Great Basin Paleozoic Carbonate Platforms Guidebook

OpenFile Report 20041078
Field Trip Guidebook Metallogeny of the Great Basin Project, August 1722, 2003
Great Basin Paleozoic Carbonate Platform:

Facies, Facies Transitions, Depositional Models,
Platform Architecture, Sequence Stratigraphy,
And Predictive Mineral Host Models
By Harry E. Cook1 and James J. Corboy 1
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
1 U.S.
Geological Survey
345 Middlefield Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025 U.S.A.
GREAT BASIN PALEOZOIC CARBONATE PLATFORM:

FACIES, FACIES TRANSITIONS,
DEPOSITIONAL MODELS,
PLATFORM ARCHITECTURE, SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY,
AND PREDICTIVE MINERAL HOST MODELS
H.E.COOK AND J.J. CORBOY
U.S. Geol. Survey
Menlo Park, CA 94025 USA
Booming Tonopah (Elliot, 1966)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITINERARY
i-iv
PALEOZOIC OF THE GREAT BASIN
Introductory Perspectives
Objectives of the Field Trip
Depositional, Stratigraphic, and Tectonic Setting
1
1
1
BASIC CARBONATE PRINCIPLES
Carbonates versus Siliciclastics

Depositional Environments
Carbonate Components and Skeletal Compositions
Textural considerations
Rates of Sedimentation
Diagenetic Considerations
6
6
6
6
16
16
STATIC CARBONATE DEPOSITIONAL MODELS
23
Homoclinal Ramp Model

Distally Steepened Ramp Model
Rimmed Platform Model
Carbonate Slope and Base-of-Slope Apron Models
Carbonate Submarine Fan Model
23
25
25
28
31
DYNAMIC CARBONATE SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY MODELS

General Perspectives
Sequences and Systems Tracts
31
31
34
FIELD STOPS
36
Stop 1-1 Confusion Range, Utah

Stop 2-1 Overview: Devils Gate, Nevada
Stop 2-2 Devils Gate, Nevada
Stop 3-1 Garden Pass, Nevada
Stop 3-2 Roberts Mountains, Nevada
Stop 4-1 Monitor Range, Nevada
Stop 4-2 Overview: Toquima Range, Nevada
Stop 5-1 Warm Springs, Hot Creek Range, Nevada
Stop 5-4 Tybo Canyon, Hot Creek Range, Nevada
Stop 5-5 Overview: Hot Creek Range, Nevada
Stop 5-6 Hot Creek Canyon, Hot Creek Range, Nevada
REFERENCES
37
45
50
58
60
73
76
87
93
97
97
97
99
109
111
120-129
ITINERARY
Day 0, Sunday, August 17
~1400-1700 hours:
Arrival of field trip participants at the Best Western Motor Inn, 527 East Topaz Blvd.,
Delta, Utah, 84624, Tel. 435-864-3882,
Fax 435-864-4834.
~1700-1800 hours:
Pool side Best Western if possible: Field trip discussion: safety and caravan logistics,
distribution of guidebook material; geological objectives; discussion of basic
carbonate principles, standard facies belts and facies analysis, carbonate sequence
stratigraphy, static and dynamic stratigraphic and depositional facies models, history
of the depositional facies profile used on the field trip, and potential host (reservoir)
facies for minerals and petroleum.
~1800-2000 hours:
Supper. *Recommend all vehicles gassed up, fluids and tires checked, etc. prior to
Monday morning.
Day 1, Monday, August 18

0700 hours:
Leave Best Western Motor Inn parking lot and caravan to Confusion Range, Utah.
Stop 1-1:
Kings Canyon, Confusion Range, Utah. Orientation and examination of Silurian

Laketown Dolomite (middle shelf) and overlying Devonian Sevy Dolomite (tidal
flats). Stopping time about 1.5 hours.
Stop 1-2:
Little Mile-and-a-half Canyon, Confusion Range, Utah. Upper Devonian Guilmette

Limestone (middle shelf) and Pilot Shale (basin) contact. Stopping time about 0.5
hours.
Stop 1-3:
Little Mile-and-a-half Canyon, Confusion Range, Utah. Upper Devonian-Lower

Mississippian Pilot Shale (basin-to-upper slope) and Lower Mississippian Joana
Limestone (platform margin). Stopping time about 3.5 hours.
1530 hours:
Leave parking area and drive to Ely, Nevada. Stay at the Motel 6, 770 Ave 0, Ely,
Nevada, 89301, Tel. 775-289-6671.
Day 2, Tuesday, August 19

0700 hours:
Leave Motel 6 and drive to Eureka, Nevada.
Stop 2-1:
Overview of Devils Gate area near Whistler Mountain, Nevada. Stopping time about
0.5 hours.
Stop 2-2:
Devils Gate, Nevada. Upper Devonian Devils Gate Limestone (middle shelf to slope),
Upper Devonian-Lower Mississippian Pilot Shale (basin), and Chainman Shale
(basin). Stopping time about 5 hours.
1630 hours:
Leave parking area and return to Best Western Eureka Inn, 251 North Main Street,
Eureka, Nevada, 89316, Tel. 775-237-5247, Fax 775-237-5155.
ii
Day 3, Wednesday, August 20

0700 hours:
Leave Best Western Eureka Inn and drive to Roberts Mountains, Nevada.
Stop 3-1:
Garden Pass, Sulphur Springs Range. Ordovician Vinini Formation (basin). Stopping
time about 0.5 hours.
Stop 3-2:
Willow Creek Canyon, Roberts Mountains, Nevada. Silurian-Lower Devonian

Roberts Mountains Formation (slope-to-platform margin) and Lone Mountain
Dolomite (platform margin and tidal flat). Stopping time about 5 hours.
1630 hours:
Leave parking area and return to Best Western Eureka Inn in Eureka, Nevada.
Day 4, Thursday, August 21

0700 hours:
Leave Best Western Eureka Inn and drive to Monitor Range, Nevada.
Stop 4-1:
Copenhagen Canyon, Monitor Range, Nevada.

Limestone (slope). Stopping time about 3.0 hours.
1500 hours:
Leave parking area and drive to Tonopah, Nevada.
Stop 4-2:
? hours:
Lower Devonian Rabbit Hill
Overview stop on eastside of Toquima Range in Monitor Valley near Ikes

Canyon, Nevada. Discuss the origin of the Lower Devonian Tor Limestone.
Is it totally allochthonous and comprised of megabreccia debris flow and
turbidite deposits or is it an in-situ shoal-water reef/bank? Is the Toiyabe
Ridge a valid concept? Stopping time about 1.0 hours.
Monitor Valley, Nevada. Brief stop at Dianas Punch Bowl and the almost-ghost
town of Belmont. Continue driving to Tonopah. Stay at the Best Western Hi-Desert
Inn, 320 Main Street, Tonopah, Nevada, 89049, Tel # 775-482-3511, Fax # 775-4823000.
Day 5, Friday, August 22

0700 hours:
Leave the Best Western and drive to the Hot Creek Range, Nevada.
Stop 5-1, 5-2, 5-3
Warms Springs, Hot Creek Range, Nevada (one of these three stops TBD). Upper
Devonian Denay Limestone (basin), Pilot Shale (basin), Woodruff Formation (basin),
and Lower Mississippian Webb Formation (basin), Tripon Pass Limestone (basin), and
Eleana Formation (basin). Stopping time about 2 hours.
Stop 5-4:
Tybo Canyon, Hot Creek Range, Nevada. Upper Cambrian and Lower Ordovician
Swarbuck Limestone (outer basin), Dunderberg Shale (inner basin), and Hales
Limestone (slope). Stopping time about 2 hours.
Stop 5-5:
Eastern end of Hot Creek Canyon, Hot Creek Range, Nevada. Overview of Cambrian
Devonian stratigraphy and structure. Stopping time about 0.5 hours.
iii
Stop 5-6:
Western end of Hot Creek Canyon, Hot Creek Range, Nevada. Lower Devonian
Kobeh (platform margin/platform interior), Bartine (basin-slope) and Coils Creek
(basin-slope) members of the McColley Canyon Limestone and Middle Devonian
Denay Limestone (slope-upper slope), Bay State Dolomite (platform margin), and
Chainman Shale (basin). Stopping time about 2.0 hours.
Stop 5-7 (optional):
Western end of Hot Creek Canyon, Hot Creek Range, Nevada. Briefly examine and
discuss Tertiary ignimbrite reservoir rocks if there is an interest.
1700 hours:
Leave parking area and return to Best Western, Tonopah, Nevada.
Day 6, Saturday, August 23

0830-1030 hours:
(optional)
Pool side of Best Western Motel. Informal group discussion of the

field trip stops and our metallogeny project goals.
1030 hours:
End of Field trip.
Sleep corral (Browne, 1961)

iv
PALEOZOIC OF THE GREAT BASIN

Introductory Perspectives
A basic premise implicit on this field trip is that the better we understand the origin of rocks and the processes
under which they formed the better able we will be to make well founded stratigraphic predictions.
The Great Basin (Figure 1) provides an excellent opportunity to study facies, facies transitions and depositional
sequences in one of the worlds most stratigraphically complete and best exposed examples of a Paleozoic passive
carbonate platform (Cook, 1988). The purpose of this field trip is to recognize and gain an understanding of both shallow
water and deep-water carbonate settings and their facies. To this end emphasis is placed on understanding depositional
environments, facies, diagenetic patterns, and the stratigraphic analysis of vertical facies successions as embodied in
sequence stratigraphic principles. Better geologic interpretations of these elements in carbonate sedimentology and facies
analysis are usually critical in both petroleum and mineral exploration for sediment-hosted minerals. Facies analyses are
receiving wider importance in mineral exploration as world-class mineral deposits in Nevada and elsewhere are probably
controlled by primary depositional facies patterns (for example, Raines and others, 1991; Cook, 1993; Lydon, 1996;
Armstrong and others, 1998; Emsbo, 1999, 2000; Hofstra and others, 1999; Hofstra and Cline, 2000). Based on these and
other papers, many of the sediment-hosted gold deposits of Nevada appear to have developed at or near platform margin/
basin margin sites (Figures 2 and 3).
One of the steps in petroleum or mineral exploration lies in predicting the location of porous and permeable zones
likely to be commercial host facies. Depositional facies and facies patterns often control depositional porosity trends and
strongly influence post-depositional diagenetic porosity patterns in carbonates. Thus, it follows that the correct recognition
of environments and knowledge of carbonate depositional sequences in these environments can provide important
advantages in designing exploration and production strategies.
Objectives of Field Trip
1.
2.
3.
4.
Examine several chronostratigraphic sequences up to 200 miles wide (including Cenozoic extension), from western
Utah to central Nevada, that illustrate carbonate facies transitions through tidal flat, middle platform, bank and reef
margin, and deeper marine slope, debris apron and fan, and basin-plain environments.
Relate depositional and diagenetic facies and carbonate depositional sequences to distally-steepened carbonate ramp,
carbonate ramp, rimmed platform, slope and base-of-slope debris aprons, and carbonate fan models.
Discuss potential host/reservoir facies and traps for sediment-hosted gold and petroleum in both shallow water
platform margin and deeper-water carbonate sequences.
Discuss how static and dynamic carbonate models and carbonate sequences can be used for making observations,
for making stratigraphic and facies interpretations, and for making predictions of the locations and architecture of
potential mineral and petroleum host/reservoir facies.
Depositional, Stratigraphic, and Tectonic Setting
A summary of the geologic history of the Great Basin is in Cook, 1988. Figures 2 and 3 are draft depositional
facies profiles that have been extensively updated and revised from earlier ones in Cook (1988). These profiles show
the relationships between age, relative sea-level cycles, carbonate sequences, formations, examples of sediment-hosted
gold deposit stratigraphic occurrences and field stop localities for pre-Antler orogeny (Figure 2) and post-Antler orogeny
(Figure 3) stratigraphy.
Figure 4 shows the broad aspects of the chronostratigraphic slices we will be examining as they relate to age
and major tectonic events. As seen on figure 2 the overall emerging framework is one of a passive carbonate continental
margin whose shoal-water platform margins evolved through time by aggradation (upbuilding), seaward progradation, and
landward retrogradation or retreating.
This carbonate platform evolved through several stages of platform margin architecture from distally-steepened
ramps with submarine fans (Late Cambrian-Early Ordovician) to low-angle homoclinal ramps (Late Ordovician) to
1
NEVADA
UTAH
SALT LAKE CITY
EUREKA
ELY
DELTA
TONOPAH
CALIFORNIA
ARIZONA
LAS VEGAS
SCALE
25
50
75
80
100 Miles
160 Km
Figure 1. Outline of Great Basin and itinerary of MGB field trip with approximate locations of field trip stops.
Day 1, Stop 1 (1-1).
rimmed platforms with slope debris aprons that formed on low angle slopes (Silurian-Early Devonian) to rimmed margins
with base-of-slope debris aprons that formed on steeper angle slopes (Early Devonian-Late Devonian). Throughout
its history the platform underwent subsidence and relative sea-level rises and falls that had significant effects on the
geometric patterns (sequence stratigraphy) of its carbonate facies in both shallow water and deeper water depositional
environments.
During the Late Devonian through Early Mississippian (Figure 3) the Antler orogeny profoundly reshaped the
structural and depositional framework of the long-standing early Paleozoic platform-slope-basin plain couplet (for example,
Poole, 1974; Perry and Abbott, 1997). It is generally considered that deep water basin plain sediments in the western Great
Basin were uplifted and thrust eastward (Roberts Mountains thrust), on the order of 100 to 150 km, over the carbonate
platform margin facies in central Nevada during the Late Devonian-Early Mississippian. During the Antler Orogeny, the
former continental slope and a wide portion of the adjacent platform were warped downward drowning Upper Devonian
and Lower Mississippian shallow water carbonates. This downward warping of the continental margin created a foreland
basin (Poole, 1974; Giles and Dickinson, 1995; Sandberg and others, 2003). Large volumes of siliciclastics were eroded
from the newly developed Antler orogenic highlands and were shed eastward into the foreland basin as well as westward.
These Mississippian foreland basin siliciclastics probably served as source rocks for some of the petroleum accumulations
hosted in Paleozoic carbonate reservoirs and Tertiary ignimbrite reservoirs (Poole and Claypool, 1984; Poole and others,
1983; McLean, 1995). For a review of foreland basins, see Dorobek and Ross, (1995). A contrasting interpretation of
the tectonic style of the Antler Orogeny and the timing of the Antler Orogeny versus the Roberts Mountains thrust are
discussed by Ketner (1998).
This foreland basin persisted until gradually Upper Mississippian and Pennsylvanian carbonates were able
to prograde seaward over the basinal deposits. Thus, once again shallow water carbonate continental margin deposits
occupied paleogeographic positions that were occupied prior to the Antler orogeny (Figure 3).
DEPOSITIONAL
SEQUENCES
TIME
(my)
AGE
THIRD-ORDER CYCLES
CENTRAL NEVADA
BASIN
DEEPENING
11
DEVONIAN
LATE
(D3)
SLOPE
DEVILS GATE
10
FRASNIAN
MIDDLE
(D2)
GIVETIAN
EIFELIAN
370
390
PRIDOLIAN
LUDLOVIAN
WENLOCKIAN
SILURIAN
PRAGIAN
LOCHKOVIAN
BASE-OF-SLOPE
APRONS
4-2
4-1
SHOAL / REEF-RIMMED
WITH
SLOPE APRONS
LLANDOVIAN
BARTINE
KOBEH
RAMP
BP
IL
INDM
L (RM)
RM
4
LATE CAMBRIAN
495
2
1
STRATIGRAPHIC
OCCURRENCES OF GOLD
PROGRADING
RETROGRADING
AGGRADING
FIELD STOP
DAY 1, STOP 1
3-2
VININI
SWARBRICK
FISH HAVEN
SWAN PEAK
GARDEN CITY
"POGONIP"
DWIN
NOTCH PEAK
ST. CHARLES
WHIPPLE CAVE
5-4
DUND
HOUSE
D1
GOO
WATER CANYON
1-1
ELY SPRINGS
EUREKA
HA
D2
LAKETOWN
LONE MOUNTAIN
LE
DISTALLY
STEEPENED
RAMP WITH
SUBMARINE FANS
SEVY
HANSEN CREEK 4
ORDOVICIAN
"NEVADA"
BEACON PEAK
(BP)
5-5
RTS
ROBE AINS
T
MOUN
3-1
JEFFERSON
GUILMETTE
SIMONSON
WOODPECKER
OXYOKE CANYON
ER R
ANCH
ILL
RABBIT H
BASTILLE - W
BAY STATE
SENTINEL MOUNTAIN
SADL
McCOLLEY CANYON
TOR-McM
415
440
1-1
SHOAL / REEF-RIMMED
WITH
DENAY
POPOVICH
EMSIAN
EARLY
(D1)
GUILMETTE
5-6 DEVILS GATE
DENAY
D3
WEST RANGE
10
AGE
1-2
PILOT
2-1, 2-2
PILOT
WOODRUFF
TIDAL
FLATS
MIDDLE & INNER SHELF
~200 miles (325 Km)
PLATFORM ARCHITECTURE
355
FAMENNIAN
WESTERN UTAH
PLATFORM
MARGIN
ERBER
SLOPE AND BASIN
PLATFORM MARGIN
TURBIDITE/DEBRIS FLOWS
MIDDLE AND INNER SHELF
SLUMPS
TIDAL FLATS
SILICICLASTIC SANDSTONE
Figure 2. Generalized pre-Antler Orogeny depositional facies profile from western Utah to central Nevada showing formational terminology, location of field
stops, stratigraphic occurrences of gold, relative rise/fall of sea level, carbonate platform architecture, and ten complete depositional sequences from Upper
Cambrian through the Devonian. Total stratigraphic thickness at the platform margin is about 12,000 to 15,000 feet (3,500 to 5,000 meters). The relative
thickness of each depositional sequence has been altered for diagrammatic purposes. Modified from Cook and others (1983) and based on data from Winterer and
Murphy (1960), Cook (1966), Murphy and Gronberg (1970), Matti and McKee (1977), Poole and others (1977), Kendall and others (1983), Johnson and Bird
(1991), Murphy and Anderson (1991), Raines and others (1991), Kerans and Tinker (1997), Haq and Eysinga (1998), and Sandberg and others (2003).
CENTRAL
NEVADA
WESTERN
UTAH
~200 miles (325 Km)
PEQUOP
A
EDN ER
TL E
N
A
TL
BAT
AH
ALL
HAV
(PE
AL
HO
T
CH
I
NIN
VI
,5
5-1
T
LO
-2,
PI
5-3
E
CHAINMAN
TR LEANA
IPO
N PA
SS
WOO
W
D
EB
DEN RU
B
AY F
3-1
1-3
)
NIAN
LIMES
TONE GROUP (PENNSYLVA
DI
(M AMO
ISS N
ISS D P
IP EA
PI K
AN
)
AN)
LO
EL
ICK )
RN PIAN
E
IP
MP
PU SSISS
I
(M
ELY
RM
-PE
NN.
ROUP
ARCTURUS G
2-3
ISS
DE
V
STRATIGRAPHIC
OCCURRENCES OF GOLD
CARBONATE PLATFORM
FIELD STOP
DAY 1, STOP 3
SILICICLASTIC CONGLOMERATE
UT
DOUGHN
LUE
B
EAT
GR
A
AN
JO
OL
EP
G
OD
TO
RIS
EC
NT
MO
ET
ER
S
DE
OT
PIL OT
L
I
P
1-3
SLOPE AND BASIN
SILICICLASTIC SANDSTONE
Figure 3. Generalized post-Antler Orogeny structural and depositional facies profile from western Utah to areas west of the Antler orogenic belt showing
formational terminology from Mississippian through the Permian. Modified from Cook (1988).
Figures 4-13 illustrate some stratigraphic-tectonic models and geologic framework elements in the Great Basin
and other parts of North America.
BASIC CARBONATE PRINCIPLES
The following is a summary from Cook and others (1983) on basic carbonate principles. People interested in
pursuing this topic can find excellent discussions in Wilson (1975), Scholle and others (1983, and in several SEPM Special
Publications. Basic principles of carbonate sedimentology and stratigraphy can be thought of as guidelines by which a
carbonate geologist attempts to decipher the database at hand and to generate ideas, predictive models and exploration
approaches for mineral and petroleum. This database may consist of only a hand full of cuttings or it may include a diverse
array of logs, seismic reflection profiles, gravity and magnetic data, cores, and beautifully exposed mountains of carbonate
rocks. The intangible database is, of course, the experience, perspective, and imagination of the person interpreting these
data.
Carbonates Versus Siliciclastics
Most carbonate sediment is the product of shallow, warm, clear marine waters at low latitudes (Figure 14). A
fundamental difference between siliciclastic systems and carbonate systems is that carbonate sediments are not delivered
to a depositional site, as is the case for siliciclastics (Figure 15), but rather carbonates are produced (born) in the marine
depositional site by organic and inorganic processes (Figure 16). Thus, the carbonate facies that one examines in the field
was born and died approximately where it is found whether this be on tidal flats, middle platforms, platform margin
setting, etc. The notable exception to this basic principal are submarine sediment-gravity flow deposits (e.g., carbonate
debris flow deposits and turbidity current deposits) that usually originate in shoal-water carbonate platform margins and
basin margins and can transported seaward down slopes and into basins 10s to 100s of km.
Depositional Environments
There are six basic depositional environments in carbonate systems (Figure 17): 1) Inner Platform (tidal flats)
with supratidal marshes in humid environments or sabkhas in arid environments; intertidal flats; supratidal levees; ponds
on tidal flats; beach ridges; 2) Middle Platform with patch reefs and biostromes, platform lagoonal facies with abundant
biota and intense burrowing in many locations, and some shoal-water carbonate sands; 3) Platform Margin with ooid and
bioclastic shoals and organic banks and reefs; tidal flats can occur near platform margins separating the subtidal bank/reef
margin from the middle platform, 4) Slope with debris flow and turbidite deposits, slides and slumps, and laminated to
slightly bioturbated in-situ lime muds; 5) Inner Basin with laminated lime muds and shales and turbidites; and 6) Outer
Basin where pelagic chalks accumulated in MesozoicRecent.
Carbonate Components and Skeletal Compositions
All carbonate rocks are composed of only four main components: these are 1) fossils or fossil fragments, 2) ooids
and/or other coated grains, 3) carbonate mud as micrite, as pelloids, and as intraclasts, and 4) carbonate cement. These
four components are made up of only four basic carbonate minerals 1) aragonite, 2) magnesium calcite, 3) calcite, and 4)
dolomite (Figure 18). The skeletal compositions of the major taxa are shown in Figure 19.
Textural Considerations
Because most carbonate grains accumulate where they are produced, the textures of many carbonate sediments
are highly dependent upon the nature of the contributing organic or inorganic producers rather than on external processes
as in siliciclastic systems. Thus, carbonate sediment can originate with carbonate particles of a wide variety of shapes or
sizes. If these constituents undergo relatively little net transport, as is commonly the case, special care must be taken in
interpreting this texture. An example that well exemplifies this point is that in some middle platform low energy settings
large pebble-sized, articulated crinoid columns can be admixed with abundant lime mud. The message here is that the
presence or absence of original lime mud is considered a better guide to water energy than grain size or shape.
GEOLOGIC COLUMN
MY PERIOD
EPOCH
MAJOR TECTONIC EVENTS

CORDILLERAN REGION
100
CRETACEOUS
150
JURASSIC
200
TRIASSIC
250
300
M
E
L
PERMIAN
SONOMA OROGENY
ANCESTRAL ROCKIES
PENN
CARBONIFEROUS
MISS
350
ANTLER OROGENY
DEVONIAN
CORDILLERAN
PASSIVE MARGIN PLATFORM
SEDIMENTATIO
400
SILURIAN
450
ORDOVICIAN
500
M
E
L
550
600
THRUST
SEVIER
Paleocene
BATHOLITH
Oligocene
Eocene
CORDILLERAN SUBDUCTION
50
TERTIARY
SIERRA NEVADA
Pliocene
Miocene
CAMBRIAN
M
E
PRECAMBRIAN
RIFTING (?)
?
Figure 4. Chronostratigraphic horizons that will be seen during the field trip (colored) and major tectonic events of the
Cordilleran region (Modified from Dickinson and others, 1983). (P) = carbonate platform; (B) = slope and basin; (E) =
Eureka Quartzite.
7
> 900 (?) M.Y.
900 (?) M.Y.
?
900 (?) - 650 (?) M.Y.
THERMAL
650 (?) - 600 M.Y.
SPREADING
CENTER
Figure 5. Model of late Precambrian and Cambrian

development of the western United States (Modified from
Stewart and Suczek, 1977; Cook and Egbert, 1981b).
THERMAL BULGE
600 (?) - 540 M.Y.
540 - 500 M.Y.
HOT CREEK RANGE
SEA LEVEL
OCEANIC CRUST
CONTINENTAL CRUST
0
1
CUMULATIVE THICKNESS (KM)
2
3
4
5
Figure 6. Cumulative thickness with

time curve of upper Precambrian and
lower Paleozoic rocks in the western
Basin and Range Province (Modified
from Stewart and Suczek, 1977).
MINIMUM
6
7
MAXIMUM
8
50 M.Y. EXPONENTIAL
9
10
11
650
600
Precambrian
570
540
500
430
395
345
Lower Middle- Ordovician Siluria Devonian
Upper
Cambria
AGE (M.Y)
KLAMATH
NORTH SIERRAN
ISLAND ARC
OUTER-ARC BASIN
BACK-ARC BASIN
FORMER CONTINENTAL SHELF

