this style of deposition, models
developed for siliciclastic sedimentation during
the Holocene transgression on the eastern shelf
of the U.S.A. are useful for comparison (Sanders
and Kumar, 1975; Swift, 1975; Heward, h98h).
On low-energy ramps, fourth or fifth-order
sequences in the transgressive systems tract con-
sist mostly of packstone and wackestone sedi-
ments and contain high-energy grainstones only
as local shoals. Such sequences are similarly dom-
mated by offshore bioclastic sediment production
(echinoderm—bryozoan, or large foraminiferan
packstones), perhaps reflecting slow rates of sedi-
melt production in shoreline facies belts. Exam-
ples of this depositiona! style occur in the Per-
mian San Andres Formation of New Mexico, the
“bank” foundation stages for many Devonian iso-
lated buildups in the West Canada Basin (e.g. the
37
Cooking Lake and Swan Hills platforms) and the
Devonian “Schwe!m” facies of Europe
(Burchette, 1981), and the Triassic (Muschelka!k)
of Spain (Calvet et a!., 1990).
In transgressive settings where drowning of
high-order ramp sequences entails strong land-
ward shifts of the shorelines (Fig. 13), they may
of distinctive facies such as black shales, phos-
phatic mudstones, or glauconitic or chamositic
ironstones (Burchette, 1992). Exposure, charac-
terized by pa!aeokarst, palaeosols, or dissolution,
is rarely evident except in the subaerial portions
of barrier islands or in some inner ramps. Since
ramps show little potential for continuous vertical
accretion during transgressions, the flooding sur-
faces are mostly readily identifiable, even in the
inner-ramp setting.
Isolated buildups in ramp depositional systems
develop mostly during the transgressive and early
highstand systems tracts, when sediment input to
the offshore environment is reduced. They may
become swamped by progradation during the later
highstand systems tract. Nevertheless, isolated
buildups may continue to develop during several
ramp depositional sequences.
Characteristics of highstand systems tracts
Highstand ramp facies belts prograde strongly
seaward (Fig. 13), are commonly grainier than
those in the transgressive systems tracts (see e.g.
Aigner, 1984; Burchette et a!., 1990) and seem to
be more commonly oo!itic. Shoal deposits tend to
dominate over beach or barrier-island deposi-
tional systems and restricted or lagoona! facies
make up a larger proportion of the inner ramp
than at other times. The potential for slope
steepening and clinoforming is greater at this
stage in ramp sequence development, since sedi-
ment production must infi!! accommodation space
created during the transgressive and early high-
stand systems tracts (Fig. 13). A vertical section
through the highstand succession may show
stacked, upward-shal!owing, coarsening and
thickening-upwards fourth- or fifth-order se-
quences culminating in shoreface grainstones or
thin lagoonal sediments (Figs. 4, 13) capped by
karstic surfaces which become more pronounced
38 T.P. BURCHETFE AND V.P. WRIGHT

upwards within the stack as the upper sequence
boundary is approached.
Because Holocene carbonate platforms have
barely reached equilibrium with the post-glacial
sea-level rise, their histories have been largely
transgressive, and it is not sensible to use modern
ramps as exact analogues for the highstand de-
posits of ancient ramp depositional systems. Is
the ramp model of a depositiona! system in which
the high-energy zone is displaced towards the
shoreline therefore really only typical of the low-
stand and transgressive systems tracts of ramp
sequences?
Responses to relative sea-level changes: ramps vs.
rimmed shelves
Factors which determine the response of a
carbonate system to a relative sea-level change
are the steepness of its basinward slope, the
depth of the adjacent basin, and the magnitude of
the fall (see Sch!ager, 1991; also Table 3). The
responses in sediment production for different
sea-level stands on carbonate rimmed shelves and
ramps are therefore markedly different.
Sediment production on most carbonate
rimmed shelves (Fig. 14A) is greater during rela-
tive sea-level highstands (when the whole plat-
form surface is flooded) than during intervening
lowstands (Haak and Schiager, 1989; Schlager,
1991). A base-level fall of just a few metres, on
the scale of many 4th- and 5th-order relative
sea-level variations, may expose the whole inte-
nor of a flat-topped carbonate platform (inc!ud-
ing those with ramp margins), potentially hun-
dreds of kilometres across (Fig. h4A). Carbonate
production during lowstands may continue, but at
a reduced rate and is restricted to the old plat-
form slope, unless lower slope and basin floor
environments are forced into the photic zone.
This causes marked asymmetry in the rate of
sediment production with respect to relative sea-
level high- and !owstands for rimmed shelves and
is commonly expressed as an alternation in the
composition of sediments in the adjacent basin
(e.g. Droxler and Schlager, 1985; Boardman et
al., 1986). The absence of she!f-lagoonal systems
with which to “boost” highstand sediment pro-
duction in most ramp systems suggests that this
highstand vs lowstand contrast in periplatform

A Accretionary rimmed shelf

Fig. 14. Schematic profiles of (A) a rimmed shelf, and (B) a ramp showing the effects of minor changes in relative sea level. Note
how even a small relative sea-level fall may expose the whole surface of a flat-topped rimmed shelf and restrict lowstand carbonate
sedimentation to a narrow rim along the old platform slope unless the tower slope and basin floor enter the photic zone. On a
ramp, facies belts will shift basinward over the ramp surface without significant interruption producing a “towstand prograding
wedge”. Stippled areas represent notional lowstand deposits.
CARBONATE RAMP DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS 39

sediments is likely to be less pronounced, a!-
though the topic is largely uninvestigated.
The contrast in response to base level changes
between the different platform types can be mod-
elled using modern examples (Figs. 15A—h5C),
although it is worth re-emphasising in this context
that modern carbonate platforms offer no good
analogues for highstand sedimentation on ramps,
since they have barely re-equilibrated with post-
glacial sea-level stand (Schlager, 1981). A 1—2 m
proportion of most flat-topped platforms (e.g.
Great Bahama Bank), but would have little effect
on the character of a “homoclinal” ramp (e.g.
southern Arabian Gulf or Shark Bay). A 10 m fall
in relative sea level (the scale of many fourth-
order cycles), would expose the whole of the
platform interior of a major rimmed shelf and
relegate shallow water carbonate production to
narrow, unstable strips along the old platform
margin (Cook and Taylor, 1991) as a “shelf-margin -

fall in relative sea-level would expose a significant wedge” (Figs. 1 1A, 15C). The same relative sea-

Fig. 15. Sketch maps of modern carbonate platforms drawn at the same scale, showing the proportion of the platform surface which
woutd be exposed for relative sea-level falls of 10 m (black areas), 100 m (stippled areas), and 200 m (blank) based on sub-sea
contours derived from nautical charts. Arrows represent the dominant wind directions. (A) Arabian Gulf, homoclinat ramp. (B)
Shark Bay, Australia, homoctinal ramp. (C) Great Bahama Bank, rimmed shelf. (D) Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico, distally steepened
ramp. (E) West Florida Shelf, distally steepened ramp. Note that for a 10 m fall, only the marginal areas of all ramps will be
exposed. Facies belts simply shift seawards, while the whole of the flat rimmed shelf platform top (C) would be exposed. For a 100
m fall, basins with homoclinat ramps would be drained, white the margins of rimmed shelves and distally steepened ramps adjacent
to deep basins would retain some substrate for towstand sediment production. The expression of these effects would clearly depend
on the rate and scale of the base level fall, the depth of the basin, and the steepness of the original depositional slope.
40
level fall on a carbonate ramp would expose a
20—50 km tract of the inner and mid-ramp (Figs.
11B, h5A, h5B), but much of the mid- and outer
ramp would remain in or enter a favourable envi-
ronment for lowstand shallow-water carbonate
production, although basinal restriction might
well increase.
Major relative sea-level falls of the order of
100 m, typical of the most recent glaciation, would
entirely expose modern carbonate ramps (Figs.
h5A, 1SB). Basins such as the Arabian Gulf and
Shark Bay would empty completely to become
lacustrine or fluvial systems (e.g. Purser and
Evans, 1973). Major rimmed shelves adjacent to
deep basins would continue growth in !owstand
mode as narrow shelves rimming the foot of the
old platform slope or escarpment (Fig. h5C), as
documented in Belize (James and Ginsburg, 1979)
and the Caribbean (Eberli and Ginsburg, 1988).
Modern distally steepened ramps, because they
lie adjacent to deep basins, would behave as
ramps during minor base-level falls, but might
become rimmed shelves during larger falls (Figs.
h5D, i5E). Drowned highs in the outer ramp in
deeper -basins may become, or be reactivated as,
the sites of shallow-water carbonate production
during relative sea-level lowstands. In all cases,
therefore, although there have been downward
shifts in coastal onlap, with shal!owing of offshore
depositional environments, there are marked im-
plications for sedimentation patterns and sedi-
ment volumes produced for different scales of
relative sea-level fall.
Evolution to distally steepened ramps and rimmed
shelves
A common phenomenon in the geological
record is the evolution of a “homochinal” ramp
into a distally steepened ramp or rimmed shelf
(Read, 1982a, 1985). Steepening of the basinward
slope may be tectonica!!y driven (e.g. through
differential subsidence, extensional faulting), in-
herited (e.g. an antecedent delta, siliciclastic shelf,
or carbonate platform slope), or it may occur
intrinsically, as a result of differential sedimenta-
tion between the basin margin and the basin
centre. The latter process seems to be cumulative
T.P. BURCHE~FEAND V.P. WRIGHT
and becomes accentuated from one sequence to
the next, forming a progradational and aggrada-
tiona! sequence set. Different responses might be
expected between windward and leeward mar-
gins, or where the outer ramp has a higher sedi-
mentation rate due to pelagic input, as in Late
Jurassic and Cenozoic examples (cf. Mullins et
a!., 1988). The nature of the sediments generated
probably also influences the ramp-to-rimmed
shelf transition, since mud will build much
lower-gradient slopes than grainy material
(Kenter and Schlager, 1989; Kenter, 1990).
Where the slope break is inherited, as in the
Late Cretaceous and Tertiary of the Gulf of
Mexico (Mullins et al., 1988), or due to tectonic
movement, the final geometric effect on the ramp
will depend on slope height, water depth, and the
position on the ramp in which the slope break
occurs. Ramps rarely seem capable of generating
adequate volumes of sediment to infihl such to-
pography in order to prograde over the -break in
slope, so that full vertical sections from base-of-
slope-apron to inner ramp are rare in such sys-
tems. Modern examples of distally steepened
ramps which have inherited a pre-existing slope
occur on the Yucatan and Florida peninsulas
(Read, 1985) and along the northwestern margin
of Australia (Dix, 1989). Ancient examples of
tectonically controlled distally steepened ramps
occur in the Mississippian of northern England
(Gawthorpe, 1986; Ebdon et a!., 1990), the Mis-
sissippian Banff Formation of the West Canada
Basin (Chatellier, 1988), and the Early Creta-
ceous of the Vercours, southern France (Jacquin
et a!., 1991).
Although overall carbonate productivity on
ramps is low, rates of sediment accumulation in
the inner and mid-ramp may still be significantly
higher than in the adjacent basin. Presumably,
where unable to prograde beyond the critical
point at which sediment production fails to fill
basinal topography sufficiently to allow inner-
ramp facies to step out, the system will tend to
“stick and stack”. The cumulative effect, as ac-
commodation space in the basin increases, must
be to enhance elevation between the carbonate-
dominated margin and the basin, steepening the
ramp distally or promoting its further develop-
CARBONATE RAMP DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS
ment as a rimmed shelf. Published examples from
different tectonic settings where this process
might be inferred are the Late Devonian Gros-
mont Formation of the Alberta Basin (Cutler,
1983), the Early Jurassic of the US eastern
seaboard (Gamboa et a!., 1985), and the Late
Jurassic/Early Cretaceous of the Neuquén Basin
in Argentina (Mitchum and Uliana, 1985).
Isolated buildups
The factors which control the growth and de-
velopment of isolated buildups on ramps are
poorly known and little has been published on
the locations of such buildups in a sequence
stratigraphic context, a remarkable fact in view of
their economic importance in many areas. Such
structures are diverse and presumably may seed
at any stage within a ramp sequence as long as
suitable substrates are available and the rate of
relative sea-level rise does not exceed the sedi-
ment production rate of the buildup. In reality
they are commonest during the transgressive sys-
tems tracts of ramp sequences. Presumably, as in
other settings situations most favourable for
buildups development will be those of elevated
topographic relief, low turbidity, and higher nu-
trient or -light availability. Isolated buildups on
ramps may stack one upon the other (cf. James,
1984). This commonly reflects either a persistent
tectonic or halokinetic control, or compaction
over a previous buildup. Documented examples
of this phenomenon occur in the Silurian of the
Michigan basin (Mesolella et a!., 1974), and in
the Upper Devonian of Europe (Burchette, 1981)
and the West Canada Basin (Chevron Standard,
1979).
Some buildups are constructed predominantly
by deeper-water biotas (e.g. some Waulsortian
and other mudmounds), while others are decid-
edly shallow water structures (e.g. many Creta-
ceous and Tertiary buildups). Some, such as Si!-
urian and Late Devonian stromatoporoid buildups
of Europe, the U.S.A., and Canada, show deep-
water btotas (pioneer stage) and muddy facies at
the base with an upwards transition to progres-
sively shallower-water biotas (domination stage)
and grainy or boundstone facies (e.g. Sears and
41
Lucia, 1980; Burchette, 1981; Toomey, 1981;
Dixon and Graf, 1992). Given this diversity, it is
difficult to generalise factors which might initiate
and maintain mound growth within ramp settings.
Many outer-ramp buildups, however, appear to
have accreted predominantly vertically and have
thus maintained pace with relative sea-level rises.
This suggests that where there are no over-riding
tectonic controls (extensional fault/salt move-
ment) many buildups seed at the start of a trans-
gression (or conceivably during the preceding
!owstand), before maximum rates of relative sea-
level rise are achieved, and develop during the
transgressive systems tracts of depositional se-
quences when the shallow ramp is backstepping
or drowning and fine-grained carbonate or ter-
rigenous pollution in the outer ramp is minimal.
Few isolated buildups seem to grow directly from
surviving portions of the preceding shallow-water
ramps as widely assumed (cf. Kendall and
Sch!ager, 1981; Read, h982a), but they do com-
mon!y seed around the margins of drowned ramps
(e.g. Upper Devonian of the West Canada Basin),
suggesting in many cases that subtle slope mor-
phology, possibly a previous ramp slope “crest”
or lowstand shoal, may have controlled their loca-
tion (cf. Fig. 13).
During late highstand phases, as the rate of
relative sea-level rise decreases, isolated mounds
may expand or be engulfed by prograding shal-
low-water sediments (cf. Burchette and Britton,
1985; Watts, 1988). Buildups which grow through
several ramp sequences also reflect relative sea-
level fluctuations in concert with the shallow ramp
(Fig. 13), tending to expand during highstands,
commonly with late-stage exposure, but drown or
partially drown during transgressive events (Sears
and Lucia, 1979, 1980; Chevron Standard, 1979;
Watts et a!., 1992). Buildups in deeper-water,
outer-ramp settings may show evidence for shal-
lowing, but not necessarily exposure, related to
relative sea-level lowstands (see e.g. Burchette et
a!., 1990; Faulkner, 1989).
.
Early diagenesis
Conceptual models for early diagenesis in ramp
depositional systems are significantly different to
those for rimmed shelves and isolated buildups.
42 T.P. BURCHETITE AND V.P.WRIGHT

