Next Article in Journal
Different Aryl Thiourea Compounds as Flotation Collectors in a Lead–Zinc Sulfide Mixed System
Next Article in Special Issue
Characteristics and Controlling Factors of Crystalline Dolostone Reservoirs of the Sanshanzi Formation, Central-Eastern Ordos Basin, Northwestern China
Previous Article in Journal
Molecular Simulation of Methane Adsorption in Deep Shale Nanopores: Effect of Rock Constituents and Water
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Minerals
Volume 13
Issue 6
10.3390/min13060757
minerals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evidence for Isolated Platform Development in the Cenomanian on the Passive Margin of Neotethys, Southwest Iran

by
Mersad Moeini
,
Hossain Rahimpour-Bonab
and
Vahid Tavakoli
*
School of Geology, College of Science, University of Tehran, Tehran 1417935840, Iran
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Minerals 2023, 13(6), 757; https://doi.org/10.3390/min13060757
Submission received: 6 May 2023 / Revised: 27 May 2023 / Accepted: 29 May 2023 / Published: 31 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Mineralogical, Geological and Geochemical Heterogeneities of Carbonate Reservoirs)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In the Cenomanian, the southern passive margin of the Neotethys Ocean was dominated by a giant carbonate factory. This succession is known as Sarvak Formation, a significant reservoir in Iran. This study focuses on a detailed analysis of facies variations and paleoenvironmental reconstruction, including the interpretation of the platform types, during this time interval. Based on field observations and petrographical studies, 12 facies have been recognized and ascribed to six facies belts on a carbonate ramp. Sub-environments include the outer ramp and basin (distal open marine), talus and channel (mid-ramp) and lagoon and shoal (inner-ramp). The frequency of the facies and isochore maps indicate the paleoenvironmental conditions and their spatial variations in the study area. Based on all data and analyses, the suggested conceptual model for the Sarvak Formation in the Lurestan Zone is an isolated platform surrounded by two ramps. The upwind and downwind parts of these ramps were located in the central and northern sub-zones of the Lurestan Zone. This model can be used as a template for isolated platforms worldwide.

1. Introduction

A carbonate platform is defined as a sedimentary body possessing topographic relief and consisting of in-situ carbonate constituents [1]. For any systematic reservoir characterization and evaluation of essential reservoir parameters, the profile of the platform and paleoenvironmental conditions must be known. Because of variability in reservoir quality and facies patterns, it is necessary to discriminate different platform types (with diverse characteristics) to evaluate hydrocarbon-bearing units. Reservoir geometry is mainly controlled by platform type, while reservoir quality is determined by environmental conditions of various facies [2,3] and later diagenetic impacts. In turn, platform geometry and type, along with the facies successions and patterns, control depositional facies and sequence stratigraphic framework [2,3,4,5].
An isolated carbonate platform is identified as a carbonate factory composed of shallow marine constituents surrounded by deeper water [6]. A marginal reef or sand body may exist, separating shallow carbonates from deep water deposits. This high-energy margin shows the highest rates of carbonate production. The production rate is reduced in the center of the platform, and a lagoonal setting can be established [3,6,7].
Generally, isolated platforms are constructed in offshore settings on oceanic islands. These islands have different origins, including volcanos, grabens, different subsidence or uplift rates, faulting, etc. [8,9,10,11,12]. Sedimentary facies distribution, geometry, and characteristics of these platforms are mainly controlled by the energy of the carbonate factory and wind direction. Reef and talus facies of isolated platforms may be important due to their higher reservoir quality [13,14]. In turn, leeward facies are mainly mud-dominated, reflecting lower energy conditions, and having lower reservoir quality [14,15]. A modern example of this unattached platform is the Florida-Bahamas region formed in the subsiding passive margin basin, where the basement is characterized by different subsidence rates [16].
Isolate platform models for Carboniferous and Cretaceous carbonates have been studied in NW and S Spain. An isolated carbonate platform was created in the Aptian-Albian in southern Spain (South Iberian Continental Margin, northwestern margin of the Tethys) under the influence of an extensional phase of the Central Atlantic. It was associated with changes in subsidence and uplift of the basin floor, relative sea-level fall, and a depression (creation of graben) on the sedimentary carbonate platform. Results are based on the studies of the carbonates of the Seguili and Sacaras formations [17].
An isolated sedimentary model has been proposed in NW Spain in the Cantabrian Mountains (Valdediezma Formation) based on facies and tectonic studies on Carboniferous carbonates (Mississippian–Lower Pennsylvanian). Changes in subsidence and uplift of the basin floor, relative sea-level changes, and an increase in the rate of carbonate deposition in the deep parts of the sedimentary basin has resulted in the creation of an isolated platform [18,19].
The Cretaceous Sarvak Formation with Late Albian to mid-Turonian age is one of the most important reservoir units in SW Iran. Using facies analysis, the ratio of benthic to pelagic fauna, and well-drilling data, Sharland et al. [20] identified four cycles of the third-order sequences for this time interval in the Arabian Plate. These cycles include two systems tracts. Highstand systems tract (HST) and transgressive systems tract (TST) are separated by type 2 sequence boundary (SB2) and maximum flooding surface (MFS). The depositional environment of this formation in Lurestan has been the center of considerable debate. Hence, our goal is to characterize this carbonate platform by analyzing its sedimentary facies distribution and properties in an extensive area of the Lurestan Zone, both in surface and subsurface sections. In other words, our main target is to systematically introduce an isolated platform conceptual model for the Middle Cretaceous carbonates of the Arabian Plate passive continental margin.

2. Materials and Methods

This study is based on data obtained from two outcrops (Kuh-Sultan and Behesht Reza) and ten boreholes in the Maleh-Kuh, Sarkan, Halush, Gaver, and Veyzenhar oil fields from the central and northern subzones of the Lurestan Zone (Figure 1). The classification of [21,22] were used to determine the texture and microfacies. Most sedimentological features such as lithology, textures, sedimentary structures, rock facies, biofacies, visual porosity, pore types, rock color, grain size, allochems, stylolites, and fractures have been studied using a polarizing microscope and during the core description. A depositional conceptual model was proposed by combining available data from outcrops, core samples, cuttings, and thin sections (Table 1). Facies types and depositional settings were interpreted based on matrix and grain content, compositional and textural fabrics, fossil content, sedimentary characteristics, and a comparison with modern and ancient environments [1,3,6,23]. Lithofacies of the Sarvak Formation have been determined based on field observations and core analysis. All results were integrated, and isochore and the relative frequency maps were prepared for various facies. A Gamma-ray log has been used in subsurface sections to better characterize the microfacies.

3. Geological Setting

The Zagros Mountains contain 8.6% of the oil and 15% of the gas of the world’s proven reserves [24,25,26,27]. The NW/SE trending Zagros fold-and-thrust belt extends ~1800 km from Taurus Mountain to the Anatolian fault. The N/S trending Oman Line separates the Zagros belt from the Makran accretionary prism [27,28]. Southern Iran is located in S.W. of the Neotethys suture zone and consists of the High Zagros and the Zagros Folded Belt. This region is subdivided into Lurestan, Khuzestan, and Fars zones [27,28] (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The Albian-Campanian Bangestan Group hosts some of the most prolific reservoirs of the Arabian Platform and the Zagros fold-and-thrust belt hydrocarbon provinces. The most important interval of the Bangestan Group regarding reservoir quality includes neritic carbonates of the Sarvak and Ilam formations [29]. Thus, the Sarvak Formation and its equivalents comprise significant reservoir intervals in the S and S.W. of Iran (including the Lurestan Zone) and throughout the Middle East [25,30,31,32,33,34,35,36] (Figure 2).
Facies distribution and reservoir characteristics of the Sarvak Formation vary significantly in different regions of the Zagros due to the influence of several geological factors [37,38,39]. So far, many studies have been carried out in the Dezful Embayment, Izeh, Fars, and the Persian Gulf area (Figure 1). These studies have shown a simple ramp or shelf profile for Sarvak depositional environment [40,41,42,43]. In the Lurestan Zone, the Late Albian–mid-Turonian, Sarvak carbonate factories were dominated by deeper platform environments and some special climatic conditions that led to different facies characteristics compared with other parts of the Zagros area [26] (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Deeper water conditions and resulting mud-dominated carbonate facies led to its relatively lower reservoir quality [39].