ANTLER
OROGENIC
HIGHLAND
FORELAND BASIN
CRATONIC
PLATFORM
NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT
KLAMATH
NORTH SIERRAN
ISLAND ARC
OUTER-ARC BASIN
BACK-ARC BASIN
CONTINENTAL
SLOPE
CONTINENTAL SHELF
CRATONIC
PLATFORM
Figure 7. (A) Hypothetical diagram showing the relationship between the Devonian island-arc system and the North
American continent based on an east-dipping subduction model. (B) Model of the late Devonian and Mississippian
Antler orogeny by back-arc compression associated with an east-dipping subduction zone (Modified from Poole and
others, 1977; Poole and Sandberg, 1977).
9
Figure 8. Model for the origin of the Antler

orogeny by incipient subduction associated with
westward-dipping subduction of the North America
continent (Modified from Johnson and Pendergast,
1981).
PARTIALLY DEFORMED
ALLOCHTHON
FUTURE
ALLOCHTHON
OCEANIIC CRUST
FUTURE
SUBDUCTION
ZONE
CONTINENTAL CRUST
GOLCONDA ACCRETIONARY
PRISM
AAP
GAP
CONTRACTING
ANTLER
MAGMATIC
ARC
SONOMA
40
0
NA
PERMIAN
AAP
COOLING
ANTLER
MAGMATIC
ARC
40
0
PENNSYLVANIAN
ANTLER
MAGMATIC
ARC
40
0
EARLY MISSISSIPPIAN
ANTLER
MAGMATIC
ARC
40
NA
AAP
NA
ANTLER ACCRETIONARY
PRISM
AAP
(NA)
MIDDLE DEVONIAN
Figure 9. Model for the origin of the Antler orogeny by arc-continent collision associated with westward-dipping
subduction of the North American continent (Modified from Speed and Sleep, 1982).
10
CANADA
WASHINGTON
MONTANA
PACIFIC OCEAN
OREGON
IDAHO
CALIFORNIA
NEVADA
UTAH
ARIZONA
Figure 10. Regional extent of the Antler orogenic belt as mapped by Poole (1974) and Poole and Sandberg (1977).
Antler Orogenic
Foreland Basin
Highland
Flysch Trough
Starved Basin
Roberts Mountains
Allochthon
Cratonic Platform
Bank
Carbonate System
Platform
Shoreline
Roberts Mountains Thrust
Figure 11. Depositional settings of foreland basin and cratonic platform during early Mississippian (Modified from
Poole and Sandberg (1977).
11
UTAH
UTAI
NS
MO
RT
S
BE
OL
CO
ND
A
THR
U
ST
THRU
ST
NEVADA
RO
I ER
S EV
LAS VEGAS SHEAR ZONE
CALIFORNIA
ARIZONA
B
0
GOLCONDA
THRUST
OCEAN
GA
OCEANIC CRUST
SONOMA
MAGMATIC
ARC
km
40
TRIASSIC
CONTRACTED
ANTLER
ARC
ROBERTS MOUNTAINS
THRUST
RMA
Figure 12. (A) Map showing locations of Permo-Triassic Golconda thrust, Devonian-Mississippian Roberts Mountains
thrust, and Mesozoic Sevier thrust. (B) Model for the origin of the Sonoman orogeny by arc-continent collision
associated with westward-dipping subduction of the North American continent (GA=Golconda Allochthon; RMA =
Roberts Mountains Allochthon; Modified from Speed and Sleep, 1982).
12
ARCTIC
OCEAN
Beaufo
rt Sea
Ala
ska
Yu
k
North
on
west
Terri
to
ries
Britis
h
Colu
mbia
CANAD
A
U.S.A
NEV
ADA
IDAH
IA
RN
IFO
L
CA
UTAH
500 Km
300 Miles
Figure 13. Map showing inferred connection between Devonian-Mississippian Ellesmerian and Antler orogenic belts by
a large scale sinistral fault (Modified from Eisbacher, 1983).
13
60
20
20
60
REEFS
SHELF CARBONATES
PELAGIC CARBONATES
Figure 14. Distribution of modern shoal water carbonates and deeper water pelagic carbonates (Modified from Wilson,
1975).
Figure 15. Russian River in northern California at flood stage illustrating that siliciclastics can have a provenance far
from their ultimate depositional site (Photo courtesy of M. E. Field)
14
MIAMI
FLORIDA
PLEISTOCENE REEF
(KEY LARGO LIMESTONE)
ACTIVE REEF GROWTH
(CORAL & CORALLINE ALGAE)
BACK REEF, LAGOONAL

(MICRITE & MOLLUSK)
INTER-REEF
(HALIMEDA ALGAE)
FLORIDA BAY
FORE-REEF
(FORAM, FINE-GRAINED)
10
20
20
30
40 MILES
Figure 16. Florida Bay modern carbonate depositional environments. Carbonate constituents are "born" where they are
ultimately found in the ancient record.
CARBONATE DEPOSITIONAL
ENVIRONMENTS
BASIN
OUTER INNER
PLATFORM
SLOPE
MARGIN
MIDDLE
INNER
SEA LEVEL
7
CHALKS
6
LIME
MUDS
3
2
1
BIOCLASTIC BIOCLASTIC LIME
MUDS
MUDS
MUDS
&
&
&
5
4
DOLO
CO3
CORAL
ALLOCH
REEF &
SANDS
DEBRIS CO3 SANDS BUILDUPS
FACIES BELT
Figure 17. Carbonate facies and depositional environments.
15
With the above and other concepts in mind Dunham (1962) designed a simple yet elegant classification of
carbonate rocks. His classification is simple to use, descriptive, yet his descriptive modifiers have powerful genetic
overtones (Figure 20). In this classification the focus is on the presence or absence of lime mud, and whether or not the
sediment is grain-supported. Because carbonate mud can be generated in-situ in both quiet and high energy environments
the presence of lime mud in a carbonate rock tells us something about the energy level or currents of removal at that site.
Likewise rather than simply stating that a carbonate rock contains a certain percentage of grains the concept of grain
support fabrics implies emphatically that the rock is full of its particular assortment of grains. Also, because the shapes
of carbonate grains can vary from spherical oolites to platy algal fragments like cornflakes an oolite grainstone contains
a higher percentage of grains than does a Halide algal grainstone or a phylloid algal grainstone the common genetic
denominators, however, are that both rocks are grain supported and contain as many grains as the shape of the constutuents
will geometrically allow (Figure 21).
Rates of Sedimentation
An important point that must be included in any examination and interpretation of carbonate strata is the paradox
that carbonate geologists have noted for years. Wilson (1975, p. 15, 16, 18) stated it well by noting that carbonate
sedimentation can be extremely rapid with growth rates of Holocene shallow-water carbonates and reefs being at least
one order of magnitude higher than net accumulation rates of ancient carbonates. Wilson (1975, p. 16) goes on to say that
when conditions remain favorable, carbonate production can keep up with almost any amount of tectonic subsidence or
eustatic sea level rise (Figure 22, 23). As Schlager said, there should be no drowning at all (1981, p. 198). Also see
Figure 1-8 in the Read (1995) handout.
Schlager (1981) suggests that causes of platform drowning include 1) reduction of benthic growth due to
environmental stress, such as (a) global salinity drops due to fresh water injections or excessive evaporative deposition or (b)
regional deterioration during drift to higher latitudes; or 2) rapid pulses of relative sea level, such as regional downfaulting
or global rises due to desiccation of small ocean basins, submarine volcanic outpourings, or glacio-eustacy.
Diagenetic Considerations
Carbonate sediments have a high susceptibility to change, that is, they have a high diagenetic potential (Figure
24). In its simplest from, the diagenetic potential of a carbonate sediment or rock is a measure of its geochemicaltextural-constituent maturity. Diagenetic processes in carbonates include, but are not limited to, gravitational compaction,
geochemical compaction, mineral stability transformations such as the transformation of aragonite and magnesium
calcite to calcite, solution (dissolution), pressure solution, cementation, organic rotting, bioerosion, crystal rearrangement
(neomorphism), dolomitization, fracturing, and karsting. The eogenetic diagenetic environments include vadose, phreatic,
mixed and marine phreatic settings (Figure 25).
In both petroleum and mineral exploration, major emphasis is placed on better understanding diagenetic
environments and the geologic processes in these environments that lead to porosity and permeability modifications. The
mark of a potential carbonate reservoir/host for minerals and petroleum is one in which the pore-reducing processes (e.g.,
cementation, and compaction) were either non-existent or arrested at some stage, and/or porosity enhancing factors (e.g.,
dissolution, dolomitization, fracturing, and karsting) came into existence or were dominant.
Choquette and Pray (1970) present an excellent and still definitive paper on the classification of porosity in sedimentary
carbonates (Figure 26).
16
FOUR COMPONENTS
1. FOSSILS
2. OOIDS AND OTHER COATED GRAINS
3. CARBONATE MUD, PELOIDS, INTRACLASTS
4. CEMENT
FOUR MINERALS
COMPONENTS
1
2
3
4
A. ARAGONITE
B. MG-CALCITE
C. CALCITE
X
X
D. DOLOMITE
Figure 18. Carbonate components and their mineralogy.
TAXON
ARAGONITE
CALCITE, % Mg
0
Calcareous Algae:
Red
Green
Coccoliths
Foraminifera:
Benthonic
Planktonic
Sponges:
Coelenterates:
Stromatoporoids (A)
Milleporoids
Rugosa (A)
Tabulate (A)
Scleractinian
Alcyonarian
Bryozoans:
Brachiopods:
Mollusks:
Chitons
Pelecypods
Gastropods
Pteropods
Cephalopods (most)
Belemnoids & Aptychi (A)
Annelids (Serpulids):
Arthropods:
Decapods
Ostracods
Barnacles
Trilobites (A)
Echinoderms:
X = Common
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
BOTH
ARAGONITE
AND CALCITE
O
X
X
X X
X
X?
X...
X?
X
O
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
A = Not based on modern forms
O = Rare
Figure 19. Skeletal composition of the major taxa (Modified from Scholle, 1978).
17
DEPOSITIONAL TEXTURE RECOGNIZABLE

Original components not bound together during deposition
No
Lime
Mud
Contains lime mud (< 0.03mm)
Mud supported
Less than
10%
grains
(> 0.03 mm
<2mm)
Mudstone
Grain supported
Greater than
10%
grains
Bafflestone
Floatstone (> 2mm)
Rudstone (> 2mm)
Wackestone (>0.03 < 2mm)
Packstone (>0.03 < 2mm)
Original components were bound together

during deposition...as shown by intergrown
skeletal matter, lamination contrary to
gravity, or sediment-floored cavities that
are roofed over by organic or questionably
organic matter and too large to be
interstices.
Figure 20. Classification of limestones modified from Dunham (1962) and James (1983).
18
Grainstone
Bindstone
Boundstone
COMPONENTS ORIGINATE WITH WIDE VARIETY

OF SHAPES AND SIZES AND ARE DEPOSITED
WHERE THEY FORM
EXCEPTIONS = MASS TRANSPORT
NATURE OF THE COMPONENTS AND
NOT EXTERNAL PROCESSES AS IN
SILICICLASTIC SYSTEMS.
TEXTURE:
PERCENT OF LIME MUD GUIDE TO ENERGY LEVEL.
"HIGH ENERGY"
"LOW ENERGY"
Carbonate
cement
Lime mud
Mudstone
Wackestone
Packstone
Grainstone
Figure 21. Rock texture.
Accumulation rate in m / year
101
102
D
D-M
P-P
104
Holocene sea level
D
Reef corals
P
TR
103
Prograding
platforms
TR
Reefs < 5 m
Reefs 10-20 m
Oolites
Tidalites
Average growth
platform potential
Holocene
growth rates
Figure 22. Average growth potential of carbonate platforms estimated from growth rates and accumulation rates during
Holocene transgression (open bars) and from accumulation rates of prograding platforms in the geologic record
(triangles). Average growth potential is probably in the 1,000 m / year range (Modified from Schlager, 1981).
19
Faster
Cooling crust
Sea floor spreading

Long term subsidence
desication of basins
Glacio-eustacy
Holocene
Recent reef corals

Reefs < 5 m
Apennine Platforms
Triassic-Tertiary
Oolites
Bahamas
Tidalites
Jurassic-Holocene
101
Reefs 10-20 m
102
103
104
Rate in m / year (Bubnoff units)
105
Figure 23. The paradox of carbonate platform drowning is illustrated by a comparison of rates of relevant processes
Rates of relative rise of sea level produced by various processes in upper part of graph, rates of growth, and sediment
accumulation in lower part. Holocene rates (open bars), distant geologic past rates (black bars). Holocene accumulation
matches or exceeds glacio-eustatic Holocene rise of sea level, all Holocene rates are one to several orders of magnitude
faster than those of the geologic record (Modified from Schlager, 1981).
20
FREQUENCY
Ancient Carbonate Rocks
Carbonate Reservoir Rocks

Recent Carbonate Sediment
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
PERCENT POROSITY
Figure 24. Porosity in carbonates (Modified from Pray, pers.comm., 1966).
MENISCUS CEMENT
(CALCITE)
ISOPACHOUS CEMENT
(CALCITE)
VADOSE
ISOPACHOUS
FIBROUS CEMENT
(ARAGONITE + Mg-CALCITE)
PHREATIC
MIXED
MARINE PHREATIC
DOLOMITIZATION
Figure 25. Eogenetic diagenetic environments. Eogenetic zone extends from the surface of newly deposited carbonate
to depths where processes genetically related to surface become ineffective.
21
BASIC POROSITY TYPES

FABRIC SELECTIVE
NOT FABRIC SELECTIVE
INTERPARTICLE BP
INTRAPARTICLE WP
FRACTURE
FR
INTERCRYSTAL BC
CHANNEL*
CH
MOLDIC
MO
VUG*
VUG
FENESTRAL
FE
CAVERN*
CV
SHELTER
SH
GROWTH
FRAMEWORK
GF
FABRIC SELECTIVE OR NOT

BRECCIA
BR
BORING
BO
BURROW
BU
SHRINKAGE
SK
MODIFYING TERMS
SIZE* MODIFIERS
GENETIC MODIFIERS
PROCESS
SOLUTION
CEMENTATION
INTERNAL SEDIMENT
DIRECTION OF STAGE
s
c
i
ENLARGED
REDUCED
FILLED
TIME OF FORMATION
Primary
pre-depositional
depositional
Secondary
eogenetic
mesogenetic
telogenetic
g
r
f
lmg
smg
lms
sms
mm+
256
32
4
1/2
1/16
Use size prefixes with basic porosity types:

mesovug
msVUG
small mesomold
smsMO
micro-interparticlemcBP
P
Pp
Pd
S
Se
Sm
St
* For regular shaped pores smaller than cavern size.

+ Measurement refers to average pore diameter of a single
pore or the range in size of a pore assemblage. For tubular
pores use average cross-section. For platy pores use width
and hole shape.
ABUNDANCE MODIFIERS
Genetic modifiers are combined as follows:

Examples,
CLASSES
Megapore
mg large
small
Mesapore
ms large
small
Micropore
mc large
small
solution-enlarged
cement-reduced primary
sediment-filled eogenetic
sg
crP
ifSe
Figure 26. Porosity classification (Choquette and Pray, 1970).
22
Percent porosity
Ratio of porosity types
Ratio and Percent
15%
1:2
1:2 & 15%
STATIC CARBONATE DEPOSITIONAL MODELS

Depositional models can be an aid in understanding and correctly interpreting lateral and vertical facies transitions
and for assigning facies and facies associations to certain depositional environments (Cook and others, 1983). Although
there are only a relatively small number of basic depositional environments in carbonate systems as shown in Figure 17
(also see the facies belts of Wilson, 1975; Scholle and others, 1983) there are sub-environments within each environment
and numerous variables that can lend considerable variation to the sediments themselves. Some of the larger scale
variables include the nature of the paleobathymetric profile of the sediment-water interface (paloetopography), tectonic
setting, evolutionary patterns of organisms through time, climatic variations, the magnitude and frequency of sea level
fluctuations, subsidence rates, sedimentation rates, and siliciclastic influx. Smaller scale influences include a myriad of
inorganic and organic depositional and diagenetic processes.
In using depositional models for making environmental, facies, and sequence stratigraphic interpretations, one
must remember that models are basically summary statements and as such one should expect to see details at the scale of
an outcrop that reflect local variability. In spite of the many factors that affect facies and facies patterns it is these very
factors that commonly exert predictable controls on the location, geometry, and overall characteristics of depositional
facies. Thus, the major facies sequences that characterize different depositional environments, from boulder-bearing deep
water fan and apron deposits to supratidal muds, rarely were developed at random within a carbonate system there is a
reason for the distribution patterns of depositional facies. Depositional models can be an aid in guiding us to know what
to look for, to a degree of predictability. A distinct danger of depositional models is to become too attached to a particular
model at this point one loses objectivity. Models should continually undergo modification and updating, as more data is
gathered.
Some examples of attempts to classify shallow water carbonate facies, define basic facies belts, and to position
these facies belts in specific depositional environmental models, and depositional sequences and systems tracts are those of
Wilson (1975), Mazzullo (1982), Read (1982), numerous authors in Scholle and others (1983), Wilgus and others (1988);
Crevello and others (1989); Handford and Loucks (1993), Read and others (1995); Kerans and Tinker (1997); Harris and
others (1999); and Zempolich and Cook (2002). Models for deeper water slope and carbonate apron and fan systems have
been developed by Cook and others (1972), Cook and Taylor (1975, 1977), McIlreath and James (1978), Cook (1979),
Cook and Egbert (1981a, b), Cook and Mullins, 1983, Mullins and Cook (1986), Cook and others (1983) and in several
SEPM Special Publications and AAPG Memoirs.
Figure 27 is a compilation of selected stratigraphic horizons that produce petroleum and sediment-hosted minerals
from carbonate platform and basin margin facies. Horizontal bars plot the depositional environment of the fields reservoir/
host facies. Many of the environmental facies that will be examined in the Great Basin are similar to proven producing
petroleum reservoir and mineral-host facies outside of the field trip area.
Homoclinal Ramp Model (Figure 28)
As discussed by Read (1982) platforms with profiles of the ramp model (Ahr, 1973) have gently sloping (1 to a
few degrees/meter) substrates that progress into offshore, deeper-water environments without a marked break in slope. On
ramps, wave-base impinges close to the shoreline, resulting in the localization of high-energy potential reservoir facies that
trend parallel and proximal to the shoreline. These high-energy facies may consist of peloid-ooid grainstones or bioclastic
grainstones. Shoreward shoal lagoon lime mudstones, wackestones, and tidal flat sediments occur. Seaward of the shoals
deeper water ramp argillaceous lime wackestones and mudstones occur and contain normal open-marine biota. These
facies pass gradually into deeper-water pelagic muds and/or periplatform muds. Only minor evidence of mass transport
processes occurs in the deeper-water ramp facies. With perhaps the exception of inner platform high-energy shoals, broad,
gradational and irregular facies belts seem to characterize ramps.
The Persian Gulf is an example of a modern ramp (Wilson and Jordan, 1983, Figure 32), whereas the Jurassic
Smackover of the U. S. Gulf Coast is considered to be an excellent example of an ancient continental margin ramp (Ahr,
1973; Read, 1982). In the Great Basin the Ordovician Hansen Creek Formation may represent shoal water homoclinal
ramp facies (Dunham, 1977).
23
Lower Mississippian
Joana Limestone
Lower Mississippian
Chainman Shale
Lower Mississippian
Webb Formation
Upper Devonian
Devils Gate Limestone
Upper Devonian
Pilot Shale
Middle-Upper Devonian
Denay Limestone
Middle Devonian
Popovich Formation
Lower Devonian Bartine Member
McColley Canyon Formation
Lower Devonian
Roberts Mountains Formation
Lower Silurian
Upper Ordovician
Hansen Creek Formation
Middle-Upper Cambrian
Hamburg Dolomite
SLOPE
BASIN
PLATFORM
MARGIN
MIDDLE
INNER
CONTINENTAL
FACIES
NEARSHORE
SHORELINE
LOW-ENERGY LAGOON
AND
PATCH REEFS
OFFSHORE BARS
PATCH REEFS
MUDMOUNDS
REEF
HIGH-ENERGY SHOALS
TIDAL FLATS
OR GRAINSTONES
MASS-TRANSPORT
THIN-BEDDED,
DEPOSITS
BS
LAMINATED BASIN AND
,P
S,
BASE-OF-SLOPE
M
G
S,
S
PS W
, G S,
S
Lime Mudstone & Shales
MS
PS, GS
WS, PS
MS, WS,
PS, GS,
Dolostone
CLASTICS
Figure 27. Carbonate platform profile showing examples of Carlin-type gold host facies in platform margin, slope, and
basin environments (Platform model modified from Wilson and Jordan, 1983; References for host facies cited in field
stop texts).
24
Distally Steepend Ramp Model (Figure 29)

These ramps have many of the same facies of homoclinal ramps. The main difference, however, is that at some
location on the seaward part of the ramp a major break in slope occurs. This break in slope, however, is in relatively deep
water and thus shoal water carbonates do not form at the platform edge. The platform/slope break is characterized by
submarine slides and slumps, and a wide variety of sediment gravity flow deposits that can be organized into apron and fan
facies.
Examples of distally steepened ramp facies occur in the Upper Cambrian-Lower Ordovician sequences in the
Great Basin (Cook and Taylor, 1977; Taylor and Cook, 1976; Cook, 1979; Cook and others, 1983). The Yucatan area may
be a modern example (Read, 1982).
Rimmed Platform Model (Figure 30)
Rimmed platforms (Ginsburg and James, 1974; Read, 1982) are platforms whose outer platform margin is in
shallow agitated water depths and is characterized by a relatively steep increase in declivity (few degrees to 60 or more)
marking the boundary between the outer platform and slope. Platforms with rimmed profiles often have well-developed
high-energy linear facies belts, trending parallel to the platform edge.
There is potentially more petroleum reservoir facies in the rimmed model than in the ramp models. Potential
reservoir facies include 1) deep water carbonate submarine fans and aprons (Cook and others, 1972; Enos, 1977. 1983;
Cook, 1983; Cook and Mullins, 1983; Enos and Moore, 1983; Mullins and Cook, 1986; Cook and others, 1983; Hobson
and others, 1985); 2) platform margin reefs and tidal bars (Wilson and Jordan, 1983); 3) middle platform grainstone facies
(Powers, 1962; Wilson and Jordan, 1983); 4) inner platform offshore bar and beach facies, and tidal flat facies (Enos, 1983;
Inden and Moore, 1983; Shinn, 1983).
Modern examples of the rimmed model include the Belize platform margin and the Great Bahaman Banks (Wilson
and Jordan, 1983). Numerous examples in the ancient record exist (Scholle and others, 1983). A few studied examples
cited by Wilson and Jordan (1983) include the Permian Hueco Limestone of southeast New Mexico and west Texas,
the Cretaceous Edwards Formation of Texas, and the Jurassic D zone in the Persian Gulf area, the Permian Guadeloupe
mountains in west Texas (Kerans and Tinker 1997). The Devonian carbonate province of Alberta, Canada has abundant
examples of giant oil fields, especially in isolated rimmed platforms (Klovan, 1964; Cook and others, 1972; Harris, 1983).
A billion-barrel oil field occurs in deep-water carbonate aprons in the Cretaceous of Mexico (Enos, 1977, 1985; Enos and
Moore, 1983; Roehl and Choquette, 1985). Smaller lesser known fields in the Permian of west Texas occur in carbonate
submarine fan and apron facies (Cook and others, 1972; Cook, 1983; Cook and Mullins, 1983; Cook and others, 1983;
Hobson and others, 1985, Moore, 2001). Devonian-Mississippian super giant oil fields occur in the North Caspian Basin
of Kazakhstan (Cook and others, 2002b; Zempolich and Cook, 2002)
In the Great Basin Silurian through Devonian carbonates are interpreted to have formed on broad rimmed
platforms (Figure 2). Some of the Lower Mississippian carbonates may have formed on rimmed platforms or on isolated
platforms surrounded by basin facies (Figure 3).
Carbonate Slope Apron and Base-of-Slope Apron Models (Figures 31 and 32)
During the late 1960s and early 1970s the first well documented depositional models for basin margin carbonate
and siliciclastic sediment gravity flow sequences were being formulated. Pray and others (1967, 1968) and Cook and
others (1972) developed the carbonate debris sheet model (Figure 33) while at the same time Walker (1966), Jacka (1968),
and Mutti and Ricci-Lucchi (1972) were establishing the siliciclastic submarine fan model. Two fundamental differences
exist between these models. In carbonate basin margins the redeposited facies are dominantly the result of numerous
unchanneled sheet-flow events that originate parallel to platform margins i.e. along a line-source. Fan facies, in
contrast, originated from major point-sources and are characterized by channelized flow in their inner and mid-fan
regions and sheet-flow in the outer parts of the fan. A further difference emphasized by these two models is that carbonate
debris flows can form a major facies type whereas debris flows occur less frequently in the fan model. Turbidity-current
processes dominate fan facies.
25
SLOPE
BASIN
PLATFORM
MARGIN
OUTER
INNER
CONTINENTAL
FACIES
MUD-RICH SLOPE
BUILDUPS
ARGILLACEOUS LIME MUDS