This is because porewater circulation patterns to their steep-sided morphology, exposure to a

within the end-member platform types are di-
recthy related to the markedly different platform
morphologies and the influence of relative sea-
level changes (Figs. 13, 14).
Major rimmed and isolated platforms exhibit a
range of porewater circulation mechanisms due
deep sea-water column, and variable geothermal
heat flow (-Figs. h6A, 16B, 17A, h7B). These
mechanisms also vary in importance depending
on sea-level stand. Highstand porewater move-
ment within the Great Bahama Bank is driven by
several mechanisms: Kohout convection, reflux,

HIGHSTAND

Fig. 16. Likely porewater circulation systems for isolated buildups, rimmed shelves, and ramps during a relative sea-level highstand.
These diagrams illustrate the simpler hydrology expected in ramps compared with steeper-margined rimmed platforms and isolated
buildups. The isolated platform model is based on the example of the Great Bahama Bank. Ramps are probably less influenced by
marine porewater circulation than other platforms, but because they are mostly attached to land masses they may be subject to
more meteoric influence, even during relative sea-level highstands. Conversely, early marine -cementation and sea-water dotomitiza-
tion are likely to be less prominent.
CARBONATE RAMP DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS 43

and head differences on several scales driven
largely by tidal, oceanic, and storm currents
(Whitaker and Smart, 1990). Fluid circulation in
ramps will depend much more on wave and tidal
pumping, which radically affects the distribution
of diagenetic phases such as early cementation
and dolomitization compared with rimmed
shelves. Kohout convection is not a significant
circulatory mechanism in ramp settings. The lack
of extensive hypersaline platform interiors in
many ramps compared with broad, flat-topped
rimmed shelves will also result in reduced oppor-
tunity for brine generation, so that large-scale
reflux is only likely to occur where the ramp is
backed by a broad hypersahine lagoon (Figs. h6C,
h7C). By virtue of their shallow depositional

LOWSTAN D

Fig. 17. Likely porewater circulation systems for isolated buildups, rimmed shelves, and ramps during a relative sea-level towstand.
Note the distribution of meteoric tenses in the different platform types and the development of buoyant circulation systems which
promote seawater mixing. Note that meteoric water, driven by hydrostatic head, can extend downdip beyond the shoreline and
discharge at the sea floor.
44 T.P. BURCHETFE AND V.P. WRIGHT

slopes, ramps will also be less likely to develop
marine porewater circulatory systems capable of
causing seawater dolomitization. The extensive
early marine cementation associated with reef
fronts in rimmed shelves and large isolated
buildups will be absent from ramp systems and
restricted to the shoreface (beach rock), shoals,
and minor buildups where porewater circulation
is largely due to wave-, storm-surge, and small-
scale tidal pumping.
In ramps, typically attached to a shoreline,
meteoric recharge of porewaters is a significant
factor in all stages of sea-level stand, particularly
if the hinterland is sufficiently elevated to gener-
ate hydraulic head (Figs. 16C, 17C). Buoyant
circulation between the meteoric and seawater
systems will be a major mechanism creating a
porewater flux capable of forcing diagenetic
change. The meteoric phreatic zone may extend
offshore, below sea-level, as in the Arabian Gulf
(Chafetz et al., 1988), and as has been shown for
several ancient systems including the Smackover
Formation of the US Gulf Coast (Moore, 1989)
and the Corallian (Upper Jurassic) of southern
England (Sun, 1990). For this reason, ramps may
be preferred sites for mixing-zone diagenesis or
leaching (Figs. 16C, 17C) and, with their corn-
monly sheet-like sequence geometries, may form