3.1. Palaeogeography and Tectonic Events

Development of the Zagros area began in the Late Cretaceous due to the foredeep subsidence of the continental closure along the Zagros Suture [44,45]. The late Cretaceous was also a period of global sea-level highstand [46,47].
Paleogeographic studies suggest that in the mid-Cretaceous, a carbonate ramp prevailed in this area which gradually surrounded most of the Middle East in response to eustatic sea-level rise [48,49]. Meanwhile, during the Cenomanian–Turonian, sedimentation rates varied considerably. This variability is evident from the total thickness of formations and the absence or scarcity of some microfacies, especially the open-marine microfacies in the Lower Sarvak Formation in southern Iran and the Persian Gulf region [32,33]. These variable thicknesses are evident from the isopach maps of the middle Cretaceous for this sedimentary basin [26]. Such variations suggest a period of instability characterized by the reactivation of basement block faults in Dezful Embayment and active salt tectonism in the Persian Gulf. Thickness differences within the Sarvak Formation could also be ascribed to erosion at the disconformable surfaces (discussed in this study) or variable subsidence rates in different parts of the depositional environment [27] (Figure 2).

3.2. Lurestan Zone

The Lurestan Zone has a long hydrocarbon exploration and production history, but relatively few successful boreholes have been drilled in this zone. Nevertheless, both high-quality source rocks and regional seals are present. The Cenomanian Sarvak Formation carbonates form the major reservoir unit [26]. Permeabilities of the samples in the Sarvak Formation vary significantly due to variations in depositional facies and diagenetic overprints.
During Early Cretaceous, a sedimentary basin extended in the passive margin of the NE-N of the Arabian Plate, covering the whole present Zagros fold belt, Persian Gulf, and the Arabian Platform [27]. The center of this basin was situated in the Lurestan Zone and Eastern Iraq. From Iran to the southwest of the Arabian Plate, carbonate facies are replaced by clastic facies, which indicates a shallowing upward trend of the sedimentary basin [50] (Figure 2 and Figure 3). The Lower Cretaceous in the Lurestan Zone consists of dark gray to black radiolarian bearing shale and argillaceous limestone belonging to a deep marine environment (Garau Formation) (Figure 2). This stratigraphic unit is overlying the Gutnia Formation (evaporite deposits) (Figure 2). The latest Albian–Cenomanian transgression led to the deposition of shallow marine limestone (Sarvak Formation) in the Zagros Basin. Towards the end of the Cenomanian, regional uplift caused significant subaerial exposure and erosion in the upper part of this limestone unit (in most parts of the Zagros) [50]. However, because of the deeper settings in the Lurestan Zone, deposition continued without significant unconformities [51] (Figure 2 and Figure 3). In the central Lurestan Zone, deeper marine conditions led to the deposition of shale and argillaceous limestone of the Surgah Formation [52]. In Lurestan, this unit overlies the Sarvak Formation and, in turn, is overlain by the argillaceous limestone of the Ilam Formation [52] (Figure 2).

3.3. Stratigraphy

In the S.W. parts of Iran, the Sarvak Formation has two significant facies: neritic and pelagic [21] (Figure 3A). The unit is bounded at the top by a significant disconformity in the Khuzestan and Fars Provinces that is less apparent in the Lurestan Zone, where it shows deeper facies of Albian–The Turonian age [53]. In this area, the upper part of the succession, which underlies the Surgah Formation with a disconformity surface, shows deep marine pelagic facies. However, the lower parts are shallow marine or neritic facies. In the Lurestan Zone, the lower boundary of the Sarvak has been developed in two forms. In some places, there is a transition zone between Garau and pelagic argillaceous limestone of the Sarvak Formation. In other areas, a massive neritic limestone sharply overlies the Garau Formation [26,50] (Figure 3B). Radiolarian limy mudstones dominate the Sarkan, Maleh-Kuh, Halush, Gaver, Veyzenhar fields and Kuh-Sultan sections in the central Lurestan Zone (Figure 1). They were deposited during Albian and early Cenomanian (Lower Sarvak Formation) [50]. These facies change into calcispheres mudstone towards the shelf edge.

3.4. Study Area

The objective of this study was to evaluate the paleoenvironmental conditions of the Sarvak Formation in the Lurestan Zone. Accordingly, data from the Sarkan (four boreholes), Maleh-Kuh (three boreholes), Halush (one borehole), Veyzenhar (one borehole), and Gawar (one borehole) fields have been used. Outcrop sections, including Behesht-Reza and Kuh-Sultan, were also studied, and used to achieve this aim (Figure 1). The Maleh-Kuh and Sarkan fields are located 70 and 55 km to the S.W. of Khorramabad city, respectively, and are ~10 km apart. The Kuh-Sultan Anticline is between the two fields and is ~50 km long and 4 km wide (Figure 1). The Maleh-Kuh Field is an elongated anticline ~35 km long and up to 5 km wide. The Halush Field is located south of the Maleh-Kuh structure. The first borehole in the Maleh-Kuh Field (MK-1) was drilled on the eastern nose of the structure in 1967. Gas and oil have been found in the Ilam Formation and the Sarvak Formation. So far, three boreholes have been drilled in the Maleh-Kuh Field (MK-1, MK-2, and MK-3) (Figure 1).
The Sarkan Field is located north of the Maleh-Kuh Field. This field is an elongated anticline ~25 km long and up to 5 km wide. The structure can be recognized at the surface. The boreholes drilled in the Bangestan Group (Ilam and Sarvak formations) contain gas and oil. So far, four boreholes have been drilled in the Sarkan structure (SK-1, SK-2, SK-3, and SK-4) (Figure 1).
The Veyzenhar Field is a small asymmetrical anticline 17 km long and 3 km wide. The S.W. flank of the structure is steeper, and its measured dip is up to 60° while the flank varies between 15°–30°. The Gawar Field is located in N.W. of the Veyzenhar Field and N.W. of Lurestan. The Behesht Reza surface section is located west of Khoram Abad city at the Sefid Kuh Anticline (Figure 1).

4. Results

4.1. Facies Analysis

Using the mentioned methods and considering the field observations and laboratory data, 12 microfacies have been recognized in the Sarvak Formation in all seven studied sections. These facies can be ascribed to the distal open marine (outer ramp and basin), patch reef talus and channel (mid-ramp, proximal open marine or fore reef), and lagoon and shoal (inner-ramp) facies belts of a carbonate ramp.

4.1.1. Distal Open Marine (Outer Ramp and Basin)

Altogether, five microfacies were documented for this facies belt, including planktonic/sponge spicule wackestone to packstone (MF1), calcispheres mudstone to packstone (MF2), grey to dark grey planktonic fauna wackestone to packstone (MF3), peloidal skeletal wackestone to packstone with planktonic fauna (MF4), and thin layers of skeletal peloidal packstone and grainstone (MF5) (Figure 4 and Figure 5). This facies belt shows the most diverse microfacies of the Sarvak Formation in the studied area.
Bioclasts of all microfacies in this facies belt include planktonic sponge spicule, calcispheres, pelagic fauna, silt-sized bioclasts, planktonic bivalve debris, planktonic foraminifera such as Heterohelix sp., Favusella washitensis, Macroglenes bentonensis, M. ultramicrus, Macroglenes sp., Muricohedbergella delrioensis, M. planispira, M. ricshi, M. simplex, Muricohedbergella sp., Whiteinella praehelvetica, Whiteinella sp., Biticinella breggiensis, Ticinella praeticinensis, T. primula, Ticinella sp., and T. roberti.
Other less frequent constituents are fine echinoderm fragments, fishbone debris, bivalves, rudist debris, and peloids. This facies belt has different characteristics, including pyrite crystals, deep marine fauna, small grain size, high amounts of organic matter, and local siliceous cement. The abundance of these microfacies is higher in the Sarkan, Veyzenhar, Gaver, and Behesht-Reza areas compared to Male-Kuh and Kuh-Sultan. Table 2 presents the microfacies characteristics of the studied sections.