WITH OPEN MARINE BIOTA
BELOW WAVE BASE
NEARSHORE
SHORELINE
AND
OFFSHORE BARS
TIDAL FLATS
MINOR, IF ANY
DARK-THIN-BEDDED, MASS-TRANSPORT
DEPOSITS
LAMINATED BASIN
MUDSTONES & SHALES
MS, WS,
PS, GS,
Dolostone
GS, PS
Lime Mudstone & Wackestone
CLASTICS
Lime Mudstone & Wackestone
Figure 28. Profile of homoclinal ramp model (Modified from Wilson and Jordan, 1983).
STOP
5-4
BASIN
SLOPE
PLATFORM
OUTER
INNER
CONTINENTAL
FACIES
ARGILLACEOUS LIME MUDS
WITH OPEN MARINE BIOTA
BELOW WAVE BASE
ABUNDANT
DARK-THIN-BEDDED, MASS-TRANSPORT
DEPOSITS
LAMINATED BASIN
MUDSTONES & SHALES
MS, WS
NEARSHORE
SHORELINE
AND
OFFSHORE BARS
TIDAL FLATS
MUD-RICH
BUILDUPS
PS, WS
MS, WS
GS, PS,
WS, MS
MS, WS,
PS, GS,
Dolostone
CLASTICS
Figure 29. Profile of distally steepend ramp model. Top of figure shows depositional environments of field stops
(Modified from Wilson and Jordan, 1983).
26
STOP
5-6
STOP
5-5
STOP
5-1, 5-2, 5-3
STOP
4-2
STOP
4-1
STOP
2-1, 2-2
STOP
3-2
STOP
1-1
STOP
1-3
STOP
1-2
STOP
1-1
STOP
1-2
BASIN
SLOPE
PLATFORM
MARGIN
MIDDLE
INNER
CONTINENTAL
FACIES
LOW-ENERGY LAGOON
PATCH REEFS
PATCH REEFS
HIGH-ENERGY SHOALS
PATCH REEFS
DARK, THIN-BEDDED,
LAMINATED BASIN AND
BASE-OF-SLOPE
MASS-TRANSPORT
DEPOSITS
MS, WS
S
PS , W
, G S,
S
TIDAL FLATS
MS
BS
NEARSHORE
SHORELINE
AND
OFFSHORE BARS
,P
S,
WS, PS
PS
MS, WS,
PS, GS,
Dolostone
CLASTICS
SHELF-EDGE REEF
OR
GRAINSTONE SHOALS
Figure 30. Profile of a rimmed cabonate shelf model. Top of figure shows depositional environments of field stops
(Modified from Wilson and Jordan, 1983).
27
SLOPE APRON MODEL
Figure 31. Carbonate debris slope apron model showing shoal water derived debris originating along line source.
Debris is transported as broad sheet flows on low angle slopes with debris extending virtually to the platform margin
(Modified from Cook and others, 1983).
BASE-OF-SLOPE APRON MODEL
Figure 32. Carbonate base-of-slope apron model showing shoal water derived debris originating along line source.
Mass-flow deposits originating at platform margin largely by-pass the slope with the bulk of debris deposited at the
base-of-slope (Modified from Cook, 1982).
28
The siliciclastic submarine fan model is now well established in the geologic literature and is widely used for
paleoenvironmental interpretations of coarse-grained deep-sea facies, as well as a predictive model in the exploration
for hydrocarbons from deep-water reservoirs. Although the submarine fan model has enjoyed considerable success in
its application to siliciclastic deposits, it is clear from the study of both modern and ancient carbonate mass-transported
sequences that the siliciclastic submarine fan model cannot be applied to most deep carbonate basin margin deposits
(Cook and Mullins, 1983; Mullins and Cook, 1986). Absence of submarine canyons in most carbonate systems is a major
factor in the lack of fan morphologic facies. Instead of orderly sequences of fan facies associations, ancient carbonate
mass transported deposits commonly consist of seemingly randomly distributed debris more closely resembling the debris
sheet model of Cook and others (1972). In fact, well-documented examples of ancient carbonate submarine fans with
recognizable fan facies association are quite rare (for example, Cook and Egbert, 1981a, 1981b; Cook, 1982; Ruiz-Ortiz,
1983). Despite this, numerous papers in the literature have indiscriminately used the terms fan or submarine fan in
their discussion of carbonate mass flow facies sequences without presenting evidence that documents the existence of
distinct fan facies associations (Cook and Mullins, 1983).
The carbonate slope apron and base-of-slope apron models (Figures 31 and 32) use the debris sheet model (Figure
33) as a foundation in that they retain the fundamental summary aspects of the sheet model (Cook and others, 1972; Cook
and others, 1983; Mullins and Cook, 1986). The apron models, however, go much farther by utilizing data from modern
environments, re-defining debris facies terminology and facies associations, and by comparing carbonate apron facies to
siliciclastic fan facies. The apron models offer an alternative to the siliciclastic fan model for the interpretation of gravity
displaced limestone sequences that occur in slope, base-of-slope, and basin plain settings.
Carbonate slope aprons and base-of-slope aprons develop via line-source sedimentation that results in masstransport facies that parallel the adjacent platform edge and thin in a seaward direction, producing an overall wedge-shaped
geometry. Unlike submarine fans, carbonate aprons are likely to produce linear to arcuate facies belts that parallel the
adjacent platform edge. The length of the belt will mainly be a function of the nature and length of the platform margin
itself. Large isolated platforms such as in the Bahamas (Cook and Mullins, 1983) or the Cretaceous of Mexico (Enos,
1977; Magoon and others, 2001) appear to have very wide aprons along the strike of the platform margin. Small isolated
banks, such as the Devonian Ancient Wall an Miette of Alberta, Canada, have carbonate aprons that form relatively small
concentric bands around the bank margins (Cook and others, 1972). Large intracontinental platform margins such as
developed around the perimeter of the Permian Basin in southeast New Mexico and west Texas may form continuous
aprons (10s to 100s of km wide; Cook, 1983; Mazzullo, per comm., 1983).
Petroleum reservoirs in carbonate sediment gravity-flow deposits are discussed by
Cook and others (1972), Enos (1977, 1985), Cook (1983), Cook and Mullins (1983), Enos and Moore (1983), Mullins and
Cook (1986), Cook and others (1983), Mazzullo (1984), Hobson and others (1985), and Magoon and others (2001).
Carbonate Submarine Fan (Figures 34 and 35)
As discussed above carbonate submarine fan facies are rare in contrast to siliciclastic fan facies (Cook, 1982,
1983). This is largely a result of carbonate sediment gravity flow deposits originating along a line-source and not having
major point-source canyons as in siliciclastic settings (Cook and others, 1983; Mullins and Cook, 1986).
Cook (1983), Ruiz-Ortiz (1983), Cook and Mullins (1983), and Cook and others (1983) discuss examples of
subsurface and surface carbonate fan facies.
29
Megabreccia
Sheet
10's to 100's
of Meters
IN
RG
A
M ES
NK ACI
A
F
B
SEV
ER
ES
CI
A
F
.
SIN
KM
A
L
B
A
ER
V
SE
AL
KM
Figure 33. Generalized representation of allochthonous debris deposits showing textures , shapes and relation to
platform margin and basin facies (Modified from Cook and others, 1972).
30
SHELF
GOODWIN
IN
NE
R FA
N
FEEDER CHANNELS
ID
D
HALES
DISTRIBUTARY CHANNELS
CAMBRIAN
FAN
SLOPE
SLIDES
LE
ORDOVICIAN
AGE
LOBE SHEETS
FA
N
DUNDERBERG
OUTER
FAN
THIN-BEDDED TURBIDITES
SWARBRICK
Figure 34. Carbonate submarine fan model showing that fan sediment is derived from both shoal-water shelf areas and
by remolding of deeper water slides and slumps into mass-flows, large slides and channelized conglomerates that occur
in slope, inner and middle fan region; calcarenites in non-channelized sheets in outer-fan sites, and thin-bedded silt-size
to fine, sand-size bioclastic carbonate turbidites in fan fringe and basin plain. Slope and fan facies approximately 500
meters thick and basin plain facies approximately 1000 meters thick. Model based on studies in Cambrian and
Ordovician strata in Tybo Canyon, Hot Creek Range, Nevada (Modified from Cook and Egbert, 1981b, and Cook and
Mullins, 1983).
500 METERS
SLOPE
INNER
FAN
MID
FAN
OUTER
FAN
BASIN
PLAIN
Figure 35. Carbonate submarine fan model. Schematically shows vertical and lateral facies sequences that occur in
prograding continental margin section. Model based on studies in Cambrian and Ordovician carbonate submarine fan
facies in Tybo Canyon, Hot Creek Range, Nevada (Modified from Cook and Egbert, 1981b and Cook and Mullins,
1983).
31
DYNAMIC CARBONATE SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY MODELS (Figure 36)

General Perspectives
Sequence stratigraphy is now considered to be a practical tool for analyzing the development and evolution of
carbonate platforms (Wilgus and others, 1988, Eberli and Ginsburg, 1989; Handford and Loucks, 1993). For an in depth
discussion of carbonate sequence stratigraphy see Handford and Loucks (1993), Read and others (1995), Kerans and
Tinker (1997) and Wilgus and others (1998).
Over the past several decades carbonate depositional facies models, for example, Ahr (1973), Cook (1983), Read,
(1985), and Wilson (1975) have been routinely used for describing, interpreting and predicting facies relationships in
carbonate platforms and deeper-water basin margins. However, depositional facies models by themselves do not address
or predict rigorously how carbonate platforms and their facies belts are affected by relative fluctuations in sea level. An
understanding of how the "carbonate factory" responds to relative sea-level changes is of fundamental importance.
Kerans and Tinker (1997) summarizes the terminology of cycle hierarchies and orders of cyclicity and presents
some useful quantitative data for better understanding tectono-eustatic and eustatic cycle orders, their duration in millions
of years, relative sea level amplitudes in meters, and relative sea level rise/fall rates in cm/1,000 years (i.e., 1 cm/1,000
years = 10 m/million years = 10 Bubnoffs). Fischer and Bottjer (1991) discuss orbital forcing and sedimentary sequences.
They nicely summarize the Milankovitch frequency band for the earths orbital variations (eccentricity, obliquity, and
precession) and their effects on cycles of ice growth. Read (1995) presents an excellent discussion of carbonate platform
sequences, cycle stratigraphy, and reservoirs in greenhouse and icehouse worlds.
A sequence is a relatively conformable succession of genetically related strata bounded by unconformities and
their correlative conformities (Mitchum, 1977). An unconformity is a surface separating older from younger strata where
there is evidence of subaerial truncation, karsting, hardgrounds, and/or submarine erosion, with some degree of hiatus
indicated. Sequences are composed of three parts, or systems tracts. A systems tract is a linked set of contemporaneous
depositional systems (i.e., a 3-D assemblage of lithofacies; Brown and Fisher, 1977). System tracts are interpreted to form
during specific time intervals of the relative change of the sea-level curve. A sequence in interpreted to be deposited during
the cycle of eustatic change of sea level starting and ending in the vicinity of the inflection points on the falling limbs of
the sea-level curve (Sarg, 1988).
Sequence stratigraphy integrates time and the cycles of relative-sea-level changes so we can track the migration
of facies through time and space. The strength of sequence stratigraphy lies in its potential to predict facies within a
chronostratigraphic framework of unconformity-bound depositional sequences (Haq and others, 1987; Handford and
Loucks, 1993). Depositional sequence models are constructed to show the dynamic evolution through time and space of
carbonate platforms. However, depositional sequence models should complement, rather than replace, the static models of
Ahr (1973), Cook (1983), Read, (1985), Wilson (1975).
When properly used the combination of static depositional models and depositional sequence models can assist
in developing predictive mineral and petroleum host/reservoir models.
Sequences and Systems Tracts
Basic carbonate depositional principles and geologic-based observations were used to construct a depositional
sequence and systems tract model for a humid carbonate rimmed platform (Figure 36). Figure 37 shows how, for
example, depositional sequences made up of carbonates are produced by depositional systems responding to relative
lowstand, transgressive, and highstand sea-level conditions.
Lowstand (Figure 37): A lowstand systems tract develops during the later part of a relative sea level lowering.
Carbonate sediment production is reduced or even terminated on platform tops and sediment production is often limited
to only the platform margins and slopes. Platform margin organic buildups may undergo a forced regression and move
slope. Platform margins can become gravitationally unstable and massive collapse of the platform margins can occur
32
DEPOSITIONAL SEQUENCE MODEL CARBONATE RIMMED SHELF

LSM
SEA LEVEL
(A)
HST
MFS-1
LST
TST
LSM
HST
MFS-1
SB-2
LST
TST
S-1
SB-1
S-0
N OR
AND FA
LOWST LOPE APRON
-S
F
BASE-O
SB-1
SB-2
Facies
GS
PS
WS
MS-WS
TL-PS
SEQUENCE
(C)
SB-1
3RD ORDER
M FS
TS T
ST
TL-PS
4TH&
5THORDER
CYCLES
4THORDER
LS
T
T
LS
0.5 to >10 meters
RELATIVE SEA LEVEL

DEEPENING
EUSTACY
(B)
2
1
(Modified from Zempolich and Cook, 2002).
TIME
S1
SEQUENCE-1
SB-
SEQUENCE BOUNDARY
MFS
MAXIMUM FLOODING SURFACE
GS
LST
LOWSTAND SYSTEMS TRACT
PS
PACKSTONE
LSM
LOWSTAND MARGIN
WS
WACKESTONE
TST
TRANSGRESSIVE SYSTEMS TRACT
MS
MUDSTONE
HST
HIGHSTAND SYSTEMS TRACT
TL -PS
TRANSGRESSIVE LAG-PACKSTONE
CARBONATE SEQUENCE
DEBRIS FLOWS AND TURBIDITES
GRAINSTONE
Figure 36. Illustrates the basic principles of carbonate sequence stratigraphy. Lowstand systems tract forms by platform
margin collapse and lowstand shedding of shoal-water derived carbonate debris during a relative sea level lowering.
Platform margin may prograde downslope to form a lowstand margin. Platform interior karsting can occur during a
lowstand. A transgressive systems tract develops during a rapid, relative sea level rise. This results in the platform
margin backstepping and/or retrogradating. During the initial phase of the sea level lowering, following the maximum
flooding surface, the highstand systems tract forms. This results in a thick, aggradational and progradational carbonate
platform architecture. Sedimentation rates on the platform are high resulting in abundant carbonate sediments shedding
off the platform forming slope and base-of-slope aprons (Modified from Handford and Loucks, 1993).
33
with the development of large amounts of lowstand debris flow and turbidite deposits forming aprons and fans (Figure
37A). These lowstand allochthonous deposits can be comprised of meter size or larger blocks (megabreccias) when
parts of the platform margin collapses. These megabreccia blocks may also show signs of having been karsted prior to
their detachment and transportation down slope. These submarine sediment-gravity flow deposits can make excellent
host/reservoir facies for both minerals and petroleum (Mullins and Cook, 1986; Cook, 1993). Karsting in the platform
interior can be important in humid environments (Cook and others, 2002b, text Figures 3, 14).
Transgression (Figure 37): A transgressive systems tract develops during a relative sea-level rise. With marine
transgression carbonate sedimentation is initiated on the platform and patch reefs may locally develop atop the flooded
platforms (Cook and others, 2002b, Figures 3, 12, 13). Retrogradational sequences can form and platform margins tend
to retreat and/or backstep and even drown if the rate of the relative sea level is high (Figure 37B and 37C. Condensed
deposits (i.e., deposits formed during very low sedimentation rates) may occur atop platforms and in the basin during
maximum transgression (i.e., at the maximum flooding surface).
Highstand (Figure 37): A highstand systems tract develops during the late stages of a relative sea-level rise and
during much of the relative sea level lowering. Aggradation and seaward progradation of the platform margin takes
place as the platform is flooded and carbonate sedimentation rates are very fast under these conditions (Figure 37D
and 37E. Abundant excess shoal-water sediments can be shed off the platform margins forming upper slope tidal bars
and carbonate turbidite and debris flow slope and base-of-slope debris aprons. Highstand debris aprons are normally
comprised of fewer megabreccias than lowstand debris aprons. This is especially true on the leeward margins of
carbonate platforms (Mullins and Cook, 1986). These submarine sediment-gravity flow deposits can make excellent
host/reservoir facies for both mineral and petroleum (Mullins and Cook, 1986; Cook, 1993).
Neither static nor dynamic depositional sequence models are meant to serve as rigid templates. Modification
is often needed to accommodate each case. They can serve as working hypotheses to help geologists better understand
how and why carbonate strata were deposited and fit together as they do. As a general predictor of facies, carbonate
depositional sequence and systems tract models may be used in conjunction with seismic records to identify depositional
systems and to locate host/reservoir, seal, trap and source prone facies.
In summary, both static and dynamic models can serve as frameworks or guides for making observations, they
can provide a basis for stratigraphic and facies interpretations and they can serve as predictors.
34
A. LOWSTAND CONDITIONS
Platform Margin Collapse
Lowstand Systems Tract
B. TRANGRESSIVE CONDITIONS
Retrogrational Platform Margin
Transgressive Systems Tract
C. TRANGRESSIVE CONDITIONS
Backstepping Platform Margin
Transgressive Systems Tract
D. HIGHSTAND CONDITIONS
Aggradational Platform Margin
Highstand Systems Tract
E. HIGHSTAND CONDITIONS
Progradational Platform Margin
Highstand Systems Tract
Figure 37. Morphologic evolution of carbonate outer-shelf margins to see on field trip: (A) Stop 1-1, 2-2, 4-2, 5-4, and
5-6; (B) Stops 2-2; (C) Stop 2-2 and 5-6; (D) Stops 3-2, 5-6; (E) Stops 1-3, 3-2, 5-5, 5-6 (Models modified from
Playford, 1980).
35
30
APPROXIMATE
PLATFORM
MARGIN
TREND
IN THE
DEVONIAN
50 Miles
Map 1. Field trip map for the Metallogeny of the Great Basin Project Field Trip on August 17-22, 2003.
Day 1, Stop 1 (1-1).
36
1 mile
Map 2. Location of Stop 1-1 on the Conger Mountain Quadrangle, Kings Canyon, Utah.
37
FIELD SEMINAR STOPS

The purpose of the following text is (1) to summarize the environmental interpretations of the various types of
depositional facies that existed in much of the Great Basin carbonate platform, (2) to place the facies and standard facies
models into the broader framework of sequence stratigraphy and carbonate depositional sequences and systems tracts (i.e.,
the response of carbonate platforms to relative sea level changes through time and space), and where appropriate 3) to
discuss mineral host facies and petroleum reservoir facies in the context of sequence stratigraphy.
STOP 1-1 CONFUSION RANGE, UTAH
Age- Middle Silurian and Early Devonian
Formations- Laketown Dolomite and overlying Sevy Dolomite.
Carbonate Depositional Sequences (Figure 2) The contact between the Laketown Dolomite and the Sevy Dolomite is
interpreted to represent a sequence boundary separating Sequences #5 and #6 (Figure 2).
Depositional Environments (Figure 38) The uppermost Laketown Dolomite is interpreted to have formed in a middle
platform environment. It is characterized by highly bioturbated dolostones with relict fossils, including brachiopods,
crinoids, and scattered rugose corals. Near the top of the formation are dolomitized stromatoporoid biostromes about 1
meter thick by 50 meters wide. These biostromes are comprised of bulbous and tabular stromatoporoids, and the dendroid
stromatoporoids Amphipora and/or Stachyodes. The biostromes appear to laterally thin into dolomitized bioclastic
wackestones.
The overlying Sevy Dolomite represents a dramatic change in depositional setting. It formed in intertidal and
supratidal setting and exhibits wavy-laminated, microcrystalline dolostone and fenestral fabrics.
In both the Laketown and Sevy, several interpreted solution horizons occur. These horizons are interpreted to
be the result of relative sea level fluctuations during Late Silurian and Early Devonian (Figure 2) (Cook and others, 1983;
Figure 5-32) that exposed the shallow platform and tidal flat environments to meteoric vadose, phreatic, and/ or subaerial
diagenesis.
Chief Features to be Observed
Laketown Dolomite:
1.
Biostromes of tabular and bulbous stromatoporoids, and dendroid stromatoporoids

(Amphipora and/or Stachyodes).
Laketown and Sevy Dolomite:

1.
Karst (?) breccias (relative lowering of sea level with vadose and /or subaerial leaching).
Sevy Dolomite:
1. Light gray laminated dolostones and vuggy fenestral fabrics (intertidal and supratidal with possible solution
enlargement of fenestrate voids).
Economic Considerations Biostromes (patch reefs) may form anywhere on wide platforms and as such can be difficult to
locate in the subsurface. Middle platform patch reefs, however, are common petroleum exploration targets in the Permian
Basin. An example of this type of reservoir is the Amacker Tippett (Wolfcampian, Permian), West Texas. Wilson (1975),
and Wilson and Jordan (1985) review other patch reef fields in middle platform settings, especially in the Pennsylvanian
and Permian.
38
W
TIDAL
FLATS
STROMATOPOROID
PATCH "REEFS"
LAGOON
MOBILE
GRAIN FLATS
SE
VY
Inn
er
Sh
elf
Mi
dd
le S
hel
LA
KE
TO
WN
Figure 38. Depositional environments for upper Laketown and lower Sevy at Stop 1-1 (Modifed from Wilson and
Jordan, 1983).
39
Relation to Future Stops At Stop 3-2, we will examine approximately the same stratigraphic interval in the Roberts
Mountains in central Nevada. The section in the Roberts Mountains represents aggradation and seaward progradation of
a shallow water, coral-rich platform margin. These platform margin facies interfinger with and prograde westerly over
deeper water slope and basin margin facies. At Stop 3-2 we will examine and discuss depositional Sequence #5 (Figure
2). South of Roberts Mountains, at Stop 5-5 in the Hot Creek Range, we will have an overview stop to see this same
stratigraphic interval and the seaward prograding relationship of the platform margin and the slope/basin margin facies
during the development of depositional Sequences #2, #3, #4 and #5.
40
Photo 1-1a. Brown Laketown Dolomite (middle platform) and overlying light grey Sevy Dolomite (inner platform tidal
flats). Looking north at Stop 1-1. Kings Canyon, Confusion Range, Utah.
~1 meter
Photo 1-1b. Laketown Dolomite. Stromatoporoid biostrome about 1-meter thick by 50-meters wide (enclosed in red) at
Stop 1-1. Confusion Range, Kings Canyon, Utah.
41
Photo 1-1c. Laketown Dolomite. Stromatoporoid biostromes (enclosed in red). Stop 1-1. Kings Canyon, Confusion
Range, Utah.
Photo 1-1d. Laketown Dolomite. Syringoporella (?) colonial coral in biostrome. Stop 1-1. Kings Canyon, Confusion
Range, Utah.
42
Photo 1-1e. Uppermost Laketown Dolomite exhibiting solution and karsting at the boundary of depositional sequence
#5 and #6. Stop 1-1. Kings Canyon, Confusion Range, Utah.
43
Photo 1-1f. Sevy Dolomite. Algal stromatolites in inner platform tidal flat facies. Stop 1-1. Kings Canyon, Confusion
Range, Utah.
Photo 1-1g. Sevy Dolomite. Irregularly laminated inner platform tidal flat dolomites. Stop 1-1. Kings Canyon,
Confusion Range, Utah.
44
1 mile
Map 3. Location of Stops 1-2 and 1-3 on the Conger Mountain Quadrangle, Little Mile and a Half Canyon, Utah.
45

Age Late Devonian.
Formation Guilmette Limestone and overlying Pilot Shale.
Carbonate Depositional Sequences (Figure 2) The contact between the Guilmette Limestone and the Pilot Shale is
interpreted to represent a major sequence boundary separating the top of Sequence #10 and the base of Sequence #11
(Figure 2 and 3).
Depositional Environments The uppermost Guilmette Limestone is considered to have formed in relatively quiet
middle shelf settings. At this locality the rocks are dark gray, highly bioturbated wackestones with abundant open marine
fossils including articulated crinoid stems, rugose corals, and brachiopods. The Guilmette Limestone is abruptly overlain
by the deeper water Pilot Shale which records a relative rapid sea level rise during the initiation of the Antler Orogeny.
Guilmette Limestone:
1. Intensely burrowed nodular fossiliferous wackestones (quiet water, subtidal, middle shelf setting)
Pilot Shale:
1.
Light brown calcareous quartz siltstones with faint parallel and cross laminations and silty shales (subtidal, thinbedded turbidites and in-situ basinal shales at eastern margin of the Antler foreland basin).
Economic Considerations The Pilot Shale at this locality has been studied in detail for its source rock characteristics
by Sandberg and others (1980). According to their data both the Pilot Shale and Chainman Shale that overlies the Joana
Limestone contain probable petroleum source beds in this area. Color Alteration Index values for conodonts in these shales
indicate submature to mature thermal maturation of organic matter. Organic carbon percent ranges up to about 3% in both
formations.
Relation to Future Stops In the southern Egan Range of eastern Nevada, the uppermost Guilmette resembles the
Guilmette at this stop. In the Egan Range the Guilmette is comprised of crinoid-rich wackestones with large articulated
stems. This suggests normal marine, relatively quiet subtidal waters in a middle shelf setting.
46
Photo 1-2a. Guilmette Limestone in foreground overlain by recessive weathering Pilot Shale and cliff-forming Joana
Limestone in background. Stop 1-2. Little-Mile-and-a-Half Canyon, Confusion Range, Utah.
47
Photo 1-2b. Guilmette Limestone. Thin-bedded, highly bioturbated middle platform facies. Stop 1-2.
Little-Mile-and-a-Half Canyon, Confusion Range, Utah.
Photo 1-2c. Guilmette Limestone. Typical appearance of middle platform carbonate facies with bedding planes
disrupted by burrowing. Stop 1-2. Little-Mile-and-a-Half Canyon, Confusion Range, Utah.
48
Photo 1-2d. Guilmette Limestone. Surface of bed showing intense burrowed fabric. Middle platform. Stop 1-2. LittleMile-and-a-Half Canyon, Confusion Range, Utah.
49
1 mile
Map 4. Location of Stops 1-2 and 1-3 on the Conger Mountain Quadrangle, Little Mile and a Half Canyon, Utah.
50