Fig. 18. Potential locations of stratigraphic traps within sequence tracts of a carbonate ramp with a well-developed lowstand
prograding system (cf. Fig. 13). (A) Isolated buildups developed during drowning of parasequence or sequence and encased in
onlapping or downlapping highstand mudstones (e.g. Pembina trend, Upper Devonian West Canada Basin). (B) Isolated buildup or
shoal developed over high (salt diapir, fault block, etc.) in offshore location and covered by mudstones (e.g. Smackover Formation,
Upper Jurassic, Gulf Coast, U.S.A.). (C) Pinchout of inner-ramp carbonate sands into tight offshore facies where regional dip has
been reversed (e.g. Mishrif Formation, mid-Cretaceous, southern Arabian Gulf). (D) Karstification of mid- and inner-ramp
sediments at major sequence boundary (e.g. Ellenburger Formation, Ordovician, southwestern U.S.A.). (B) Truncation of dipping
inner- and mid-ramp carbonates at a regional unconformity (e.g. Grosmont Formation, Upper Devonian, West Canada Basin). (F)
Lowstand deposits isolated from previous highstand inner ramp and sealed by onlapping or downlapping outer-ramp or basinal
muds (conceptual—examples unknown to the authors). (G) Carbonate grainstone bodies, e.g. barrier islands, isolated by shoreline
facies disposition (e.g. Mississippian, Paradox and Williston Basins, U.S.A.). (H) Individual carbonate grainstone shoals, tidal bars,
channels, or patch reefs isolated within sealing facies of inner or mid ramp (e.g. Silurian, Oklahoma, U.S.A.; Upper Jurassic, Paris
Basin, France). (I) Updip pinchout of inner-ramp shoreline grainstone into tight inner-ramp facies (e.g. San Andres Formation,
Delaware Basin, west Texas). Key as in Fig. 13, except black: tight mid- and outer-ramp facies (notional seal); mottled: organic
buildup; horizontal lines: terrigenous mudstones (seal).
CARBONATE RAMP DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS
ready conduits for basin-derived fluids expressed
by compaction and thermal maturation.
Economic aspects
More emphasis is traditionally placed by cx-
plorationists on depositiona! models for
petroleum exploration and development in car-
bonate rimmed shelves or in large isolated
buildups than in ramp systems. However, ramps
too form major reservoir zones in some of the
world’s most prolific petroleum provinces and
offer different, commonly more subtle play types
than many rimmed shelves, with wide opportuni-
ties for stratigraphic and structural trapping and
lateral variations in reservoir quality (Fig. 18).
Although the controls on source rock and reser-
voir distribution in such settings are still incom-
p!etely understood, and the models applied mostly
poorly predictive, some generalities can be made
and are discussed in the following sections. Com-
ments will be restricted to situations where origi-
na! ramp depositional environments have been
largely responsible for the stratigraphic trapping
of petroleum. However, because they have such
wide areal distribution, many ramps are also the
sites of structural or halokinetic traps. Many giant
fields in the Arabian Gulf, for example, are the
product of upwarping of Mesozoic or Tertiary
carbonate ramp sediments over basement highs
or over diapirs rooted in the deeply buried Pro-
terozoic Hormuz salt.
Low-energy ramps are mostly sparse in poten-
tia! reservoir facies unless downslope buildups or
incipient organic rims are developed (Read, 1985),
or they lie in situations where the timing of
diagenesis (e.g. dolomitization, karst, fracturing)
in relation to petroleum migration have been
particularly favourable. High-energy ramps in
contrast commonly possess a wide range of reefoid
facies and carbonate sandbody types (see e.g.
Handford, 1988).
Reservoirs in organic buildups
A common location for petroleum reservoirs in
ramp systems is in organic buildups (Fig. 17).
These features have exhibited a wide range of
45
organic and sedimentary facies through time (Fig.
6) and this diversity is reflected in variations in
their reservoir potential. In the Cambrian and
Early Ordovician, mud-textured buildups were
dominant and restricted to outer-ramp environ-
ments. In the later Ordovician, Silurian and Early
Devonian, framebuilding organisms, such as stro-
matoporoids and corals, formed a larger propor-
tion of such buildups in both shallow and
deeper-water settings and generated textural di-
versity which improved their primary reservoir
potential and susceptibility to secondary diage-
netic alteration. Petroleum-bearing buildups of
these ages are common. Well-developed outer-
ramp buildup reservoirs occur in the Silurian and
Devonian of the U.S.A. and Canada. Silurian
examples occur in the intracratonic settings of the
Illinois (Whitaker, 1988), Williston (Wilson, 1975)
and Michigan Basins (Sears and Lucia, 1979).
Devonian ramp-buildup reservoirs occur widely
in the West Canada Basin and the Wi!liston
Basin. In the Late Devonian and Early Carbonif-
erous, Late Permian, and the Triassic, mid- and
outer-ramp buildups were again predominantly
mud-textured and seem to form relatively few
petroleum reservoirs. In the Late Carboniferous
and Early Permian, however, a variety of organ-
isms, most prominent of which were the phylloid
and related algae, created texturally varied
buildups which in some areas (e.g. West Texas
and New Mexico, in the U.S.A. and the Timan
Pechora and North Caspian Basins in Russia and
Kazakhstan) form prolific petroleum reservoirs in
mid-ramp locations. Petroleum reservoirs also oc-
cur in outer-ramp coral—algal buildups in some
Jurassic ramps, such as the Smackover Formation
of the US Gulf Coast (Baria et a!., 1982). In the
Cretaceous and Tertiary, reservoirs in outer-ramp
buildups are rare and most occur in inner-ramp
settings, as in the Sunniland Basin in South
Florida (Halley, 1985). -
Buildups in mid- or outer-ramp locations com-
monly form ideal stratigraphic traps sealed by
onlapping basinal facies or by downlapping,
mud-textured distal highstand sediments (Figs.
10, 15). In exceptional cases, additional or alter-
native seal may be provided by subsequent low-
stand deposits where these comprise tight periti-
46
dal facies (e.g. the Wolf Lake Member of the
Nisku Formation in the West Alberta Basin;
Watts, 1988) or evaporites (e.g. Droste, 1990).
Where buildups are stacked one upon the other,
petroleum reservoirs may be “multistorey”. Doc-
umented examples occur in the Silurian of the
Michigan Basin (Mesolella, 1974) and in the Dc-
vonian of the West Canada Basin (Chevron Stan-
dard, 1979).
Isolated buildups lie ideally situated in an in-
termediate location which will be on any updip
migration path for petroleum generated from
source rocks in the same fairway. Buildups in
outer-ramp settings may lie in juxtaposition with
petroleum source rocks developed in transgres-
sive systems tracts and receive their hydrocarbon
charge directly by lateral migration. However, the
small isolated buildups associated with many
ramps have limited “footprint” areas, so that in
situations where they are charged indirectly some
mechanism to focus petroleum migration and
thereby facilitate reservoir filling may be neces-
sary. This is assisted by their development on
topographic or tectonic highs. In a few docu-
mented cases, migration seems to have been fo-
cussed into large isolated buildups, giant fields,
by subtle depositional or secondary topography in
an underlying ramp sequence (e.g. Stoakes and
Creaney, 1985).
Buildup shape and location may reflect tec-
tonic, topographic or hydrographic control. The
thickness of ramp buildup reservoirs is seldom
greater than 100—200 m (not necessarily sea-floor
relief), but larger buildups several tens of kilome-
tres across, forming giant oil and gas fields, may
develop during or following ramp drowning (e.g.
Swan Hills and Leduc reefs in the West Canada
Basin). In places, several small mounds may
amalgamate to form a single larger buildups, as
seen on seismic lines from the Permian of the
Finnmark area, Barents Shelf (Gerard and
Buhrig, 1990). Ramp organic buildups commonly
form “swarms” numbering tens to hundreds and,
although they individually constitute small reser-
voirs, of the order of only 5—50 million barrels of
oil, such trends can represent large gross re-
serves. Examples of such fairways occur in: the
Frasnian Nisku Pembina trend of the West
T.P. BURCHETFE AND V.P. WRIGHT
Canada Basin (gross reserves 1.8 billion barrels of
oil equivalent in over 50 producing mounds); the
Silurian of the northern Michigan reef belt (400
+ mounds) and the Illinois Basin (Coburn, 1986);
and buildups in the Mississippian (see list in
Kosters et a!., 1989) and Pennsylvanian (Strawn
Formation) of north-central Texas (e.g. Wer-
mund, 1975; Hopkins and Ahr, 1986).
Organic buildups, if numerous, may restrict
circulation at the sea floor and contribute to the
development and preservation of organic-rich
sediments, particularly in a transgressive systems
tract when vertical growth is dominant. This phe-
nomenon will be accentuated during times of
regional or global oceanic anoxia. Examples of
organic-rich deposits which occur in association
with drowning of carbonate ramps are known
from the Late Devonian of the West Canada
Basin (Stoakes and Creaney, 1985), Europe
(Krebs, 1979), the Urals—Caspian area (Ulmishek,
1988), and the Late Jurassic Ma!m of southern
Germany (Meyer and Schmidt-Ka!er, 1983).
Reservoirs in grainstone-dominated ramps
Grainstone reservoirs in ramp settings (Fig. 18)
are widespread and occur in a number of configu-
rations. The composition of the grainstone sedi-
ments may also vary (e.g. oolitic or bioclastic),
depending on the age and the location of the
ramp (e.g. whether windward or leeward). Reser-
voir facies range from shoreline carbonate sand-
bodies to major detached shoal complexes or
shoal complexes over offshore highs. Neverthe-
less, a general characteristic of many ramp grain-
stone reservoirs is that they are relatively thin or
layered, seldom with more than a few tens of
metres of reservoir facies in any one zone (e.g.
Thamama Formation, Arabian Gulf), and corn-
monly of wide lateral extent.
Reservoirs may occur in individual shoreline
beaches, barriers, or bars sealed by outer-ramp
terrigenous or carbonate mudstones (Figs. 18C,
18G, 18H). The proportion of reservoir to non-re-
servoir facies generally decreases basinwards over
several to a few tens of ki!ometres as the propor-
tion of offshore deposits and the amount of layer-
ing increases. Shoreline reservoirs may also pinch
CARBONATE RAMP DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS
out into lagoonal mudstones or evaporites (Fig.
181). Examples of reservoirs in shoal or
shoreline-dominated ramps occur in: the Missis-
sippian Mission Canyon Formation of the Willis-
ton Basin (Thomas and Glaister, 1960; Lindsay
and Kendall, 1985); the Mississippian St.
Genevieve Limestone of the Illinois Basin