4.1.2. Talus and Channel (Mid-Ramp)

Channel facies is composed of 2 microfacies, including rudist debris floatstone/wackestone (MF6) (Figure 6A,B) and intraclast skeletal grainstone (rudist rudstone) (MF7) (Figure 6C,D). The microfacies number 6 comprise rudist debris of variable sizes, peloids, small benthic foraminifera, and echinoderms fragments. These facies are composed of intraclasts and rudist debris floating in the mud-rich matrix and also show textural inversion (high-energy allochems such as crushed and coarse bioclasts in a low-energy/mud-dominated matrix). The intraclasts comprise some bioclasts such as echinoderms debris, green algae, gastropods, and benthic foraminifera that indicate the shallower environments such as lagoon and proximal mid-ramp. The rudist’s debris originated from the destruction of rudist patch reefs in the mid-ramp environment. The depositional setting of these facies can be attributed to channels located in the proximal to middle parts of the mid-ramp setting near a high-energy fair weather wave base (FWWB). The gamma-ray of the interval is 20 to 40 GAPI. Its lithology is mostly argillaceous limestone.
Microfacies number 7 consist of medium to coarse-grained skeletal debris, such as echinoderms and rudist debris, frequently observed in these microfacies. The peloids are mainly accompanied by micritized bioclasts and small benthic foraminifera originating from the peloidal bioclastic shoals and re-deposited in low-energy settings. Considering the variations in size and type of bioclasts, textural inversion, and the mixture of the planktic and benthic fauna associated with stormy fabric, these facies could be ascribed to the channels developed from proximal parts of the mid-ramp to outer-ramp settings. These microfacies exhibit a light color on the outcrop. It was mainly recognized in the Sarvak Formation of Maleh Kuh and Behesht Reza. The average gamma-ray is lower than 10 GAPI in the wells and about 20 GAPI in the outcrops. Its lithology is limestone [54,55].
Talus facies consist of three distinct microfacies, including peloidal skeletal grainstone (MF8) (Figure 6E,F), skeletal packstone to grainstone (MF9) (Figure 6G), and crystallized skeletal grainstone (MF10) (Figure 6H).
The microfacies number 8 are mainly composed of echinoderm and rudist debris. However, planktonic fossils in a few samples may indicate relative sea-level rise or storm deposition. This evidence clearly shows fore-reef or rudist patch reefs talus that was extended to the middle parts of the mid-ramp. They have been mixed with mid-ramp bioclasts. The value of gamma ray is between 10 to 40 GAPI. The main lithology is argillaceous limestone to limestone.
The microfacies number 9 are formed of medium to coarse-grained echinoderm and rudist debris along with a few dispersed planktonic fossils. The presence of such faunas indicates deposition in the reef to fore-reef (and occasionally as a patch reef) setting. Most bioclast debris is micritized and rounded to sub-rounded. The gamma-ray often shows a value lower than 10 GAPI but occasionally reaches 30 GAPI. The main lithologies are limestone and argillaceous limestone [55].
The microfacies number 10 comprise echinoderm and bivalve (rudist) debris. The presence of such faunas indicates deposition in fore-reef or channels located in proximal parts of the mid-ramp. These microfacies have been observed in the Sarvak in Sarkan and Maleh Kuh Fields. The gamma ray shows a value lower than 25 GAPI. Its main lithology is limestone to argillaceous limestone.
Mid-ramp microfacies have been observed in all studied sections but are most abundant in the Sarkan, Maleh-Kuh, and Halush fields (Table 2).

4.1.3. Lagoon

Two microfacies of the lagoon setting are skeletal peloidal packstone to grainstone (MF11) (Figure 7A–D) and skeletal wackestone to packstone with large benthic foraminifera (MF12) (Figure 7E–H). Allochems include peloids and benthic foraminifera such as Ammodiscus sp., Glomospira sp., Murgeina apula, Nezzazata conica, N. gyra, N. simplex, N. sp., Nezzazatinella picardi, Trochospira avnimelechi, Moncharmontia apenninica, Fleuryana adriatica, Bolivinopsis sp., Gaudryina sp., Arenobulimina sp., Praechrysalidina sp., Pseudotextulariella sp., Pseudolituonella reicheli, Dictyoconus sp., Orbitolina sp., Chrysalidina sp., Marssonella sp., gastropods, and green algae. Other observed allochems are echinoderm debris, rudists, coral debris, and intraclasts. The bioclast diversity, a mixture of planktonic and benthic fauna, textural inversion, presence of large benthic foraminifera, and a mud-dominated fabric all indicate that these microfacies have been deposited in a lagoon environment near an open-marine setting (channel) [4,56]. The lagoonal microfacies were only observed in the Sarvak Formation of Kuh-Sultan and some layers of the Behesht Reza section.
The microfacies number 11 are divided into two groups. The first group consists of echinoderm debris (up to 30%) with overgrowth cement and rudist fragments (up to 5%), along with a minor amount of intraclasts. Based on field observations, these intraclasts are fine-grained and seem to be red algae debris, but they are not recognizable under the microscope due to micritization. Valvulamina picardi and Valvulamina sp. were also observed. Based on the petrographic study, the above microfacies were deposited in the seaward shoal.
The second group consists of rudist debris (30%), echinoderm, and some benthic foraminifers with minor amounts of peloids (up to 20%). Considering the petrographic studies, these microfacies have been deposited in a leeward shoal environment. The grain-dominated fabric and a relatively good sorting of grains are related to higher energy and turbulence during deposition. Therefore, these facies have been formed in a shoal’s seaward and leeward parts. The microfacies were only observed in Behesht Reza Section. These microfacies have a light color and massive appearance. The gamma-ray ranges between 20 to 30 GAPI. The main lithology is limestone to argillaceous limestone.
The microfacies number 12 are characterized by skeletal wackestone to packstone with large benthic foraminifera. The lagoonal fossils, such as gastropods and green algae, are predominant. However, a few rudists, echinoderms, and coral debris would also be observed. The bioclast’s diversity, large benthic foraminifera, and mud-dominated fabric indicates a lagoon environment near an open-marine setting (channel). These facies are observed in the Sarvak Formation of Kuh Sultan and Behesht Reza sections. They show a light color and massive texture. The gamma-ray ranges from 20 to 70 GAPI, and its main lithology is limestone to argillaceous limestone.

4.2. Frequency of Facies Associations

The frequencies of the recognized facies throughout the study area and each studied section have been calculated (Figure 8). According to these calculations, the distal open marine sub-environment microfacies show the highest frequency, while the lagoon is less frequent than other facies. The percentage of lagoonal microfacies decreases from southeast to north-northwest in the central subzone of the Lurestan Zone. All evidence indicates that the lagoon sub-environment was prevailed in the Kuh Sultan area in the Central subzone. In addition, these microfacies are present in the Behesht Reza section in the northern subzone (Figure 9A). Open marine facies vary considerably in the Sarvak Formation of the studied area (Figure 8), indicating that the main body of fore-reef sediments was deposited in the Maleh-Kuh and Halush areas (high energy level, windward side) (Figure 9B). The frequency of fore-reef microfacies in the Sarvak Formation shows a decreasing trend from southwest to east-northeast (Figure 9B).
The frequency of open marine microfacies (proximal and distal open marine) (MF1–MF8) shows an increasing trend from S.W. to the north-northeast in the central subzone of Lurestan Zone (Figure 9C). This indicates the domination of deep basin conditions towards the N-NE. In addition, the main body of open marine facies was deposited in the Sarkan, Veyzenhar, and Gaver areas. However, moving northeast to the northern subzone and Behesht Reza outcrop, the frequency of talus facies decreases while inner-ramp facies (particularly shoal facies) increase. According to isochore maps of the Sarvak Formation, an increasing thickness from southeast to N-NW could be observed, indicating a deepening trend in this direction (low energy level, leeward) (Figure 9D). Sedimentological columns of Behesht-Reza, Kuh-Soltan, Male-Kuh and Sarkan wells and outcrops are illustrated in Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12 and Figure 13.

4.2.1. Sequence Stratigraphy

The sequence stratigraphical analysis has been carried out using petrophysical data, facies, and fossil contents. A total of 4 depositional sequences (third order) were distinguished using the available data [56,57,58].

Sequence No. 1

Sequence 1 comprises the TST and HST intervals characterized by transgressive and regressive cycles (Early Cenomanian age). The TST interval is characterized by fine-grain skeletal wackestone to packstone, followed by planktonic facies (Oligosteginidae facies). A significant retrogradational parasequence can be observed in this transgressive interval (associated with the high-gamma radiation). The TST interval is bounded at the top by the MFS, characterized by a thick interval of the planktonic facies and bioturbation. The HST interval has been deposited above the MFS and is composed of a significant assemblage of Rudist debris (Rudist skeletal grainstone). Regarding lithology, the HST comprises dolomite with low gamma radiation (SK-1). The HST interval is bounded at the top by a type 2 sequence boundary distinguished based on an abrupt marine flooding event (Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12 and Figure 13).

Sequence No. 2

Sequence no. 2 consists of TST and HST intervals, characterized by limestone to argillaceous lithologies (Cenomanian age). The TST interval is composed of an alternation between peloids packstone/grainstone and rudist packstone. Deepening upward cycles with retrogradational stacking patterns are dominated in the TST interval. This interval is bounded at the top by the MFS, which is marked by a large community of planktonic facies (Oligosteginidae packstone). The MFS key bed also represents high radiation of gamma-ray. The HST interval is dominated by an alternation between planktonic packstone/wackestone and peloidal skeletal packstone/grainstone, representing a gradual progradational stacking pattern. Regarding lithology, the HST interval mainly comprises limestone to argillaceous limestone. This interval is bounded at the top by a type 2 sequence boundary (Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12 and Figure 13).