Age Late Devonian and Early MississippianCarbonate Depositional Sequences
Formations Pilot Shale, Joana Limestone, and Chainman Shale.
Carbonate Depositional Sequences (Figure 2) The overall transition from Pilot Shale to Joana Limestone records a
shoaling upward sequence (Sequence #11) from basin to slope to platform margin carbonates during a major relative sea
level rise and fall. The contact relationships between the Joana and the overlying Chainman are not clear. Sandberg and
others (1980) imply that the contact is conformable, whereas, a few miles to the north at Granite Mountain the Joana is
missing due to erosion with the Chainman Shale resting directly on the Pilot Shale. At Stop 1-3, the change from crinoid
and oolitic shoals in the Joana into deeper-water Chainman Shale suggests either a rapid rise in sea level with a drowning
of the Joana or an erosion contact during a relative sea-level lowstand, followed by a relative sea level rise. This contact
represents a sequence boundary between Sequence #11 and #12 (note, Sequence #12 is not labeled on Figure 3).
Depositional Environments (Figure 39) A marked change occurred during Pilot Shale time. Pilot Shale sediments
were deposited in the eastern margin of the Antler foreland basin in relatively deep marine waters (Sandberg and others,
1980). Siliciclastics and carbonate turbidites and debris flow deposits in the Pilot Shale were derived mainly from the east
according to Sandberg and others (1980). The Pilot Shale shoals upward from basinal sediments containing thin-bedded
turbidites and interbedded organic-rich shales to carbonate debris flows deposited on basin-margin slopes and finally to
shallow-water settings where siliciclastic sand bodies interfinger with platform margin crinoid shoals of the lowermost
Joana Limestone.
Gutschick and others (1980) and Sandberg and others (2001) interpreted the Joana Limestone as a large north
south trending elongate isolated bank (about 500 km long and 150 km wide). An alternate interpretation presented here
is that the Joana Limestone, at least in the Confusion Range area, is a broad shoal water bank that was attached to the
continental margin rather than being isolated and surrounded on all sides by basinal sediments. It is difficult to envision
how the quartz arenite sand bodies that interfinger with the base of the Joana Limestone could have been transported
from a siliciclastic provenance to an isolated carbonate bank surrounded on all sides by a deeper marine basin. Modern
and ancient isolated carbonate banks effectively preclude siliciclastics from being transported to the banks margins (e.g.,
Figure 40). It may be that the Joana Limestone was initiated on a siliciclastic substrate and was initially an attached
carbonate platform but evolved into an isolated bank like large DevonianMississippian (Bashkirian) carbonate platforms
in Kyrgyzstan (Cook and others, 2002a).
The facies in the Joana Limestone in the Confusion Range are relatively shoal water inorigin, especially the
oolite grainstone facies that would have formed in warm agitated waters of only a few meters water depth. Crinoid
carbonate sands (packstones and grainstones) are abundant throughout the Joana in the Confusion Range section and are
interpreted to represent high-energy platform margin and/or upper slope grainstone bodies that formed within storm wave
base conditions. Whether these carbonate bodies were tidal bar belts, marine sand belts, and/or tidal delta deposits is not
known. In the southern Egan Range pellet grainstones and packstones and oolite grainstones in the Joana appear may have
occupied more platform interior settings than the crinoid grainstones (Cook and Taylor, unpublished data) similar to some
of the facies distribution on the Great Bahaman Bank.
Possibly Joana Limestone sedimentation was not able to keep pace with the deepening of the foreland basin
during the Antler orogeny and the Chainman Shale drowned these carbonate sands. However, at this stop the Joana
Limestone-Chainman Shale contact appears to be rather sharp with little or no transitional facies. Whether or not this
simply represents a rapid inundation of the Joana shoals or an erosional contact is not known. As stated above, Sandberg
and others (1980) infer that the contact is conformable. This raises a question of regional significance in the Great Basin
concerning whether or not the distribution of the Joana Limestone outcrops reflects its original depositional extent. In
areas of central Nevada where one could predict the Joana Limestone to be thin or absent is it due to original bathymetric
constraints or is it due to erosion? At several localities in the Great Basin there is an interpreted unconformity at the Joana
Limestone-Chainman Shale contact. The magnitude of this unconformity varies from a question mark on a wavy line
(i.e., Confusion Range, Nevada) to virtually all of the Lower Mississippian (i.e., Eureka District and southern Diamond
Mountains, Nevada).
51
OOID SHOALS
BIOCLASTIC WACKESTONES
CORAL MOUNDS
CRINOID SHOALS
REEF MOUNDS
JOA
NA
LO
WE
Figure 39. Rimmed shelf model for Joana facies at Stop 1-3 (Modifed from James, 1983).
FLORIDA
100 Kilometers
Depth contours in fathoms
UN
SO
CAY SAL BANK
CEA
FO
EO
UM
EX
GU
TON
ANDROS
ISLAND
100
CUBA
TIDAL FLAT
BIOCLASTIC WS/MS
PELOID PACKSTONE
OOLITIC GRAINSTONE
REEF BUILDUP
BIOCLASTIC PS/GS
MUDSTONE
LAND
Figure 40. Great Bahama banks (Modifed from Wilson and Jordan, 1983).
52
In the central Egan Range of eastern Nevada near Ward Mountain the uppermost Joana Limestone is clearly a
retrograding or back-stepping sequence (Cook and Taylor, unpublished data) during a relative sea level rise at the beginning
of Sequence #12. There the Joana Limestone-Chainman Shale contact is gradational over a 20-meter thick interval that
contains numerous carbonate turbidites (Tripon Pass Limestone?) that were derived from the Joana Limestone platform
margin as it retrograded or back-stepped to the east (?). This retrogradation of the Joana platform margin at Ward Mountain
may be the result of an accelerated deepening of the Antler foreland basin during the Early Mississippian.
Pilot Shale:
1.
2.
Black calcareous shale and interbedded thin-bedded turbidites (eastern margin foreland basin).
Channelized pebbly to conglomeratic quartzose turbidites; some cobbled-sized clasts are carbonate pellet
packstones; ripples in bouma Tc division dipping N 80 W suggesting transport from the east.
3.
Ten meter thick channelized argillaceous limestone debris flow deposit; lime mudstone and wackestone clasts,
quartz siltstone clasts; clasts containing possible green calcareous algae (possibly derived from Joana platform
margin carbonates and/or slope semi-lithified lime muds). Both Hose (1966) and Sandberg and others (1980)
mention these conglomerates in their studies of the Confusion Range.
4.
Thin-bedded cherts rich in radiolarians (basin margin).
5.
Oncolite-rich interval a few meters thick overlying the radiolarian chert (oncolites herein
interpreted to represent shoal water derived clasts that were transported into deeper water slope settings by sediment
gravity flows; Sandberg and others (1980) interpret these oncolite beds to represent an in-situ shallow-water oncolitelimestone-bank.
Joana Limestone:
1.
2.
3.
Pilot Shale-Joana Limestone contact is marked by an interfingering of quartz arenites and shales (Pilot Shale) and
crinoid-rich bioclastic packstones and grainstones (Joana Limestone). The quartz arenites may represent part of a
shallow water offshore bar system related to an eastern or laterally adjacent shoreline, whereas the Joana crinoid-rich
shoals are platform margin and or upper slope shoals that were prograding over the quartz arenites.
Crinoid packstones and grainstones, pellet grainstones, oolite/pellet grainstones (shallow subtidal shelf edge crinoid
meadows and oolite sand bodies inboard of the crinoid bank margin facies; unrestricted lagoons with scattered zones
of pellet packstones).
Joana-Chainman contact Crinoid wackestone and packstone shoals in contact with mud-supported siliciclastics of
the Chainman (either a rapid sea level rise associated with the Antler orogeny or an erosion contact, followed by a
relative sea level rise).
Economic Considerations Oolitic grainstone bodies such as found in the Joana Limestone can form excellent reservoirs.
These types of carbonate sand bodies are particularly abundant and prolific petroleum reservoirs in Mississippian, Permian,
Jurassic, and Cretaceous sequences where they occur as tidal bars, tidal deltas, and broad marine sand bars on tops of
banks. Tidal bars and tidal deltas can form on both the seaward slope and bankward side of shelf edges (Halley and others,
1983). The stratigraphic association of a variety of potential reservoir facies in the Joana Limestone enclosed between
two possible source rock horizons such as the Pilot and Chainman Shales make this part of the Mississippian a potentially
attractive exploration target. The fact that in some areas the Joana Limestone has been interpreted to be thin or missing
due to Mississippian erosion has both negative and positive exploration implications. On the negative side, if the erosion
trend does not follow the Joana Limestones original depositional trend subsurface prediction of reservoirs becomes
more adventuresome. On the other hand, if this erosion occurred under subaerial conditions (i.e., during the lowstand
at the end of Sequence #12) with attendant meteoric vadose and phreatic zones significant amounts of moldic, vuggy or
even cavernous porosity could exist in the Joana Limestone. Enhanced solution porosity overlain by a thick sequence of
organically rich Chainman Shale could offer excellent exploration potential.
Examples of petroleum reservoirs in carbonate sand bodies include the Permian Clear Fork and Abo fields,
Permian Basin, west Texas (Mazzullo, 1982), Pennsylvanian Chapman Deep Atoka fields, Delaware Basin, west Texas
(Mazzullo, 1981), and numerous Jurassic Smackover fields in the Gulf Coast (Halley and other, 1983).
53
Numerous gold discoveries in Nevada are hosted in porous calcareous silts (Ainsworth, 1984; Raines and others,
1991). Some of these calcareous silts may be turbidites in basin margin settings. If this is true, it is particularly important
to determine the origin of these calcareous turbidites and to develop depositional sequence models that show the possible
genetic interrelationship between the carbonate platform margin and basin margin facies. For example, sediment-hosted
gold occurs in the Joana Limestone and Chainman Shale at the Nighthawk Ridge deposit southeast of Eureka (Carden,
1991) and at the Green Spring deposit (Wilson and others, 1991). If the gold-bearing host facies in the Chainman Shale
represents carbonate turbidites generated from a retrograding Joana Limestone platform margin this is a significant key to
any Great Basin exploration activity.
Relation to Future Stops This same stratigraphy occurs in the Egan Range, eastern Nevada. There, the lower Joana
Limestone maintains its high-energy platform margin characteristics. The same chronostratigraphic interval at Stop 2-1
(Devils Gate) is only occupied by the Pilot Shale and overlying Chainman Shale with the Joana Limestone missing.
54
Joana Limestone
Pilot Shale
Photo 1-3a. Pilot Shale and overlying Joana Limestone. Stop 1-3. Little-Mile-and-a-Half Canyon, Confusion Range,
Utah.
Photo 1-3b. Pilot Shale. Thin-bedded, in-situ argillaceous limey shales in a basinal setting.
55
Stop 1-3.
Photo 1-3c. Pilot Shale. Calcareous turbidite exhibiting Bouma A (normal grading), B (parallel laminations), and C
(cross-laminations) divisions. Basin or base-of-slope setting. Stop 1-3. Little-Mile-and-a-Half Canyon, Confusion
Range, Utah.
Photo 1-3d. Pilot Shale. Carbonate debris flow with laminated turbidite cap facies.
56
Slope setting. Stop 1-3.
Photo 1-3e. Joana Limestone. Syringoporella colonial coral within the middle part of the Joana. Middle platform.
Matrix surrounding coral is a wackestone. Stop 1-3. Little-Mile-and-a-Half Canyon, Confusion Range, Utah.
Photo 1-3f. Joana Limestone. Oolite grainstone tidal bar near the top of the Joana Limestone. Platform margin. Stop
1-3. Little-Mile-and-a-Half Canyon, Confusion Range, Utah.
57
1 mile
Map 5. Location of Stops 2-1 and 2-2 on the Devon Peak Quadrangle, Devils Gate, Nevada.
58
STOP 2-1 OVERVIEW OF WHISTLER MOUNTAIN, NEVADA

Age Late Devonian (Frasnian-Famennian) and Early Mississippian.
Formations Devils Gate Limestone (Late Devonian), Pilot Shale (Late Devonian-Early Mississippian), and Chainman
Shale (Early Mississippian).
Carbonate Depositional Sequences (Figure 2) Before we examine this section in detail, this vantage spot affords a
good overall view of parts of Sequence #9 and #10. At this locality (Devils Gate), the Devils Gate Limestone consists of a
lower shallow water platform margin member and an upper deeper water basinal and slope member (Sandberg and others,
2003):
1) The lower member consists of thick-bedded, muddy, stromatoporoid-rich packstones deposited in a middle
shelf lagoon setting.
2) The upper member consists of lime muds, calcarenite turbidites, bioclastic conglomeratic debris flows, and
submarine slumps representing deposition in deeper water basin and slope environments.
Depositional Environments These two contrasting members are herein interpreted to represent parts of two separate
carbonate depositional sequences. The lower member is interpreted to represent the upper part of the highstand systems
tract of Sequence #9 and the upper member is interpreted to be comprised of the transgressive and highstand systems
tracts of Sequence #10 (Figure 2). The sequence boundary between Sequence #9 and #10 may be represented at or near
the stratigraphic horizon identified as SR in Sandberg and others (2003, Figure 5).
59
STOP 2-2 WHISTLER MOUNTAIN, NEVADA

Age Devils Gate Limestone (Late Devonian), Pilot Shale (Late Devonian-Early Mississippian), and Chainman Shale
(Early Mississippian).
Carbonate Depositional Sequences (Figure 2) According to Poole and others (1979) and Sandberg and others, (2003),
at this stop the Devils Gate Limestone exhibits a retrogradational, deepening upward event from platform margin to slope
to basin environments during the Frasnian and Famennian.
We agree that the lower member of the Devils Gate Limestone represents deposition in a relatively shallow water
shelf lagoon setting, whereas the upper member formed in deeper water settings. However, as discussed at Stop 2-1, we
offer an alternative interpretation for the origin of this environmental change. If this change were a simple progressive
retrogradational event, one could expect the stromatoporoid-Amphipora shelf lagoon facies in the lower member to be
directly overlain by a high energy platform margin grainstone facies with massive stromatoporoids, followed by slides
and slumps of an upper slope facies, then overlain by base-of-slope debris apron facies and finally overlain by basin-plain
turbidites.
The stratigraphic succession overlying the platform interior shelf lagoon facies begins with thin-bedded turbidites
succeeded by conglomeratic debris base-of-slope apron deposits that in turn are overlain by slides and slumps. We propose
that the lower member of the Devils Gate Limestone (platform interior shelf lagoon facies) was suddenly drowned by
faulting and/or relative sea level changes related to Sequence #10 and the platform was forced to rapidly back-step to the
east. Thus, we would interpret the contact between the lower member and upper member to be at or near the sequence
boundary between Sequence #9 and #10 (Figure 2 and 3). Once a new platform margin was established it prograded
seaward forming the highstand systems tract of Sequence 10. The deeper water Devils Gate Limestone of the upper
member would represent a predicted upward progression from basinal turbidites to base-of-slope conglomeratic debris
apron turbidites and debris flows to submarine slumps. In terms of carbonate depositional sequences the upper deeper
water member would represent transgressive and highstand systems tract facies of Sequence #10.
It is significant to note how the Devils Gate platform margin was evolving in comparison to two other welldocumented Upper Devonian reefs and bank margins. For example, in Alberta, Canada (Figures 41-43), Upper Devonian
(Frasnian) Miette and Ancient Wall bank margins first went through a retrogradational phase (transgressive systems
tract) that was followed by a progradational phase (highstand systems tract; Figure 41). In the Canning Basin of western
Australia, the Upper Devonian reef complexes exhibit a complex evolution. They back-stepped several times during the
Frasnian (transgressive systems tracts), and in the latest Frasnian and most of the Famennian, the reef margin prograded
seaward (highstand systems tract; Figure 43). Then near the Famennian-Tournaisian boundary it appears a major
transgressive event occurred (Figure 44).
Depositional Environments (Figure 45) The base of the Devils Gate Limestone at this stop contains abundant
hemispherical and bulbous stromatoporoids, and the dendroid stromatoporoids Amphipora and/or Stachyodes. This biota
occurs in dark gray to black lime wackestones that contain an abundance of lime mud. Gastropods are also commonly
associated with the stromatoporoids. Stromatoporoid-rich facies have been intensely studied in numerous Devonian
carbonate provinces including the Upper Devonian of Canada (Figures, 46, 48) (for example, Klovan, 1964; Murray,
1966; Cook, 1972; Cook et al., 1972), Upper Devonian of Australia (Playford, 1980), Upper Devonian of Europe
(LeCompte, 1956). These Upper Devonian studies suggest a paleoecological zonation of stromatoporoids from tabular
forms in deeper, less-turbulent waters of the upper slope and massive (hemispherical) forms being adapted to shallow,
turbulent environments at the platform margin. Within relatively quiet muddy shallow water shelf interior (back reef)
settings bulbous stromatoporoids and Amphipora are common (Figures 47-50). Stachyodes was apparently more tolerant
of high energy conditions and is commonly associated with massive and tabular-laminated stromatoporoids (Figures 4748).
Power (1983) in her study of the Devils Gate Limestone in the northern Roberts Mountains concluded that the
basal Devils Gate is a true stromatoporoid-coral boundstone that formed in a high-energy shoal water platform margin
position and not on a carbonate ramp.
60
110
120
ALBERTA
58
MILES
50
58
100
BRITISH
COLUMB
IA
VIRGINIA
HILLS
OUTCROP
BELT
SWAN
HILLS
JUDY
CREEK
ANCIENT
WALL
REDWATER
GOLDEN
SPIKE
LEDUC
MIETTE
SOUTHESK
LIMESTONE
CALGARY
CARBONATE BUILDUPS
ALBERTA
U.S.A.
110
50
Figure 41. Distribution of Upper Devonian isolated carbonate buildups in Alberta, Canada. Isolated carbonate buildups
evolved on top of broad carbonate platforms (Modifed from Cook and others, 1972).
SURFACE
SUBSURFACE
ARCS
NISKU FORMATION
UPPER
FRASNIAN
FAIRHOLME GROUP
DEVONIAN
GROTTO
PEECHEE
MT. HAWK
FORMATION
PERDRIX
FORMATION
UPPER CAIRN
R
MEMBE
GIVETIAN
MIDDLE
TION &
FORMA
DUVERNAY
FORMATION
COOKING LAKE FORMATION
MALIGNE FM.
FLUME
IRETON
FORMATION
WATERWAYS
FORMATION
ELK POINT GROUP
Figure 42. Correlation of formations exposed at Ancient Wall, Miette, and Southesk-Cairn with those of the subsurface
(Figure 41 for location of buildups) (Modifed from Cook and others, 1972).
61
SE
400
a)
HST
NW
25 KM.
PEECHEE
MEMBER
MT. HAWK FORMATION
300
200
CAIRN
FORMATION
TST PERDRIX FORMATION
100
MALIGNE FORMATION
FLUME FORMATION
0
METERS
SE
b)
HST
NW
25 KM.
400
SAND BANK
PHASE III
BASIN
SEDIMENTS
300
200
SHOALING
PHASE II
TST
100
PLATFORM
PHASE I
0
METERS
Figure 43a. Generalized stratigraphic cross-section showing the stratigraphic and facies relationships at the Upper
Devonian Miette carbonate complex, Alberta, Canada (Modified from Cook and others, 1972).
Figure 43b. Generalized depositional phases of the Miette carbonate complex (Modified from Cook and others, 1972).
FAIRFIELD GROUP
TOURNAISIAN
FAMENNIAN
WINDJANA LIMESTONE
NULLARA LIMESTONE
NAPIER FORMATION
FAMENNIAN
FRASNIAN
GOGO FORMATION
PILLARA LIMESTONE
SADLER LIMESTONE
FRASNIAN
GIVETIAN
PRECAMBRIAN
Figure 44. Correlation of formations exposed at Ancient Wall, Miette, and Southesk-Cairn with those of the subsurface
(Figure 41 for location of buildups) (Modified from Playford, 1980).
62

HST
Upper Member
SEQUENCE #10
TST
LST
SB
SEQUENCE #9
HST
Lower Member
Figure 45. Interpreted depositional environments for retrogradational and back-stepping Devils Gate Limestone at Stop
2-1 and 2-2. Lower Member at Devils Gate is a middle shelf lagoon facies and the high energy platform margin
grainstone facies is not exposed at Devils Gate. Lower Member is interpreted to be a highstand systems tract (HST).
The lower part of the Upper Member is interpreted to be the transgressive systems tract (TST) with thick debris flows,
turbidites and slumps that formed during the highstand system tracts (HST) (Modified from Cook and others, 1983).
Carbonate base-of-slope apron model showing shoal water derived debris (highstand sytstems tract-HST) originating
along line source. Mass-flow deposits originating at platform margin largely by-pass the slope with the bulk of debris
deposited at the base-of-slope. Debris is transported as broad sheet flow (Compare to Figures 2, 30, 32, 33, 34, and 35;
From Cook, 1982).
63
At Stop 2-2, we do not see the basal Devils Gate Limestone that Power (1983) describes in the Roberts Mountains
to the north. Sandberg (personnel comm., 1983) states that near Stop 2-2, but lower in the section, stromatoporoid-coral
boundstone are in-situ and represent shelf edge buildups. The lowest Devils Gate facies we will examine do not appear to
have formed in a high-energy mud-free environment. Rather the association of bulbous and hemispherical stromatoporoids,
Amphipora and gastropods encased in dark mud-rich matrix suggests quieter water setting in a middle shelf environment
(Figure 47).
As one progresses upsection at Stop 2-2, into the upper member of the Devils Gate Limestone deeper water
environments are encountered including basin-plain, base-of-slope, and slope. The abundance of thick carbonate debris
flow deposits in association with slumps and slides support the interpretation of Power (1983) that the Devils Gate
Limestone did not form on a low angle ramp. The high-energy facies described by Power (1983) and the significant
amounts of submarine mass-transport deposits in the upper member of the Devils Gate Limestone suggests a rimmed
carbonate shelf model and not a carbonate ramp or distally steepened ramp model for the Devils Gate Limestone at this
locality.
Devils Gate Limestone Formation:
A. Lower Member1.
Dark gray to black, bulbous, hemispherical, and dendroid (Amphipora and/or Stachyodes) stromatoporoid-gastropod
wackestones and packstones (relatively low energy, subtidal, shelf edge or lagoon environments).
B. Upper Member-
1
2.
3.
4.
Limestone turbidites (slope, base-of-slope, and basinal settings).