(Choquette and Steinen, 1985); the Jurassic
Smackover Formation (Feazel, 1985; Druckinan
and Moore, 1985; Meendsen et al., 1987; Se-
queira and Ahr, 1987); the Jurassic of southern
England (Sellwood et a!., 1986) and the Paris
Basin (Purser, 1985); and the Early Cretaceous of
the Neuquén Basin in Argentina (Mitchum and
Uliana, 1985).
Several sandbody geometries are important in
grainstone-dominated ramps because they may
influence reservoir heterogeneity. Wave-dominat-
ed shoreline sandbodies produce vertical sedi-
mentary sequences coarsening upwards from
packstones and wackestones to grainstones on a
c. 10 m scale (Fig. 4), but varying in geometry and
width from string-like to sheet-like depending on
the distances prograded (Burchette et al., 1990).
Storm- or tide-dominated shoal-belt prograda-
tion, or local stacking of shoreface sands, produce
grainstone wedges or “tongues” up to several
tens of metres thick and several tens of kilome-
tres across with a range of transitions to encasing
facies. All the sandbody types may extend more
or less continuously for tens of hundreds of kilo-
metres along depositiona! strike,
Carbonate shoal-belts may comprise up to 80%
grainstone facies. However, the distal and proxi-
ma! margins of the sheets and wedges which they
generate may subdivide into decimeter packstone
or grainstone units intercalated variably with
muddy facies. More significant mudstone interca-
lations may break up the vertical continuity of the
shoal sandbodies (Burchette, 1987). In prograding
strandlines well-sorted shoreface carbonate pack-
stones/grainstones (60—70% of sandbody thick-
ness) represent the most likely potential reservoir
zones. Tidal range, wave and current regime, and
base-level behaviour control the thickness and
character of potential reservoir facies developed
at the top of such coarsening-upwards fourth- or
fifth-order sequences (cf. Hunter et a!., 1979).
47
Thick reservoir units develop mostly as a result of
stacking of discrete sha!lowing-upwards (pro-
gradational) shorelines (cf. Fig. 18C). However,
the internal heterogeneity produced by repeated
shoreline transgression and progradation within
any depositional sequence may generate laterally
extensive, but vertically subdivided sandbodies
(Figs. 18C, 18E, 18G, 181), with units of grain-
stone (upper shoreface) interbedded with mud- to
packstone-prone intervals (lower shoreface and
offshore).
Inner-ramp grainstone reservoirs may be trun-
cated or karstified updip at major sequence
boundaries or regional tectonic unconformities
(Figs. 18D, 18E), for example in foreland basins
or on passive margins. This relationship can gen-
crate sub-unconformity plays if the overlying fa-
cies form an effective seal. Examples of reservoirs
in foreland basin settings occur in the Frasnian
Grosmont Formation (Rand, 1982) and locally
the Mississippian and Triassic of the West Canada
Basin, where they are truncated updip by the
Cretaceous unconformity (Jardine and Wilshart,
1987), and the Cenomanian Mishrif Formation of
the Arabian Gulf which is overlain uncon-
formably by the Turonian Laffan Formation
(Harris et a!., 1984).
For similar reasons, inner-ramp grainstones
may also experience repeated episodes of mete-
oric diagenesis. The effects of this process, and
therefore the consequences for reservoir quality,
will depend on the duration and magnitude of
exposure, the composition (e.g. aragonite con-
tent) of the sediments, and on climate; clearly the
geologic age of the sediments will have an impor-
tant bearing in this respect. It is important in this
context to determine whether or not a sandbody
was deposited during the transgressive systems
tract or the highstand systems tract, since expo-
sure-related leaching will be of greatest magni-
tude and duration at major sequence boundaries.
Where base-level fall has been of sufficient mag-
nitude, lowstand carbonate sandbodies may be
isolated from those in the previous highstand
systems tract and sealed by onlapping and down-
lapping outer-ramp and/or basinal deposits (Fig.
18F), although the opportunity for meteoric
leaching in this location may be limited.
 48
Conclusions
(11) Carbonate ramps can be subdivided into
inner-, mid-, and outer-ramp environments. The
mid-ramp zone extends from fair-weather wave
base to normal storm wave base, although the
water depths which these represent vary. An ad-
ditional slope environment, between outer ramp
and basin, is recognizable in distally steepened
ramps.
(2) As with siliciclastic shelves, a range of
storm-, wave-, and tide-dominated carbonate
ramps can be recognized and this forms the most
appropriate basis for ramp classification. The
presence or absence of reefa! facies (as buildups),
and windward and leeward aspects, are factors
which complicate ramp classification. Muddy
ramps in low-energy and leeward situations could
be termed protected ramps.
(3) Although carbonate ramps are common in
all geological periods, they were the dominant
carbonate platform style at times when reef-con-
structing organisms were absent or inhibited.
However, a wide variety of organisms have con-
structed mounds in mid- and outer-ramp environ-
ments. Organic buildups on ramps are restricted
to isolated, predominantly mud-textured mounds
seldom more than 2 km in diameter and 200 m
thick.
(4) The carbonate productivity profile of ramps
is different to that of rimmed shelves, since the
contrast in productivity across the shoreline to
basin transition is less marked. The zone of great-
est organic carbonate production on ramps ap-
pears to have shifted from the mid-ramp to the
inner ramp since the late Jurassic.
(5) Carbonate ramps occur in most styles of
- sedimentary basin, but are largest and most corn-
mon in those where subsidence is flexural and
slow and gradients are slight over large areas.
These are mostly cratonic-interior basins, passive
continental margins, and foreland basins,
(6) The thin, featureless depositional profiles
of carbonate ramps generate no pronounced se-
quence geometries and are similar in this respect
to silicic!astic ramps. On “squashed” regional
seismic lines some carbonate ramps do show
low-angle sigmoida! or shingled clinoforms, sug-
T.P. BURCHETTE AND V.P. WRIGHT
gesting that ramps are actually seldom “homocli-
na!” but posses subtle slope geometries which
reflect the ramp depositional environments.
(7) Ramp sequence geometries, both on seis-
mic lines and in the field, are lens-like, thinning
towards shoreline and basin. Internally, ramp Se-
quences comprise lowstand, transgressive and
highstand systems tracts containing fourth- and
fifth-order sequence sets. On high-energy ramps
with wave-dominated shorelines, these may com-
prise beaches or barrier islands. The influence of
windward versus leeward locations on ramp se-
quence geometry has yet to be properly investi-
gated.
(8) Isolated buildups may seed in an early
ramp sequence and continue growth through sue-
cessive ramp sequences. They show depositional
and diagenetic features which are in concert with
sequences of the shallow ramp. They may be
engulfed by the prograding shallow ramp. The
location of isolated buildups is governed by tec-
tonism (e.g. extensional faults) or halokinesis, an-
tecedent topography (e.g. previous mound), or by
the subtle slope geometry of a previous ramp
sequence.
(9) Many ramps consist of layered successions
of several third-order ramp sequences, forming
ramp “stacks”. Ramp stacks may show gross ver-
tical accretion, but individual sequences seldom
develop in a keep-up style. Steepening of the
outer-ramp margin, due to tectonism, slope inher-
itance, or differential sedimentation may produce
a distally steepened ramp or rimmed shelf. Dif-
ferential steepening may occur within a single
ramp third-order depositional sequence.
(10) Because they are characterized by such
low-angle slopes, ramps behave differently to
rimmed shelves during changes in relative sea
level. During a minor fall, ramp depositional fa-
cies will shift basinwards and only the inner ramp
will be exposed, while on a flat-topped rimmed
shelf system, the whole of the platform interior
(potentially hundreds of km wide) may be cx-
posed. Lowstand deposits may consist of evapor-
ites in restricted basins. During a major fall sha!-
low basins with ramp margins may empty corn-
pletely, while distally steepened ramps and
rimmed shelves may develop !owstand reefal or
CARBONATE RAMP DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS
talus wedges. These responses will vary depend-
ing on basinal water depth and slope angle. Be-
cause of their low slope angle, “homoclinal”
ramps will develop no major lowstand resedi-
mented deposits. Distally steepened ramps will
behave like ramps during minor relative sea-level
falls and like rimmed shelves during major falls.
(11) Diagenesis on ramps shows major differ-
ences compared with that on steep-sloped, flat-
topped carbonate platforms. Early marine cc-
mentation is less pronounced and seawater
dolomitization driven by processes such as Ko-
hout convection is absent. On ramps, the mete-
one zone may extend for significant distances
offshore so that mixing zone dolomitization and
leaching are important processes.
(12) Ramps and their associated sediments
form prolific petroleum sourcing and reservoiring
systems and offer a range of subtle stratigraphic
play types and lateral facies variations. Isolated
buildups in the mid- or outer ramp represent one
of the commonest petroleum reservoirs in ramp
systems. Although small individually, such
buildups may occur in swarms of many hundreds.
Grainstone reservoirs on ramps are widespread
and range from shoreline carbonate sandbodies
to major detached shoal complexes or shoals over
offshore highs. Layering is a common attribute of
ramp grainstone and packstone reservoirs which
makes it crucial to approach reservoir hetero-
geneity in carbonate ramp systems using a de-
tailed sequence stratigraphic and diagenetic
model.
(13) Further critical insight into the dynamics
of carbonate ramp growth will undoubtedly result
from the use of computer simulations and recent
papers on this subject provide exciting new meth-
ods for assessing the range of factors which are
important in controlling ramp development.
Acknowledgements
We thank the numerous colleagues with whom
we have discussed at length the distribution, fa-
cies, and diagenesis of carbonate ramps, and the
controls on ramp growth. Constructive sugges-
tions by several referees, which led to improve-
49
ments to the original manuscript, are gratefully
acknowledged.
References
Ahr, W.M., 1971. Pateoenvironment, algal structures, and
fossil algae in the Upper Cambrian of central Texas. J.
Sediment. Petrol., 41: 205—216.
Ahr, W.M., 1973. The carbonate ramp—an alternative to the
shelf model. Trans., Gulf Coast Assoc. Geot. Soc., 23:
221225.
Ahr, W.M., 1989. Sedimentary and tectonic controls on the