Sequence No. 3

Sequence no. 3 consists of TST and HST systems tracts. This depositional sequence is dominated by limestone and argillaceous limestone lithologies (Late Cenomanian to Turonian age). The TST interval is mainly composed of the planktonic facies (mostly Oligosteginidae assemblages) with a few layers of rudist skeletal packstone. The TST interval also corresponds to the retrogradational parasequences, accompanied by a considerably high gamma ray. The TST interval is bounded at the top by the MFS key bed, characterized by the concentration of Oligosteginidae microfauna (corresponds to the highest gamma radiation). The HST interval represents an alternation between planktonic facies (Oligosteginidae wackestone/packstone) and rudist skeletal packstone to grainstone (equivalents to the progradational stacking pattern). The HST interval is capped by a thick interval of intraclast grainstone adjacent to the overlaying sequence boundary type 2. As a result, the HST interval reveals a shallowing upward cycle terminated at the next abrupt flooding surface (sequence boundary type 2/transgressive surface) (Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12 and Figure 13).

Sequence No. 4

Sequence 4 comprises the outer shelf facies (Late Turonian to Early Santonian age). The TST interval shows a deepening upward cycle characterized by planktonic facies (wackestone/packstone). The TST interval begins with intraclast skeletal wackestone as an indicator of abrupt marine flooding and is followed by a thick succession of Globotruncanaidae microfauna, including Globotruncana skeletal wackestone/packstone. The main lithology is argillaceous limestone with few limestone interlayers. The TST interval is bounded at the top by the MFS assigned to the maximum increase of planktonic microfauna and glauconite debris. It is noted that MFS indicates an increase in gamma radiation. The HST interval is mainly characterized by alternating Globotruncana skeletal wackestone and Globotruncana skeletal packstone. The HST interval is capped by a type 2 sequence boundary or abrupt marine flooding surface (transgressive surface) (Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12 and Figure 13).

5. Discussion

5.1. Cenomanian Palaeoheight

In the Zagros, three unconformities have been identified in middle Cretaceous deposits [40,53,57,58]. The lower unconformity (Mid-Cenomanian) has been observed at the base of this interval in the southern part of the Fars area and Bandar Abbas. Another unconformity (Late Cenomanian–Early Turonian) is traced throughout the Zagros area, except in the Lurestan. The last unconformity is seen after Mid Turonian throughout the Zagros area, and its effects are sometimes recognized in the Lurestan Zone [27]. In most subzones, these events have paved the way for exposure and erosion [32,33,59]. However, in the Lurestan Zone, in contrast to the other areas of the Zagros, deep marine conditions were dominated, which prevented the emergence of the Sarvak platform (except for the past-mid-Turonian event, which is documented in some parts of the Lurestan Zone) [60].
In the Cenomanian, two significant unconformities have been introduced. The first one (middle Cenomanian) has a eustatic nature. The second one (the Late Cenomanian) occurred due to local palaeoheight, as indicated by faulting, basement block uplift, and halokinetic movements [60]. These unconformities are readily traced and correlated on a regional scale in the Arabian Plate and Zagros region [61,62,63,64,65,66]. However, they gradually disappear towards the N.W. of the Zagros (i.e., the Lurestan Zone), reflecting the predominance of deeper marine conditions during Cenomanian. Then, the tectonic regime changed from extensional (passive margin) to compressional (active margin). Thus, the Lurestan Zone, on the distal part of this changing platform, experienced deeper marine conditions. Therefore, these unconformities (an active compressional regime) gradually disappear toward the Lurestan Zone. However, the driving force was active, resulting in basement uplifts, leading to the development of some shallower realms in the Sarvak platform suitable for isolated platform establishment. Thus, compressional tectonic paved the way for basement uplift and shaping platforms with optimum conditions for carbonate production (carbonate factory).
Favourable conditions for the generation of Palaeoheights in Cenomanian of the Lurestan Zone were like NW Spain during the Carboniferous period in the Cantabrian Mountains. Both were identical regarding tectonic activities and location in the sedimentary basin. The generation of palaeoheights in both places was influenced by a compressional tectonic regime in a deep sedimentary basin. With the basement uplift of the basin and their emplacement in optimum depth, it was possible to create a carbonate factory [17,18,19]. In S Spain during the Aptian-Albian transition, an isolated sedimentary platform was formed after an extensional tectonic regime. Thick layers have been deposited during sea-level fall [17]. After basement uplifts in the Lurestan Zone to the optimum depth (euphotic zone), rudist-bearing patch reefs formed at the windward side. Bioclastic shoals were created on the opposite side (leeward). Therefore, the isolated platforms in the Lurestan were shaped by the same forces creating the two Cenomanian unconformities in other areas of the Zagros. Later, these isolated platforms were also affected by the basin-scale relative sea-level fall after the mid-Turonian that led to their exposure (carbonate factory shut down). The middle Turonian unconformity originates from the ophiolite obduction on the north-western margin of the Arabian Plate [27,50]. This resulted in the development of an isolated platform in the east-south-eastern sections adjacent to the palaeoheight (Figure 14 and Figure 15). The nearest sections to palaeoheights (Behesht Reza and Kuh-Soltan) are the only ones having lagoon facies, implying that they are located at the central parts of the platform.
The creation of the atoll in the Aptian-Albian isolate platform in southern Spain started with creating a graben on the platform. With the higher sedimentation rate and sea-level fall, the atoll divided the platform into two parts. The presence of continental sediments, organic matter, soil horizon, and carbonate sediments indicate the formation of a barrier island near the coast. With the rising sea level and the drowning of the barrier island, the isolated platform has been shut down [17].
Unlike the southern platform of Spain, isolated platforms in the Lurestan Zone and NW Spain (Mississippian–Lower Pennsylvanian isolated carbonate platform), atolls have been created under the influence of tectonic activities and basement uplift in deep sedimentary basins far from land. The absence of continental sediments in the identified facies indicates this issue. In both platforms, carbonate facies of the shallow environment are surrounded by facies of the deep basin. One of the main differences between the Cenomanian platform in the Lurestan Zone and the Mississippian–Lower Pennsylvanian platform in NW Spain is the profiles of the platforms. In the Lurestan Zone, the atoll has been surrounded by two ramp profiles, while in the NW Spain platform, the atoll has been surrounded by two shelf profiles. This can be inferred from the difference in the type of reef-builder organisms. In the Lurestan Zone, three-dimensional rudist reefs were not present, and it was not possible to create a shelf profile, while in the Carboniferous period in NW Spain, reef-builder organisms were able to create three-dimensional structures, and subsequently, there were atoll shelf profiles [17,18,19].
Far from palaeoheights, Sarkan, Male Kuh, and Halush sections were located at the edge of the platform, and they contain frequent talus and rudist facies. The Visenhar and Gaver sections were in the open marine setting of the proposed isolated platform. In addition, the Kabir Kuh and Samand sections (located in the southern part of the Lurestan Basin) were influenced by two palaeoheights in east-southeastern and south-southwestern areas. Therefore, they were placed at the platform’s edge (Figure 15).

5.2. Conceptual Depositional Model

Significant features of this isolated platform include its controls over the facies distribution expressed by the windward or leeward orientations or tide-or-storm-dominated conditions. Outer high and low energy belts in the platform have been occupied by the rudist reefs along with the channel and shoal facies. The isochore map shows that the platform’s general pattern of facies distribution was almost circular in the studied area (Figure 14). In addition, the gradual changes of facies and low diversity and type of facies throughout this platform are other indicators of its isolated platform model.

6. Conclusions

Reconstruction of depositional palaeoenvironments by combining the results of various data indicates an isolated platform with two ramp profiles for the passive margin of Neotethys. According to the textural properties of the facies and their distribution, the ramp profile located in the central subzone was windward-oriented and had a relatively high energy level (significant development of rudist reefs). The ramp profile in the northern subzone was leeward-oriented, and its lower energy led to the replacement of the rudist reefs by bioclastic shoal bodies. The lagoonal facies were only observed in the Kuh-Sultan and Behesht-Reza sections. Therefore, the shallower part of the platform was in these areas.
Based on the frequencies of various facies associations, the approximate location of each section in the conceptual sedimentary model was determined. Accordingly, the lower and upper successions have been deposited in open marine (distal and proximal) environments. However, in the central zone, in the Kuh-Sultan section, lagoonal environments and an open marine lagoon (back-reef) are visible in the upper part of this unit. It could have been caused by erosion at the Sarvak Formation’s top. In the Sarkan and Maleh-Kuh fields, the middle part of the Sarvak Formation was deposited in channel and talus (fore-reef) environments, but in the Kuh-Sultan area, it shows lagoonal environments. The talus and channel facies were primarily observed in the Maleh-Kuh area. In other words, most of the open marine facies were deposited in the Sarkan area, while lagoonal facies were dominant in the Kuh-Sultan. However, in the northern subzone at the Behesht Reza section, all mentioned facies belts are present. Shoal facies were dominant in the Behesht Reza section.
The Sarvak Formation in the Lurestan Zone, including most of its reservoir interval, has been formed as an isolated platform (Albian–Early-Turonian). In this time interval, the high-energy settings of the ramp profiles were dominated by high-energy shoals and rudist patch reefs. While the entire studied carbonate successions have been formed in the carbonate factory of an isolated platform, the overall anatomy was shaped by local and regional tectonic movements.
The Sarvak Formation have been analysed regarding sequence stratigraphy in the study area. Altogether, four distinct depositional sequences were distinguished (corresponding to the third order cycles). The relevant depositional sequences comprise the TST and HST intervals formed by frequent and gradual relative sea-level fluctuations in the basin.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M., H.R.-B. and V.T.; methodology, M.M., H.R.-B. and V.T.; software, M.M.; validation, H.R.-B. and V.T.; formal analysis, M.M., H.R.-B. and V.T.; investigation, M.M.; resources, M.M., H.R.-B. and V.T.; data curation, M.M.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M.; writing—review and editing, M.M., H.R.-B. and V.T.; visualization, M.M., H.R.-B. and V.T.; supervision, H.R.-B. and V.T.; project administration, H.R.-B. and V.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. We confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved by all named authors and that there are no other persons who satisfied the criteria for authorship but are not listed. We further confirm that the order of authors listed in the manuscript has been approved by all of us. Finally, we confirm this manuscript is not being submitted to any journal.