Limestone conglomeratic debris-flow deposits with clasts of bulbous and laminar stromatoporoids, Syringoporella
colonial coral clasts and rugose corals (slope and base-of-slope settings).
Carbonate turbidite cap facies on top of debris flows with Bouma Tc rippled tops dipping to the west suggesting
transport to the west.
Soft sediment deformation in in-situ slope sediments.
Pilot Shale:
1.
Shale and calcareous shales (basin plain).
Chainman Shale:
1. Chert pebble turbidites, some of which contain Bouma Tc rippled tops with the ripples dipping to the west
suggesting transport to the west.
Economic Considerations The Devils Gate Limestone as observed here and in the Diamond Mountains, the next range
to the east does not appear to represent potentially favorable petroleum reservoir facies. If the stromatoporoid-rich beds
were dolomitized and/or leached as occurs in the Upper Devonian of Alberta and western Australia, for example, some
Devils Gate Limestone facies could be attractive exploration targets. The carbonate turbidites could represent favorable
reservoir (host) facies for petroleum and minerals. Sediment-hosted gold occurs at the contact between the Pilot Shale
and Devils Gate Limestone at the Alligator Ridge deposit (Ilchik, 1991). Other sediment-hosted gold deposits have been
discovered near the Devils Gate Limestone and Webb Formation at the Rain subdistrict (Thoreson, 1991), at the South
Bullion deposit (Putman and Henriques, 1991), and the Trout Creek deposit (Jackson and Ruetz, 1991).
Relation to other areas We will examine other deeper water slope and basinal sequences at Stop 3-2 (SilurianDevonian), Stop 4-1 (Lower Devonian), Stop 5-4 (Upper Cambrian-Lower Ordovician), and Stop 5-6 (Lower-Middle
Devonian).
64
SHALLOW
MASSIVE STROMATOPOROIDS
DEEP
RELATIVE DEPTH
RELATIVE ABUNDANCE
TUBULAR STROMATOPOROIDS
CORALS
Figure 46. Depth Distribution of Upper Devonian reef-building organisms at Redwater Field, Alberta, Canada
(Modified from Klovan, 1964).
FISH, CRUSTACEANS, RADIOLARIANS, TENTACULITIDS

NAUTILOIDS
AMMONOIDS
CONODONTS
CRINOIDS
SPONGES
BRACHIOPODS
GASTROPODS
BIVALVES
CORALS
AMPHIPORA
STACHYODES
BULBOUS STROMATOPOROIDS
MASSIVE STROMATOPOROIDS
TABULAR-LAMINATED STROMATOPOROIDS
ALGAL MAT
ONCOLITES
COLUMNAR STROMATOLITES
RENALCIS
PLATFORM MARGIN
PLATFORM
SPHAEROCODIUM
BASIN
SLOPE
Figure 47. Biotic distribution in Upper Devonian (Frasnian) reef complexes, Canning Basin, western Australia
(Modified from Playford, 1980).
65
INNER-MIDDLE SHELF
PLATFORM
MARGIN
SLOPE
BASIN
BIOTA
Massive
Stromatoporoids
Tabular
Stromatoporoids
Stachyodes(DendroidStomatoporoid)
Amphipora
(DendroidStomatoporoid)
Corals
Brachiopods
Pelecypods
Crinoids
Gastropods
Calcispheres
Encrusting
Algae
VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
x 100
0
1 MILES
Figure 48. Distribution of organisms in Upper Devonian reefs and banks, Alberta, Canada (Modified from Klovan,
1964; Mountjoy, 1965, 1968; Playford and Lowry, 1966; Cook, 1972; Cook and others, 1972).
66
BANK
SLOPE
Hemispherical
Stromatoporoid
Laminated
Stromatoporoid
Dendroid
Stromatoporoid
(Amphipora)
Figure 49. Schematic cross-section showing relationship of stromatoporoids to the environments in Lower Devonian
Jeffersonville Limestone, Indiana (Modified from Perkins, 1963).
SEA LEVEL
Lam
ina
ted
Str
om
ato
por
oid
Hemi
spher
ical S
troma
topor
oid
Figure 50. Schematic cross-section showing relationship of stromatoporoids to the environments in the Middle
Devonian Manlius Formation, New York (Modifed from Laporte, 1967).
67
Up
per
Low
er M
em
Me
ber
mb
er
Photo 2-1a. Lower Member of Devils Gate Limestone is a shoal water middle platform facies and the overlying Upper
Member is a deeper-water basinal to slope facies with abundant debris flows, turbidites, and slumps. Stops 2-1 and 2-2.
Devils Gate, Whistler Mountain, Nevada.
Photo 2-1b. Devils Gate Limestone, Lower Member. Middle platform. Stops 2-1 and 2-2. Devils Gate, Whistler
Mountain, Nevada.
68
Photo 2-1c. Devils Gate Limestone, Lower Member. Amphipora rudstone and/or floatstone. Middle platform. Stops
2-1 and 2-2. Devils Gate, Whistler Mountain, Nevada.
Photo 2-1d. Devils Gate Limestone, Lower Member. Stromatoporoid-amphipora-gastropod rudstone. Middle
platform. Stops 2-1 and 2-2. Devils Gate, Whistler Mountain, Nevada.
69
Photo 2-1e. Devils Gate Limestone, Upper Member. Massively bedded upward-thickening cycles of carbonate debris
flow and turbidite deposits. Looking north. Slope and base-of-slope. Stops 2-1 and 2-2. Devils Gate, Whistler
Mountain, Nevada.
Photo 2-1f. Devils Gate Limestone, Upper Member. Debris flow conglomerate. Slope and base-of-slope. Stops 2-1
and 2-2. Devils Gate, Whistler Mountain, Nevada.
70
Photo 2-1g. Devils Gate Limestone, Upper Member. Top of a thick conglomeratic debris flow deposits showing
cross-bedded turbidite cap facies. Cross-bedding Bouma C division indicates westerly (left) transport direction. Slope
and base-of-slope. Stops 2-1 and 2-2. Devils Gate, Whistler Mountain, Nevada.
EAST
WEST
Transported current
direction
Photo 2-1h. Devils Gate Limestone, Upper Member. Base of thin-bedded turbidites with flute marks indicating
turbidity currents were moving westerly. Slope and base-of-slope. Stops 2-1 and 2-2. Devils Gate, Whistler Mountain,
Nevada.
71
Photo 2-1i. Devils Gate Limestone, Upper Member. Soft-sediment deformation. Upper slope. Stops 2-1 and 2-2.
Devils Gate, Whistler Mountain, Nevada.
Photo 2-1j. Chainman Shale at Devils Gate. Siliciclastic turbidites with cross-bedded Bouma C division indicating
transport to the west (left). Basinal setting. Stops 2-1 and 2-2. Devils Gate, Whistler Mountain, Nevada.
72
1 mile
Map 6. Location of Stop 3-1 on the Garden Pass Quadrangle, Garden Pass, Nevada.
73
STOP 3-1 GARDEN PASS, NEVADA

Age Ordovician
Formations Vinini Shale.
Carbonate Depositional Sequences Vinini Shale is within Sequence #4 (Figure 2).
Depositional Environments The Vinini Shale was deposited in a graptolitic-bearing deep basin plain setting.
Vinini Shale:
1.
Black shale with graptolites.
74
Photo 3-1a. Vinini Shale. Graptolitic shales thrust eastward over platform margin. Stop 3-1. Garden Pass, Nevada.
Photo 3-1b. Vinini Shale. Graptolitic shales. Stop 3-1. Garden Pass, Nevada.
75
1 mile
Map 7. Location of Stop 3-2 on the Cooper Peak Quadrangle, Willow Creek, Nevada. Photos 3-2c through 3-2h from
line of section in black. Photos 3-2i and 3-2j from line of section in red.
76
STOP 3-2 ROBERTS MOUNTAINS, NEVADA

Age Late Silurian and Early Devonian.
Formations Roberts Mountains Formation and the overlying Lone Mountain Dolomite.
Carbonate Depositional Sequences (Figure 2) Sequence #5 and the lower part of Sequence #6 are represented at this
locality Figure 2). Both a late transgressive systems tract (aggrading platform margin) and a highstand systems tract
(prograding platform margin) of Sequence #5 can be seen and perhaps part of the lowstand systems tract of Sequence # 6
(i.e., erosional channels filled with platform margin clasts near the top of the Lone Mountain Dolomite on the west side of
Willow Creek).
Depositional Environments (Figures 51-54) Winterer and Murphys classic paper (1960) was the first to interpret the
dark gray Roberts Mountains Formation to be a basinal and slope facies. They considered the overlying light gray Lone
Mountain Dolomite to be a true ecologic reef as defined by Lowenstam (1950). Matti and others (1975) and Matti and
McKee (1977) modified the earlier interpretation of Winterer and Murphy (1960) by abandoning the reef hypothesis
and proposing that the uppermost Roberts Mountains Formation was a skeletal bank margin facies that interfingered
with the Lone Mountain Dolomite. Nichols and Silberling (1977) refuted several interpretive elements of Winterer and
Murphy (1960), Matti and others (1975), and Matti and McKee (1977). Nichols and Silberling (1977) agreed with earlier
interpretations in that the platform margin carbonates represent skeletal sands (bank) rather than skeletal boundstone facies
(reef). However, Nichols and Silberling (1977) proposed that an unconformity exists between the dark-colored Roberts
Mountains Formation and the light-colored Lone Mountain Dolomite. They state (p. 224) that the abrupt change from
outer-platform or off-platform crinoid grainstone of the upper Roberts Mountains Formation to inner-platform desiccated
primary dolomite of the Willow Creek (Lone Mountain Dolomite) marks a pronounced progradation of the Lone Mountain
Dolomite over the Roberts Mountain Formation. This suggests that the deposition of the two was interrupted by an
episode of exposure and erosion of the Roberts Mountains carbonate ramp or platform before Lone Mountain Dolomite
deposition. It should be noted at this point that apparently Nichols and Silberling failed to see that stratigraphically above
the crinoid grainstone (discussed below) there occurs a coral-bearing horizon which marks the organic component of
the platform margin facies. There is no missing facies as proposed by Nichols and Silberling (1977) which led them to
propose an unconformity between the Roberts Mountains and Lone Mountain formations.
An alternative interpretation that is similar to that of Matti and others (1975) and Matti and McKee (1977) but
differs in detail is offered here and in Cook and others (1983). First, our observations indicate that the mappable boundary
between the Roberts Mountains and Lone Mountain Dolomite formations is a diagenetic contact, not a depositional event
(Figures 51, 52). Thus, the formational boundary mapped has different facies at different locations along strike. This is
a fundamental feature not reported and/or recognized for its importance by previous workers. The mapped formational
boundary is defined as being dark gray limestone for the Roberts Mountains Formation and light gray dolostone of the
Lone Mountain Dolomite. However, of major importance is that this color change does not always parallel bedding planes
or depositional facies. Cook (1966) earlier pointed out that the mappable color boundary between these two formations is
of a diagenetic origin and not a primary depositional feature. For example, in the Hot Creek Range at Field Stop 5-5 (north
side of the lower Hot Creek Canyon) the color boundary between the Roberts Mountains Formation and Lone Mountain
Dolomite is wavy and crosses bedding planes. Thus, where the beds are dark gray they are traditionally assigned to the
Roberts Mountains Formation and where the beds are light gray they are referred to as the Lone Mountain Dolomite.
We have found no compelling evidence that supports the missing facies theory of Nichols and Silberling (1977).
The mappable contact between the Roberts Mountains Formation and Lone Mountain Dolomite is herein interpreted to
be a diagenetic feature, and we believe that the two formations are in depositional contact at this stop (Cook and others,
1983). When one ignores the color differences between formations and looks at the depositional facies themselves there
appears to be a gradual stratigraphically upward transition in facies from lower slope turbidites to upper slope cross bedded
crinoidal-oolite grainstone sand bars to coral-rich platform margin sediments to bedded and cross-bedded grainstones and
conglomerates to tidal channel facies, to fenestral fabrics and oolite shoals. The dolomitizing fluids did not uniformly
follow any one facies boundary but crossed facies boundaries. The resulting contact is considered to be a complex collage
of interfingering limestone and dolostone facies (Figures 51-53).
77
SLOPE-BASIN
MUDS &
TURBIDITES
BANK
"REEF"
MARGIN
TIDAL BARDELTA SANDS
*DARK LIME MUDSTONE/

WACKESTONE
*CROSS-BEDDED
*CARBONATE SEDIMENT
GRAVITY FLOWS
*OOLITIC-BIOCLASTIC
PACKSTONE/GRAINSTONE
*CORAL-CRINOIDSTROMATOLITE
WACKESTONE-PACKSTONE
TIDAL FLATS
SHALLOW
MIDDLE SHELF
*TIDAL CHANNEL CONGLOMERATE, PACKSTONEGRAINSTONE

*STORM DEPOSITS-RIP UP CLASTS
*FENESTRAL FABRICS
LONE MOUNTAIN DOLOMITE

DOLOSTONE
ROBERTS MOUNTAIN FORMATION

LIMESTONE
Figure 51. Interpretive depositional profile and environments for lower and upper Roberts Mountains Formation and
lowermost Lone Mountain Dolomite at Stop 3-2, Willow Creek, Roberts Mountains, Nevada (From Cook and others,
1983).
CORAL-STROMATOPOROID
Figure 52. Map view of Figure 51 showing the interpreted diagenetic relationship between the Roberts Mountains
limestones and the Lone Mountain Dolomite dolostones. Jagged wavy line schematically shows the diagenetic nature of
the formational contact. Willow Creek, Roberts Mountains, Nevada (From Cook and others, 1983).
78
NORTH
SOUTH
Lone Mountain
Lowstand
Wedge
(LSW)
Lone
Mountain
Dolomite
BASIN MARGIN
Roberts Mountains
Formation
Tidal Flat
and
Middle Shelf
Carbonate
Bank Margin
Pe
Qarsian
Ar tar-TGulf
id yp
An Clim e
dr
a
Hu os Is te
lan
mi
dC d
Per
lim
s
Tru ian G ate
c
W. ial C ulf
A
o
Ar ustr ast +
id
a
Ev Climlia
apo at
e
Bir rites
dse
ye
Fa
Mu
bri
dcr
c
ack
s
Sto
rm
La
ms
Alg
?
al S
tru
ctu
Int
res
rac
las
t
s
Bu
rro
ws
Cr
oss
Ev Bedd
ed
(whapor
i
Do en prtes
(m lomit esen
icr e
t)
o
Pel crsta
lets
llin
e)
Pis
olit
es
Oo
ids
Op
enFo Mari
r
Div ami ne F
oss
ers nife
ils
ity ra
lor
OXIDIZED TAN-BROWN
A
B
REDUCED GRAY
SUBTIDAL
INTERTIDAL
SUPRATIDAL
Co
Tid
e
Zo
nes
Figure 53. Interpretive geologic cross-section of Figure 51 showing aggrading phase in lower part of stratigraphic
section and seaward prograding phase in upper part of section. Distance across figure is about 2500 feet. Willow Creek,
Roberts Mountains, Nevada (From Cook and others, 1983).
Figure 54. Solid black bars represent features present along the Roberts Mountains-Lone Mountain contact at Stop 3-2
(Modified from Shinn, 1983).
79
The above discussion refers to the area where the Lone Mountain Dolomite was prograding seaward over the
Roberts Mountains Formation (Figure 53left hand side). In the same canyon but stratigraphically lower this SilurianDevonian bank margin was aggrading (Figure 53right-hand side). In the aggrading area, the deeper water turbidites
and in-situ slope and basinal beds in the Roberts Mountains Formation interfinger along strike into the platform margin
Lone Mountain Dolomite sediments (Figure 53). There is no apparent missing facies evidence for an unconformity as
proposed by Nichols and Silberling (1977). There may be an unconformity of unknown magnitude at or near the top of the
Lone Mountain Dolomite (Figure 2) as at several localities erosional channels occur within the dolomitized Lone Mountain
oolite and tidal flat facies. However, these channels could be normal tidal channels that are common on modern carbonate
platform margins and tidal flats (for example, Scholle and others, 1983; Cook and others, 1983).
Roberts Mountains Formation:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Carbonate turbidites (slope).

Cross-bedded crinoid-ooid packstones and grainstones (subtidal marine tidal bars and/or deltas on gentle
slopes just seaward of the bank margin). Lowstand systems tract (?).
Skeletal-rich (corals) platform margin limestone (subtidal, moderately high-energy platform margin).
Cross-bedded limestone conglomerates and grainstones (shallow, high-energy subtidal to supratidal).
Diagenetic nature of contact between Roberts Mountains Limestone and Lone Mountain Dolomite.
Lone Mountain Dolomite:

1.
2.
3.
Dolomite breccia facies (tidal flat).

Dolomitized coral facies (possible storm deposits washed onto tidal flats from bank margin).
Dolomitized oolite grainstones (oolite tidal bars and /or tidal belts in tidal flat and shallow subtidal
settings).
Economic Considerations Four main depositional facies seaward and bankward of platform margin environments
have the potential of forming important reservoirs for petroleum and minerals. These include 1) carbonate sediment
gravity flow deposits in slope and base-of-slope settings. These facies can contain both primary and secondary porosity
types. Two examples include the Cretaceous Poza Rica Field in Mexico (Enos, 1977, 1985; Magoon and others, 2001)
and Permian Basin fields in the Delaware and Midland Basins of West Texas (Cook, 1983; Cook and others, 1983). 2)
Tidal bar belts, tidal delta sands and marine sand belts composed of sand-sized organic grains as well as oolites and other
coated grains. These carbonate sand bodies can occur on the seaward as well as landward side of the platform edge
(Halley and others,1983). Bars and channels are plentiful along the Lower Cretaceous Stuart City Trend in Texas and in
the Upper Jurassic Smackover oolite in Arkansas and Louisiana. These oolite bodies were deposited in tidal bars, deltas,
channels, beaches, and islands. Carbonate sand bodies are particularly abundant in Mississippian, Permian, Jurassic, and
Cretaceous ages although similar carbonate sands can be found virtually throughout the stratigraphic column. 3) Platform
edge organic buildups including true boundstone reef facies and/or organic banks composed of skeletal grainstones are a
common reservoir facies at platform margins. These reservoirs can contain both primary interparticle porosity secondary
moldic porosity and intercrystalline porosity where the buildups have been dolomitized. A few examples include Devonian
platform margin stromatoporoid facies in Canada and western Australia, Pennsylvanian coral-rich buildups in Texas, coral
boundstone and rudist grainstone reservoirs in the Cretaceous of Texas and the Golden Lane of Mexico. 4) Skeletal
packstones and wackestones on the inner side of the platform edge can have significant amounts of moldic porosity. These
so-called platform lagoon facies form major reservoirs in the Devonian of Canada and the Canning Basin of western
Australia. In these Devonian cases a major reservoir facies is an Amphipora wackestone and packstone. The matrix is
dolomitized and the Amphipora are partially or wholly leached. The dominant porosity is moldic and intercrystalline. It
is important to note that in the Diamond Mountains, a few miles east of Roberts Mountains, Devonian Amphipora-rich
platform lagoon facies of the Middle Devonian Bay State Dolomite contain 4.0 % moldic porosity and 1100 millidarcys
horizontal permeability similar to that forming reservoir facies in Canada and elsewhere (Cook, 1988). Other examples
of platform margin and near platform margin reservoirs are reviewed by Wilson (1975, 1983), Halley and others (1983),
and James (1983).
80
Most of the gold on the northern Carlin trend is hosted in the Lower Devonian (Lochkovian) part of the Roberts
Mountains Fromation (oral comm., Poul Emsbo; Emsbo and others, 2003). The Rodeo deposit along the Carlin trend is
hosted in upper mudstone member (informal) of the Middle Devonian (Eifelian) Popovich Formation (Emsbo and others,
2003). Sediment-hosted gold occurs at the Gold Acres deposit in the Roberts Mountains Formation near the contact
with the overlying Roberts Mountains thrust (Hays and Foo, 1991). Possible mineral host facies in Roberts Mountains
Formation could be carbonate turbidites and tidal bar-delta carbonate sands. These types of sediments were transported off
the platform margin prior to early marine dolomitization of the platform margin. Post-depositional diagenesis of aragonite
and magnesium calcite components in these facies could produce porosity.
Relation to other areas At Stop 4-1, we will see Lower Devonian basin margin section that exhibits submarine slumping
and sliding, carbonate turbidites, and possible carbonate contourites. At Stop 4-2, we will briefly discuss the Lower
Devonian Tor Limestone and the role it plays in the interpretation that the Roberts Mountains Formation formed in a
stagnant outer platform basin (Matti and McKee, 1977) rather than on the continental margin (Thomas and others, 1987).
81
Lone Mountain Dolomite

Photo 3-2a. Looking east at shoaling upward section. Roberts Mountains Formation (slope and inner basin) in lower
part of section overlain by Lone Mountain Dolomite (platform margin) at ridge top. Stop 3-2. Willow Creek, Roberts
Mountains, Nevada.
0
.5
Km
.25 Mi
Photo 3-2b. Aerial photograph showing aggradation of Lone Mountain Dolomite and late phase progradation of Lone
Mountain Dolomite over Roberts Mountains Formation. Line of section (in red) is the location shown in Photo 3-2a.
Stop 3-2. Willow Creek, Roberts Mountains, Nevada.
82
Photo 3-2c. Roberts Mountains Formation. Normally graded bioclastic turbidite. Slope. Stop 3-2. Willow Creek,
Roberts Mountains, Nevada.
Photo 3-2d. Roberts Mountains Formation. In-situ laminated lime mud slope facies. Slope. Stop 3-2. Willow Creek,
Roberts Mountains, Nevada.
83
Photo 3-2e. Roberts Mountains Formation. Cross-bedded ooid-crinoid grainstones on upper slope. Ooids transported
downslope prior to dolomitization of in-situ oolites shoals on platform margin. Stop 3-2. Willow Creek, Roberts
Mountains, Nevada.
1 mm
Photo 3-2f. Roberts Mountains Formation. Thin-section of cross-bedded ooid-crinoid grainstones on upper slope. Stop
3-2. Willow Creek, Roberts Mountains, Nevada.
84
Photo 3-2g. Roberts Mountains Formation. Stromatoporoid-coral biostromes forming along the uppermost slope
setting. Stop 3-2. Willow Creek, Roberts Mountains, Nevada.
Photo 3-2h. Lone Mountain Dolomite. Platform margin with tidal channels filled with dolomitized limestones. Stop
3-2. Willow Creek, Roberts Mountains, Nevada.
85
1 cm
Photo 3-2i. Lone Mountain Dolomite. Dolomitized ooid grainstone shoals at platform margin. Stop 3-2. Willow
Creek, Roberts Mountains, Nevada.
1 mm
Photo 3-2j. Lone Mountain Dolomite. Thin-section of dolomitized ooid grainstone at platform margin. Stop 3-2.
Willow Creek, Roberts Mountains, Nevada.
86
1 mile
Map 8. Location of Stop 4-1 on the Horse Heaven Mountain Quadrangle, Copenhagen Canyon, Rabbit Hill, Nevada.
87
From Matti and others, 1975
Map 9. Geologic map for Stop 4-1, Horse Heaven Mountain Quadrangle, Copenhagen Canyon, Rabbit Hill, Nevada.
88
STOP 4-1 MONITOR RANGE, NEVADA

Age Lower Devonian
Formation Rabbit Hill Limestone.
Carbonate Depositional Sequences (Figure 2) Its chronostratigraphic position suggests it is part of the lowstand and
transgressive systems tracts of Sequence #6.
Depositional Environments The Rabbit Hill Limestone has been interpreted by Matti and others (1975) and Matti and
McKee (1977) as representing carbonate slope deposits. We agree with that interpretation. The presence of large-scale
soft-sediment folds in dark gray lime mudstone, conglomeratic debris flow beds, possible contourites, and the regional
position of Rabbit Hill Limestone support a slope setting. In terms of depositional models it appears to represent a location
on Figure 31 someplace seaward of the platform margin on the upper slope but not seaward enough to be in a base-of-slope
setting.
1. Carbonate turbidites with petroliferous odor.
2. Organic-rich lime mudstones.
3. Possible carlcarenite contourites.
4. Debris flow beds.
5. Large-scale soft-sediment folds.
6. Centimeter-scale rotational faults developed in semi-lithified lime muds (listric fault planes dip westerly).
Economic Considerations As discussed at previous stops, the carbonate sediment gravity flow deposits under the right
diagenetic conditions can serve as reservoirs for hydrocarbons and host facies for mineral deposits.
Relation to other areas At Stops 5-4 and 5-6, we will have an opportunity to examine the similarities and differences
between the slope facies in the Rabbit Hill Limestone and the well exposed slope, submarine fan, and apron facies in the
Upper Cambrian-Lower Ordovician and the Lower-Middle Devonian of the Hot Creek Range, Nevada.
89
Photo 4-1a. Rabbit Hill Limestone. Arrow points to large soft-sediment slump overfolds. Slope. Stop 4-1. Rabbit
Hill, Copenhagen Canyon, Nevada.
Photo 4-1b. Rabbit Hill Limestone. Close-up of soft-sediment slump overfold zone shown in Photo 4-1a. Slope. Stop
4-1. Rabbit Hill, Copenhagen Canyon, Nevada.
90
NEVADA
Hi!
These are
cool
carbonates
NANCY
Photo 4-1c. Rabbit Hill Limestone. Right ear of Nevada shows trend of soft-sediment slump overfold axis. Slope.
Stop 4-1. Rabbit Hill, Copenhagen Canyon, Nevada.
91
Photo 4-1d. Rabbit Hill Limestone. Soft-sediment slumping. Thin bed at arrow suggests rotation of some segments of
the beds downslope (to the left). Slope. Stop 4-1. Rabbit Hill, Copenhagen Canyon, Nevada.
1 cm
Photo 4-1e. Rabbit Hill Limestone. Turbidites and/or contourites. Slope. Stop 4-1. Rabbit Hill, Copenhagen Canyon,
Nevada.
92
1 mile
Map 10. Location of Stop 4-2 on the Dianas Punch Bowl Quadrangle, Ikes Canyon, Nevada.
93
STOP 4-2 TOQUIMA RANGE, NEVADA