development of an early Mississippian carbonate ramp,
Sacramento Mountains area, New Mexico. In; P.D. Crev-
ello, J.L. Wilson, J.F. Sarg and J.F. Read (Editors), Con-
trots on Carbonate Platform and Basin Development. Soc.
Econ. Paleontot. Mineral., Spec. Pubt., 44: 203—212.
Aigner, T., 1983. Facies and origin of Nummulitic buildups:
an example from the Giza Pyramids Plateau, (Middle
Eocene, Egypt). Neues Jahrb. Geot. Paläontot., Abh., 166:
347—368.
Aigner, T., 1984. Dynamic stratigraphy of epicontinentat car-
bonates, Upper Muschelkatk (M. Triassic), South-German
Basin. Neues Jahrb. Geot. Paläontol., Abh., 169: 127—159.
Aigner,
EarthT.,Sciences.
1985. Storm depositional systems.
Springer-Verlag, Lecture
Berlin, 174 pp. notes in
Allen, P.A. and Allen, JR., 1990. Basin Analysis, Principles
and Applications. Blackwetl, Oxford, 451 pp.
Anderton, R., Bridges, PH., Leeder, M.R. and Settwood,
B.W,, 1979. A Dynamic Stratigraphy of the British Isles.
George, Allen and Unwin, London, 301 pp.
Armstrong, A.K., 1974. Carboniferous carbonate depositionat
models, preliminary lithofacies and pateotectonic maps,
Arctic Alaska. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Butt., 58: 621—645.
Aurelt, M., 1991. Identification of systems tracts in low-angle
carbonate ramps: examples from the Upper Jurassic of the
Iberian Chain (Spain). Sediment. Geot., 73: 101—115.
Baria, L.R., Stoudt, D.L., Harris, P.M. and Crevetlo, P.D.,
1982. Upper Jurassic reefs of Smackover Formation, U.S.
Gulf Coast. Bull. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geot., 66: 1449—1482.
Barnaby, R.J. and Read, J.F., 1990. Carbonate ramp to
rimmed shelf evolution: Lower to Middle Cambrian conti-
nental margin, Virginia Appalachtans. Geol. Soc. Am.
Butt., 102: 391—404.
Barthet, K.W., 1969. Der Obertithonische, regressive Flach-
wasser-Phase der Neuberger Folge in Bayern. Abh., Bayer.
Alcad. Wiss., Math.-Naturwiss. KI., N.F., H142, 174 pp.
Bates, R.L. and Jackson, J.A., 1987. Glossary of Geology. Am.
Geol. Inst., Alexandria, Va., 788 pp.
Bathurst, R.G.C., 1975. Carbonate Sediments and Their Dia-
genesis. Etsevier, Amsterdam, 2nd ed., 652 pp.
Bebout, D.G. and Pendexter, C., 1975. Secondary carbonate
porosity as related to early Tertiary depositional facies,
Zetten Field, Libya. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull., 59:
665—693.
50
Bechstädt, T. and Boni, M., 1989. Tectonic control on the
formation of a carbonate platform: the Cambrian of south-
western Sardinia. In: P.D. Crevelto, J.L. Wilson, J.F. Sarg
and J.F. Read (Editors), Controls on Carbonate Platform
and Basin Development. Soc. Econ. Pateontol. Mineral.,
Spec. PubI., 44: 107—122.
Betperio, A.P., Gostin, V.A., Cann, J.H. and Murray-Wallace,
CV., 1988. Sediment organism zonation and the evolution
ofHotocene tidal sequences in southern Australia. In; P.L.
de Boer et at. (Editors), Tide-Influenced Sedimentary En-
vironments and Facies. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 475—497.
Bird, K.J. and Jordan, C.F., 1977. Lisburne Group (Mississip-
pian and Pennsylvanian), potential major hydrocarbon oh-
jective of arctic slope, Alaska. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geot. Bull.,
61: 1493—1512.
Boardman, MR., Neumann, AC., Baker, P.A., Dutin, L.A.,
Kenter, R.J.. Hunter, G.E. and Kiefer, K.B., 1986. Bank-
top responses to Quaternarv fluctuations in sea level
recorded in periptatform sediments. Geology, 14: 28—31.
Bosellini, A., 1984. Progradation geometries of carbonate
platforms: examples from the Triassic of the Dotomites,
northern Italy. Sedimentology, 31: 1—24.
Boseltini, A. and HsU, K.J., 1973. Mediterranean plate tecton-
ics and Triassic paleogeography. Nature, 224; 144—146.
Bova, J.P. and Read, J.F., 1987. Incipiently drowned facies
within a cyclic peritidal ramp sequence. Early Ordovician
Cheputtupec interval, Virginia Appalachians. Geot. Soc.
Am. Bull., 98: 714—727.
Brett, C.E., Goodman, W.M. and LoDuca, ST., 1990. Se-
quences, cycles, and basin dynamics in the Siturian of the
Appalachian foreland basin. Sediment. Geot., 69: 191—244.
Brooktield, M.E. and Brett, C.E., 1988. Paleoenvironments of
the mid-Ordovician (Upper Caradocian) Trenton lime-
stones of southern Ontario, Canada; storm sedimentation
on a shoal-basin shelf model. Sediment. Geol., 57; 75—105.
Bubb, J.N. and Hattetid, W.G., 1977. Seismic stratigraphy and
global changes of sea level; recognition of carbonate
buildups. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol., Mem., 26; 185—204.
Buchbinder, B., Benjamini, C., Mimram, Y. and Gvirtzman,
G., 1988, Mass transport in Eocene pelagic chalk of the
northwestern edge of the Arabian Platform, Shefela area,
Israel. Sedimentology, 35: 257—274.
Budd, D.A. and Loucks, R.G., 1981. Smackover and Lower
Buckner Formations, South Texas: depositional systems on
a Jurassic carbonate ramp. Bur. Econ. Geot., Univ. Texas,
Austin, Rep. Invest., 112, 38 pp.
Burchette, T.P., 1981. European Devonian reefs: a review of
current concepts and models. In: D. Toomey (Editor),
European Reef Models. Soc. Econ. Paleontot. Mineral.,
Spec. PubI., 30: 85—142.
Burchette, T.P., 1987. Carbonate-barrier shorelines during the
basal Carboniferous transgression: the Lower Limestone
Shale Group, South Wales and western England. In: J.
Miller, A.E. Adams and V.P. Wright (Editors), European
Dinantian Environments. Wiley, London, pp. 239—263.
T.P. BURCHETrE AND V.P. WRIGHT
Burchette, T.P., 1988. Tectonic control on carbonate platform
facies distribution and sequence development: Miocene,
Gulf of Suez. Sediment. Geot., 59: 179—204.
Burchette, T.P., 1992. Sedimentology and sequence strati-
graphic significance of sedimentary ironstones in a carbon-
ate—siliciclastic ramp succession, Lower Limestone Shale
Group (early Mississippian), southwest Britain. Sedimen-
tology (in press).
Burchette, T.P. and Britton, S.R., 1985. Carbonate facies
analysis in the exploration for hydrocarbons: a case study
from the Cretaceous of the Middle East. In; P.J. Brench-
Icy and B.P.J. Williams (Editors), Sedimentology, Recent
Developments and Applied Aspects. Blackwett, Oxford,
pp. 311—338.
Burchette, T.P., Wright, V.P. and Faulkner, T.J., 1990. Oolitic
sandbody depositionat models and geometries, Misslssip-
pian of southwest Britain; implications for petroleum cx-
ploration in carbonate ramp settings. Sediment. Geot., 68:
87—115.
Buxton, M.W.N. and Pedtey, M.H., 1989. A standardized
model for Tethyan carbonate ramps. J. Geot. Soc. London,
146: 746—748.
Calvet, F. and Tucker, M.E., 1988. Outer ramp carbonate
cycles in the Upper Muschelkalk, Catalan Basin, N.E.
Spain. Sediment. Geot., 57: 185—198.
Calvet, F., Tucker, M.E. and Henton, J.M., 1990. Middle
Triassic carbonate ramp systems in the Catalan Basin,
northeast Spain: facies, systems tracts, sequences and con-
trols. In: M.E. Tucker, J.L. Wilson, PD. Crevello, JR.
Sarg and J.F. Read (Editors), Carbonate Platforms. mt.
Assoc. Sedimentol., Spec. Publ., 9: 79—108.
Cecille, M.P. and Campbell, F.H.A., 1978. Regressive stroma-
tolite reefs and associated facies, Middle Goulbourn Group
(Lower Proterozoic) in Klitohigok Basin, N.W.T. Bull.
Can. Pet. Geot., 26: 237—267.
Chafetz, H.S., McIntosh, A.G. and Rush, P.F., 1988. Freshwa-
ter phreatic diagenesis in the marine realm of Recent
Arabian Gulfcarbonates. J. Sediment. Petrol., 58: 433—440.
Chatettier, J.-Y., 1988. Carboniferous carbonate ramp, the
Banff Formation, Alberta, Canada. Bull. Cent. Rech. Ex-
ptor.—Prod. Elf-Aquitaine, 12: 569—599.
Chevron Standard Ltd., Exploration Staff, 1979. The geology,
geophysics and significance of the Nisku reef discoveries,
West Pembina area, Alberta, Canada. Bull. Can. Pet.
Geol., 27: 326—359.
Choquette, P.W. and Steinen, R.P., 1985. Mississippian oolite
and non-supratidat dolomite reservoirs in the Ste.
Genevieve Formation, North Bridgeport Field, Illinois
Basin. In; P.O. Roeht and P.W. Choquette (Editors), Car-
bonate Petroleum Reservoirs. Springer-Verlag, New York,
N.Y., pp. 207—225.
Coburn, G.W., 1986. Silurian of the Illinois Basin: a carbonate
ramp. Oil Gas J., Oct. 6th, pp. 96—100.
Connally, T.C. and Vest, R.W., 1985. Carbonate sediment fill
of an oceanic shelf, Lower Cretaceous, Arabian Gulf. In:
CARBONATE RAMP DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS
P.D. Crevello and P.M. Harris (Editors), Deep-Water Car-
bonates. Soc. Econ. Paleontol. Mineral., Core Workshop,
6; 266—302.
Cook, HE. and Taylor, M.E., 1991. Carbonate slope failures
as indicators of sea-level lowerings. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol.
Bull., 75: 556 (abstr.).
Cutler, W.G., 1983. Stratigraphy and sedimentology of the
Upper Devonian Grosmont Formation, northern Alberta.
Butt. Can. Pet. Geol., 31: 282—235.
Davies, G.R., 1970. Carbonate bank sedimentation, eastern
Shark Bay, Western Australia. Mem. Am. Assoc. Pet.
Geol., 13: 85—168.
Dix, G.R., 1989. High-energy, inner shelf carbonate facies
along a tide-dominated non-rimmed margin, northwestern
Australia. Mar. Geol., 89: 347—362.
Dix, G.R., 1990. Stages of platform development in the Upper
Devonian (Frasnian) Leduc Formation, Peace River Arch,
Alberta. Bull. Can. Pet. Geol., 38A: 66—92.
Dixon, O.A. and Graf, G.C., 1992. Upper Silurian reef mounds
on a shallowing carbonate ramp, Devon Island, Arctic
Canada. Bull. Can. Pet. Geot., 40: 1—23.
Dorobeck, S.L. and Read, J.F., 1986. Sedimentology and
basin evolution of the Situro—Devonian Hetderberg Group,
central Appalachians. J. Sediment. Petrol.. 56: 601—613.
Droste, H., 1990. Depositional cycles and source rock devel-
opment in an epeiric intra-platform basin: the Hanifa
Formation of the Arabian Peninsula. Sediment. Geol., 69:
281—296.
Droxter, A. and Schtager, W., 1985. Glacial versus interglacial
sedimentation rates and turbidite frequency in the Ba-
hamas. Geology, 13; 799—802.
Druckman, Y. and Moore, C.H., 1985. Late subsurface see-
ondary porosity in a Jurassic grainstone reservoir, Smack-
over Formation, Hico Knowles Field, Louisiana. In; P.O.
Roehl and P.W. Choquette (Editors), Carbonate Petroleum
Reservoirs. Springer-Verlag, New York, N.Y., pp. 369—383.
Ebdon, C.C., Fraser, A.J., Higgins, A.C., Mitchener, B.C. and
Strank, A.R.E., 1990. The Dinantian stratigraphy of the
east Midlands; a seismostratigraphic approach. J. Geol.
Soc. London, 147: 519—536.
Eberti, Gd’. and Ginsburg, RN., 1987. Segmentation and
coalescence of Cenozoic carbonate platforms in northwest-
em Great Bahama Bank. Geology, 15: 75—79.
Eberli, G.P. and Ginsburg, R.N., 1988. Cenozoic progradation
of northwestern Great Bahama Bank, a record of lateral
platform growth and sea-level fluctuations. In: C.K. Wil-
gus, B.S. Hastings, C.G.St.C. Kendall, H.W. Posamentier,
C.A. Ross and Van Wagoner, J.C. (Editors), Sea-Level
Changes: an Integrated Approach. Soc. Econ. Paleontol.
Mineral., Spec. Publ., 42: 339—351.
Ellis, P.M., Crevetto, PD. and Etiuk, L.S., 1985. Upper Juras-
sic and Lower Cretaceous deep-water buildups, Abenaki