References

  1. Wilson, J.L. Carbonate Facies in Geologic History; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  2. Lucia, F.J. Carbonate Reservoir Characterization; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahr, W.M. Geology of Carbonate Reservoirs; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  4. Schlager, W. Carbonate Sedimentology and Sequence Stratigraphy; SEPM Concepts in Sedimentology and Paleontology: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  5. Moore, C.; Wade, W. Carbonate Reservoirs: Porosity, Evolution and Diagenesis in a Sequence Stratigraphic Framework; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  6. Flügel, E. Microfacies of Carbonate Rocks: Analysis, Interpretation and Application, 2nd ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  7. Reading, H.G. Sedimentary Environments, 3rd ed.; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bernecker, M. Facies architecture of an isolated carbonate platform in the Hawasina Basin: The Late Triassic Jebel Kawr of Oman. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2007, 252, 270–280. [Google Scholar]
  9. Preto, N.; Gianolla, P.; Franceschi, M.; Gattolin, G.; Riva, A. Geometry and evolution of Triassic high-relief, isolated microbial platforms in the Dolomites, Italy: The Anisian Latemar and Carnian Sella platforms compared. AAPG Bull. 2017, 101, 475–483. [Google Scholar]
  10. Kelley, B.M.; Lehrmann, D.J.; Yu, M.; Jost, A.B.; Meyer, K.M.; Lau, K.V.; Altiner, D.; Li, X.; Minzoni, M.; Schaal, E.K.; et al. Controls on carbonate platform architecture and reef recovery across the Palaeozoic to Mesozoic transition: A high-resolution analysis of the Great Bank of Guizhou. Sedimentology 2020, 67, 3119–3151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Abdalla, M.; Yang, W. Progradation of a middle Eocene carbonate slope system, Assamoud Field, Sirte Basin, north-central Libya–Implications on the dynamics of lateral growth of isolated carbonate platforms. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2021, 129, 105119. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ting, K.K.; Tan, Y.E.; Chiew, E.; Lee, E.L.; Azudin, A.N.; Ishak, N.A. Assessing controls on isolated carbonate platform development in central Luconia, NW Borneo, from a regional 3D seismic facies and geomorphology investigation. Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ. 2021, 509, 29–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Loza Espejel, R.; Alves, T.M.; Blenkinsop, T.G. Distribution and growth styles of isolated carbonate platforms as a function of fault propagation. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2019, 107, 484–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Strohmenger, C.J.; Meyer, L.; Yose, L.A.; Walley, D.S.; Yusoff, M.M.; Lyons, D.Y.; Sutton, J.; Rivers, J.M.; Carlo, D.; von Schnurbein, B.; et al. Reservoir characterization of an isolated middle Miocene carbonate platform: Ca Voi Xanh Field, offshore Vietnam. J. Pet. Geol. 2020, 43, 5–26. [Google Scholar]
  15. Gatt, P. Facies, depositional environments and drowning of Tethyan isolated carbonate platforms: The Paleogene carbonates of Malta. Facies 2022, 68, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gischler, E.; Isaack, A.; Hudson, J.H. Sediments of the Dry Tortugas, south Florida, USA: Facies distribution on a ramp-like isolated carbonate platform. Sediment. Geol. 2017, 351, 48–65. [Google Scholar]
  17. Nieto, L.M.; Molina, J.M.; Ruiz-Ortiz, P.A.; Castro, J.M.; Reolid, M.; de Gea, G.A. Palustrine Sediments between Two Isolated Shallow Carbonate Platforms (Aptian–Albian Transition, Prebetic of Jaén, South Spain). Minerals 2022, 12, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Blanco-Ferrera, S.; Cózar, P.; Sanz-Lopez, J. Development of a Mississippian–Lower Pennsylvanian isolated carbonate platform within the basinal griotte facies of the Cantabrian Mountains, NW Spain. Facies 2021, 67, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. De Paz-Álvarez, M.I.; Alonso, J.L.; Fernández, L.P. Gravity-driven structures and deposits resulting from slope collapse in the margin of a carbonate platform (Pennsylvanian, Cantabrian Zone, NW Iberia). J. Struct. Geol. 2019, 119, 15–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sharland, P.R.; Archer, R.; Casey, D.M.; Davis, R.B.; Hall, S.H.; Heward, A.P.; Horbury, A.D.; Simmons, M.D. Arabian Plate Sequence Stratigraphy, Geoarabia, Special Publication 2; Gulf PetroLink: Manama, Bahrain, 2001; p. 371. [Google Scholar]
  21. Dunham, R.J. Classification of carbonate rocks according to depositional texture. AAPG Mem. 1962, 1, 108–121. [Google Scholar]
  22. Embry, A.R.; Klovan, J.E. A Late Devonian reef tract on northeastern Banks Island, Northwest Territories. Bull. Can. Pet. Geol. 1971, 19, 730–781. [Google Scholar]
  23. Tucker, M.E.; Wright, V.P. Carbonate Sedimentology; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  24. Piryaei, A.; Reijmer, J.; Borgomano, J.; van Buchem, F.S.P. Late Cretaceous tectonic and sedimentary evolution of the Bandar Abbas area, Fars region, southern Iran. J. Pet. Geol. 2011, 34, 157–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hollis, C. Diagenetic controls on reservoir properties of carbonate successions within the Albian–Turonian of the Arabian Plate. Pet. Geosci. 2011, 17, 223–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Tavakoli, V. Chemostratigraphy of the Permian-Triassic Strata of the Offshore Persian Gulf, Iran. In Chemostratigraphy: Concepts, Techniques, and Applications; Ramkumar, A., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 373–393. [Google Scholar]
  27. Tavakoli, V.; Naderi-Khujin, M.; Seyedmehdi, Z. The end-Permian regression in the western Tethys: Sedimentological and geochemical evidence from offshore the Persian Gulf, Iran. Geo-Mar. Lett. 2018, 38, 179–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Falcon, N.L. Southern Iran: Zagros Mountains. Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ. 1974, 4, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Haynes, S.J.; McQuillan, H. Evolution of the Zagros Suture Zone, Southern Iran. GSA Bull. 1974, 85, 739–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Motiei, H. Geology of Iran, the Stratigraphy of Zagros (in Persian); University of Tehran: Tehran, Iran; Geological Survey Iran: Tehran, Iran, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  31. van Buchem, F.S.P.; Simmons, M.D.; Droste, H.J.; Davies, R.B. Late Aptian to Turonian stratigraphy of the eastern Arabian Plate—Depositional sequences and lithostratigraphic nomenclature. Pet. Geosci. 2011, 17, 211–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Vincent, B.; van Buchem, F.S.P.; Bulot, L.; Jalali, M.; Swennen, R.; Hosseini, A.; Baghbani, D. Depositional sequences, diagenesis, and structural control of the Albian to Turonian carbonate platform systems in coastal Fars (SW Iran). Mar. Pet. Geol. 2015, 63, 46–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Malekzadeh, H.; Daraei, M.; Bayet-Goll, A. Field-scale reservoir zonation of the Albian–Turonian Sarvak Formation within the regional-scale geologic framework: A case from the Dezful Embayment, SW Iran. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2020, 121, 104586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kelishami, S.B.A.; Mohebian, R. Petrophysical rock typing (PRT) and evaluation of Cenomanian–Santonian lithostratigraphic units in southwest of Iran. Carbonates Evaporite 2021, 36, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bromhead, A.D.; van Buchem, F.S.P.; Simmons, M.D.; Davies, R.B. Sequence stratigraphy, palaeogeography and petroleum plays of the Cenomanian–Turonian succession of the Arabian Plate: An updated synthesis. J. Pet. Geol. 2022, 45, 119–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hajikazemi, E.; Al-Aasm, I.S.; Coniglio, M. Subaerial exposure and meteoric diagenesis of the Cenomanian–Turonian upper Sarvak formation, southwestern Iran. Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ. 2010, 330, 253–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hajikazemi, E.; Al-Aasm, I.S.; Coniglio, M. Chemostratigraphy of Cenomanian–Turonian carbonates of the Sarvak Formation, southern Iran. J. Pet. Geol. 2012, 35, 187–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rahimpour-Bonab, H.; Mehrabi, H.; Enayati-Bidgoli, A.H.; Omidvar, M. Coupled imprints of tropical climate and recurring emersions on reservoir evolution of a mid-Cretaceous carbonate ramp, Zagros Basin, SW Iran. Cretac. Res. 2012, 37, 15–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gholami Zadeh, P.; Adabi, M.H.; Sadeghi, A. Microfacies, geochemistry and sequence stratigraphy of the Sarvak Formation (Mid Cretaceous) in the Kuh-e Siah and Kuh-e Mond, Fars area, southern Iran. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 2019, 160, 103634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Naderi-Khujin, M.; Tavakoli, V.; Seyrafian, A.; Vaziri-Moghaddam, H. How a mud-dominated ramp changed to a carbonate–clastic oil reservoir: Sea-level fluctuations in cretaceous of the central Persian Gulf. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2020, 116, 104301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Assadi, A.; Honarmand, J.; Moallemi, S.A.; Abdollahie-Fard, I. Depositional environments and sequence stratigraphy of the Sarvak Formation in an oil field in the Abadan Plain, SW. Facies 2016, 26, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jodeyri-Agaii, R.; Rahimpour-Bonab, H.; Tavakoli, V.; Kadkhodaie-Ilkhchi, R.; Yousefpour, M.R. Integrated approach for zonation of a mid-cenomanian carbonate reservoir in a sequence stratigraphic framework. Geol. Acta 2018, 16, 321–337. [Google Scholar]
  43. Shoghi, J.; Bahramizadeh-Sajjadi, H.; Nickandish, A.B.; Abbasi, M. Facies modeling of synchronous successions—A case study from the mid-cretaceous of N.W. Zagros, Iran. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 2020, 162, 103696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. van Buchem, F.S.P.; Razin, P.; Homewood, P.W.; Oterdoom, W.H.; Philip, J. High-resolution sequence stratigraphic architecture of Barremian/Aptian carbonate systems in Northern Oman. GeoArabia 2002, 7, 461–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ghabeishavi, A.; Vaziri-Moghaddam, H.; Taheri, A.; Taati, F. Microfacies and depositional environment of the Cenomanian of the Bangestan anticline, SW Iran. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2010, 37, 275–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Asadi Mehmandosti, E.; Adabi, M.; Woods, A. Microfacies and geochemistry of the Middle Cretaceous Sarvak Formation in Zagros Basin, Izeh Zone, SW Iran. Sediment. Geol. 2013, 293, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kiani, A.; Saberi, M.H.; ZareNezhad, B.; Mehmandosti, E.A. Reservoir zonation in the framework of sequence stratigraphy: A case study from Sarvak Formation, Abadan Plain, SW Iran. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2022, 208, 109560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Alavi, M. Regional stratigraphy of the Zagros fold-thrust belt of Iran and its proforeland evolution. Am. J. Sci. 2004, 304, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Alavi, M. Structures of the Zagros fold-thrust belt in Iran. Am. J. Sci. 2007, 307, 1064–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Haq, B.U.; Huber, B.T. Anatomy of a eustatic event during the Turonian (Late Cretaceous) hot greenhouse climate. Sci. China Earth Sci. 2017, 60, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Elhossainy, M.M.; Salman, A.M.; Sarhan, M.A.; Al-Areeq, N.M.; Alrefaee, H.A. Sequence stratigraphic analysis and depositional evolution of the Upper Cretaceous deposits in Ras Budran oil field, Gulf of Suez, Egypt. Arab. J. Geosci. 2021, 14, 1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Koop, W.; Stoneley, R. Subsidence history of the Middle East Zagros basin, Permian to Recent. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 1982, 305, 149–168. [Google Scholar]
  53. Mehrabi, H.; Rahimpour-Bonab, H. Paleoclimate and tectonic controls on the depositional and diagenetic history of the Cenomanian-early Turonian carbonate reservoirs, Dezful Embayment, SW Iran. Facies 2014, 60, 147–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Motiei, H. Stratigraphy of Zagros, Geology of Iran; Geological Survey of Iran: Tehran, Iran, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  55. Tavakoli, V. Application of gamma deviation log (GDL) in sequence stratigraphy of carbonate strata, an example from offshore Persian Gulf, Iran. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2017, 156, 868–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Sepehr, M.; Cosgrove, J.W. Structural framework of the Zagros Fold–Thrust Belt, Iran. Mar. Petrol. Geol. 2004, 21, 829–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Beydoun, Z.R. Arabian plate hydrocarbon, geology and potential—A plate tectonic approach. AAPG Stud. Geol. 1991, 33, 309–339. [Google Scholar]
  58. Shabani, F.; Amini, A.; Tavakoli, V.; Honarmand, J.; Gong, C. 3D forward stratigraphic modeling of the Albian succession in a part of the northeastern margin of the Arabian Plate and its implications for exploration of subtle traps. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2022, 145, 105880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Mehrabi, H.; Rahimpour-Bonab, H.; Hajikazemi, E.; Jamalian, A. Controls on depositional facies in Upper Cretaceous carbonate reservoirs in the Zagros area and the middle cretaceous Sarvak Formation in Zagros basin, Izeh zone, SW Iran. Sediment. Geol. 2015, 293, 9–20. [Google Scholar]
  60. Ghabeishavi, A.; Vaziri-Moghaddam, H.; Taheri, A. Facies distribution and sequence stratigraphy of the Coniacian–Santonian succession of the Bangestan Palaeo-high in the Bangestan Anticline, SW Iran. Facies 2009, 55, 243–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Sharifi-Yazdi, M.; Rahimpour-Bonab, H.; Nazemi, M.; Tavakoli, V.; Gharechelou, S. Diagenetic impacts on hydraulic flow unit properties: Insight from the Jurassic carbonate Upper Arab Formation in the Persian Gulf. J. Pet. Explor. Prod. Technol. 2020, 10, 1783–1802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Naderi-Khujin, M.; Seyrafian, A.; Vaziri-Moghaddam, H.; Tavakoli, V. A record of global change: OAE 1a in Dariyan shallow-water platform carbonates, southern Tethys, Persian Gulf, Iran. Facies 2016, 62, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Naderi-Khujin, M.; Seyrafian, A.; Vaziri-Moghaddam, H.; Tavakoli, V. Characterization of the Late Aptian top-Dariyan disconformity surface offshore SW Iran: A multi-proxy approach. J. Pet. Geol. 2016, 39, 269–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Taghavi, A.A.; Mork, A.; Emadi, M.A. Sequence stratigraphically controlled diagenesis governs reservoir quality in the carbonate Dehluran Field, SW Iran. Pet. Geosci. 2006, 12, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Immenhauser, A.; Creusen, A.; Esteban, M.; Vonhof, H.B. Recognition and interpretation of polygenic discontinuity surface in the Middle Cretaceous Shu’aiba, NahrUmr, and Natih Formations of Northern Oman. GeoArabia 2000, 5, 299–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Naderi-Khujin, M.; Tavakoli, V. Composition, environment, and economic value of the Permian to Cretaceous coated grains from Zagros and the Persian Gulf. Int. J. Sediment. Res. 2023, 38, 316–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sherkati, S.; Letouzey, J. Variation of structural style and basin evolution in the central Zagros (Izeh zone and Dezful Embayment), Iran. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2004, 21, 535–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Minerals 13 00757 g001 550
Figure 1. The location map of the studied area includes oilfields and subsurface sections in the Central and Northern subzones parts of the Lurestan Zone. The Sarkan, Maleh-Kuh, Halush, Gaver, and Veyzenhar oil fields and Kuh-Sultan surface section are located in the central subzone of the Lurestan. The Behesht Reza surface section is located in the Northern subzone.
Figure 1. The location map of the studied area includes oilfields and subsurface sections in the Central and Northern subzones parts of the Lurestan Zone. The Sarkan, Maleh-Kuh, Halush, Gaver, and Veyzenhar oil fields and Kuh-Sultan surface section are located in the central subzone of the Lurestan. The Behesht Reza surface section is located in the Northern subzone.
Minerals 13 00757 g001
Minerals 13 00757 g002 550
Figure 2. Detailed stratigraphy of the Cretaceous successions in different parts of Iran, including the Sarvak Formation of the Bangestan Group.
Figure 2. Detailed stratigraphy of the Cretaceous successions in different parts of Iran, including the Sarvak Formation of the Bangestan Group.