(Discussion Stop)
Age Early Devonian.
Formation Tor Limestone.
Carbonate Depositional Sequences (Figure 2) The Tor Limestone is interpreted to represent submarine debris flow
and turbidity current deposits that were derived from coeval shoal water Roberts Mountain and Lone Mountain platform
margins to the east (Thomas and others, 1987). In this context the Tor Limestone is considered to represent the lowstand
systems tract of Sequence #6. This interpretation contrasts with Kay and Crawford (1964) and Matti and McKee (1977)
who in our opinion misinterpreted interpreted the Tor Limestone to be an in-situ shoal-water bank or reef.
Depositional Environments The Lower Devonian Tor Limestone in the Toquima Range is the same age as the uppermost
part of the Lone Mountain-Roberts Mountains platform margin (Figure 2). Kay and Crawford (1964) interpreted the Tor
Limestone as an in-situ reef or biostrome facies. Matti and McKee (1977) agree with that interpretation and also propose
that the McMonnigal Limestone in the Toquima Range forms a circular band around the Tor Limestone and represents
carbonate sediment gravity flow deposits derived from a shoal-water in-situ Tor Limestone bank.
The original interpretation of Kay and Crawford (1964) that the Tor Limestone is a shoal-water carbonate bank
required the interpretation that the Tor was initiated on a shoal-water substrate. Out of this "shoal-water substrate" evolved
the interpretation that the Tor developed on a north-south trending topographic ridge about 500 km in length (Matti and
McKee (1977). This interpretation has important implications to the interpretative history of the continental margin during
the Silurian-Devonian. The interpretation is the basis for Matti and McKee (1977) proposing that the Roberts Mountains
Formation formed in an outer platform basin bounded on the landward side by the Lone Mountain platform margin and on
the seaward side by the so-called Toiyabe Ridge.
There are several things that should be pointed out about the internal makeup of the Tor Limestone (Thomas and
others, 1987). All stratigraphic intervals within the Tor Limestone bank examined by Thomas and others (1987) and
even its basal lower beds consist of carbonate conglomeratic debris flow and turbidity current deposits. For example, at
the Wall in Ikes Canyon the basal most beds in the Tor at the unconformable contact with the Pogonip Formation consist
of crinoid-rich turbidites and debris flow beds containing colonial Favosites coral heads up to 60 cm across. At another
locality a single debris flow bed is up to 5 meters thick. In this debris flow sequence there are carbonate clasts up to about
25 x 75 centimeters across set within a crinoid wackestone matrix. Bear in mind these debris flow beds form the Tor
Limestone bank.
Sheehan and others (1993) also interpret large isolated carbonate bodies in the Lower Devonian Roberts
Mountains Formation in Antelope Peak (near Wells Nevada in northeastern Nevada) to be a series of stacked debris flow
and turbidity current deposits. These debris flows and turbidity current deposits, which are coeval with the Tor Limestone,
were transported 50-100 km from the Roberts Mountains platform margin. The Roberts Mountains isolated debris bodies
are up to about 50 m thick and 600 m wide.
Platform margin collapse during eustatic sea level lowstands are common and, for example, are interpreted to
have occurred near the Cambro-Ordovician boundary in the Great Basin, Alaska, and in Southern Kazakhstan (Cook and
Taylor, 1977; Cook, 1979; Cook and Taylor, 1991; Cook and others, 1991). Other platform margin collapse events are
cited in the literature (Handford and Loucks, 1993). There are numerous cases in the literature where so-called reefs
and shoal-water banks were originally misinterpreted. Later, these reefs and shoal-water banks were then shown to
be shoal-water debris transported into deeper-water basinal setting (For example, Pray and Stehli, 1962; Cook and others,
1972; also see Cook and Mullins, 1983, text Figures 56, 57, and 60).
We believe that the origin of the Tor Limestone has been misinterpreted (i.e., an in-situ reef) and that the field
evidence shows it is a series of carbonate debris flow and turbidity current deposits derived from the platform margin to
the east as interpreted herein and by (Thomas and others, 1987). In this interpretation the Tor Limestone debris bodies
represent a lowstand systems tract of Sequence 6 (Figure 2) that originated by massive collapse of the Lower Devonian
94
platform margin during a relative sea level lowstand. Thus, the evidence and necessity for a Toiyabe Ridge vanishes
and consequently the interpretation that a Silurian-Devonian outer platform basin (Matti and McKee, 1977) ever existed
is suspect.
95
Tor
L
ime
ston
Photo 4-2a. Tor Limestone. Resistant light grey, cliff-forming limestone. Basin. Stop 4-2. Ikes Canyon, Toquima
Range, Nevada.
Photo 4-2b. Tor Limestone. Carbonate debris flow at base of Tor Limestone. Basin. Stop 4-2. Ikes Canyon, Toquima
Range, Nevada.
96
1 mile
Map 11. Location of Stops 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3 on the Warm Springs NW Quadrangle, Hot Creek Range, Nevada.
97
STOP 5-1, 5-2, 5-3 WARM SPRINGS, HOT CREEK RANGE, NEVADA
Age Late DevonianEarly Mississippian.
Formations Late Devonian Denay, Pilot and Woodruff formations and Early Mississippian Webb, Tripon
Pass, and Eleana formations.
Carbonate Depositional Sequences These formations have not been studied in terms of carbonate sequence
stratigraphy.
Depositional Environments (Figure 3) These formations are interpreted to have been deposited in
deeper water settings seaward of the Late Devonian Devils Gate platform margin and seaward of the Early
Mississippian Joana Limestone carbonate bank (Poole and Sandberg, 1993; Sandberg and others, 2003; Poole,
personnel communication, 2003).
Economic Considerations Carlin-type gold deposits are found, for example, in the deeper water Lower
Mississippian Webb Formation (e.g., South Bullion deposits, Putnam and Henriques, 1991; Trout Creek
deposits, Jackson and Ruetz, 1991; Chert Cliff deposits, Vikre and Maher, 1995). An important exploration
strategy is to determine the primary depositional facies types of the host facies for these mineral deposits. If the
host facies are dominantly in the carbonate sediment-gravity flow deposits it would be important to know what
part of a carbonate depositional sequence they represent and if these allochthonous facies are part of a slope
section or base-of-slope apron or fan.
98
Stop 5-4
Tybo Canyon, Nevada
Geologic Map- Typo Quadrangle
1 mile
Map 12. Location of Stop 5-4 on the Geologic Map Tybo Quadrangle, Tybo Canyon, Nevada.
99
STOP 5-4 HOT CREEK RANGE, NEVADA

Age Late Cambrian and Early Ordovician.
Formations From base to top, the Swarbrick Formation, Dunderberg Shale, Hales Limestone, and Goodwin
Limestone.
Carbonate Depositional Sequences (Figure 2) Sequences #1 and #2 are interpreted to be represented at this stop. Two
shoaling upward sequences from basin-plain to carbonate submarine fan to slope sediments (Cook and Taylor, 1975,
1977; Taylor and Cook, 1976; Cook, 1979; Cook and Egbert, 1981a, 1981b; Cook and Mullins, 1983; Cook and others,
1983) occur over an approximate 1,500 m-thick interval. These sequences represent a seaward progradation of a distally
steepened ramp on the Late Cambrian-Early Ordovician continental margin.
Depositional Environments (Figures 55, 56) These sequences are interpreted to have formed in ramp margin, slope,
base-of-slope and basin-plain settings on the continental margin. The depositional facies consist of a basin-plain sequence
of laminated hemipelagic lime mudstones, argillaceous limestones, thin-bedded cherts, and turbidites (Swarbick Formation
and Dunderberg Shale). This is gradationally overlain by a wide variety of carbonate turbidite and debris-flow deposits
whose facies collectively form a submarine fan (uppermost Dunderberg Shale and lower Hales Limestone) (Cook and
Egbert, 1981a, Cook and others, 1983). The submarine fan facies, in turn, grade upward into submarine slide, slump, and
contourite deposits that formed on the continental slope (upper Hales Limestone). The uppermost part of the sequence
(uppermost Hales Limestone and lowermost Goodwin Limestone) appears to have been deposited on or near the outer
distally steepened ramp margin.
During the latest Cambrian and earliest Ordovician relative sea level lowering has been recorded in North
America, Kazakhstan, and China (Cook and others, 1989; Taylor and others, 1989). The thick sediment-gravity flow
deposits and submarine slides at this stop are interpreted to represent a series of lowstand systems fan deposits that evolved
during the latest Late Cambrian and the earliest Early Ordovician. These sea level lowstands are reflected to the east in the
Egan Range by a change from shallow subtidal facies in the Whipple Cave Limestone to `tidal flat facies in the overlying
House Limestone (Figure 2).
Swarbick Formation:
1.
Thin bedded lime mudstone and reddish-brown partly silicified limestone with sponge spicules (basin-plain).
Dunderberg Shale:
1.
Olive-green calcareous shale and calcarenite turbidites with Tb, Tbc, Tc, Tcde, bouma divisions (basin-plain and
outer fan fringe).
Hales Limestone:
1.
Outer fan lobe sheets (calcarenites), mid-fan distributary channels (conglomerates),
interchannel facies (calcarenites), inner-fan feeder channels (conglomerates and megabreccias) (slope).
2.
Submarine slides and slumps many of which exhibit various stages of remolding into debris flow deposits
(slope).
3.
Nuia quartz grainstone contourite (upper slope).
Economic Considerations As discussed by Enos and Moore (1983), the best known example of petroleum production
from carbonate slope and basin-margin settings is from the Cretaceous of Mexico (Figures 57, 58) (Enos, 1977, 1985;
Magoon and others, 2001). These reservoirs are mainly in carbonate sedimentary gravity flow deposits. Similar, but less
prolific petroleum reservoirs occur in Permian deep-water carbonate turbidites and debris flow base-of-slope deposits in
the Delaware and Midland Basins, West Texas (Figures 59, 60) (; Cook and others, 1972; Cook, 1983; Cook and Mullins,
1983; Cook and others, 1983; Mazzullo, 1984; Hobson and others, 1985).
In the giant Cretaceous Poza Rica oil field of Mexico porosity includes some primary intergranular pores, but secondary
molds of rudist skeletons are the most important type. Deep down dip circulation of fresh water from the
100
exposed Golden Lane escarpment with its well-developed Cretaceous cave system is suggested as the process producing
the extensive secondary porosity (Enos and Moore, 1983).
In the Permian Basin examples of west Texas and southeast New Mexico (Figures 59, 60), most of the reservoir
porosity is of post-depositional origin, including solution interparticle, solution biomoldic, fracture, and solution fracture
(Cook, 1983; Cook and Mullins, 1983; Cook and others, 1983).
In some deep-water slope and basin-margin settings lead-zinc sulfides occur in association with conglomeratic
debris flows and submarine slides. For example, lead-zinc sulfides were deposited during the Devonian in the locality
of the Jason prospect, Yukon Territory (Winn and others, 1981). Galena and sphalerite precipitated on the sea floor from
exhalative fluids along the fault margin of a small graben. The geothermal systems are interpreted to have been driven by
high heat flow associated with extensional tectonic regimes.
101
SL
OP
E
ST
EA
F
EL
SH
ST
WE
BA
SIN
PL
AI
Figure 55. Model of interpreted shelf-slope basin plain transition in the Late Cambrian and Early Ordovician of Nevada.
Model shows slope incised by numerous gullies but no major canyons; carbonate submarine fan develops at base of
slope and basin plain; fan sediment is a mixture of shoal-water shelf carbonates and deeper water slide generated debris;
contour currents flow northerly along upper slope (Cook and Egbert, 1981b).
SHELF
GOODWIN
SLOPE
ID
DL
FEEDER CHANNELS
E FA
IN
NE
R FA
N
SLIDES
HALES
DISTRIBUTARY CHANNELS
LOBE SHEETS
OUTER
FAN
FA
NF
RINGE
DUNDERBERG
THIN-BEDDED TURBIDITES
SWARBRICK
Figure 56. Carbonate submarine fan model showing that fan sediment is derived from both shoal-water shelf areas and
by remolding
of deeper water slides and slumps into mass-flows, large slides and channelized conglomerates that
occur in outer fan region, calcarenites in non-channelized sheets in mid-fan sites, and thin-bedded silt-size to fine,
sand-size bioclastic carbonate turbidites in fan fringe and basin plain. Slope and fan facies approximately 500 meters
thick and basin plain facies approximately 1000 meters thick. Model based on studies in Cambrian and Ordovician
strata in Nevada. (Modified from Cook and Egbert, 1981b).
102
CRETACEOUS
GOLDEN LANE "ATOLL"
20
GULF OF
MEXICO
40 MILES
POZA RICA
OIL FIELD
Figure 57. Location of the Cretaceous Poza Rica trend solid black and the adjacent Golden Lane fields, Veracruz,
Mexico (Modified from Enos, 1977).
CRETACEOUS -- MEXICO
GOLDEN LANE
0 Meters
POZA RICA
1000
15
Kilometers
Figure 58. Interpretive cross-section from Cretaceous Poza Rica Field to Golden Lane, Veracruz, Mexico (Modified
from Enos, 1977).
103
BONE SPRING-HUECO LIMESTONE FORMATION

DEEP-WATER CARBONATE RESERVOIRS
LEONARDIAN-WOLFCAMPIAN
DELAWARE AND MIDLAND BASIN
ROOSEVELT
COCHRAN
HOCKLEY
LUBBOCK
CROSBY
DICKENS
TERRY
LYNN
GARZA
KENT
CHAVES
YOAKUM
Bone Spring-Clear Fork/Abo Petroleum Systems

2
Bone Spring Oil Fields, New Mexico
LEA
1
GAINES
DAWSON
BORDEN
ANDREWS
MARTIN
HOWARD
SCURRY
EDDY
Bone Spring-Hueco Limestone Oil Fields, Texas
MITCHELL
13
13
Oil Field Cumulative Production

4
21
22
LOVING
10-100
2.5-10
(million barrels of oil)
(See Figure 37)
WINKLER
ECTOR
MIDLAND
17
GLASSCOCK
3
16
12
STERLING
72
19
> 100
19
5
22
CULBERSON
1-2.5
WARD
CRANE
REEVES
UPTON
REAGAN
IRION
10 11
15
18
23 24
25
21
26
Bone Spring-Abo Petroleum System-5
PECOS
CROCKETT
SUTTON
TERRELL
Bone Spring-Clear Fork Petroleum System-6
= Oil and gas field numbers correspond to

Permian Basin oil and gas database.
VAL VERDE
0
0
100 mi
100 km
EDWARDS
KINNEY
Figure 59. Location of Leonard-Wolfcamp (Lower Permian) basin margin petroleum fields, whose resevoir facies are in
shoal-water derived carbonate turbidites (Modified from Cook, 1983; Dutton and others, 2001).
SUBMARINE FAN MODEL

HUTTO
CREDO
TRIPLE-M
Figure 60. Interpretive of core and log data from Wolfcamp (Lower Permian) carbonate turbidite and debris flow
deposits in Hutto, Triple M, and Credo oil fields in Midland Basin, west Texas (Modified from Cook, 1983).
104
Photo 5-4a. Hales Limestone. Upward-thickening outer fan turbidite lobe facies. Base-of-slope to inner basin. Stop
5-4. Tybo Canyon, Hot Creek Range, Nevada.
Photo 5-4b. Hales Limestone. Part of mid-fan distributary channel system. Clasts are normally graded, imbricated in
an upslope direction. Rippled carbonate packstones and grainstones cap the bed. Base-of-slope to inner basin. Stop 5-4.
Tybo Canyon, Hot Creek Range, Nevada.
105
Photo 5-4c. Hales Limestone. Inner feeder fan channel. Large clast is 3 x 15 meters in cross-section. Channel is 15
meters deep and 400 meters wide. Base-of-slope. Stop 5-4. Tybo Canyon, Hot Creek Range, Nevada.
106
Photo 5-4d. Hales Limestone. Translational soft-sediment slide. Slide is 10 meters thick and 400 meters wide.
Base-of-slope. Stop 5-4. Tybo Canyon, Hot Creek Range, Nevada.
107
Photo 5-4e. Hales Limestone. In-situ slope lime mudstones with deep water Hedanaspis trilobite. Stop 5-4. Tybo
Canyon, Hot Creek Range, Nevada.
Stratigraphic Up
Photo 5-4f. Hales Limestone. Contourite grainstones (dark grey beds; enclosed in red). Composed of well-sorted,
shallow-water derived alga Nuia grains. Flow direction to left (northwest), parallel to the strike of the Late
Cambrian-Early Ordovician continental margin slope. Upper slope. Stop 5-4. Tybo Canyon, Hot Creek Range, Nevada.
108
1 mile
Map 13. Location of Stop 5-5 on the Hobble Canyon Quadrangle, Hot Creek Canyon, Nevada.
109
STOP 5-5 OVERVIEW OF HOT CREEK RANGE, NEVADA

Age Lower Ordovician through Lower Devonian.
Formations Antelope Valley Limestone (Pogonip Group), Copenhagen Formation, Eureka Quartzite, Hansen Creek
Formation, Roberts Mountains Formation, and Lone Mountain Dolomite.
Carbonate Depositional Sequences (Figure 2) Here we can see Sequences #2, #3, #4, and #5.
Depositional Environments This well exposed canyon section records several fluctuations in sea level during the
Paleozoic (Cook and others, 1983, Figure 5-32). The Antelope Valley and overlying Copenhagen (Sequence #2) probably
formed in low energy, muddy, middle shelf environments. The overlying Upper Ordovician Eureka Quartzite (Sequence
#3) formed during a relative sea level lowering that allowed quartz sands to prograde seaward over vast areas of the former
carbonate continental margin. The upper surface of the Eureka Quartzite is eroded and represents the base of Sequence #
4. During the formation of the lowstand systems tract of Sequence #4, locally in the Hot Creek Range, parts of the Eureka
Quartzite were totally removed such that the Hansen Creek formation rests directly on the Antelope Valley Formation
(Cook, 1966). This was followed by a relative rise in sea level during which the Hansen Creek (Sequence #4) shoal-water
carbonate banks became established on low angle ramps. A rapid rise in sea level inundated the Hansen Creek carbonate
shoals thus causing the shelf edge to retrograde and establishing the deeper-water basinal to slope setting for the Roberts
Mountains Formation. Here we can also see, as at Stop 5-1, the shoaling upward and seaward progradation of the Roberts
Mountains Formation and the overlying Lone Mountain Dolomite (Sequence #5).
Economic Considerations Hofstra and others (1999) describes disseminated gold deposits at Jerritt Canyon deposit that
occur in the Hansen Creek-Roberts Mountains interval (Raines and others, 1991).
110
1 mile
Map 14. Location of Stop 5-6 on the Little Fish Lake Quadrangle, Hot Creek Canyon, Nevada.
111
STOP 5-6 HOT CREEK CANYON, HOT CREEK RANGE, NEVADA

Age Lower-Middle Devonian.
Formations Beacon Peak, Dolomite, McColley Canyon Limestone (Kobeh, Bartine and Coils Creek members),
Denay Limestone, Bay State Dolomite, and Chainman Shale. The member names Kobeh, Bartine, and Coils Creek are
provisionally used at this location, as is the name Bay State Dolomite. The assignment of these names is based on their
stratigraphic position above the Lone Mountain dolomite, their probable age and their depositional facies characteristics
to known occurrences of these stratigraphic units. The presence of abundant two-holed crinoids in Coils Creek (?) debris
flows and turbidites suggests that these debris flows and turbidites were derived from the two-hole crinoid meadows of the
Sadler Ranch Formation (Kendall and others, 1983, their figures 2 and 6).
Carbonate Depositional Sequences (Figure 2) The following interpretations are provisional and are herein put forth as
a working model. The Beacon Peak Dolomite and Kobeh Member of the McColley Canyon Limestone is interpreted to
represent the highstand systems tract of Sequence #6. The Bartine represents the transgressive systems tract and highstand
systems tract of Sequence #7. The lower part of the Coils Creek Member is interpreted to be a lowstand systems tract of
Sequence # 8 and contains abundant carbonate turbidites and debris flow deposits, which are comprised of large amounts of
two-hole crinoids. These two-hole crinoids were derived from the coeval upslope Sadler Ranch Member and transported
downslope into base-of-slope settings. Denay Limestone is considered to represent a transgressive systems tract of
Sequence # 9. The Bay State Dolomite is the highstand systems tract of Sequence # 9.
Depositional Environments (Figure 61) The lower resistant ledge on the south side of Hot Creek Canyon is considered
to be the Kobeh Member the McColley Canyon Limestone. It is interpreted by McGovney (1977) to have formed in a
subtidal, quiet water, dysaerobic environment in which sediment was strongly reworked by soft-body organisms. The
sediments are dolomitized peloid wackestones and may have occupied a low energy shelf edge to middle shelf setting.
Colonial coral heads can be found in this unit. A few hundred meters on the north side of Hot Creek Canyon the Beacon
Peak Dolomite can be seen to lie stratigraphically beneath the Kobeh.
The contact between the Kobeh and the overlying Bartine is an abrupt sequence boundary and reflects a rapid
relative rise in sea level that led to the drowning and back-stepping of the Kobeh (Figure 2). Basal Bartine rocks are
organic rich, argillaceous lime mudstones and thin-bedded crinoid turbidites. Coils Creek beds are comprised of thickbedded coral-crinoid turbidites, and debris flows arranged in thickening upward sequences (Cook and others, 1983;
Figures 5-97, 5-98, 5-99). These thickening-upward debris flow deposits are interpreted to represent the base-of-slope
carbonate aprons (Cook and others, 1983) of Sequence # 8 lowstand systems tract. The contact between the Coils Creek
and overlying Denay is poorly defined at this time and requires further field work and dating. However, the Denay
(Sequence # 9, Figure 2) contains debris flows, turbidites and occasional submarine slumps. Near the top of the section
are dolomitized coral and hemispherical stromatoporoid wackestones and packstones, and dolomitized pelmatozoan and
oolite (?) sands that represent a relatively high-energy platform margin bank facies of the Bay State Dolomite. These
Bay State facies are coeval with parts of the Denay and formed as part of a highstand systems tract of Sequence # 9.
These platform margin carbonates are in sharp contrast with the overlying Chainman Shale. The Bay State Dolomite
at this locality is in erosional contact with the Chainman Shale. For diagrammatic purposes Figure 2 does not show the
contact between the Bay State and Chainman.
The presence of a Bay State shoal-water platform margin facies establishes a paleogeographic position for the
platform margin during the Middle Devonian in this part of the Great Basin.
Kobeh Member of the McColley Canyon Limestone:
1.
Dolomitized peloid wackestones with colonial corals (shallow subtidal middle shelf).
112
HST
Bay State
Denay
SEQUENCE #9
TST
SB
S#8
Coils Ck TST
LST
Bartine
SEQUENCE #7
TST
Kobeh
SB
SEQUENCE #6
HST
Figure 61. Provisional interpretation for stratigraphic section at Stop 5-6. Section illustrates the difficulty in placing
sequence boundaries within basinal and slope settings such as the interpreted sequence boundaries between the proposed
Bartine, Coils Creek, and the overlying Denay Limestone. These interpretations serve as a model to test and refine.
113
Bartine and Coils Creek members of the McColley Canyon Limestone and Denay Limestone:
1.
Argillaceous lime mudstones with abundant Tentaculites; some black calcareous shales have
up to about 2.0% total organic carbon; petroliferous odor on fresh surface (basin-plain setting).
2. Thickening upward sequence, about 10-15 meters thick, that consists of a variety of sediment gravity flow deposits
some with shoal-water derived coral heads up to 50 cm across; abundant two-hole crinoids in mass-flow deposits;
paleocurrents trend westerly.
3. Soft sediment slumping.
4. Thin-bedded channelized carbonate turbidites containing stromatoporoid clasts on upper slope settings near platform
margin.
Bay State Dolomite:
1.
2.
Dolomitized colonial coral and stromatoporoid wackestones to packstone.