Formation, Nova Scotia shelf. In: P.D. Crevelto and P.M.
Harris (Editors), Deep-Water Carbonates. Soc. Econ. Pa-
teontol. Mineral., Core Workshop, 6: 212—248.
Ellis, P.M., Wilson, R.C.L. and Leinfelder, R.R., 1990. Con-
51
trots on Upper Jurassic buildup development in the Lusi-
tanian Basin, Portugal. In: M.E. Tucker, J.L. Wilson, P.D.
Crevelto, J.R. Sarg and J.F. Read (Editors), Carbonate
Platforms. mt. Assoc. Sedimentot., Spec. Pubt., 9: 169—202.
Elrick, M. and Read, J.F., 1991. Cyclic-ramp-to-basin carbon-
ate deposits, Lower Mississippian, Wyoming and Montana;
a combined field and computer modelling study. 1. Sedi-
ment. Petrol., 61: 1194—1224.
Fairchild, I.J., 1989. Dolomitic stromatolite-bearing storm de-
posits from the Vendian of East Greenland and Scotland:
a case of facies equivalence. In; R.A. Gayer (Editor), The
Caledonide Geology of Scandinavia. Graham and Trot-
man, London, pp. 275—283.
Fairchild, I.J. and Hetherington, P.M., 1989. A tempestite—
stromatolite—evaporite association (Late Vendian, East
Greenland): a shoreface-lagoon model. Precambrian Res.,
43: 101—127.
Faulkner, T.J., 1988. The Shipway Limestone of Gower: sedi-
mentation on a storm-dominated early Carboniferous
ramp. Geot. J., 23: 85—100.
Faulkner, T.J., 1989. Carbonate Facies on a Lower Carbonif-
erous Storm-Influenced Ramp in SW Britain. Ph.D. thesis,
University of Bristol (unpublished).
Feazel, CT., 1985. Diagenesis of Jurassic grainstone reser-
voirs in the Smackover Formation, Chatom Field, Al-
abama. In: P.O. Roeht and P.W. Choquette (Editors),
Carbonate Petroleum Reservoirs. Springer-Verlag, New
York, N.Y., pp. 357—267.
Fisher, W.L. and Rodda, P.U., 1969. Edwards Formation
(Lower Cretaceous), Texas: dolomitization in a carbonate
platform system. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull., 53: 55—72.
Galloway, W.C., Ewing, T.E., Garrett, C.M., Tyler, N., and
Bebout, D.G., 1983. Atlas of major Texas oil reservoirs.
Bur. Econ. Geol., Univ. Texas Austin, 139 pp.
Gamboa, L.A., Truchan, M. and Stoffa, P.L., 1985. Middle
and Upper Jurassic depositional environments at outer
shelf and slope of Baltimore Canyon Trough. Am. Assoc.
Pet. Geot. Bull., 69: 610—621.
Gawthorpe, R.L., 1986. Sedimentation during carbonate
ramp-to-slope evolution in a tectonicatly active area; Bow-
land Basin (Dinantian), N. England. Sedimentology, 33:
185—206.
George, PG. and Ahr, W.M., 1986. The effects of paleoto-
pography and substrate lithotogy on the origin of Wautsor-
tian reefs; south-central Sacramento Mountains, New
Mexico. Trans., Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc., 36: 129—139.
Gerard, J. and Buhrig, C., 1990. Seismic facies of the Permian
section of the Barents Shelf: analysis and interpretation.
Mar. Pet. Geot., 7: 234—252.
Glick, E.E., 1979. Arkansas. In: L.C. Craig and CC. Connor
(Coordinators), Pateotectonic Investigations of the Missis-
sippian System in the United States, 1. U.S. Geot. Surv.,
Prof. Pap., 1010: 125—145.
Grotzinger, J.P., 1986. Cyclicity and paleoenvironmental dy-
namics, Rocknest platform, south west Canada. Butt. Geot.
Soc. Am., 97: 1208—1231.
52
Grotzinger, J.P., 1989. Facies and evolution of Precambrian
carbonate depositionat systems; emergence of the modern
platform archetype. In: P.D. Crevello, J.L. Wilson, J.F.
Sarg and J.F. Read (Editors), Controls on Carbonate
Platform and Basin Development. Soc. Econ. Paleontot.
Mineral., Spec. Pubt., 44; 79—106.
Gutschick, R.C. and Sandberg, C.A., 1983. Mississippian con-
tinental margins of the conterminous United States. In:
D.J. Stanley and G.T. Moore (Editors), The Shetfbreak:
Critical Interface on Continental Margins. Soc. Econ. Pa-
leontot. Mineral., Spec. Publ., 33; 79—96.
Gutschick, R.C., Sandberg, C.A. and Sando, W.J., 1980. Mis-
sissippian shelf margin and carbonate platform from Mon-
tana to Nevada. In; T.D. Fouch and E.R. Magathan (Edi-
tors), Paleozoic Pateogeography of the West-Central
United States. Soc. Econ. Paleontot. Mineral., Rocky Mnt.
Sect., Rocky Mnt. Paleogeogr. Symp., 1: 111—128.
Gutteridge, P., 1989. Controls on carbonate sedimentation in
a Brigantian intrashelf basin (Derbyshire). Yorksh. Geol.
Soc., Occas. Pubt., 6: 171—187.
Haak, A.B. and Schlager, W., 1989. Compositional variations
in calciturbidites due to sea-level fluctuations, late Quater-
nary, Bahamas. Geol. Rundsch., 78; 477—486.
Haines, P.W., 1988. Storm-dominated mixed carbonate/sili-
ciclastic shelf sequence displaying cycles of hummocky
cross-stratification, late Proterozoic Wonoka Formation,
South Australia, Sediment. Geol., 58; 237—254.
Halbouty, M.T., 1966. Stratigraphic-trap possibilities in Upper
Jurassic rocks, San Marcos Arch, Texas. Am. Assoc. Pet.
Geot. Bull., 50; 3—24.
Halbouty, M.T., King, R.E., Ktemme, H.D., Dott, RH. and
Meyerhoff, A.A., 1979. World’s giant oil and gas fields,
geologic factors affecting their formation and basin classi-
fication, II. Factors affecting formation of giant oil and gas
fields, and basin classification. In; M.T. Halbouty (Editor),
Geology of Giant Petroleum Fields. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol.,
14: 528—555.
Halley, R.B., 1985. Setting and geologic summary of the
Lower Cretaceous, Sunnitand Field, southern Florida. In:
P.O. Roht and P.W. Choquette (Editors), Carbonate
Petroleum Reservoirs. Springer-Verlag, New York, N.Y.,
pp. 445—454.
Handford, CR., 1978. Monteagle Limestone (Upper Missis-
sippian)—oolitic tidal-bar sedimentation in southern
Cumberland Plateau. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Butt., 62:
644—656.
Handford, C.R., 1986. Facies and bedding in shetf-storm-de-
posited carbonates—Fayettvitle Shale and Pitkin Lime-
stone (Mississippian), Arkansas. J. Sediment. Petrol., 56:
123—137. - Hurst, J.M. and Surlyk, F., 1984. Tectonic control of Siturian
Handford, C.R., 1988. Review of carbonate sand-belt deposi-
tion of ooid grainstones and application to Mississippian
reservoir, Damme Field, southwestern Kansas. Bull. Am.
Assoc. Pet. Geot., 10: 1184—1199.
T.P. BURCHETI’E AND V.P. WRIGHT
Harding, T.P., 1983. Graben hydrocarbon plays and structural
styles. Geol. Mijnbouw, 62; 3—23.
Harris, P.M. and Crevello, P.D., 1983. Upper Jurassic Smack-
over reefs—an example from the Walker Creek Field,
Arkansas. In: P.M. Harris (Editor), Carbonate Buildups.
Soc. Econ. Pateontot. Mineral., Core Workshop, 6: 366—
380.
Harris, P.M., Frost, S.H., Seiglie, G.A. and Schneidermann,
N., 1984. Regional unconformities and depositional cycles,
Cretaceous of the Arabian Peninsula. In: J.S. Schlee (Edi-
tor), Interregionat Unconformities and Hydrocarbon Ac-
cumulations. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geot., Mem., 36: 67—80.
Hayes, M.O., 1979. Barrier island morphology as a function of
tidal and wave regime. In: S.P. Leatherman (Editor), Bar-
rier Islands—from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the Gulf of
Mexico. Academic Press, New York, N.Y., pp. 1—27.
Hecket, P.H., 1974. Carbonate buildups in the geological
record: a review. In; L.F. Laporte (Editor), Reefs in Time
and Space. Soc. Econ. Pateontol. Mineral., Spec. Publ., 18:
90—154.
Heward, A.P., 1981. A review of wave-dominated elastic
shoreline deposits. Earth Sci. Rev., 17: 223—276.
Hopkins, K.W. and Ahr, W.M., 1986. Reconstruction of the
paleoenvironments of Jameson (Strawn) Reef Field, Coke
County, Texas. Trans., Gulf Coast Assoc. Geot. Soc., 35:
117—124.
Hubbard, R.J., Pape, J., and Roberts, D.G., 1986. Deposi-
tional sequence mapping to illustrate the evolution of a
passive continental margin. In; OR. Berg and D.G.
Woolverton (Editors), Seismic Stratigraphy, II: an Inte-
grated Approach to Hydrocarbon Exploration. Am. Assoc.
Pet. Geol., Mem., 39: 93—115.
Hughes, D.J., 1968. Salt tectonics as related to several Smack-
over fields along the northeast rim of the Gulf of Mexico
Basin. Trans., Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc., 18: 320—330.
Humphris, CC., 1979. Salt movement on continental slopes,
northern Gulf of Mexico. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull., 63:
782—789.
Hunter, R.E., Clifton, H.E. and Phillips, R.L., 1979. Deposi-
tionat processes, sedimentary structures, and predicted
vertical sequences in barred nearshore systems, southern
Oregon coast. J. Sediment. Petrol., 49: 711—726.
Hurst, J.M., 1987. Synrift carbonate depositional patterns:
Miocene, Gulf of Suez, Egypt. Bull. Am. Assoc. Pet.
Geot., 71: 569 (abstr.).
Hurst, J.M. and Surlyk, F., 1983. Depositionat environments
along a carbonate ramp to slope transition in the Silurian
of Washington Land, North Greenland. Can. J. Earth Sci.,
20; 473—499.
carbonate-shelf margin morphology and facies, North
Greenland. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull., 68: 1—17.
Ingersoll, R.V., 1988. Tectonics of sedimentary basins. Geol.
Soc. Am. Bull., 100: 1704—1719.
CARBONATE RAMP DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS
Irwin, ML., 1965. General theory of epeiric clear water
sedimentation. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geot. Butt., 49: 445—459.
Jackson, M.P.A. and Talbot, C.J., 1986. External shapes,
strain rates, and dynamics of salt structures. Geol. Soc.
Am. Bull., 97: 305—323. - System. Pataeontol. Assoc. London, Spec. Pap.. 23: 125—
Jacquin, T., Arnaud-Vanneau, A., Arnaud, H., Ravenne, C.
and Vail, P.R., 1991. Systems tracts and depositionat Se-
quences in a carbonate setting; a study of continuous
outcrops from platform to basin at the scale of seismic
tines. Mar. Pet. Geol., 8: 122—139.
James, N.P., 1984. Reefs. In: R.G. Walker (Editor), Facies
Models. Geosci. Can., Repr. Ser., 1: 229—244.
James, N.P. and Bone, Y., 1991. Origin of a coot-water,
Oligo-Miocene deep shelf limestone, Eucta Platform,
southern Australia. Sedimentotogy, 38: 323—341.
James, NP. and Ginsburg, RN., 1979. The seaward margin of
Belize barrier and atoll reefs. Int. Assoc. Sedimentol.,
Spec. Publ., 3, 191 pp.
Jansa, L.F., 1981. Mesozoic carbonate platforms and banks of
the eastern North American margin. Mar. Geot., 44: 97—
117.
Jansa, L.F., Pratt, BR. and Dromant, G., 1989. Deepwater
thrombolitic mounds from the Upper Jurassic of offshore
Nova Scotia. In; H.H.J. Geldsetzer, N.P. James and G.E.
Tebbut (Editors), Reefs, Canada and Adjacent Areas.
Can. Soc. Pet. Geol., Mem., 13; 725—735.
Jardine, D. and Wilshart, J.W., 1987. Carbonate reservoir
description. In: R.W. Tuttman and K.J. Weber (Editors),
Reservoir Sedimentology. Soc. Econ. Paleontot. Mineral.,
Mem., 40: 129—152.
Jehn, P.J. and Young, L.M., 1976. Depositional environments
of the Pitkin Formation, northern Arkansas. J. Sediment.
Petrol., 46; 377—386.
Johnson, H.D. and Baldwin, C.T., 1986. Shallow siliciclastic
seas. In: HG. Reading (Editor), Sedimentary Environ-
ments and Facies. Blackwetl, Oxford, pp. 229—282.
Kendall, C.G.St.C. and Schlager, W.. 1981. Carbonates and
relative changes in sea level. Mar. Geol., 44; 181—212.
Kenter, JAM., 1990. Carbonate platform flanks; slope angle
and sediment fabric. Sedimentotogy, 37; 774—794.
Kenter, J.A.M. and Schlager, W., 1989. A comparison of
shear strengths in calcareous and siliciclastic marine sedi-
ments. Mar. Geol., 88; 145—152.
King, D.T., 1990. Probable influence of early Carboniferous
(Tournaisian—early Visean) geography on the development
of Waulsortian and Wautsortian-like mounds. Geology, 18:
59—94.
Klein, G. deV. and Hsui, A.T., 1987. Origin of cratonic basins.
Geology, 15: 1094—1098.
Koerschner, W.F., III and Read, J.F., 1989. Field and mod-
citing studies of Cambrian carbonate cycles, Virginia Ap-
palachians. J. Sediment. Petrol., 59; 654—687.
Kosters, E.C., Bebout, D.G., Seni, S.J., Garrett, CM., Brown,
L.F., Hamlin, H.S., Dutton, S.P., Ruppel, S.C., Finley, R.J.
53
and Tyler, N., 1989. Atlas of major Texas gas reservoirs.
Bur. Econ. Geol., Univ. Texas Austin, 161 pp.
Krebs, W., 1979. Devonian basinat facies. In: MR. House,
C.T. Scrutton and M.G. Bassett (Editors), The Devonian
139.
Laporte, L.F., 1969. Recognition of a transgressive carbonate
sequence within an epeiric sea: Helderberg Group (Lower
Devonian) of New York State. In; G.M. Friedman (Editor),
Depositional Environments in Carbonate Rocks. Soc.
Econ. Paleontol. Mineral., Spec. PubI., 1: 98—119.
Laville, P., Cussey, R., Durand, J. and Floquet, M., 1989.
Faces, structure et dynamique de misc en place de dunes
oobioclastiques au Cattovien inférieur en Bourgogne. Bull.
Cent. Rech. Exptor.—Prod. Elf-Aquitaine, 13; 379—373.
Leeder, MR., 1987. Tectonic and palaeogeographic models
for Lower Carboniferous Europe. In: J. Miller, A.E. Adams
and V.P. Wright (Editors), European Dinantian Environ-
ments. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 1—20.
Lees, A. and Miller, J., 1985. Facies variation in Waulsortian
build-ups, 1. A model from Belgium. Geot. J., 20: 159—180.
Legarreta, L., 1991. Evolution of a Cattovian—Oxfordian car-
bonate margin in the Neuquén Basin of west-central Ar-
gentina: facies, architecture, depositional sequences and
global sea-level changes. Sediment. Geol., 70: 209—240.
Lepain, DL., Crowden, R.K. and Watts, K.F., 1990. Missis-
sippian elastic to carbonate transition in the northeastern
Brooks Range, Alaska: deposition cycles of the Endicott
and Lisburne Groups. Bull. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol., 74: 703
(abstr.).
Lindsay, R.F. and Kendall, C.G.St.C., 1980. Depositional fa-
cies, diagenesis and reservoir character of the Mission
Canyon Formation (Mississippian) of the Williston Basin
at Little Knife Field, North Dakota. In; R.B. Halley and
R.G. Loucks (Editors), Carbonate Reservoir Rocks. Soc.
Econ. Pateontot. Mineral., Core Workshop, 1; 79—104.
Lindsay, R.F. and Kendall, C.G.St.C., 1985. Depositional fa-
cies, diagenesis, and reservoir character of Mississippian
cyclic carbonates in the Mission Canyon Formation, Little
Knife Field, Wiltiston Basin, North Dakota. In: P.O. Roehl
and P.W. Choquette (Editors), Carbonate Petroleum
Reservoirs. Springer-Verlag, New York, N.Y., pp. 175—190.
Lloyd, R.M., Perkins, RD. and Kerr, S.D., 1987. Beach and
shoreface ooid deposition on shallow interior banks, Turks
and Caicos Islands, British West Indies. J. Sediment.
Petrol., 57: 976—982.
Logan, B.W., Harding, J.L., Ahr, W.M., Williams, J.D. and
Snead, R.G., 1969. Late Quaternary carbonate sediments
of Yucatan Shelf, Mexico. Carbonate sediments and reefs,
Yucatan Shelf, Mexico. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol., Mem., 11:
1—128.
Loucks, R.G. and Anderson, J.H., 1980. Depositionat facies
and porosity development in the Lower Ordovician Ellen-
burger Dolomite, Puckett Field, Pecos County, Texas. In:
54
R.B. Halley and R.G. Loucks (Editors), Carbonate Reser-
voir Rocks. Soc. Econ. Pateontot. Mineral., Core Work-
shop, 1; 1—31.
Loutit, T.S., Hardenbot, J., Vail, P. and Baum, G.R., 1988.
Condensed sections; the key to age dating and correlation
of continental margin sequences. In: C.K. Wilgus, B.S.
Hastings, C.G.St.C. Kendall, H.W. Posamentier, CA. Ross
and Van Wagoner, J.C. (Editors), Sea-level Changes: an
lntegrated Approach. Soc. Econ. Paleontot. Mineral., Spec.
Pubt., 42: 183—213.
Markelio, J.R. and Read, iF., 1981. Carbonate ramp to
deeper shale shelf transitions of an Upper Cambrian in-
trashelf basin, Notichucky Formation, southwest Virginia
Appalachians. Sedimentology, 28: 573—597.
Mazzullo, S.J. and Reid, A.M., 1989. Lower Permian platform
and basin depositional systems, northern Midland Basin,
Texas. In: P.D. Crevello, J.L. Wilson, J.F. Sarg and J.F.
Read (Editors), Controls on Carbonate Platform and Basin
Development. Soc. Econ. Paleontol. Mineral., Spec. Publ.,
44: 305—320.
McGiltavray, J.G, and Mountjoy, E.W.. 1975. Facies and
related reservoir characteristics Golden Spike reef com-
ptex, Alberta. Bull. Can. Pet. Geol., 23: 753—809.
McRory, V.L.C. and Walker, R.G., 1986. A storm and tidally
influenced prograding shoreline—Upper Cretaceous Milk
River Formation of southern Alberta. Sedimentotogy, 33:
47—60.
Meendsen, F.C., Moore, C.H., Heydari, E. and Sassen, R.,
1987. Upper Jurassic depositional systems and hydrocar-
bon potential of southeast Mississippi. Trans., Gulf Coast
Assoc. Geol. Soc., 37; 161—174.
Mesolelta, K.J., Robinson, J.D., McCormick, L.M. and Ormis-
ton, A.R., 1974. Cyclic deposition of Silurian carbonates
and evaporites in Michigan Basin. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol.
Bull., 58; 34—62.
Meyer, R. and Schmidt-Kaler, H., 1983. Erdgeschichte sicht-
bar gemacht—ein geologischer Führer durch die
Altmühtatb. Bayerisches geotogisches Landesamt, Munich,
260 pp.
Mitchell-Tapping, H.J., 1986. Exploration petrology of the
Sunoco Felda trend of South Florida. Trans., Gulf Coast
Assoc. Geol. Soc., 36: 241—256.
Mitchum, R.M., Vail, P.R. and Sangree, J.B., 1977. Seismic
stratigraphy and global changes of sea level, 6: strati-
graphic interpretation of seismic reflection patterns in
depositionat sequences. In: C.E. Payton (Editor), Seismic
Stratigraphy—application to Hydrocarbon Exploration.
Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol., Mem., 26: 117—134.
Mitchum, R.M. and Uliana, M.A., 1985. Seismic stratigraphy
of carbonate depositionat sequences, Upper Jurassic—
Lower Cretaceous, Neuquén Basin, Argentina. In: OR.
Berg and D.G. Woolverton (Editors), Seismic Stratigra-
phy, II: an Integrated Approach to Hydrocarbon Explo-
ration. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geot., Mem., 39: 255—274.
Moore, C.H., 1989. Carbonate Diagenesis and Porosity. Else-
vier, Amsterdam, 338 pp.
T.P. BURCHEYFE AND V.P. WRIGHT
Morgan, W.E., 1985. Siturian reservoirs in upward-shoaling
cycles of the Hunton Group, Mt. Everette and Southwest
Reeding fields, Kingfisher County, Oklahoma. In; P.O.
Roehl and P.W. Choquette (Editors), Carbonate Petroleum
Reservoirs. Springer-Verlag, New York, N.Y., pp. 107—120.
Moshier, S.O., 1986. Carbonate platform sedimentology, Up-
per Cambrian Richland Formation, Lebanon Valley,
Pennsylvania. J. Sediment. Petrol., 56: 204—228.
Moshrif, M.A., 1984. Sequential development of the Hanifa
Formation (Upper Jurassic) pateoenvironments and
palaeogeography, central Saudi Arabia. J. Pet. Geot., 7:
451—460.
Mullins, H.T., Neumann, A.C., Wilber, R.J., Hine, A.C. and
Chinburg, S.J., 1980. Carbonate sediment drifts in the
northern Straits of Florida. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geot. Bull.,
64: 1701—1717.
Mullins, H.T., Gardulski, A.F., Hine, A., Melillo, A., Sher-
wood, W.W. and Applegate, J., 1988. Three-dimensional
sedimentary framework of the carbonate ramp slope of
central west Florida: a sequential seismic stratigraphic
perspective. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 100: 514—533.
Murray, J.W., 1966, An oil producing reef-fringed carbonate
bank in the Upper Devonian Swan Hills Member, Judy
Creek, Alberta. Bull. Can. Pet. Geol., 14; 1—103.
Mussman, W.J. and Read, F.J., 1986. Sedimentology and
development of a passive- to convergent-margin uncon-
formity: Middle Ordovician Knox unconformity, Virginia
Appalachians. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 97: 282—295.
Neumann, AC. and Land, L.S., 1975. Lime mud deposition
and catcareous algae in the Bight of Abaco, Bahamas: a
budget. J. Sediment. Petrol., 45; 763—786.
Palmer, T.J., 1979. The Hampen Many and White Limestone
Formations; Florida-type carbonate lagoons in the Jurassic
of central England. Palaeontology, 22: 189—228.
Pedley, H.M., 1981. Sedimentology and palaeoenvironment of
the southeast Sicilian Tertiary platform carbonates. Sedi-
ment. Geol., 28; 273—291.
Pedtey, H.M., 1992. Bio-retexturing; early diagenetic fabric
modifications in outer ramp settings—a case study from
the Oligo-Miocene of the central Mediterranean. In: B.W.
Settwood (Editor), Ramps and Reefs. Sediment. Geot., 79:
173—188.
Pigram, C.J., Davies, P.J., Feary, D.A. and Symonds, P.A.,
1989. Tectonic controls on carbonate platform evolution in
southern Papua New Guinea: passive margin to foreland
basin. Geology, 17: 199—202.
Pitskaln, C.H., Neumann, A.C. and - Bane, J.M., 1989.
Periplatform carbonate flux in the northern Bahamas.
Deep-Sea Res., 36: 1391—1406.
Pitman, W.C. III., 1978. Relationship between eustacy and
stratigraphic sequences of passive margins. Geol. Soc. Am.
Butt., 89: 1389—1403.
Pratt, B.R. and James, N.P., 1988. The St. Georges Group
(Lower Ordovician) of western Newfoundland: tidal flat
island model for carbonate sedimentation in shallow
epeiric seas. Sedimentology, 33: 512—515.
CARBONATE RAMP DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS
Puigdefabregas, C. and Souquet, P., 1986. Tecto-sedimentary
cycles and depositionat sequences of the Mesozoic and
Tertiary from the Pyrenees. Tectonophysics, 129: 173—203.
Purser, B., 1973. Sedimentation around bathymetric highs in
the southern Persian Gulf. In: The Persian Gulf: Holocene
Carbonate Sedimentation and Diagenesis in a Shallow
Epicontinental Sea. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 157—177.
Purser, B., 1975. Tidal sediments and their evolution in the
Jurassic of Burgundy, France. In: R.N. Ginsburg (Editor),
Tidal Deposits: a Casebook of Recent Examples and Fos-
sil Counterparts. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 335—343.
Purser, B., 1985. Dedolomite porosity and reservoir properties
of Middle Jurassic carbonates in the Paris Basin, France.
In: P.O. Roehl and P.W. Choquette (Editors), Carbonate
Petroleum Reservoirs. Springer-Verlag, New York, N.Y.,
pp. 341—355.
Purser, B. and Evans, G., 1973. Regional sedimentation along
the Trucial Coast, SE Persian Gulf. In; The Persian Gulf:
Holocene Carbonate Sedimentation and Diagenesis in a
Shallow Epicontinental Sea. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp.
211—231.
Rand, H.S., 1982. The Grosmont project: evaluation of a
bitumen-bearing Paleozoic carbonate in North Alberta. In:
W.G. Cutter (Editor), Canada’s Giant Hydrocarbon Reser-
voirs. Can. Assoc. Pet. Geot., Conf. Proc., 1982, Calgary,
Alberta, pp. 55—61.
Read, J.F., 1974. Carbonate bank and wave-built platform
sedimentation, Edet Province, Shark Bay, Western Aus-
tralia. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol., Mem., 22; 1—60.
Read, J.F., 1980. Carbonate ramp to basin transitions and
foretand basin evolution, Middle Ordovician, Virginia Ap-
palachians. Bull. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol., 64; 1575—1612.
Read, J.F., 1982a. Carbonate platforms of passive (exten-
sional) continental margins: types, characteristics and evo-
tution. Tectonophysics, 81: 195—212.
Read, J.F., 1982b. Geometry, facies, and development of
Middle Ordovician carbonate buildups, Virginia Ap-
patachians. Bull. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol., 66; 189—201.
Read, J.F., 1985. Carbonate platform facies models. Bull. Am.
Assoc. Pet. Geol., 69: 1—21.
Read, J.F., 1989. Controls on evolution of Cambnian—Ordovi-
cian passive margin, U.S. Appalachians. In; PD. Crevello,
J.L. Wilson, J.F. Sang and J.F. Read (Editors), Controls on
Carbonate Platform and Basin Development. Soc. Econ.
Paleontol. Mineral., Spec. Publ., 44: 147—165.
Read, J.F., Osleger, D. and Elnick, M., 1991. Two-dimen-
sional modeling of carbonate ramp sequences and compo-
nent cycles. In: E.K. Franseen, W.L. Watney, C.G.St.C.
KEndall and W. Ross (Editors), Sedimentary Modeling:
Computer Simulations and Methods for Improved Param-
etcr definition. Kansas Geol. Surv., Bull., 233: 473—488.
Reading, H.G., 1980. Characteristics and recognition of
strike-slip fault systems. In: P.F. Battance and H.G. Read-
ing (Editors), Sedimentation in Oblique-Slip Mobile Zones.
mt. Assoc. Sedimentot., Spec. PubI., 4: 7—26.
Reid, R.P., 1987. Non-skeletal peloidal precipitates in Upper
55
Triassic reefs, Yukon Territory (Canada). J. Sediment.
Petrol., 57: 893—900.
Ricketts, B.D., 1983. The evolution of a Precambrian dolo-
stone sequence—a spectrum of dolomitization regimes. J.
Sediment. Petrol., 53: 565—586.
Riding, R., 1981. Composition, structure and environmental
setting of Silurian bioherms and biostromes in Northern
Europe. In; D.F. Toomey (Editor), European Fossil Reef
Models. -Soc. Econ. Paleontol. Mineral., Spec. Publ., 30:
41—83.
Rona, P.A., 1982. Evaporites at passive margins. In: R.A.
Srutton (Editor), Dynamics of Passive Margins. Geodyn.
Ser., 6, Am. Geophys. Union/Geol. Soc. Am., pp. 116—132.
Ross, R.J., 1986. Pateozoic evolution of the southern margin
of Permian Anadarko Basin. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull.,
97; 536—554.
Ross, R.J., James, NP., Hintze, L.F. and Poole, F.G., 1989.
Architecture and evolution of a Whiterockian (early Mid-
dte Ordovician) carbonate platform, basin ranges of west-
em U.S.A. In: PD. Crevelto, J.L. Wilson, J.F. Sarg and
J.F. Read (Editors), Controls on Carbonate Platform and
Basin Development. Soc. Econ. Pateontol. Mineral., Spec.
Publ., 44: 167—185.
Sanders, J.E. and Kumar, N., 1975. Evidence of shoreface
retreat and in-place “drowning” during Holocene submer-
gence of barriers, shelf off Fire Island, New York. Butt.
Geol. Soc. Am., 86: 65—76.
Sarg, J.F., 1988. Carbonate sequence stratigraphy. In; C.K.
Wilgus, B.S. Hastings, C.G.St.C. Kendall, H.W. Posamen-
tier, CA. Ross and Van Wagoner, J.C. (Editors), Sea-level
Changes: an Integrated Approach. Soc. Econ. Pateontol.
Mineral., Spec. PubI., 42: 155—181.
Schiager, W., 1981. The paradox of drowned reefs and car-
bonate platforms. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., 92: 197—211.
Schlager, W., 1991. Depositionat bias and environmental
change—important factors in sequence stratigraphy. Sedi-
ment. Geol., 70: 109—130.
Schneeflock, RD., Chancy, RH., Marble, J.C. and Bush,
J.D., 1989. Updip Smackover hunt heating up in U.S. Oil
Gas J., Apr. 17, pp. 52—56.
Scott, R.W., 1990. Models and stratigraphy of mid-Cretaceous
reef communities, Gulf of Mexico. Soc. Econ. Paleontot.
Mineral., Concepts in Sedimentology and Paleontology, 2,
102 pp.
Sears, SO. and Lucia, F.J., 1979. Reef growth model for
Silurian pinnacle reefs, northern Michigan reef trend.
Geology, 7; 299—302.
Sears, SO. and Lucia, F.J., 1980. Dolomitization of northern
Michigan Niagara reefs by brine refluxion and
freshwater/seawater mixing. In: D.H. Zenger, J.B. Dun-
ham and R.L. Ethington (Editors), Concepts and Models
of Dolomitization. Soc. Econ. Pateontot. Mineral., 28;
215—235.
Seitwood, B.W., 1986. Shallow-marine carbonate environ-
ments. In: HG. Reading (Editor), Sedimentary Environ-
ments and Facies. Blackwetl, Oxford, pp. 283—342.
56
Sellwood, B.W., Scott, J., Mickicelsen, P. and Alcroyd, P.,
1985. Stratigraphy and sedimentology of the Great Ootite
Group in the Humbly Grove oilfield, Hampshire. Mar.
Pet. Geol., 2; 44—55.
Sellwood, B.W., Scott, J. and Lunn, G., 1986. Mesozoic basin
evolution in Southern England. Proc. Geol. Assoc., 97:
259—289.
Sequeira, J.J. and Ahr, W.M., 1987. The depositionat environ-
melts, diagenetic history, and porosity development of the
Upper Smackover at Eustace Field, Henderson County,
Texas. Trans., Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc., 37: 225—238.
Shaw, A.B., 1964. Time in Stratigraphy. McGraw-Hilt, New
York, N.Y., 365 pp.
Sheridan, RE., 1981. Geophysical recognition and structure
of carbonate platforms and platform edges on passive
continental margins. Mar. Geol., 44: 171—180.
Shinn, E.A., Lutz, B.H. and Holmes, C.W., 1990. High-energy
carbonate sand accumulations, the Quicksands, southwest
Florida Keys. J. Sediment. Petrol., 60; 952—967.
Simo, A., 1986. Carbonate depositional sequences, Upper
Cretaceous, south-central Pyrenees (Spain). Tectono-
physics, 129: 205—231.
Smith, D.L., 1977. Transition from deep- to shallow-water
carbonates, Paine Member, Lodgepote Formation, central
Montana. In; H.E. Cook and P. Enos (Editors), Deep-
Water Carbonate Environments. Soc. Econ. Paleontol.
Mineral., Spec. Pubt., 25: 187—201.
Somerville, I.D. and Strogen, P., 1992. Ramp sedimentation in
the Dinantian timestones of the Shannon Trough, Co.
Limerick, Ireland. In; B.W. Settwood (Editor), Ramps and
Reefs. Sediment. Geot., 79; 59—75.
Stoakes, F.A., 1980. Nature and control of shale basin fill and
its effect on reef growth and termination. Butt. Can. Pet.
Geol., 28: 345—410.
Stoakes, F.A. and Creaney, S., 1985. Sedimentology of a
carbonate source rock: the Duvernay Formation of central
Canada. Rocky Mountain carbonate reservoirs. Soc. Econ.
Paleontol. Mineral., Core Workshop, 7: 343—375.
Sun, SQ., 1990. Facies and related diagenesis in a cyclic
shallow marine sequence: the Coraltian Group (Upper
Jurassic) of the Dorset Coast, southern England. J. Sedi-
ment. Petrol., 60: 42—52.
Sun, S.Q. and Wright, V.P., 1989. Peloidal fabrics in Upper
Jurassic reefat timestones, Weald Basin, southern Eng-
land. Sediment. Geot., 65; 165—181.
Swift, D.J.P., 1975. Barrier-island genesis: evidence from the
central Atlantic Shelf, eastern U.S.A. Sediment. Gent., 14:
1—43.
Szabo, F. and Kheradpir, A., 1978. Permian and Tniassic
stratigraphy, Zagros Basin, southwest Iran. J. Pet. Gent., 1:
57—82.
Thomas, G.E. and Glaister, R.P., 1960. Facies and porosity
relationships in some Mississippian carbonate cycles of
Western Canada Basin. Am. Assoc. Pet. Gent. Bull., 44:
569—588.
Toomey, D.F., 1981. Organic-buildup constructional capabil-
T.P. BURCHETTE AND V.P. WRIGHT
ity in Lower Ordovician and late Pateozoic mounds. In: J.
Gray et at. (Editors), Communities of the Past. Hutchinson
Ross, Stroudsburg, Penn., pp. 35—68.
Tsien, H.H., 1971. The Middle and Upper Devonian reef
complexes of Belgium. Pet. Geot. Taiwan, 8; 119—173.
Tyler, A.N. and Erwin, W.L., 1976. Sunoco—Felda field,
Hendry and Collier Counties, Florida. Am. Assoc. Pet.
Geot., Mem., 24; 287—299.
Ulmishek, G.F., 1988. Upper Devonian—Tournaisian facies
and oil resources of the Russian craton’s eastern margin.
In: N.J. McMillen, A.F. Embry and D.J. Glass (Editors),
Devonian of the World, VI; Regional Syntheses. Can. Soc.
Pet. Geol., Mem., 14: 527—549.
Van Steenwinkel, M., 1990. Sequence stratigraphy from “spot”
outcrops—example from a carbonate-dominated setting:
Devonian—Carboniferous transition, Dinant synclinorium
(Belgium). Sediment. Geol., 69: 259—280.
Van Wagoner, J.C., Mitchum, R.M., Campion, K.M. and
Rahmanian, V.D., 1990. Siliciclastic sequence stratigraphy
in well logs, cores and outcrops. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geot.,
Methods in Exploration Series, 7, 55 pp.
Ward, W.C. and Brady, M.J., 1973. High-energy carbonates in
the inner shelf, northeastern Yucatan peninsula, Mexico.
Trans., Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc., 23; 226—238.
Ward, W.C. and Brady, M.J., 1979. Strandline sedimentation
of carbonate grainstones, Upper Pleistocene, Yucatan
Peninsula, Mexico. Bull. Am. Assoc. Pet. Gent., 63: 362—
369.
Watts, N.R., 1988. The rote of carbonate diagenesis in explo-
ration and production from Devonian pinnacle reefs, Al-
berta, Canada. Geol. Soc. Malays., Bull., 22: 1—22.
Watts, N.R., Douglas, J.L. and Coppold, M.P., 1992. Applica-
tion of reservoir geology studies to enhanced oil recovery
schemes in Upper Devonian Nisku Reef reservoirs, Al-
berta, Canada. Can. Soc. Pet. Geot. Bull. (in press).
Watts, K.F. and Blome, C.D., 1990. Evolution of the Arabian
carbonate platform margin slope and its response to the
orogenic closing of a Cretaceous ocean basin, Oman. In:
ME. Tucker, J.L. Wilson, PD. Crevello, J.R. Sarg and
J.F. Read (Editors), Carbonate Platforms. mt. Assoc. Sed-
imentot., Spec. PubI., 9; 291—323.
Wermund, E.G., 1975. Upper Pennsylvanian limestone banks,
north-central Texas. Bur. Econ. Geot., Univ. Texas Austin,
Geot. Circ., 75—3, 34 pp.
Whitaker, F.F. and Smart, P., 1990. Active circulation of
saline groundwaters in carbonate platforms: evidence from
the Great Bahama Bank. Geology, 18: 200—203.
Whitaker, S.T., 1988. Ramp-platform model for Situnian pin-
nacte reef distribution in the Illinois Basin. Oil Gas J.,
May 2nd, pp. 102—108.
Wilbur, R.J., Milliman, J.D. and Halley, RB., 1990. Accumu-
tation of bank-top sediment on the western slope of Great
Bahama Bank: rapid progradation of a carbonate mega-
bank. Geology, 18: 970—974.
Wilson, J.L., 1975. Carbonate Facies in Geologic History.
Springer-Verlag, New York, N.Y., 471 pp.
CARBONATE RAMP DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS
Wright, V.P., 1986. Facies sequences on a carbonate ramp:
the Carboniferous Limestone of South Wales. Sedimentot-
ogy, 33; 221—241.
Wright, V.P. and Faulkner, T.J., 1990. Sediment dynamics of
Early Carboniferous ramps: a proposal. Gent. J., 25: 139—
144.
57
Wright, V.P., Ries, AC. and Munn, 5G., 1990. Intraplatfor-
mat basin-fill deposits from the Infracambrian Huqf Group,
east Central Oman. In: A.H.F. Robertson, M.P. Searte
and AC. Ries (Editors), The Geology and Tectonics of the
Oman Region. Geot. Soc. London, Spec. Publ., 49; 601—
616.