Minerals 13 00757 g002
Minerals 13 00757 g003 550
Figure 3. (A) Generalized stratigraphy of the Sarvak Formation in the type section located in the Zagros region (SW Iran). (B) Stratigraphic column of the Sarvak Formation in Sarkan Field situated in the central subzone.
Figure 3. (A) Generalized stratigraphy of the Sarvak Formation in the type section located in the Zagros region (SW Iran). (B) Stratigraphic column of the Sarvak Formation in Sarkan Field situated in the central subzone.
Minerals 13 00757 g003
Minerals 13 00757 g004 550
Figure 4. Photomicrographs (PPL) of microfacies of distal open marine and outer ramp. (A) MF1, planktonic/sponge spicule wackestone to packstone. (B,C) MF2 calcispheres mudstone to packstone. (D,E) MF3, grey to dark grey planktonic fauna wackestone to packstone. (F,G) MF4, peloidal skeletal wackestone to packstone with planktonic fauna. (H) MF5, thin layers of skeletal peloidal packstone and grainstone. um: microns.
Figure 4. Photomicrographs (PPL) of microfacies of distal open marine and outer ramp. (A) MF1, planktonic/sponge spicule wackestone to packstone. (B,C) MF2 calcispheres mudstone to packstone. (D,E) MF3, grey to dark grey planktonic fauna wackestone to packstone. (F,G) MF4, peloidal skeletal wackestone to packstone with planktonic fauna. (H) MF5, thin layers of skeletal peloidal packstone and grainstone. um: microns.
Minerals 13 00757 g004
Minerals 13 00757 g005 550
Figure 5. The lithology of the distal open marine and outer ramp microfacies: (A) Argillaceous limestone with planktonic fossils. (B) Calcareous shale. (C) Argillaceous limestone with fine lamination and bioturbation. (D) Argillaceous limestone with planktonic fossils (Globotruncanidae), bioturbation and pyrite crystals. (E) Argillaceous limestone with planktonic fossils, echinoderm debris, lamination, pyrite mineral, and bioturbation. (F) Argillaceous limestone with peloidal, planktonic fossils, sponge spicule, and boring. (G) Limestone to argillaceous limestone with peloidal planktonic fossils. (H) Argillaceous limestone with skeletal peloidal grainstone, planktonic fossils, echinoderm debris, fishbone debris, fine lamination, and bioturbation.
Figure 5. The lithology of the distal open marine and outer ramp microfacies: (A) Argillaceous limestone with planktonic fossils. (B) Calcareous shale. (C) Argillaceous limestone with fine lamination and bioturbation. (D) Argillaceous limestone with planktonic fossils (Globotruncanidae), bioturbation and pyrite crystals. (E) Argillaceous limestone with planktonic fossils, echinoderm debris, lamination, pyrite mineral, and bioturbation. (F) Argillaceous limestone with peloidal, planktonic fossils, sponge spicule, and boring. (G) Limestone to argillaceous limestone with peloidal planktonic fossils. (H) Argillaceous limestone with skeletal peloidal grainstone, planktonic fossils, echinoderm debris, fishbone debris, fine lamination, and bioturbation.
Minerals 13 00757 g005
Minerals 13 00757 g006 550
Figure 6. Photomicrographs (XPL) of microfacies of proximal open marine and inner ramp. (A–C) MF6, Rudist debris floatstone/wackestone. (D–F) MF7, intraclast skeletal grainstone (rudist rudstone). (G,H) MF8, peloidal skeletal grainstone. (I,J) MF9, skeletal packstone to grainstone containing echinoderm and rudist debris. (K,L) MF10 crystallized skeletal grainstone.
Figure 6. Photomicrographs (XPL) of microfacies of proximal open marine and inner ramp. (A–C) MF6, Rudist debris floatstone/wackestone. (D–F) MF7, intraclast skeletal grainstone (rudist rudstone). (G,H) MF8, peloidal skeletal grainstone. (I,J) MF9, skeletal packstone to grainstone containing echinoderm and rudist debris. (K,L) MF10 crystallized skeletal grainstone.
Minerals 13 00757 g006
Minerals 13 00757 g007 550
Figure 7. Photomicrograph of microfacies of inner ramp (shoal and lagoonal facies). (A–D) MF11, Skeletal peloidal packstone to grainstone ((A,B) leeward shoal–(C,D) seaward shoal). (E–H) MF12, skeletal wackestone to packstone with sizeable benthic foraminifera, rudist, ostracod, green algae, echinoderm, and debris.
Figure 7. Photomicrograph of microfacies of inner ramp (shoal and lagoonal facies). (A–D) MF11, Skeletal peloidal packstone to grainstone ((A,B) leeward shoal–(C,D) seaward shoal). (E–H) MF12, skeletal wackestone to packstone with sizeable benthic foraminifera, rudist, ostracod, green algae, echinoderm, and debris.
Minerals 13 00757 g007
Minerals 13 00757 g008 550
Figure 8. Frequency of different microfacies of Sarvak Formation in the SK-1, SK-2, SK-3 boreholes and Veyzenhar (V.R.) and Gaver (G.R.) fields, MK-1, MK-2 boreholes and Halush (H.H.) field and as well as Kuh-Sultan (K.S.) and Behesht Reza (B.R.) sections. (K.S.).
Figure 8. Frequency of different microfacies of Sarvak Formation in the SK-1, SK-2, SK-3 boreholes and Veyzenhar (V.R.) and Gaver (G.R.) fields, MK-1, MK-2 boreholes and Halush (H.H.) field and as well as Kuh-Sultan (K.S.) and Behesht Reza (B.R.) sections. (K.S.).
Minerals 13 00757 g008
Minerals 13 00757 g009 550
Figure 9. (A) Isochore map of lagoonal microfacies (open marine lagoon and shoal) frequencies in the Sarvak Formation in the studied area. The frequency of these microfacies decreases from the southeast to the north-northwest in the central subzone of the Lurestan Zone. (B) Isochore map of fore-reef microfacies (channel and Talus located mid-ramp) frequencies in Sarvak Formation in the studied area. The frequency of these microfacies decreases from S.W. to the east-northeast. (C) Isochore map of frequency of open marine microfacies (proximal and distal open marine) in Sarvak Formation in the studied area. The frequency of these microfacies increases from S.W. to the north-northeast. (D) Isochore of the Sarvak Formation thickness in the studied area (central subzone). The thickness of this formation increases from south-southeast to north (according to the meter scale).
Figure 9. (A) Isochore map of lagoonal microfacies (open marine lagoon and shoal) frequencies in the Sarvak Formation in the studied area. The frequency of these microfacies decreases from the southeast to the north-northwest in the central subzone of the Lurestan Zone. (B) Isochore map of fore-reef microfacies (channel and Talus located mid-ramp) frequencies in Sarvak Formation in the studied area. The frequency of these microfacies decreases from S.W. to the east-northeast. (C) Isochore map of frequency of open marine microfacies (proximal and distal open marine) in Sarvak Formation in the studied area. The frequency of these microfacies increases from S.W. to the north-northeast. (D) Isochore of the Sarvak Formation thickness in the studied area (central subzone). The thickness of this formation increases from south-southeast to north (according to the meter scale).
Minerals 13 00757 g009
Minerals 13 00757 g010 550
Figure 10. The sedimentological column of the Sarvak Formation in the Behesht-Reza outcrop in the northern subzone shows thickness, gamma-ray, lithology, texture, biozone and sequence framework.
Figure 10. The sedimentological column of the Sarvak Formation in the Behesht-Reza outcrop in the northern subzone shows thickness, gamma-ray, lithology, texture, biozone and sequence framework.
Minerals 13 00757 g010
Minerals 13 00757 g011 550
Figure 11. Sedimentological column of the Sarvak Formation in the Kuh-Soltan and Beheshte-Reza outcrops. Thickness, gamma-ray, lithology, rock type, zonation, and sequences of the Sarvak Formation are shown. Equivalent MFS have been recognized in different parts of the Middle East [20]. The main sequence stratigraphic surfaces (maximum flooding surfaces and sequence boundaries) have been determined based on facies (microfacies) properties, log data (gamma-ray logs), and paleontological evidence (ratio of planktonic to benthic foraminifera).
Figure 11. Sedimentological column of the Sarvak Formation in the Kuh-Soltan and Beheshte-Reza outcrops. Thickness, gamma-ray, lithology, rock type, zonation, and sequences of the Sarvak Formation are shown. Equivalent MFS have been recognized in different parts of the Middle East [20]. The main sequence stratigraphic surfaces (maximum flooding surfaces and sequence boundaries) have been determined based on facies (microfacies) properties, log data (gamma-ray logs), and paleontological evidence (ratio of planktonic to benthic foraminifera).
Minerals 13 00757 g011
Minerals 13 00757 g012 550