Dolomitized bioclastic grainstones; petroliferous odor on fresh surface.
Chainman Shale:
1. Argillaceous siltstone and siliciclastic facies.
Economic Considerations The lowstand systems tract, base-of-slope debris apron facies in the Denay Limestone could
offer petroleum and mineral exploration possibilities. If sufficient porosity is retained or enhanced these types of facies
probably pinch out in an upslope direction thereby developing updip seals against lime mudstone slope facies. The source
potential of these basin-plain and slope calcareous shales and argillaceous lime mudstones is not known but some of the
potential source rock facies have total organic values of 1 to 2 percent. These types of redeposited shoal-water carbonates
strongly resemble similar deep-water reservoir facies in the Permian Basin of west Texas (Cook, 1983; Cook and others,
1983; Mazzullo, 1984; Hobson and others, 1985) and elsewhere.
114
Oligocene Ignimbrite
Chainman
Bay State
Denay
Coils Creek
Bartine
Kobeh
Photo 5-6a. The stratigraphic units labelled on this photo are provisional and subject to more fieldwork and age-dating.
Stop 5-6. Hot Creek Canyon, Hot Creek Range, Nevada.
Photo 5-6b. Kobeh Member of the McColley Canyon Formation. Dolomitized middle platform facies. Stop 5-6. Hot
Creek Canyon, Hot Creek Range, Nevada.
115
1 cm
Photo 5-6c. Bartine Member of the McColley Canyon Formation. Laminated argillaceous organic-rich lime muds in
basinal setting. Stop 5-6. Hot Creek Canyon, Hot Creek Range, Nevada.
Photo 5-6d. Coils Creek Member of the McColley Canyon Formation. Carbonate debris flow deposits with abundant
two-hole crinoids and large colonial coral heads. Base-of-slope. Stop 5-6. Hot Creek Canyon, Hot Creek Range,
Nevada.
116
Photo 5-6e. Coils Creek Member of the McColley Canyon Formation. Massive colonial coral head in debris flow bed in
Photo 5-6d. Base-of-slope. Stop 5-6. Hot Creek Canyon, Hot Creek Range, Nevada.
1 cm
Photo 5-6f. Coils Creek Member of the McColley Canyon Formation. Matrix of debris flow shown in Photos 5-6d and
5-6e. Contains two-hole crinoids (see red arrow) which are common in the coeval platform margin, Sadler Ranch
Formation (See Figure 2). Base-of-slope. Stop 5-6. Hot Creek Canyon, Hot Creek Range, Nevada.
117
Photo 5-6g. Denay Limestone. Soft-sediment folds on upper slope. Stop 5-6. Hot Creek Canyon, Hot Creek Range,
Nevada.
1 cm
Photo 5-6h. Denay Limestone. Stomatoporoid clast from carbonate debris flow on upper slope near platform margin.
Stop 5-6. Hot Creek Canyon, Hot Creek Range, Nevada.
118
Photo 5-6i. Bay State Dolomite. Dolomitized in-situ colonial coral (Syringoporella ?) in a packstone matrix. Platform
margin. Stop 5-6. Hot Creek Canyon, Hot Creek Range, Nevada.
1 cm
Photo 5-6j. Bay State Dolomite. Dolomitized ooid (?)-bioclastic grainstone shoal at platform margin. Stop 5-6. Hot
Creek Canyon, Hot Creek Range, Nevada.
119
REFERENCES
Aalto, K. R., 1971, Glacial marine sedimentation and stratigraphy of the Toby Conglomerate (upper Proterozoic)
southeastern British Columbia, northwestern Idaho, and northeastern Washington: Can. Jour. Earth Sci., v. 8, p.
753-787.
Ahr, W.M., Carbonate Ramp: alternative to Shelf Model: AAPG Bulletin vol.57, p. 1826.
Ainsworth, J.C., 1984, Stratigraphic controls on alteration at the Alligator Ridge gold mine near Ely, Nevada (abs.):
GSA Abstracts, v. 16,p. 265.
Armstrong, A. K., Theodore, T.G., Oscarson, R.L, Kotlyar, B.B., Harris, A.G., Bettles, K.H., Lauha, E. A., Hipsley,
R. A., Griffin, G. L., Abbott, E. W., and J. L. Cluer, 1998, Preliminary facies analysis of Silurian and Devonian
autochthonous rocks that host gold along the Carlin Trend, Nevada: Open-File Report - U. S. Geological
Survey, Report: OF 98-0338-B, pp.38-68.
Armstrong, R. L., 1968, Sevier orogenic belt in Nevada and Utah: GSA Bulletin v. 79, p. 429-458.
Atwater, T., and Molnar, P., 1973, Relative motion of the Pacific and North American plates deduced from sea-floor
spreading in the Atlantic, Indian, and South Pacific Oceans, in R. L. Kovach and A. Nur, eds., Proceedings of
the conference on tectonic problems of the San Andreas fault system: Stanford Univ. Pub. Geol. Sci., v. 13,
p. 136-148.
Badham, J. P. N., 1978, Has there been an oceanic margin to western North America since Archean time?: Geology, v.
6, p. 621-625.
Blake, M. C., Jr., 1975, Nature and controls of Cordilleran orogenesis, western United States: Extensions of an earlier
synthesis, in J. H. Ostrom, and P. M. Orville, eds., Tectonics and mountain ranges: Am. Jour. Sci. (Rogers
Volume), v. 275-A, p. 363-396.
Blake, M. C., Jr., 1981, Mojave Desert and environs, in W. G. Ernst, ed., The geotectonic tectonic development of
California: New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., p. 217-252.
Blake, M. C., Jr., Howell, D. G., and Jones, D. L., 1982, Preliminary tectono-stratigraphic terrane map of California:
U.S. Geol. Survey Open-File Report 82-593, 10 p.
Brown, L. F. and Fisher, W. L., 1977, Seismic-stratigraphic interpretation of depositional systems: examples from
Brazilian rift and pull-apart basins, in C. E. Payton, ed., Seismic Stratigraphyapplications to hydrocarbon
exploration: AAPG Memoir 26, p. 213-248.
Browne, J. R., 1961, Mining Adventures, California and Nevada / 1863-1865: Pasano Press, Balboa Island, California,
207 p.
Burchfiel, B. C., and Davis, G. A., 1972, Structural framework and evolution of the southern part of the Cordilleran
orogen, western United States: Am. Jour. Sci., v. 272, p. 97-118.
Burchfiel, B. C., Pelton, P. J., and Sutter, J., 1970, An early Mesozoic deformation belt in south-central Nevada
southeastern California: GSA Bulletin v. 81, p. 211-215.
Callahan, W. H., 1977, Some Thoughts Regarding Premises and Procedures for Prospecting for Base Metal Ores in
Carbonate Rocks in the North American Cordillera: Econ. Geol., v. 72, p. 71-81.
Carden, J. R., 1991, The Discovery and Geology of the Nighthawk Ridge Deposit at Easy Junior, White Pine Country,
Nevada, in G. L. Raines, R. E. Lisle, R. W. Shafer, and W. H. Wilkinson, eds., Geology and Ore Deposits of the
Great Basin, Symposium Proceedings: Geological Society of Nevada, Reno, p. 665-676.
Choquette, P. W., and Pray, L. C., 1970, Geological nomenclature and classification of porosity in sedimentary
carbonates: AAPG Bulletin v. 54, p. 207-250
Churkin, M., Jr., 1962, Facies across Paleozoic miogeosynclinal margin of central Idaho: AAPG Bulletin v. 46,
p. 569-591.
Churkin, M., Jr., 1974, Paleozoic marginal ocean basin-volcanic arc systems in the Cordilleran foldbelt, in R. H. Dott,
Jr., and R. H. Shaver (eds.), Ancient and modern geosynclinal sedimentation: SEPM Spec. Pub. 19,
p. 174-192.
Coney, P. J., Jones, D. L., and Monger, J. W. H., 1980, Cordilleran suspect terranes: Nature, v. 288, p. 329-333.
Cook, E. F., 1960, Great Basin ignimbrites, in Intermountain Assoc. of Petrol. Geologists and Nev. Geol. Soc.,
Guidebook to the geology of east central Nevada, p. 134-140.
Cook, H. E., 1966, Geology of the southern part of the Hot Creek Range, Nevada: PhD Dissertation, University of
California, Berkeley, 116 p.
Cook, H. E., 1968, Ignimbrite flows, plugs, and dikes in the southern part of the Hot Creek Range, Nye County,
Nevada: in Studies In Volcanology: GSA Memoir 116, p. 107-152.
120
Cook, H. E., 1972, Miette platform evolution and relation to overlying bank ("reef") localization, Upper Devonian,
Alberta: Can. Petrol. Geol. Bulletin v. 20, no. 3, p. 375-411.
Cook, H. E., 1977, Comparison of continental slope and shelf environments in the Upper Cambrian and lowest
Ordovician of Nevada, in H.E. Cook, and P. Enos, eds., Deep-water Carbonate Environments: SEPM Spec. Pub.
25, p. 51-81.
Cook, H. E., 1979, Ancient continental slope sequences and their value in understanding modern slope development, in
L. S. Doyle and O. H Pilkey, eds., Geology of continental slopes: SEPM Spec. Pub. 27, p. 287-305.
Cook, H. E., 1982, Carbonate submarine fans versus carbonate debris aprons: facies patterns, depositional processes, and
models (abs.): GSA Bulletin v. 14, no. 7, p. 466-467.
Cook, H. E., 1983, Sedimentology of some allochthonous deep-water carbonate reservoirs, Lower Permian, west Texas:
carbonate debris sheets, aprons, or submarine fans? (abs.): AAPG Bulletin v. 63, p. 442.
Cook, H. E., 1988, Overview: Geologic history and carbonate petroleum reservoirs of the Basin and Range Province,
western United States, in S. M Goolsby and M. W. Longman, eds., Occurrence and petrophysical properties
of carbonate reservoirs in the Rocky Mountain region: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists Carbonate
Symposium, p. 213-227.
Cook, H. E., 1993, Submarine carbonate breccia: Criteria for their recognition, depositional models, and their role in
petroleum and hydrothermal mineral exploration, in C. L. William, ed., Northeastern Nevada breccia bodies:
Geological Society of Nevada Symposium Proceedings, p. 1-7.
Cook, H.E., Alexeiev, D.V., Mikolaichuk, A.V., Dzhenchuraeva, A.V., Corboy, J.C., 2002a, Development of an
isolated carbonate platform from an underlying attached platform: A newly discovered Devonian-Carboniferous
carbonate platforms in the Tian Shan Mountains of Kyrgyzstan (abs.) 2002 AAPG Annual Convention, Official
program, V. 11, p. A-34.
Cook, H. E., and Egbert, R. M., 1981a, Carbonate submarine fan facies along a Paleozoic prograding continental
margin, western United States (abs.): AAPG Bulletin v. 65, p. 913.
Cook, H. E., and Egbert, R. M., 1981b, Late Cambrian-Early Ordovician continental margin sedimentation, in M. E.
Taylor, Short papers for the Second International Symposium on the Cambrian System: U.S. Geological Survey
Open-File Report 81-743, p. 50-56.
Cook, H. E., Hine, A. C., and Mullins, H. T., 1983, Platform margin and deep water carbonates: SEPM Short Course
No. 12, 573 p.
Cook, H. E., McDaniel, P. N., Mountjoy, E. W., and Pray, L. C., 1972, Allochthonous carbonate debris flows at
Devonian bank ("reef") margins, Alberta, Canada: Can. Petrol. Geol. Bulletin v. 20, p. 439-497.
Cook, H. E., and Mullins, H. T., 1983, Basin margin environment, in P. A. Scholle, D. G. Bebout, and C. H. Moore,
eds., Carbonate Depositional Environments: AAPG Memoir 33, p. 540-617.
Cook, H. E., and Taylor, M. E., 1975, Early Paleozoic continental margin sedimentation, trilobite biofacies, and the
thermocline western United States: Geology, v. 3, p. 559-562.
Cook, H. E., and Taylor, M. E., 1977, Comparison of continental slope and shelf environments in the Upper Cambrian
and lowest Ordovician of Nevada, in Cook, H. E., and Enos, Paul, eds., Deep-water carbonate environments:
SEPM Spec. Pub. 25, p. 51-81.
Cook H. E., Taylor, M. E., and Miller, J. F., 1989, Late Cambrian and Early Ordovician stratigraphy, biostratigraphy and
depositional environments, Hot Creek Range, Nevada, in M. E. Taylor, ed., Cambrian and Early Ordovician
stratigraphy and paleontology of the Basin and Range Province, western United States, Field Trip Guidebook
T125 28th International Geological Congress, p. 28-36.
Cook, H. E., Zhemchuzhnikov, V. G., Zempolich, W. G., Lehmann, P. J., Buvtyshkin, V. M., Zhaimina, V. Ya.,
Kotova, E. A. Golub, L. Ya. , Zorin, A. Ye. , Alexeiev, D. V., Viaggi, M., Giovannelli, A., Lapointe, Ph. A.,
Fretwell, N., Bowman, M., De Coo, J. C. M., 2002b, Evolution of a Devonian and Carboniferous Carbonate
Platform, Bolshoi Karatau, Southern Kazakhstan: Outcrop Analogs for Coeval Carbonate Reservoirs in the
North Caspian Basin, in W. G. Zempolich and H. E. Cook (eds.), Carbonate Systems in the Commonwealth
of Independent States (CIS): Comparative Studies of Outcrop and Subsurface Oil and Gas Reservoirs: SEPM
Spec. Pub. 74, p. 83-124.
Crevello, P.D., Wilson, J.L., Sarg, J.F., and Read, J.F., 1989, Controls on Carbonate Platform and Basin
Development, Based on a Symposium: SEPM Spec. Pub. 44, 405 p.
Dickinson, W. R., 1977, Paleozoic plate tectonics and the evolution of the Cordilleran continental margin, in J. H.
Stewart, C. H. Stevens, and A. E. Fritsche, eds., Paleozoic Paleogeography the western United States, Pacific
Coast Paleogeography Symposium 1: SEPM, Pacific Section, p. 137-155.
121
Dickinson, W. R., 1981, Plate tectonics and the continental margin of California, in W. G. Ernst, ed., The geotectonic
development of California: New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., p. 1-28.
Dickinson, W. R., Beard, L. S., Brakenridge, G. R., Erjavec, J. L., Ferguson, R. C., Inman, K. F., Knepp, R. A.,
Lindberg, F. A., and Ryberg, P. T., 1983, Provenance of North American Phanerozoic sandstones in relation to
tectonic setting: GSA Bulletin v. 94, p. 222-235.
Dietz, R. S., and Holden, J. C., 1966, Miogeoclines (miogeosynclines) in space and time: Jour. Geology, v. 74,
p. 566-583.
Dorobek, S.L. and Ross, G.M., eds., 1995, Stratigraphic Evolution of Foreland Basins: SEPM Spec. Pub. 52, 310 p.
Dover, J. H., 1980, Status of the Antler orogeny in central Idaho-- Clarifications and constraints from the Pioneer
Mountains, in T. D. Fouch, and E. R. Magathan, eds., Paleozoic paleogeography of the west-central United
States Rocky Mountains Paleogeography Symposium 1: SEPM, Rocky Mountain Section, p. 371-386.
Dunham, J. B., 1977, Depositional environments and paleogeography of the Upper Ordovician, Lower Silurian
carbonate platform of central Nevada, in J. H. Stewart, C. H. Stevens, and A. E. Fritsche, eds., Paleozoic
Paleogeography of the Western United States, Pacific Coast Paleogeography Symposium 1: SEPM, Pacific
Section, p. 157-180.
Dunham, R.J., 1962, Classification of carbonate rocks according to depositional texture, in W. E. Ham, ed.,
Classification of carbonate rocks, a symposium: AAPG Memoir 1, p. 108-121.
Eardley, A. J., 1947, Paleozoic Cordilleran geosyncline and related orogeny: Jour. Geology, v. 55, p. 309-342.
Eisbacher, G. H., 1983, Devonian-Mississippian sinistral transcurrent faulting along the cratonic margin of western
North America: a hypothesis: Geology, v. 11, p. 7-10.
Elliot, R. R., 1966, Nevadas Twentieth-Century Mining BoomTonopah, Goldfield, and Ely: University of Nevada
Press, Nevada, Reno, 344 p.
Emsbo, Poul, 2000, Gold in sedex deposits, SEG Reviews, v. 13, pp. 427-437.
Emsbo, Poul, 1999, Origin of the Meikle high-grade gold deposit from the superposition of Late Devonian sedex and
mid-Tertiary carlin-type gold mineralization: PhD Dissertation, Colorado School of Mines, 379 p.
Emsbo, P., Hutchinson, R. W., Hofstra, A.H., Volk, J.A., Bettles, K.H., Baschuk, G.J., and Johnson, C.J., 1999,
Syngenetic Au on the Carlin Trend: Implications for Carlin-type deposits: Geology, v. 27, p. 59-62.
Enos, P., 1977, Tamabra Limestone of the Poza Rica Trend, Cretaceous, Mexico, in H.E. Cook
and P. Enos, eds., Deep-water carbonate environments: SEPM Spec. Pub. 25, p. 273-314.
Enos, P., 1983, Shelf environment, in P. A. Scholle, D. G. Bebout, and C. H. Moore, eds., Carbonate Depositional
Environments: AAPG Memoir 33, p. 268-295.
Enos, P., and Moore, C. H., 1983, Fore-reef slope environment, in P. A. Scholle, D. G. Bebout, and C. H. Moore,
Esteban, M., and Klappa, C. F., 1983, Subaerial exposure environment, in P. A. Scholle, D. G. Bebout, and C. H.
Moore, eds., Carbonate Depositional Environments: AAPG Memoir 33, p. 2-92.
Ferguson, H. G., 1924, Geology and ore deposits of the Manhattan District, Nevada: U.S. Geol. Survey Bulletin 723.
Ferguson, H. G., and Cathcart, S. H., 1924, Major structural features of some western Nevada ranges: Jour. Washington
Acad. Sci., v. 14, p. 376-379.
Fischer, A. G., and Arthur, M. A., Secular variations in the pelagic realm, in H.E. Cook, and P. Enos, eds., Deep-water
Carbonate Environments: SEPM Special Publication 25, p 19-50.
Giles, K. A. and Dickinson, W. R., 1995, The interplay of eustacy and lithospheric flexure in forming stratigraphic
sequences in foreland settings: an example from the Antler foreland, Nevada and Utah, in S.L. Dorobek and
G.M. Ross, eds., Stratigraphic Evolution of Foreland Basins: SEPM Spec. Pub. 52, p. 187-211.
Ginsburg, R. N., and James, N. P., 1974, Holocene carbonate sediments of continental shelves, in C. A. Burke and C.
L. Drake, eds., The Geology of Continental Margins: New York, N.Y., Springer-Verlag, p. 137-155.
Gutschick, R. C., Sandberg, C. A, and Sando, W. J., 1980, Mississippian Shelf Margin and Carbonate Platform From
Montana to Nevada, in T. D. Fouch, and E. Magathan, eds., Paleozoic Paleogeography of west central United
States, Rocky Mountain Paleogeography Symposium 1: SEPM, Rocky Mountain Section, p. 111-128.
Hague, A., 1982, Geology of the Eureka District, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Mon. 20, 419 p.
Halley, R. B., Harris, P. M., and Hine, A. C., 1983, Bank Margin, in P. A. Scholle, D.G., Bebout, and C. H. Moore,
Handford, C. R., and Loucks, R. G., 1993, Carbonate depositional sequences and systems tractsResponses of
carbonate platforms to relative sea-level changes, in R.J. Loucks and J.F. Sarg, eds., Carbonate Sequence
Stratigraphy, AAPG Memoir 57, p. 3-41.
122
Haq, B. U., and Eysinga, F. W. B. Van, 1998, Geologic time table, Elsevier Science B.V.
Harbaugh, D. W., and Dickinson, W. R., 1981, Depositional facies of Mississippian clastics, Antler foreland basin,
Central Diamond Range, Nevada: Jour. of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 51, p. 1223-1234.
Harris, P. M., ed., 1983, Carbonate buildups: a core workshop: SEPM Core Workshop No. 4, 591 p.
Harris, P. M., Saller, A. H., and Simo, J. A. T., 1999, Advances in Carbonate Sequence Stratigraphy: Applications to
Reservoirs, Outcrops, and Models: SEPM Spec. Pub. 63, p. 421.
Harrison, J. E., Griggs, A. B., and Wells, J. D., 1974, Tectonic features of the Precambrian Belt basin and their
influence on post-Belt structures: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 866, 15 p.
Hays, R.C. and Foo, S. T., 1991, Geology and Mineralization of the Gold Acres Deposit, Lander County, Nevada, in G.
L. Raines, R. E. Lisle, R. W. Shafer, and W. H. Wilkinson, eds., Geology and Ore Deposits of the Great Basin,
Symposium Proceedings: Geological Society of Nevada, Reno, p. 677-685.
Hobson, J. P., Caldwell, C. D., and Toomey, D. F., 1985, Early Permian deep-water allochthonous limestone facies and
reservoir, West Texas: AAPG Bulletin v. 69, p. 2130-2147.
Hofstra, A. H., Snee, L. W., Rye, R. O., Folger, H. W., Phinisey, R. J., Loranger, R. J., Dahl, A. R., Naeser, C. W.,
Stein, H. J., and M. Lewchuk, 1999, Age Constraints on Jerritt Canyon and other Carlin-Type Gold Deposits
in the Western United States--- Relationship to Mid-Tertiary Extension and Magmatism, Economic Geology
Bulletin v. 94, p. 769-802.
Hofstra, A.H. and Cline, J.S., 2000, Characteristics and Models for Carlin-Type Gold Deposits, SEG Reviews, v.
13, p. 163-220.
Hose, R. K., 1966, Devonian stratigraphy of the Confusion Range, west central Utah: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper
550-B, p. B36-B41.
Ilchik, R.P., 1991, Geology of the Vantage Gold Deposits, Alligator Ridge, Nevada, in G. L. Raines, R. E. Lisle, R.
W. Shafer, and W. H. Wilkinson, eds., Geology and Ore Deposits of the Great Basin, Symposium Proceedings:
Geological Society of Nevada, Reno, p. 645-663.
Inden, R. F., and Moore, C. H., 1983, Beach environment, in P. A. Scholle, D. G. Bebout, and C. H. Moore, eds.,
Carbonate Depositional Environments: AAPG Memoir 33, p. 212-265.
Jacka, A. D., Beck, R. H., St. Germain, L., and Harrison, S. C., 1968, Permian deep-sea fans of the Delaware Mountain
Group (Guadalupian) Delaware basin, in Guadalupian facies, Apache Mountain area, west Texas: SEPM/
WTGS, Permian Basin Section Pub. 68-11, p. 49-90.
Jackson, P.R. and Ruetz, J.W., 1991, Geology of the Trout Creek Disseminated Gold Deposit, Elko County, Nevada, in
G. L. Raines, R. E. Lisle, R. W. Shafer, and W. H. Wilkinson, eds., Geology and Ore Deposits of the Great
Basin, Symposium Proceedings: Geological Society of Nevada, Reno, p. 729-734.
James, N. P., 1983, Reef environment, in P. A. Scholle, D. G. Bebout, and C. H. Moore, eds., Carbonate Depositional
Environments: AAPG Memoir 33, p. 345-440.
Johnson, J. G., 1983, Comment on Mid-Paleozoic age of the Roberts thrust unsettled by new data from northern
Nevada: Geology, p. 60-61.
Johnson, J. G., and Pendergast, A., 1981, Timing and mode of emplacement of the Roberts Mountains allochthon,
Antler orogeny: GSA Bulletin v. 92, p. 648-658.
Johnson, J. G., and Pendergast, A., 1983, Antler orogeny and foreland basin: A model: Discussion and reply
(Discussion): GSA Bulletin v. 94, p. 684.
Johnson, J.G, Sandberg, C.A., and Poole, F.G., 1991, Devonian lithofacies of the western united States, in Cooper, J.D.,
and Stevens, C.H, eds, Paleozoic Paleogeography of the Western United StatesII: SEPM, Pacific Section, v. 67,
p. 83-105.
Johnson, J.G., and Bird, J.M., 1991, History of Lower Devonian basin-to-platform transects, in Nevada, in Cooper, J.D.,
and Stevens, C.H, eds, Paleozoic Paleogeography of the Western United StatesII: Pacific Section SEPM, v. 67,
p. 311-315.
Johnson, J.G., and Murphy, M.A., 1984, Time-rock model for Siluro-Devonian continental shelf, western United States,
GSA Bulletin v. 95, p. 1349-1359.
Kay, M., and Crawford, J. P., 1964, Paleozoic facies from the miogeosynclinal to the eugeosynclinal belt in thrust
slices, central Nevada, GSA Bulletin v. 75, p. 425-454.
Kellogg, H. E., 1963, Paleozoic stratigraphy of the southern Egan Range, Nevada: GSA Bulletin v. 74,
p. 685-708.
Kendall, C. G. St. C., and Schlager, W., 1981, Carbonates and relative changes in sea level: Marine Geology, v. 44,
p. 181-212.
123
Kendall, G.W., Johnson, J.G., Brown, J.O, and Klapper, G., 1983, Stratigraphy and facies across Lower Devonian
Middle Devonian boundary, Central Nevada, AAPG Bulletin v.67, p. 2199-2207.
Kerans, C. and Tinker, S.W., 1997, Sequence Stratigraphy and Characterization of Carbonate Reservoirs: SEPM Short
Course Notes No. 40, 130 p.
Ketner, K.B., 1998, The Nature and Timing of Tectonism in the Western Facies Terrane of Nevada and CaliforniaAn
outline of Evidence and Interpretations Derived From Geologic Maps and Key Areas: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof.
Paper 1592, p. 19.
Ketner, K. B., and Smith, J. F., Jr., 1982, Mid-Paleozoic age of the Roberts thrust unsettled by new data from northern
Nevada: GSA Bulletin v. 10, p. 298-303.
King, P. B., 1959, The evolution of North America: Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 189 p.
King, P. B., 1976, The evolution of North America (Revised edition): Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University
Press, 197 p.
Klovan, J. E., 1964, Facies analysis of the Redwater reef complex, Alberta, Canada: Can. Petrol. Geol. Bulletin v. 12,
p. 1-100.
Langenheim, R. L., Jr., Carss, B. W., Kennerly, J. B., McCutcheon, V. A., and Waines, R. H., 1962, Paleozoic section
in Arrow Canyon Range, Clark County, Nevada: AAPG Bull, v. 46, p. 592-609.
LaPorte, L. F., 1967, Carbonate deposition near mean sea level and resultant facies mosaic: Manlius Formation (Lower
Devonian) of New York State: AAPG Bulletin v. 51, p. 73-101.
LeCompte, M., 1956, Stromatoporoidea, in Treatise on invertebrate paleontology, Part F (Coelenterata): Geological
Society of America, p. F107-F144.
Lydon, J.W., 1996, Sedimentary exhalative sulphides (SEDEX), in O.R. Eckstrand, W.D. Sinclair, and R.I. Thorpe,
eds., Geology of Canadian Mineral Deposit Types: Geological Survey of Canada, Geology of Canada, no. 8,
p. 130-152.
Lowenstam, H.A., 1950, Niagaran reefs in the Great Lakes area: Jour. Geology, v. 58, p. 430-487.
Mackin, J. H., 1960, Structural significance of Tertiary volcanic rocks in southwestern Utah: Amer. Jour. Sci., v. 258,
p. 81-151.
Magoon, L.B., Hudson, T.L., and Cook, H.E., 2001, Pimienta-Tamabra (!)A Giant Supercharged Petroleum System
in the Southern Gulf of Mexico, Onshore and Offshore Mexico: AAPG Memoir 75, p. 83-125.
Matti, J. C., and McKee, E. H., 1977, Silurian and Lower Devonian paleogeography of the outer continental shelf of the
Cordilleran miogeocline, central Nevada, in J. H. Stewart, C. H. Stevens, and A. E. Fritsche, eds., Paleozoic
Paleogeography the western United States, Pacific Coast Paleogeography Symposium 1: SEPM, Pacific Section,
p. 181-216.
Matti, J. C., Murphy, M. A., and Finney, S. C., 1975, Silurian and Lower Devonian basin and basin-slope limestones,
Copenhagen Canyon, Nevada: GSA Spec. Paper 159, 48 p.
Maxwell, J. C., 1974, Early western margin of the United States, in C. A. Burk and C. L. Drake, eds., The geology of
continental margins: Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 831-852.
Mazzullo, S. J., 1981, Facies and burial diagenesis of a carbonate reservoir: Champman Deep (Atoka) field, Delaware
Basin, Texas: AAPG Bulletin v. 65, p. 850-865.
Mazzullo, S. J., 1982, Types and controls of Permo-Pennsylvanian carbonate stratigraphic traps of shallow-marine
origin in Permian basin: exploration models: Oil and Gas Journal, Oct. 4, 1982, p. 124-141.
Mazzullo, S. J., 1984, Foreshelf carbonate facies mosaics (abs.), SEPM Midyear Meeting, San Jose, CA, United States,
Aug. 10-13, 1984, v.1, p. 52.
McGovney, J. E. E., 1977, The diagenesis and sedimentological history of a Silurian-to-Devonian bank-to-basin
transition facies in the Hot Creek Range, Nevada: MS Thesis, Univ. of Calif., Riverside, 139 p.
McIlreath, I. A., and N. P. James, 1978, Facies models 12- carbonate slopes: Geoscience Canada, v. 5, p. 189-199.
McLean, H, 1995, Reconnaissance Study of Mississippian Siliciclastic Sandstones in Eastern Nevada: U.S. Geological
Survey Bulletin 1988-I, p. 119.
Moore, C. H., 2001, Carbonate Reservoirs: Porosity Evolution and Diagenesis in a Sequence Stratigraphic Framework:
Elsevier, Amstedam, 444 p.
Monger, J. W. H., Southes, J. G., and Gabrielse, H., 1972, Evolution of the Canadian Cordillera--A plate-tectonic
model: Am. Jour. Sci., v. 272, p. 577-602.
Mountjoy, E. W., 1965, Stratigraphy of the Devonian Miette reef complex and associated strata, eastern Jasper National
Park, Alberta: Geol. Survey of Canada Bulletin 110, 132 p.
Mountjoy, E. W., 1968, Factors governing the development of the Frasnian, Miette, and Ancient Wall reef complexes
124
(banks and biostromes), Alberta, in D. H. Oswald, ed., International Symposium on the Devonian System, v. 2:
Calgary, Alberta Soc. Petrol. Geol., p. 387-408.
Muehlberger, W. R., 1980, The shape of North America during the Precambrian, in Continental tectonics: National
Academy of Science, p. 175-183.
Mullins, H. T., and Cook, H. E., 1986, Carbonate apron models: alternatives to the submarine fan model for
paleoenvironmental analysis and hydrocarbon exploration: Sedimentary Geology, v. 48, p. 37-80.
Murphy, M.A., and Anderson, M.E., 1991, Devonian formations in the Toquima Range, central Nevada, in J. D. Cooper
and C. H. Stevens, eds, Paleozoic Paleogeography of the Western United StatesII: SEPM, Pacific Section, v.
67, p. 299-310.
Murphy, M.A., and Gronberg, E.C., 1970, Stratigraphy and correlation of the Lower Nevada Group (Devonian) north
and west of Eureka, Nevada: GSA Bulletin v. 81, p. 127-136.
Murray, J. W., 1966, An oil producing reef-fringed carbonate bank in the Upper Devonian Swan Hills Member, Judy
Creek, Alberta: Bulletin Can. Petrol. Geol., v. 14, p. 1-103.
Mutti, E., and Ricci Lucchi, F., 1972, Le torbiditi dell Appennino settentrionale: introduzione all analisi di facies:
Memoir Society Geology Italy, 11, p. 161-199. English translation in International Geology Review, 1978, v.
20, no. 2, p. 125-166.
Newman, G. W., 1979, Editors comments, in G.W. Newman, and H.D. Goode, eds., 1979 Basin and Range
Symposium, Rocky Mtn. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. and Utah Geol. Assoc., p. v.
Nicols, K. M., and Silberling, N. J., 1977, Depositional and tectonic significance of Silurian and Lower Devonian
dolomites, Roberts Mountains and vicinity, east-central Nevada, in J. H. Stewart, C. H. Stevens, and A. E.
Fritsche, eds., Paleozoic Paleogeography the western United States, Pacific Coast Paleogeography Symposium
1: SEPM, Pacific Section, p. 217-240.
Nilsen, T. H., 1977, Paleogeography of Mississippian turbidites in south-central Idaho, in J. H. Stewart, C. H.
Stevens, and A. E. Fritsche, eds., Paleozoic Paleogeography the western United States, Pacific Coast
Paleogeography Symposium 1: SEPM, Pacific Section, p. 275-299.
Nilsen, T. H., and Stewart, J. H., 1980, The Antler orogeny--Mid-Paleozoic tectonism in western North America:
Geology, v. 8, p. 298-302.
Nolan, T. B., 1928, A late Paleozoic positive area in Nevada: Amer. Jour. Sci., 5th Ser., v. 16, p. 153-161.
North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature, 1983, Stratigraphic Code: AAPG Bulletin v. 67,
p. 841-875.
Pelton, P. J., 1966, Mississippian rocks of the southeastern Great Basin, Nevada and California: PhD Dissertation, Rice
University, Houston, Texas, 99 p.
Perkins, R. D., 1963, Petrology of the Jeffersonville Limestone (Middle Devonian) of southeastern Indiana: GSA
Bulletin v. 74, p. 1335-1354.
Perry, A.J. and Abbott, E.W., 1997, The Roberts Mountains Thrust, Elko and Eureka County, Nevada: Nevada
Petroleum Society 1997 Field Trip Guidebook, p. 766.
Playford, P. E., 1980, Devonian Great Barrier Reef of Canning Basin, western Australia: AAPG Bulletin v. 64,
p. 814-840.
Poole, F. G., 1974, Flysch deposits of the Antler foreland basin, western United States, in W. R. Dickinson, ed.,
Tectonics and sedimentation: SEPM Spec. Pub. 22, p. 58-82.
Poole, F. G., Thorman, C., and Howard, E. L., 1979, Road log from Ely to Garden Pass via Ruth Pit, Moorman
Ranch, and Eureka with extensions to Bruffey Seep and Devils Gate: in G.W. Newman, and H.D. Goode, eds.,
Basin and Range Symposium, Rocky. Mtn. Assoc. Geol. and Utah Geol. Assoc., p. 621-636.
Poole, F.G. and Claypool, G.E., 1984, Petroleum source-rock potential and crude-oil correlation in the Great Basin, in J.
Woodword, F. F. Meissner, and J. L. Clayton, eds., Hydrocarbon source rocks of the Greater Rocky Mountain
region: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, Denver, p. 179-229.
Poole, F. G., and Sandberg, C. A., 1977, Mississippian paleogeography and tectonics of the western United States, in
J. H. Stewart, C. H. Stevens, and A. E. Fritsche, eds., Paleozoic Paleogeography the western United States,
Pacific Coast Paleogeography Symposium 1: SEPM, Pacific Section, p. 67-85.
Poole, F. G., and Sandberg, C. A., 1991, Mississippian paleogeography and conodont biostratigraphy of the western
United States, in J. D. Cooper and C. H. Stevens, eds., Paleozoic paleogeography of the Western United
StatesII: SEPM, Pacific Section, v. 67, p. 107-136.
Poole, F.G., Claypool, G.E., and Fouch, T.D., 1983, Major episodes of petroleum generation in part of the northern
Great Basin: Geothermal Resources Council Special Report 13, p. 207-213.
125
Poole, F. G., Sandberg, C. A., and Boucot, A. J., 1977, Silurian and Devonian paleogeography of the western United
States, in J. H. Stewart, C. H. Stevens, and A. E. Fritsche, eds., Paleozoic Paleogeography the western United
States, Pacific Coast Paleogeography Symposium 1: SEPM, Pacific Section, p. 39-65.
Power, J. D., 1983, The Devils Gate Limestone of the Northern Roberts Mountains, central Nevada--reef or ramp?
(abs.): GSA Bulletin v. 15, p. 305.
Powers, R. W. , 1962, Arabian upper Jurassic carbonate reservoir rocks: AAPG Memoir 1, p. 122-192.
Pray, L. C., Cook, H. E., Mountjoy, E. W., and McDaniel, P. N., 1967, Allochthonous carbonate debris flows at
Devonian bank (reef) margins, Alberta, Canada (abs.): Proceedings of the International Symposium on the
Devonian System, p. 128-129.
Pray, L. C., Cook, H. E., Mountjoy, E. W., and McDaniel, P. N., 1968, Allochthonous carbonate debris flows at
Devonian bank (reef) margins, Alberta, Canada (abs.): AAPG Bulletin v. 52, p. 545-546.
Pray, L. C., and Stehli, F. G., 1962, Allochthonous origin, Bone Springs patch reefs, west Texas (abs.): GSA Spec.
Paper 73, p. 218-219.
Price, R. A., 1973, Large-scale gravitational flow of supracrustal rocks, southern Canadian Rockies, in K. A. DeJong,
and R. Scholten, eds., Gravity and Tectonics: New York, Wiley, p. 491-502.
Putnam, B.R. and Henriques, E.Q.B., 1991, Geology and Mineralization at the South Bullion Deposit, Pinon Range,
Elko County, Nevada---Implication for Western United States Cenozoic Tectonics, in G. L. Raines, R. E.
Lisle, R. W. Shafer, and W. H. Wilkinson, eds., Geology and Ore Deposits of the Great Basin, Symposium
Proceedings: Geological Society of Nevada, Reno, p. 729-734.
Raines, G.L., Lisle, R. E., Schafer, R. W., and Wilkinson, W.H., 1991, Geology and Ore Deposits of the Great Basin:
Symposium Proceedings: Geological Society of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, 1257 p.
Read, J. F., 1982, Carbonate platforms of passive (extensional) continental margins: types, characteristics and evolution:
Tectonophysics, v. 81, p. 195-212.
Read, J.F., Kerans, C., Weber, J.L., Sarg, J.F., and Wright, F. M., 1995, Milankovitch Sea Level Changes, Cycles,
and Reservoirs on Carbonate Platforms in Greenhouse and Icehouse Worlds: SEPM Short Course Notes No. 35,
203 p.
Reso, A., 1963, Composite columnar section of exposed Paleozoic and Cenozoic rocks in the Pahranagat Range,
Lincoln County, Nevada: GSA Bulletin v. 74, p. 901-918.
Rich, M., 1977, Pennsylvanian paleogeographic patterns in the western United States, in J. H. Stewart, C. H. Stevens,
and A. E. Fritsche, eds., Paleozoic Paleogeography the western United States, Pacific Coast Paleogeography
Symposium 1: SEPM, Pacific Section, p. 87-111.
Ridley, A. P., 1971, Devonian and Mississippian sedimentation and stratigraphy of the Mazourka Canyon area, Inyo
Mountains, Inyo County, California: MS thesis, San Jose State Univ., San Jose, California, 78 p.
Roberts, R. J., 1949, Geology of the Antler Peak quadrangle, Nevada: U.S. Geol. Survey Open-File Report No. 37.
Roberts, R. J., 1964, Stratigraphy and structure of the Antler Peak quadrangle, Humbodt and Lander Counties, Nevada:
U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 459-A, 93 p.
Roberts, R. J., Holtz, P. E., Gilluly, J., and Ferguson, H. G., 1958, Paleozoic rocks of north-central Nevada: AAPG
Bulletin v. 42, p. 2813-2857.
Roberts, R. J., and Thomasson, M. R., 1964, Comparison of late Paleozoic depositional history of northern Nevada and
central Idaho: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 475-D, Article 122, p. D1-D-6.
Roehl, P. O., 1967, Carbonate facies, Williston Basin and Bahamas: AAPG Bulletin v. 51, p. 1979-2032.
Roehl, P.O. and Choquette, P.W., 1985, Carbonate Petroleum Reservoirs: Springer-Verlag, New York, 622 p.
Ross, R. T., Jr., 1977, Ordovician paleogeography of the western United States, in J. H. Stewart, C. H. Stevens, and
A. E. Fritsche, eds., Paleozoic Paleogeography of the western United States, Pacific Coast Paleogeography
Ross, D. C., 1966, Stratigraphy of some Paleozoic formations in the Independence quadrangle, Inyo County, California:
U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 396, 64 p.
Ruiz-Ortiz, P. A., 1983, A carbonate submarine fan in a fault-controlled basin of the Upper Jurassic, Betic Cordilleran,
southern Spain: Sedimentology, v. 30, p. 33-48.
Sandberg, C. A., Poole, F. G., and Gutschick, R. C., 1980, Devonian and Mississippian stratigraphy and conodont
zonation of Pilot and Chainman Shales, Confusion Range, Utah, in T. D. Fouch, and E. Magathan, eds.,
Paleozoic Paleogeography of west-central United States, Rocky Mountain Paleogeography Symposium 1:
SEPM, Rocky Mountain Section, p. 71-79.
Sandberg, C. A., Morrow, J. R., Poole, F. G., and Ziegler, W., 2003, Middle Devonian to Early Carboniferous event
126
stratigraphy of Devils Gate and Northern Antelope Range sections, Nevada, USA: Cour. Forsch.-Inst.
Senckenberg, v. 242, p. 187-207.
Schlager, W., 1981, The paradox of drowned reefs and carbonate platforms: GSA Bulletin v. 92, p. 197-211.
Scholle, P. A., 1978, A color illustrated guide to carbonate rock constituents, textures, cements, and porosities: AAPG
Memoir 27, 241 p.
Scholle, P. A., Bebout, D. G., and Moore, C. H., eds., 1983, Carbonate depositional environments: AAPG Memoir 33,
708 p.
Sears, J. W., and Price, R. A., 1978, The Siberian connection: A case for Precambrian separation of the North American
and Siberian cratons: Geology, v. 6, p. 267-270.
Shanmugam, G., and Moiola, R. J., 1982, Eustatic control of turbidites and winnowed turbidites: Geology, v. 10,
p. 231-235.
Shaw, A. B., 1964, Time in Stratigraphy: McGraw-Hill Book Co., N. Y., 365 p.
Sheehan, P.M., Pandolfi, J.M., and Ketner, K.B., 1993, Isolated carbonate bodies composed of stacked debris-flow
deposits on a fine-grained carbonate lower slope of Devonian age, Antelope Peak, Elk County, Nevada: USGS
Bulletin 1988-E, p. E1-E12.
Shinn, E. A., 1983, Tidal flat environment, in P. A. Scholle, D. G. Bebout, and C. H. Moore, eds., Carbonate
Depositional Environments: AAPG Memoir 33, p. 172-209.
Silberling, N. J., 1973, Geologic events during Permian-Triassic time along the Pacific margin of the United States, in
A. Logan and L. V. Hills, eds., The Permian and Triassic systems and their mutual boundary: Alberta Soc.
Petrol. Geol., Calgary, Canada, p. 345-362.
Silberling, N. J., 1975, Age relationships of the Golconda thrust fault, Sonoma Range, north-central Nevada: GSA
Spec. Paper 163, 28 p.
Skipp, B., and Hall, W. E., 1980, Upper Paleozoic paleotectonics and paleogeography of Idaho, in T. D. Fouch and E.
R. Magathan, eds., Paleozoic paleogeography of the west-central United States, Rocky Mountains
Paleogeography Symposium 1: SEPM, Rocky Mountain Section, p. 387-422.
Sleep, N. H., 1971, Thermal effects of the formation of Atlantic continental margins by continental break up: Geophys.
Jour. Royal Astron. Soc., v. 24, no. 4, p. 325-350.
Sleep, N. H., and Snell, N. S., 1976, Thermal contraction and flexure of mid-continent and Atlantic marginal basins:
Geophys. Jour. Royal Astron. Soc., v. 45, p. 125-154.
Smith, J. F., Jr., and Ketner, K. B., 1968, Devonian and Mississippian rocks and the date of the Roberts Mountains
thrust in the Carlin-Pinon Range, Nevada: U.S. Geol. Survey Bulletin1251-I, p. 1-18.
Smith, J. F., Jr., and Ketner, K. B., 1977, Tectonic events since early Paleozoic in the Carlin-Pinon Range area,
Nevada: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 867C, 18 p.
Speed, R. C., 1977, Island-arc and other paleogeographic terranes of late Paleozoic age in the western Great Basin, in J.
H. Stewart, C. H. Stevens, and A. E. Fritsche, eds., Paleozoic Paleogeography of the western United States,
Pacific Coast Paleogeography Symposium 1: SEPM, Pacific Section, p. 349-362.
Speed, R. C., 1983, Pre-Cenozoic Tectonics of northwestern Nevada, The role of heat in the development of energy and
mineral resources in the northern Basin and Range Province (abs.), Geothermal Resources Council Program
with Abstracts, Geothermal Resources Council, Davis, California, p. 5-6.
Speed, R. C., and Sleep, N. H., 1982, Antler orogeny and foreland basin: a model: GSA Bulletin v. 93, p. 815-828.
Speed, R. C., and Sleep, N. H., 1983, Antler orogeny and foreland basin: a model: discussion and reply (reply): GSA
Bulletin v. 94, p. 685-686.
Stevens, C. H., 1977, Permian depositional provinces and tectonics, western United States, in J. H. Stewart, C. H.
Stevens, and A. E. Fritsche, eds., Paleozoic Paleogeography of the western United States, Pacific Coast
Paleogeography Symposium 1: SEPM, Pacific Section, p. 113-135.
Stevens, C. H., and Ridley, A. P., 1974, Middle Paleozoic off-shelf deposits in southeastern California: evidence for
proximity of the Antler orogenic belt?: GSA Bulletin v. 85, p. 27-32.
Stewart, J. H., 1972, Initial deposits in the Cordilleran geosyncline: Evidence of a late Precambrian (<850 my.)
continental separation: GSA Bulletin v. 83, p. 1345-1360.
Stewart, J. H., 1976, Late Precambrian evolution of North America: Plate tectonics implication: Geology, v. 4,
p. 11-15.
Stewart, J. H., 1983, Spatial variation, style, and age of Cenozoic extensional tectonics in the Great Basin (abs.), GSA
Abstracts with Programs, Rocky Mountain and Cordilleran Section, v. 15, no. 5, p. 286.
Stewart, J. H., and Poole, F. G., 1974, Lower Paleozoic and uppermost Precambrian Cordilleran miogeocline, Great
127
Basin, western United States, in W. R. Dickinson, ed., Tectonics and sedimentation: Soc. Econ. Paleontologists
Mineralogists Spec. Pub. 22, 57 p.
Stewart, J. H., and Suczek, C. A., 1977, Cambrian and latest Precambrian paleogeography and tectonics in the western
United States, in J. H. Stewart, C. H. Stevens, and A. E. Fritsche, eds., Paleozoic paleogeography of the
western United States, Pacific Coast Paleogeography Symposium 1: SEPM, Pacific Section, p. 1-18.
Stewart, J. H., MacMillan, J. R., Nichols, K. M., and Stevens, C. H., 1977, Deep-water upper Paleozoic rocks in
north-central Nevada--a study of the type area of the Havallah Formation, in J. H. Stewart, C. H. Stevens, and
A. E. Fritsche, eds., Paleozoic paleogeography of the western United States, Pacific Coast Paleogeography
Suczek, C. A., 1977, Sedimentology and petrology of the Cambrian Harmony Formation of north-central Nevada (abs.):
Geol. Soc. America Abs. With Prog., v. 9, p. 510.
Sverdrup, H. U., Johnson, Martin W., and Fleming, Richard H., 1942, The Oceans--their physics, chemistry, and general
biology: New York, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Taylor, M. E., 1976, Indigenous and redeposited trilobites from Late Cambrian basinal environments of central Nevada:
Journal of Paleontology, v. 50 p. 668-700.
Taylor, M. E., and Cook, H. E., 1976, Continental shelf and slope facies in the Upper Cambrian and lowest Ordovician
of Nevada, in R. A. Robinson and A. J. Rowell, eds., Cambrian paleontology and environments of western
North America, a symposium: Brigham Young Univ. Geol. Studies, v. 23, pt. 2, p. 181-214.
Taylor, M. E., Cook, H. E., and Miller, J. F., 1989, Late Cambrian and Early Ordovician biostratigraphy and depositional
environments of the Whipple Cave formation and House Limestone, Central Egan Range, Nevada, in M. E.
Taylor, ed., Cambrian and Early Ordovician stratigraphy and paleontology of the Basin and Range Province,
western United States, Field Trip Guidebook T125 28th International Geological Congress, p. 37-44.
Thomas, E. F., Cook, H. E., and Rees, M. N., 1987, Sediment-gravity in the Tor Limestone: A re-interpretation and its
implications on the paleogeography of the western United States (abs.): GSA Annual Meeting Abs., v. 19, no. 7,
p. 867.
Thoreson, R.F., 1991, Geology and Gold Deposits of the Rain Subdistrict, Elko County, Nevada, in G. L. Raines, R.
E. Lisle, R. W. Shafer, and W. H. Wilkinson, eds., Geology and Ore Deposits of the Great Basin, Symposium
Proceedings: Geological Society of Nevada, Reno, p. 635-643.
Vail, P. R., Mitchum, R. M., Jr., and Thompson, S., III, 1977, Seismic stratigraphy and global changes of sea level,
Part 4: Global cycles of relative changes of sea level, in C.E. Payton, ed., Seismic Stratigraphy--Applications to
Hydrocarbon Exploration, AAPG Memoir 26, p. 83-97.
Walker, R. G., 1966, Shale Grit and Grindslow Shales: transition from turbidite to shallow water sediments in the Upper
Carboniferous of northern England. Jour. Sed. Petrol., v. 36, p. 90-114.
Whiteford, W. B., Little, T. A., Miller, E. L., and Holdsworth, B. K., 1983, The nature of the Antler orogeny view
from north central Nevada (abs.), GSA Abstracts with Programs, Rocky Mountain and Cordilleran Section, v.
15, no. 5, p. 382.
Wilgus, C.K., Hastings, Kendall, C.G., Posamentier, H.W., Ross, C.A., and Von Wagoner, J.C., 1988, Sea-Level
Changes: An Integrated Approach: SEPM Spec. Pub. 42, p. 407.
Wilson, B. R., and Laule, S. W., 1979, Tectonics and sedimentation along the Antler orogenic belt of central Nevada, in
Newman, G. W., and Goode, H. D., eds., Basin and Range Symposium: Rocky Mountain Assoc. of Geologists,
p. 81-92.
Wilson, J. L., 1975, Carbonate Facies in Geologic History: New York, N.Y., Springer-Verlag, 470 p.
Wilson, J. L., and Jordan, C., 1983, Middle shelf environment, in P. A. Scholle, D. G. Bebout, and C. H. Moore, eds.,
Carbonate Depositional Environments: AAPG Memoir 33, p. 298-343.
Wilson, W.L., 1986, Geology of the Eureka-Windfall and Rustler gold deposits, Eureka County, Nevada, in
J. V. Tingley and H. F. Bonham, Jr., eds., Sediment-hosted precious-metal deposits of northern Nevada: Nevada
Bureau of Mines and Geology, v. 40, p. 81-84.
Wilson, W.L., 1990, Discovery of the Windfall Mine, and Geology of the Eureka-Windfall Gold Deposit, in
V. F. Hollister, ed., Discoveries of Valuable Minerals and Precious Metals Deposits Related to Intrusions and
Faults: Case Histories of Mineral Discoveries, v. 2, p. 183-206.
Wilson, W.R., Cox, J.W., and Lance, D.L., 1991, Geology and Geochemistry of the Green Springs Gold Mine, White
Pine County, Nevada, in G. L. Raines, R. E. Lisle, R. W. Shafer, and W. H. Wilkinson, eds., Geology and Ore
Deposits of the Great Basin, Symposium Proceedings: Geological Society of Nevada, Reno, p. 687-700.
Winn, R. D., Jr., Bailes, R. J., and Lu, K. I., 1981, Debris flows, turbidites, and lead-zinc sulfides along a Devonian
128
submarine fault scarp, Jason Prospect, Yukon Territory, in C.T. Siemers, R.W. Tillman, and C.R. Williamson,
eds., Deep-Water Clastic Sediments, A Core Workshop, Soc. Econ. Paleo. Min. Core Workshop No. 2, p. 396416.
Winterer, E. L., and Murphy, M. A., 1960, Silurian reef complex and associated facies, central Nevada: Jour. Geol., v.
68, p. 117-139.
Zempolich, W. G. and Cook, H. E., eds., 2002, Paleozoic Carbonates of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS):
Subsurface Reservoirs and Outcrop Analogs: SEPM Spec. Pub. 74, p. 250.
129

Great Basin Paleozoic Carbonate Platforms Guidebook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Great Basin Paleozoic Carbonate Platforms Guidebook

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Great Basin Paleozoic Carbonate Platforms Guidebook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OpenFile Report 20041078

Great Basin Paleozoic Carbonate Platform:

U.S. Department of the Interior

GREAT BASIN PALEOZOIC CARBONATE PLATFORM:

Booming Tonopah (Elliot, 1966)

PALEOZOIC OF THE GREAT BASIN

BASIC CARBONATE PRINCIPLES

Carbonates versus Siliciclastics

STATIC CARBONATE DEPOSITIONAL MODELS

Homoclinal Ramp Model

DYNAMIC CARBONATE SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY MODELS

Stop 1-1 Confusion Range, Utah

Day 1, Monday, August 18

Kings Canyon, Confusion Range, Utah. Orientation and examination of Silurian

Little Mile-and-a-half Canyon, Confusion Range, Utah. Upper Devonian Guilmette

Little Mile-and-a-half Canyon, Confusion Range, Utah. Upper Devonian-Lower

Day 2, Tuesday, August 19

Leave Motel 6 and drive to Eureka, Nevada.

Day 3, Wednesday, August 20

Willow Creek Canyon, Roberts Mountains, Nevada. Silurian-Lower Devonian

Day 4, Thursday, August 21

Copenhagen Canyon, Monitor Range, Nevada.

Leave parking area and drive to Tonopah, Nevada.

Lower Devonian Rabbit Hill

Overview stop on eastside of Toquima Range in Monitor Valley near Ikes

Day 5, Friday, August 22

Stop 5-1, 5-2, 5-3

Stop 5-7 (optional):

Leave parking area and return to Best Western, Tonopah, Nevada.

Day 6, Saturday, August 23

Pool side of Best Western Motel. Informal group discussion of the

End of Field trip.

Sleep corral (Browne, 1961)

PALEOZOIC OF THE GREAT BASIN

SALT LAKE CITY

5-6 DEVILS GATE

MIDDLE & INNER SHELF

~200 miles (325 Km)

SLOPE AND BASIN

MIDDLE AND INNER SHELF

SLOPE AND BASIN

MAJOR TECTONIC EVENTS

> 900 (?) M.Y.

900 (?) M.Y.

650 (?) - 600 M.Y.

Figure 5. Model of late Precambrian and Cambrian

600 (?) - 540 M.Y.

540 - 500 M.Y.

HOT CREEK RANGE

CUMULATIVE THICKNESS (KM)

Figure 6. Cumulative thickness with

FORMER CONTINENTAL SHELF

NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT

NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT

Figure 8. Model for the origin of the Antler

Roberts Mountains Thrust

LAS VEGAS SHEAR ZONE

NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT

(KEY LARGO LIMESTONE)