Figure 12. Sedimentological column of the Sarvak Formation in the two wells of the Male-Kuh Field. Depth, rock type, zonation, and sequences of the Sarvak Formation are shown. Equivalent MFS have been recognized in different parts of the Middle East [20]. The main sequence stratigraphic surfaces (maximum flooding surfaces and sequence boundaries) have been determined based on facies (microfacies) properties, log data (gamma-ray logs), and paleontological evidence (ratio of planktonic to benthic foraminifera).
Figure 12. Sedimentological column of the Sarvak Formation in the two wells of the Male-Kuh Field. Depth, rock type, zonation, and sequences of the Sarvak Formation are shown. Equivalent MFS have been recognized in different parts of the Middle East [20]. The main sequence stratigraphic surfaces (maximum flooding surfaces and sequence boundaries) have been determined based on facies (microfacies) properties, log data (gamma-ray logs), and paleontological evidence (ratio of planktonic to benthic foraminifera).
Minerals 13 00757 g012
Minerals 13 00757 g013 550
Figure 13. Sedimentological column of the Sarvak Formation in three wells of the Sarkan Field. Depth, gamma-ray, lithology, rock type, zonation, and sequences of the Sarvak Formation are evident. Equivalent MFS in different parts of the Middle East can be find in [20]. Maximum flooding surfaces and sequence boundaries have been recognized based on facies (microfacies) variations, gamma-ray logs and paleontological studies (ratio of planktonic to benthic foraminifera).
Figure 13. Sedimentological column of the Sarvak Formation in three wells of the Sarkan Field. Depth, gamma-ray, lithology, rock type, zonation, and sequences of the Sarvak Formation are evident. Equivalent MFS in different parts of the Middle East can be find in [20]. Maximum flooding surfaces and sequence boundaries have been recognized based on facies (microfacies) variations, gamma-ray logs and paleontological studies (ratio of planktonic to benthic foraminifera).
Minerals 13 00757 g013
Minerals 13 00757 g014 550
Figure 14. Proposed ramp carbonate platform conceptual depositional model for the Sarvak Formation in the Central and Northern subzones of the Lurestan Zone. Schematic microfacies illustrations for the main facies’ belts are shown. Based on the frequencies of various facies associations, the approximate locations of each section in the conceptual depositional model were also determined.
Figure 14. Proposed ramp carbonate platform conceptual depositional model for the Sarvak Formation in the Central and Northern subzones of the Lurestan Zone. Schematic microfacies illustrations for the main facies’ belts are shown. Based on the frequencies of various facies associations, the approximate locations of each section in the conceptual depositional model were also determined.
Minerals 13 00757 g014
Minerals 13 00757 g015 550
Figure 15. Reconstruction of the location of the study sections on the isopach map of the Cenomanian interval in the Lurestan Zone, based on logged surface sections together with fieldwork and borehole data [67] (up). Three considerable palaeoheights have been caused by these tectonic movements that resulted in an isolated platform (down).
Figure 15. Reconstruction of the location of the study sections on the isopach map of the Cenomanian interval in the Lurestan Zone, based on logged surface sections together with fieldwork and borehole data [67] (up). Three considerable palaeoheights have been caused by these tectonic movements that resulted in an isolated platform (down).
Minerals 13 00757 g015
Table
Table 1. The number of thin sections from the core, cutting and hand specimens in boreholes and surface sections. The thickness of the Sarvak Formation is also evident in each case.
Table 1. The number of thin sections from the core, cutting and hand specimens in boreholes and surface sections. The thickness of the Sarvak Formation is also evident in each case.
SectionBoreholeThickness
(m)		No. of Thin SectionsCoreCuttingOutcrop
SarkanSk 1491340++−
Sk 2408651++−
Sk 3226250++−
Sk 4460303−+−
Mal-e- KuhMk 1260161++−
Mk 216595+−−
Mk 310283−+−
HalushHh 1118127++−
GavarGr 1391260−+−
VizenharVr 1359187++−
Kuh Soltan---108140−−+
Behesht Reza---943.5550−−+
Table
Table 2. Microfacies and facies associations (MF1–MF12) of Sarvak carbonates in the studied sections. Main facies properties are also presented.
Table 2. Microfacies and facies associations (MF1–MF12) of Sarvak carbonates in the studied sections. Main facies properties are also presented.
Facies CodeFacies NameLithofaciesMain ComponentsGrain PropertiesEnergy LevelDepositional EnvironmentGamm-ray
(GAPI)
SkeletalNon-SkeletalGrain SizeSorting
F1planktonic sponge spicule wackestone to packstonegrey to dark grey limestone to argillaceous limestoneplanktonic fossils, sponge spiculepeloidvery finepoorvery lowdistal open marine (basin)15–40
F2calcispheres mudstone to packstonelimestone to calcareous shale with fine laminations, bioturbation and fissilitycalcispheres, radiolarian, echinoder, sponge spicule, fish bone, rudist debris---very finepoorvery lowdistal open marine (basin)15–75
F3grey to dark grey planktonic fauna, wackestone to packstonegrey to dark grey limestone to argillaceous limestoneplanktonic fauna, echinoderm, fish bone, rudist debris---very finepoorvery lowdistal open marine (basin)15–70
F4peloidal skeletal wackestone to packstone with planktonic faunalimestone to argillaceous limestoneechinoderm, fish bone, sponge spicule, rudist debris, planktonic fossols (minor)peloidfine to mediummediumlowdistal open marine (outer ramp)10–40
F5thin layers of peloidal skeletal grainstone to packstone and grainstoneargillaceous limestoneechinoder, fish bone, sponge spicule, rudist debrispeloidfinemediumlowdistal open marine (outer ramp)25
F6rudist debris floatstone/wackestoneforaminiferal and bivalve well-bedded argillaceous floatstone/limestonerudist debris, small bentic and planktonic foraminifera, echinodermpeloidvery coarse to very fine (diverse size)poorlow to highchannel in mid ramp20–40
F7intraclast skeletal grainstone (rudist rudstone)grey foraminiferou, bivalve, rudist and shell fragmental well-bedded floatstone/limestoneechinoder, rudist debris, benthic foraminifera and pelagic faunaintraclast, peloidcoarse to fine (diverse sizes)poorlow to highchannel in mid ramp10–20
F8peloidal skeletal grainstoneforaminiferou, shell fragmental dolomitized well-bedded grainstone/limestonerudist debris, echinoder, benthic foraminiferapeloid, intraclast (minor)moderate to coarsemoderatelymoderatetalus or forereef10–40
F9skeletal packstone to grainstoneshell and rudist fragmental, bioturbated well-bedded argillaceous packstone to grainstone/limestonerudist debris, echinoder, fish bone---medium to coarsemoderatelymoderate-hightalus or forereef (pom)>25
F10crystallized skeletal grainstonegrey rudist fragmental well-bedded grainstone/limestoneechinoder, fish bone, rudist debris---coarsemoderatelyhightalus or forereef10–30
F11skeletal peloidal packstone to grainstoneforaminiferous shell fragmental peloidal well-bedded argillaceous packstone to grainstone/limestoneechinoderm and rudist debris, planktonic fossils (minor)intraclast, peloid (minor)mediumwellhighshoal (seaward)20–30
rudist debris, echinoder, benthic foraminiferapeloid, intraclast
shoal (leeward)
F12skeletal wackestone to packstone with large benthic foraminiferaforaminiferal shell fragmental well-bedded argillaceous wackestone to packstone/limestonelarge benthic foraminifera, Dicyclina, Miliolidae, Rotalia, gastropod, echinoderms rudist, bivalve, ostracod, green algae debrispeloid, intraclastmedium to very finepoorlow to highopen marine lagoon (inner ramp)20–70
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Moeini, M.; Rahimpour-Bonab, H.; Tavakoli, V. Evidence for Isolated Platform Development in the Cenomanian on the Passive Margin of Neotethys, Southwest Iran. Minerals 2023, 13, 757. https://doi.org/10.3390/min13060757

AMA Style

Moeini M, Rahimpour-Bonab H, Tavakoli V. Evidence for Isolated Platform Development in the Cenomanian on the Passive Margin of Neotethys, Southwest Iran. Minerals. 2023; 13(6):757. https://doi.org/10.3390/min13060757

Chicago/Turabian Style

Moeini, Mersad, Hossain Rahimpour-Bonab, and Vahid Tavakoli. 2023. "Evidence for Isolated Platform Development in the Cenomanian on the Passive Margin of Neotethys, Southwest Iran" Minerals 13, no. 6: 757. https://doi.org/10.3390/min13060757

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop