Chapter 2 AAPG

2
McNeill, D. F., K. J. Cunningham, L. A. Guertin, and F. S. Anselmetti, 2004,

Depositional themes of mixed carbonate-siliciclastics in the south Florida
Neogene: Application to ancient deposits, in Integration of outcrop and modern
analogs in reservoir modeling: AAPG Memoir 80, p. 23 43.
Depositional Themes of Mixed

Carbonate-siliciclastics in the South
Florida Neogene: Application to
Ancient Deposits
D. F. McNeill
Comparative Sedimentology Laboratory, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, U.S.A.
K. J. Cunningham1
Comparative Sedimentology Laboratory, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, U.S.A.
L. A. Guertin
Pennsylvania State University, Media, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
F. S. Anselmetti
Geological Institute, ETH, Zurich, Switzerland
ABSTRACT
recent drilling project to evaluate the Neogene stratigraphy of south Florida has
provided refined insight to the depositional controls and facies patterns of a
heterogeneous, mixed carbonate-siliciclastic system. Six key themes have emerged
that may have implication for reservoir development and facies architecture in similar
depositional systems. These modern depositional themes are compared to some ancient mixed system examples. Although mixed systems are complex and spatially
unique, similarities in the basic lithofacies deposition and their associated physical
properties can aid in prediction of reservoir distribution and in refinement of geologic
models in ancient mixed systems. The deposition-related themes recognized in this
study of the Florida Neogene include (1) Concept of Template Control on Both Carbonate
and Siliciclastic Deposition precursor topography controls depositional geometry and
location of subsequent depocenters for both carbonates and siliciclastics; (2) Distal
Transport of Coarse Clastics and Influence of Currents on Grain-size Segregation conditions
can exist for the long-distance transport (fluvial?) of extremely coarse siliciclastics (flatpebble quartz in this Neogene example) from the source area, and regional currents help
segregate grain-size populations and partition grain types; (3) Demise of the Carbonate
1
Current affiliation: U.S. Geological Survey, Miami, Florida, U.S.A.
23
24
McNeill et al.
Platform/Ramp: Smothered by Siliciclastics? in this Neogene example, we recognize a

hiatus of several million years bounding the top of a carbonate ramp, which indicates
that demise of the ramp and subsequent input of siliciclastics are temporally distinct;
(4) The Mixing Transition: Abrupt Vertical and Lateral Facies Changes the lateral transition
of carbonate to siliciclastic strata highlights the potential for abrupt facies changes both
laterally and vertically. Interfingered carbonates and siliciclastics may form stratigraphic
traps based on lithologic differences and differential diagenesis and can result in alternating reservoir pay zones and nonreservoir intervals; (5) Cryptic Sequence Boundary in
Shallow-marine Siliciclastics and Carbonates in cases where no distinct change in lithology
exists, it may be inherently difficult to recognize major disconformity based only on
lithologic changes. In settings dominated by admixing, sequence-boundary confirmation
may require the integration of biostratigraphic and chemostratigraphic markers with any
available textural indicators; and (6) Similarity in Acoustic Properties of Laterally Equivalent
Siliciclastics and Carbonates shallow burial and early diagenesis have produced an almost
identical acoustic signature for the two admixed sediment types. This acoustic similarity
may make it difficult to distinguish specific lithofacies on seismic profiles and sonic logs.
In ancient mixed-system deposits where only seismic data exist, problems in specific
lithofacies or geometric characterization may occur.
INTRODUCTION
To better understand the subsurface geology of the
southern Florida peninsula, the University of Miami
and Florida Geological Survey collaborated in the mid1990s on the collection of a series of continuously cored
borings in the Florida Keys and southern mainland of
Florida (Figure 1A). This drilling project was informally
termed the Florida Keys Drilling Project (FKDP). The
FKDP had three major objectives: (1) to better characterize the sediments and facies that comprise a relatively young mixed carbonate-siliciclastic sedimentary
system; (2) to elucidate the complex and heterogeneous stratigraphic relations inherent in this system;
and (3) to provide a baseline case study on the physical
factors that influence the spatial distribution of mixed
carbonate-siliciclastic lithofacies and thus identify
characteristics of potential reservoir facies. These results form the basis for a case study applicable to ancient mixed systems. To that end, this paper distills
recently published results of the drilling and subsequent
analyses to compile six deposition-related themes.
The identification of these themes is based on the successful integration of data from cores, cuttings, geophysical logs, and marine-seismic profiles to provide new
stratigraphic, petrographic, chronologic, petrophysical,
and diagenetic information on these Neogene mixedsystem sediments and their distribution. The key publications from the FKDP include Warzeski et al. (1996),
Anselmetti et al. (1997), Cunningham et al. (1998), and
Guertin et al. (1999, 2000).
The six depositional themes have relevance to the
exploration and development of oil and gas reservoirs
in ancient mixed systems. The FKDP core-based stratigraphy, seismic data, and a regional compilation of existing cuttings and geophysical log data have provided
an age-constrained database for the establishment of
temporal and spatial relations between carbonate and
siliciclastic sediments. Data from this Neogene example
can be extrapolated to deep burial conditions, but the
physical changes (and range of variation) that result
from burial diagenesis should be considered. These
depositional themes are valuable in that the original
textural lithofacies often directly influences the type
and degree of subsequent diagenesis. This combination of original texture and burial diagenesis is a major
control of porosity and permeability development in
ancient rocks. Fortunately, these facies relationships
and their influence on reservoir potential are commonly predictable with a basic knowledge of sediment
source area, the mode of sediment input, mixing dynamics, and paleogeography. Results from this project
serve to provide a case study helpful to the understanding, conceptualization, and interpretation of ancient mixed-system lithofacies and their variability.
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING

OF THE MIXED SYSTEM
The late Neogene mixed carbonate-siliciclastic system in south Florida includes two types of mixing (sensu
Budd and Harris, 1990). In vertical replacement mixing,
limestones and siliciclastics replace one another and
often result in alternating beds of each end-member
Depositional Themes of Mixed Carbonate-siliciclastics in the South Florida Neogene
FIGURE 1. (A) A general location map of the five core borings collected as part of the Florida Keys Drilling Project. Some
drill sites in the western Bahamas are also shown. (B) Revised stratigraphy of the subsurface of the Florida Keys and
southernmost peninsula following that proposed by Cunningham et al. (1998) and Guertin et al. (2000). In the Florida
Keys, the Peace River Formation is absent. Cunningham et al. (2001a) have recently revised the Neogene stratigraphy of
much of the southern peninsula of Florida, especially the age of deposits in the Peace River Formation. The Long Key
and Stock Island Formations are the primary siliciclastic and carbonate units, respectively, discussed in this paper.
(C) Geologic cross section along the study area from the southwest (A) to the northeast (A0). Note the lateral mixing of
the Stock Island and Long Key Formations. The figure in (C) is modified from Cunningham et al. (1998) and used with
permission of the Geological Society of America.
lithology. In lateral mixing, contemporaneous siliciclastic and carbonate facies admix because of variability in
siliciclastic supply and/or lateral facies shifts. The key
geologic units in this study have been dated using a
combination of strontium-isotope stratigraphy (carbonates) and planktonic-foraminiferal biostratigraphy
(siliciclastics) (Figure 2) (Guertin, 1998; Guertin et al.,
1999). These refined ages constrain the temporal nature
of mixed deposition with respect to major discontinuities and proposed sea level changes (Haq et al., 1987,
1988). Four formational units are included in the mixed
system. Starting from the base, they include, first, the
lower to middle Miocene Arcadia Formation, a carbonate ramp that is a composite sequence composed of four
high-frequency sequences (Cunningham et al., 1998).
The principal grains of the carbonate ramp are skeletal
fragments of mollusks, benthic foraminifera, red algae,
and echinoids, an assemblage of grain types consistent
with production in temperate water ( James, 1997). Although predominantly carbonate, the Arcadia Forma-
tion can contain as much as several percent quartz sand

and phosphorite grains. The abundance of these noncarbonate components increases from the Florida Keys
northward across the peninsula. The top of the Arcadia
Formation is a regional unconformity that is replaced
by a thin, black phosphorite layer. The second formational unit is an upper Miocene to upper Pliocene
mixed carbonate siliciclastic unit that is predominantly
siliciclastic in the northeast (Long Key Formation, as
much as 145 m thick) and carbonate in the southwest
(Stock Island Formation, 120 m thick). The newly defined Long Key Formation (Cunningham et al., 1998) is
a quartz-sand unit with varying amounts (<50%, but usually <20%) of admixed lime mud, clay minerals, carbonate grains, feldspar, mica, and phosphorite. The paleobathymetry (inner to outer shelf) and age of the Long
Key Formation (late Miocene to latest Pliocene) have
been reported recently by Guertin et al. (1999). The Stock
Island Formation, also recently and formally assigned
formation status (Cunningham et al., 1998), is comprised
25
26
McNeill et al.
FIGURE 2. (A) Age-depth profiles constructed from strontium-isotope age ranges and planktonic-foraminiferal age
ranges from Guertin (1998) and Guertin et al. (2000) for two cores from the Florida Keys. Note the extensive hiatus
between the Arcadia Formation and the overlying Long Key and Stock Island Formations. (B) A comparison of
formational ages of deposits in the south Florida mixed system with the proposed eustatic curve of Haq et al. (1987).
The age information is from Guertin et al. (1999) and Cunningham et al. (2001a). The event ages of the sea level
curve have been adjusted to the integrated timescale of Berggren et al. (1995) for direct comparison to the formation ages.
of fine-grained skeletal limestone with minor amounts

of quartz sand that is laterally equivalent to the Long Key
Formation. The Stock Island Formation overlies the Arcadia Formation and underlies the surficial Quaternary
limestones in the middle and lower Florida Keys (Warzeski et al., 1996; Cunningham et al., 1998). Carbonates
of the Stock Island Formation mainly are very finegrained skeletal and planktonic-foraminiferal lime grainstone and lime packstone but contain some quartz-sand
grains (Cunningham et al., 1998). These carbonate sands
likely were transported by shallow currents flowing out

of the Gulf of Mexico and across the progressively
shallowing shelf of the southern Florida peninsula.
Recent marine-seismic data suggest that beds of the Stock
Island Formation have prograded southward and eastward and downlapped onto the underlying Arcadia Formation (Warzeski et al., 1996). The third and fourth
formational units are the shallow subsurface deposits
and surface outcrops in the Florida Keys that consist of
Quaternary limestone of the Key Largo (reefal deposits)
and Miami (oolitic sand) Formations. These well-studied,

shallow-water, tropical to subtropical deposits (Ginsburg,
1956; Stanley, 1966; Hoffmeister et al., 1967; Hoffmeister
and Multer, 1968; Perkins 1977; Shinn et al., 1989) represent the return to pure carbonate deposition and form
the cap to the south Florida mixed system.
The nature of carbonate-siliciclastic mixing has
evolved over time in south Florida because of changes
in the amount of both detrital carbonate and siliciclastic sediment that entered the basin. For example, in the
early and middle Miocene, only minor amounts of siliciclastic sediment were transported to the (Arcadia Formation) ramp because of the lack of a proximal source
and a postulated physical separation by a strong current
flowing from west to east across the shelf margin. We
speculate that in the early and middle Miocene, the
southern peninsula was an open ramp setting that had
currents flowing across it from the Gulf of Mexico to the
east. Siliciclastic deposition decreased markedly from
north to south in the Arcadia Formation (Scott, 1988),
consistent with the hypothesis that some type of physical barrier, such as cross currents, blocked the southward transport of voluminous quartz sand. Evidence
that currents physically blocked the input of quartz sand
to the Florida Keys area is the occurrence (Figure 1B, C)
of the overlying upper Miocene Peace River Formation
(Scott, 1988). The predominantly siliciclastic and phosphorite deposit is restricted to the Florida peninsula
in the early and middle Miocene. Quartz sand-rich deposits do eventually reach the Florida Keys by the early
Pliocene and perhaps even in the latest Miocene with
the deposition of Long Key Formation sediments (Guertin et al., 1999; Cunningham et al., 2001a). The Long
Key Formation likely is temporally equivalent to the
younger part of the Peace River Formation (Cunningham et al., 2001a). The input mechanism of these
siliciclastic deposits has long been debated to be longshore transport or a fluvial-deltaic system centered in
the middle of the peninsula, or some combination of
the two. Several authors have suggested that the siliciclastics were distributed down the peninsula as part of
a large prograding deltaic or river system, with deposition in nearshore marine environments (Bishop, 1956;
Pirkle et al., 1964; Puri and Vernon, 1964). More recently, a
hypothesis has been proffered that longshore processes
were the main mechanism for southward transport of
siliciclastics (Alt, 1974; Kane, 1984). For the eventual
transport and deposition in south Florida, Ginsburg et al.
(1989) suggested that a combination of fluvial, longshore, and shoreline transport processes were responsible for forming an arcuate spitlike feature. This elongate siliciclastic spit then provided a foundation shallow
enough for the deposition of Quaternary carbonates of
the Florida Keys. The latest clue in the mystery of the
siliciclastic source comes from the subsurface mapping
of cuttings, wire-line logs, and newly collected core
borings. Warzeski et al. (1996) proposed that a trend of

coarse-grained siliciclastics exists beneath the center of
the Florida peninsula, preserving what may have acted
as a sediment input pathway. Additional mapping and
coring helped Cunningham et al. (1998) refine this
siliciclastic corridor and identify several bifurcating
channel-like features that likely influenced local distribution of sand- and gravel-sized sediment into the
marine basin. Cunningham et al. (2001b, 2003) used
high-resolution seismic and core borings to identify a
major fluvial deltaic depositional system about 200 km
north of the Florida Keys. This deltaic system may have
advanced as far south as the Florida Keys and beyond.
GEOLOGIC DATABASE
The evaluation of the south Florida mixed system is
based on analysis of five principal core holes. Four were
drilled by the Florida Geological Survey and continuously cored, and one was drilled (partially cored) by the
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority. The cores sampled a
cumulative thickness of 974 m. The cores were drilled
on Stock Island (near Key West), near Marathon and
Long Key (central Florida Keys), on Key Largo (Carysfort
Marina), and on the mainland in the Everglades National Park (Figure 1A).
In addition to the cores, data from approximately
200 wells (geophysical logs, cuttings shown in detail in
Cunningham et al., 1998) were used to determine lithofacies distribution, formation thickness, and subsurface configurations. These well data were used to compile cross sections and document the spatial nature of
the mixed sediment types (Warzeski et al., 1996; Cunningham et al., 1998) (Figure 3). The well locations of
the geologic database are shown in Figure 4A and B.
MIXED SYSTEM
DEPOSITIONAL THEMES
Previous analysis of the cores and existing well data
(Warzeski et al., 1996; Melim, 1996; Anselmetti et al.,
1997; Cunningham et al., 1998; Guertin et al., 1999, 2000)
focused on specific aspects of the lithologic, stratigraphic,
geochemical, and geophysical data collected as part of
the FKDP. The depositional-related themes formulated
and presented in this paper focus solely on the lithologic, stratigraphic, and petrophysical results of the project. The aim of this thematic approach is to highlight
key results that may have bearing on similar aspects of
ancient mixed systems and especially those that host
hydrocarbon reservoirs. Several comparative (ancient)
examples of those from the south Florida example are
summarized after the following themes.
27
28
McNeill et al.
FIGURE 3. Gamma-ray, mineralogic, and formational

correlation of three core borings drilled as part of the
FKDP. The predominance of quartz sand and variable
amounts of carbonate is visible in the mineralogic records
of the Long Key and Carysfort Marina core borings. The
Stock Island core is predominantly carbonate mineralogy
with subordinate amounts of fine-grained quartz sand.
The figure is reproduced and modified from Cunningham
et al. (1998) and is used with permission of the Geological
Society of America.
Concept of Template Control on Both

Carbonate and Siliciclastic Deposition
One of the key themes that has emerged from
the study of this mixed system is the importance of a
precursor topography (template) on influencing, or even
controlling, depositional geometry and location of subsequent depocenters for both carbonates and siliciclastics. We invoke this depositional template in south
Florida for the transition from carbonate to siliciclastic
sedimentation in the Miocene, as well as for the transition from Pliocene siliciclastic to Pleistocene carbonates. It has long been accepted that reefs usually re-
occupy paleotopographic highs often related to earlier

reef deposits. We build on this concept to show that
paleotopography in carbonates, related to either structure or erosion, had a direct influence on the subsequent siliciclastic sedimentation. Likewise, the siliciclastics have had a similar controlling influence on
subsequent carbonates.
Paleotopography on the middle Miocene carbonate
Florida platform had distinct control of the channelization of late Miocene siliciclastics. An elongate paleotopographic depression in the limestone surface of the middle
Miocene Arcadia Formation provided a pathway for the
southward transport of siliciclastics (Figure 4A C).
Likewise, the Pliocene siliciclastics and their paleotopography were critical for the deposition of Quaternary
Key Largo and Miami Formation carbonates as well
as the modern carbonate facies (Warzeski et al., 1996)
(Figure 5). The siliciclastic infilling of accommodation
space and its southward and eastward progradation provided a foundation shallow enough for eventual shallowmarine carbonate deposition (Warzeski et al., 1996).
In this example, the early Pliocene transgression
likely drowned the (inactive) ramp system and acted to
mobilize the updip siliciclastic deposits. The subsequent
transport of siliciclastics (at the end of the highstand?),
perhaps as a forced regression, provided sediment to the
shelf area and reestablished a base level in the photic
zone. Carbonates were reestablished in this new photic
zone and thus completed the switch from siliciclastics
back to carbonate sediment. The paleotopography of
the siliciclastics acted as the foundation for subsequent
carbonate deposition.
The practical use of this template hypothesis lies in
its application for prediction of regional lithofacies and
stratal architecture in exploration models. This example confirms the importance of precursor topography
as a feedback mechanism in the switch from one mixed
system end member to the other. The significance for the
explorationist lies in the development of a template hypothesis to help understand vertical and lateral changes
in lithofacies, to develop a regional geologic model, and
to ultimately predict the occurrence of reservoir and
nonreservoir intervals.
Distal Transport of Coarse Clastics

and Influence of Currents on
Grain-size Segregation
The mapping of the distribution of coarse siliciclastic sediment on the Florida platform documents two
significant points applicable to understanding lithofacies variation: (1) conditions can exist for the transport
of extremely coarse siliciclastics (subrounded sand/gravel
and flat-pebble quartz in this example, grains as much
as 4 cm in diameter) long distances from the source area
FIGURE 4. (A) Shaded structure contour map of top of the middle Miocene Arcadia Formation limestone. A channellike depression running from just west of Lake Okeechobee to Florida Bay and beneath the Florida Keys was identified
by Cunningham et al. (1998). This erosional or structural feature is hypothesized to have provided a pathway for the
progressive southward movement of siliciclastic sediments to the open basin now underlying Florida Bay and the Florida
Keys. Contour interval is in meters. (B) Isopach map of the cumulative thickness of core/cutting intervals containing
quartz sand greater than 1 mm in diameter. The isopach contours are consistent with coarse sand and gravel moving
through the channel-like depression in the underlying Arcadia Formation limestone. This limestone template had
significant influence on the transport pathway and eventual distribution of later siliciclastics. Contour interval is in
meters. (C) Core and log cross section of the southern peninsula illustrating the coarse-sand distribution. The coarsest
sands are laterally restricted to a narrow corridor, consistent with a paleotopographic low. All three figures are modified
from Cunningham et al. (1998) and used with permission of the Geological Society of America.
29
30
McNeill et al.
duction of fluvial sand

and gravel is surprising
given that the province has been carbonate (and evaporite)
dominated since the
Jurassic. Available core
and cuttings data indicate that the spatial
limit of the coarsest
part of the siliciclastic
package has an elongate geometry in aerial
view with a possible
channel-like configuration (Warzeski et al.,
1996; Cunningham et al.,
1998) (Figure 4). This
elongate feature can be
traced from the Florida
Keys northward on the
Florida peninsula to
where it shallows to a
near-surface position
and fills an asymmetric paleotopographic
low west of Lake Okeechobee. The ultimate
source of the siliciclasFIGURE 5. (A) Regional multichannel seismic line across the shelf, northern Florida Keys
tics is believed to be the
(off northern Key Largo). The relationship of the Miocene carbonate platform/ramp
Appalachian Mountains
(Arcadia Formation) and the overlying prograded siliciclastic sediments is well illustrated.
(B) Schematic core to seismic correlation in the middle Florida Keys showing the prograded because it is the closest
siliciclastics (Long Key Formation) overlying the Arcadia Formation. The top of the silicisource on the continent,
clastic package provided a foundation for the subsequent initiation and deposition of Quabut no specific proveternary shallow-water carbonates. This siliciclastic template likely was a key factor in the
nance data exist for the
change from siliciclastic sedimentation back to carbonate sedimentation. The figure in (B)
siliciclastics. The siliciis modified from Warzeski et al. (1996) and is used with permission of the Society for Sediclastics were intermitmentary Geology (SEPM).
tently transported southward along the Florida
peninsula (Figure 7),
into a predominantly carbonate setting; the first point
mainly during the Miocene after the closure of the Sulikely is more appreciated by siliciclastic sedimentolowannee channel across north Florida (McKinney, 1984).
gists than by carbonate sedimentologists; and (2) reBased on our information and geologic data to the north,
gional ocean currents help segregate and partition grain
a fluvial-deltaic system has been proposed as the mechsizes and grain types. The influence of currents is a proanism for the southward transport of siliciclastics more
cess that is difficult to identify in many ancient deposits
than 1000 km down the Florida peninsula (Bishop, 1956;
because good three-dimensional data coverage is needed
Pirkle et al., 1964; Puri and Vernon, 1964; Cunningham
but is often lacking. Thus, it often is an elusive process
et al., 2003). In south Florida, the coarse siliciclastics
in constructing depositional models and explaining latwere deposited in a small, shelf-edge marine basin that
eral changes in reservoir properties. This Neogene examcurrently underlies Florida Bay and the Florida Keys
ple illustrates how significant partitioning (segregation)
(Cunningham et al., 1998).
can be both in the depositional process and in the reOn the Florida shelf, lithofacies partitioning besultant distribution of textural facies.
tween both carbonates and siliciclastics, as well as asOne of the most striking aspects of the Florida mixed
sociated grain-size differences, are inherent because of
system is the presence of extremely coarse siliciclastics
factors related to sediment supply, sediment depobeneath the modern Florida Keys (Figure 6). This introcenter, physical conditions at the depocenter, and
ically, these current-driven and prograding deposits

have distinct geographic ranges (Figure 8). Fine-grained,
bioclastic planktonic-foraminiferal grainstones and
packstones are found in the western Florida Keys,
whereas interfingering beds of quartz sand and foraminiferal grainstone/packstone occur in the west-central
Florida Keys region. Siliciclastic coarse sand and gravel
underlie the central Keys, with a mixture of mostly fine
sand and mud-sized siliciclastics with planktonic foraminifera and fine bioclastic debris toward the northeastern Florida Keys (Figure 8).
FIGURE 6. (A) Coarse quartz-sand and gravel from a piece

of core from the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority well at
Marathon, in the middle Florida Keys. Quartz pebbles as
much as 4 cm in diameter have been reported from some
of the early core borings in the middle Keys (Vaughan,
1910). (B) Flat-pebble quartz contained in parts of the
corridor of coarse siliciclastics. This specific sample is
from a sand quarry immediately west of Lake Okeechobee
(Ortona, Florida). The transport of large, gravel-size quartz
pebbles from the Appalachian Mountains to the Florida
Keys (1000 km) likely occurred through a fluvial-deltaic
system that prograded down the Florida peninsula.
hydrodynamic response of grain type/size to the physical setting. We propose that siliciclastics entering the
basin in the late Miocene and Pliocene were subjected
to strong currents flowing from the Gulf of Mexico
across the southern peninsula before combining with
the paleo-Florida current. A relatively strong current
likely limited additional southward siliciclastic deposition and forced progradation of the finer-grained material to the east and southeast (Figure 8). The coarsest
siliciclastics (>1 mm) remained along the western side
of the basin and formed a distinct corridor to the shelf
edge, now underlying the central part of the Florida
Keys. This segregation of carbonate and siliciclastic
material, as well as grain size, is related to the overriding
control of the shallow, eastward current flow. Litholog-
FIGURE 7. Miocene paleogeographic reconstruction of

the carbonate and siliciclastic environments based on
McKinney (1984). Siliciclastic transport most likely was
through fluvial-deltaic processes southward on the Florida
peninsula (approximated in figure by white arrows). Distal
transport of the siliciclastics down the Florida peninsula
provided the source for the coarse sand and gravel beneath
the Florida Keys. Progressive southward movement of the
siliciclastics started in the late Oligocene (north Florida)
and continued through the late Miocene early Pliocene,
when they first arrived at the southern platform margin.
Siliciclastic input to the depocenter beneath the Florida
Keys continued through the Pliocene and ended near the
Pliocene Pleistocene boundary (1.9 Ma) (Guertin et al.,
1999).
31
32
McNeill et al.
reservoir potential. Fortunately, however, this facies compartmentalization of sediment type and grain size
should occur in a predictable
distribution based on the underlying template and knowledge of basin paleocurrents.
Demise of the
Carbonate
Platform/Ramp:
Smothered by
Siliciclastics?
An integrated chronostratigraphy (biostratigraphy,
strontium isotopes, magnetostratigraphy) for the carbonates and siliciclastics recovered by the FKDP has
provided refined ages of the
major lithologic units and
an estimate of hiatal duraFIGURE 8. Spatial distribution of Pliocene fine-grained carbonates (Stock Island
tion at formation-bounding
Formation) and siliciclastics (Long Key Formation). The siliciclastics have two subfacies based on grain size: a mostly medium to coarse sand and gravel in a channel-like surfaces (Figure 2A) (Guertin
pattern and a finer-grained, mostly fine to medium, sand and mud, with some skel- et al., 2000). The age data inetal carbonate that was deposited outside the coarse-sand corridor. The black arrows dicate that an approximately
in the figure are indicative of the transport direction for each of the main sedi8-m.y. hiatus in the Long
ment facies. White arrows indicate the direction of siliciclastic progradation based Key core occurs between the
on seismic data of Warzeski et al. (1996) and other unpublished data (numbered lines
carbonates of the middle
in the figure). The numbered lines show the location of unpublished seismic profiles.
Miocene Arcadia Formation
The fine-grained carbonates likely were transported along the west Florida shelf and
and the overlying siliciclasmixed with the siliciclastics along their western boundary. The finer-grained siliciclastics were transported to the south and were then influenced by eastward-flowing tics of the latest Miocene
currents on the shelf. Seismic data (numbered lines) indicate eastward progradation and Pliocene Long Key Forof these sediments. The coarser-grained siliciclastics appear largely to have followed a mation (Figure 9). A longstanding dogma asserts that
paleotopographic depression southward down the peninsula. Their spatial distribution indicates a bifurcation before moving beneath the area of the present Florida
carbonate platform demise
Keys. Offshore seismic profiles suggest that the siliciclastics moved across the Miooften is attributed to the
cene shelf (now exposed at the seafloor) and were deposited in deeper water in the Straits overwhelming influx of siliof Florida.
ciclastics (e.g., Meyer, 1989;
Smosna and Patchen, 1991).
This dogma (for which relaAs with both pure carbonate and siliciclastic basins,
tively little evidence is found) suggests that carbonate
the Florida mixed system was impacted by both reproduction essentially is shut down or greatly reduced to
gional (basin-scale) and smaller scale (local) processes.
allow burial or drowning, respectively. The abrupt sucAt the regional scale, the distal transport of very coarse
cession from a carbonate-ramp facies to an overlying
siliciclastic to a carbonate setting generated the mixing
sand- and silt-rich siliciclastic (outer shelf) unit may be
of carbonate and siliciclastics. Locally, processes such as
(mistakenly) explained by this burial-drowned mechastrong currents generally separated the two sediment
nism. An interpretation of smothering especially is likeend members and acted to partition the sediment type
ly if no age information exists and the lithologic inand the particle size at the depocenter. As is common in
dicators of subaerial exposure (calcretes, soil breccias)
pure siliciclastic settings, this hydraulic partitioning
were not developed or preserved. Here, the regional
serves to provide distinct lateral changes in grain size
indication of erosion and/or flooding likely was responthat could ultimately produce significant differences in
sible for cessation of carbonate deposition. The upper
boundary of the Arcadia is replaced by a thin layer of

black phosphorite (Cunningham et al., 1998), likely
deposited during intervals when the ramp was flooded
or was exposed to upwelling currents. In conjunction
with reduced sediment production caused by increased
ecologic stress, the Arcadia platform-ramp probably
was swept clean by intensified bottom currents associated with late Miocene sea level changes. Of special
importance in this case was the strong current originating in the Gulf of Mexico that flowed across the shelf
and joined with the northward-flowing paleo-Gulf
Stream current (Figure 7). In addition, stronger, more
erosive currents during lower sea level likely result
from several factors, as summarized by Brooks and
Holmes (1989): (1) the increase in current velocity related to the increased temperature gradient between
the equator and the poles (Brunner, 1983, 1986); (2) the
decreased cross-sectional area of the Straits of Florida
(Brunner, 1983); and (3) a downward shift in the position of the strengthened current and new contact
with previously deposited sediment.
For ancient mixed systems, the relevant point is
that the abrupt, distinctive change from carbonate to
siliciclastic sedimentation may not be attributable solely
to the influx of siliciclastics (excluding lowstand burial).
In some cases, a carbonate-to-siliciclastic contact represents a hiatus of considerable duration, and the distinct lithofacies change is not necessarily one of cause
and effect. An incorrect interpretation of siliciclastic
smothering may have important ramifications on the
development of a regional geologic model. In fact, some
well-dated examples of the coexistence of carbonate
facies and voluminous siliciclastic input recently have
been recognized (Choi and Holmes, 1982; Friedman,
1988; Roberts and Murray, 1988; Santisteban and Taberner, 1988; Esker et al., 1998; McNeill et al., 2000). Conversely, documented examples of regional carbonate
platform demise by siliciclastic smothering are relatively rare, even for modern tropical settings where highresolution dating can establish a conformable transition.
Until the (conformable) timing of carbonate to siliciclastic transition is established, a burial-demise effect is
not the sole interpretation of these distinct boundaries.
In fact, smothering might be the exception rather than
the rule. Indeed, other reasons such as sea level rise (the
drowning unconformity of Schlager and Camber, 1986),
environmental deterioration (Hallock and Schlager,
1986; Erlich et al., 1993) and/or the influence of local
ocean currents present viable alternative hypotheses
(and evidence) to that of conformable siliciclastic burial and carbonate demise.
The Mixing Transition: Abrupt Vertical

and Lateral Facies Changes
FIGURE 9. Contact between the Arcadia Formation carbonates and the Long Key Formation siliciclastics (white
arrow) in the Long Key core (630 ft; 192 m). The abrupt
contact could be interpreted as carbonate platform demise
caused by the sudden influx of siliciclastics. Age dates for
the two formations, however, suggest that a hiatus of approximately 8 m.y. occurs between the two units (Guertin,
1998; Guertin et al., 2000).
The lateral transition of carbonate to siliciclastics

in the south Florida example highlights the potential
for abrupt lateral and vertical facies changes in mixed
environments. The setting for carbonate-siliciclastic
mixing often is one with two distinct sediment sources,
and in most cases, several different controls on the accumulation of that sediment. The examination of cores
and cuttings from the central Florida Keys shows interfingering between two distinct lithologies: the finegrained skeletal fragment and foraminiferal grainstonepackstone of the Stock Island Formation and the quartz
sandstone of the Long Key Formation (Figure 1C). Although lithofacies of these two formations interfinger,
considerable admixing still occurred during their deposition. At the interfingering transition, variable amounts
of quartz sand are included in the carbonates of the Stock
Island Formation, and conversely, skeletal carbonate is
contained in the predominantly siliciclastic lithology of
the Long Key Formation. We interpret the fine-grained
33
34
McNeill et al.
mixing migrated back and forth

repetitively through time, while
maintaining overall its general
position (Cunningham et al., 1998)
(Figure 11). To produce this interfingered configuration, we speculate that a combination of sea level and current-velocity changes
controlled the amount of siliciclastic sediment transported to
the mixing transition.
The nature of this mixing
boundary is applicable to ancient
mixed systems in two ways. First,
in a hydrocarbon-bearing setting,
lithologic differences produced by
a shifting carbonate-siliciclastic
facies boundary may form subtle
stratigraphic traps. For example, if
one of the lithofacies in a section
of interfingered beds is a more
favorable reservoir rock (e.g., higher porosity and permeability) and
FIGURE 10. Paleogeography of the Long Key (siliciclastic) and Stock Island
the other is relatively tight, the
(carbonate) Formations. Throughout their deposition, the lateral boundary between lateral extent of these more porthe two units has remained generally stationary within a 25-km band (see cross
ous beds could produce subsurface
section in Figure 1C). This interfingering transition is manifest in the subsurface by
reservoir zones in the transition
alternating beds of limestone and sandstone (both with a minor component of the
zone (Figure 11). In a well, the resother sediment type). These alternating lithologies apparently pinch out laterally
ervoir units would appear to be
in the 25-km transition zones defined by our well control. Similar alternating
lithologies could form subtle stratigraphic traps given different diagenetic changes stacked, separated by the nonreservoir lithologies. The control on
and porosity evolution, for example, the Yates Formation in the Permian Basin
(Borer and Harris, 1991a, b). Figure modified from Cunningham et al. (1998) and the positioning of these lateral
used with permission of the Geological Society of America.
facies shifts is likely externally
controlled and may be correlative
with other indicators of current
intensification and/or sea level
bioclastic and planktonic-foraminiferal carbonates to
change recorded in the basin. Second, this mixing tranbe a shelf current deposit that was admixed with some
sition, however, may be difficult to image acoustically
quartz sand (Figure 3). These fine-grained carbonates
if siliciclastics and carbonates are uniformly mixed and
were transported by a west-to-east flow of the current
are of similar acoustic character. Unless appropriate
across the west Florida shelf. The carbonates accumuimpedance contrast is developed by diagenetic enlated in a fairway along the southwestern edge of the
hancement of one lithology relative to the other, the
Florida platform, whereas in the east, they were mixed
mixing transition on seismic profiles may be spatially
with the siliciclastics introduced from the north. Preunresolvable.
sumably, the eastward-flowing current precluded large
amounts of siliciclastics from being transported to the
south and west where the fine-grained skeletal sediCryptic Sequence Boundary in Mixed
ment accumulated. Likewise, siliciclastic deposition was
Siliciclastics-carbonates
restricted to the central and eastern part of the Florida
The mixed siliciclastic-carbonate sediments recovplatform by eastward-flowing currents. These eastward
ered in cores from Long Key and Key Largo (Carysfort
currents incorporated some of the fine-grained skeletal
Marina) (Figure 1A), although lithologically similar,
carbonate with the siliciclastics. The actual zone of
span an interval known to contain a regionally establateral mixing is constrained to an area with a width of
lished sequence boundary (equivalent to the Miocene
about 25 km (from W-5152 to W-1299 in Figure 1C),
Pliocene TB3.3 3.4 boundary of Haq et al., 1987). This
now underlying the central-southern Florida Keys
(Figure 10). Core data indicate that this zone of lateral
sequence boundary also has been documented in the
siliciclastic-carbonate sediment
was uncertain using only textural
properties or lithology. Where diagnostic subaerial exposure features
are absent and no distinct lithologic
change occurs (as in this case), we
have found that the disconformity
can be reliably constrained with
the use of foraminiferal microfossil data in conjunction with grainsize changes across the boundary
(Figure 14).
The relatively shallow-water
nature of some mixed systems
makes recognition of the sequence
boundary inherently difficult in
cases where a distinct change in
lithology is absent or the section is
located in a downdip position that
precludes subaerial exposure. In
this Florida example, we have found
that biostratigraphic markers are
key indicators of hiatal disconformity, especially when used with
other sedimentological changes.
The mixed lithofacies immediately
FIGURE 11. Lithology, log signature, and partial mineralogy record from the
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority core OW-1 located in Marathon (see Figure 1a for above the disconformity contain
location). This well penetrated the mixing transition between the siliciclastics and the first occurrence of an age- and
environment-diagnostic microfoscarbonates. The core lithology shows alternating beds of predominantly limestone and quartz sandstone intervals, both with a minor component of the other sil relative to nearly identical lithosediment type admixed. The interfingered lithofacies likely result from shifts in
facies below the disconformity.
the relative input of carbonate and siliciclastic sediment, perhaps related to
This example illustrates that feaeustatic sea level changes. LMC = Low-Mg Calcite.
tures associated with a disconformity, especially where no lithologic
change occurs, can sometimes be
extremely subtle. These cryptic sesame basin (but different platform) on western Great
quence boundaries, however, can be recognized with
Bahama Bank but in the pure carbonate lithofacies
the integration of the lithologic, biologic, and chemo(Eberli et al., 2001; McNeill et al., 2001). By definition,
stratigraphic data.
the most pronounced attributes of a sequence boundary in siliciclastic sediments are seismic truncation, a
basinward shift in facies, and subaerial exposure in upSimilarity in Acoustic Properties of
dip locations (Van Wagoner et al., 1990). In shallowLaterally Equivalent Siliciclastics
marine settings, a facies shift commonly is associated
and Carbonates
with an abrupt grain-size increase and/or a distinct upAnselmetti et al. (1997) studied the sonic velocity
ward change from limestone to sandstone. In the two
of the Miocene Pliocene prograding siliciclastics and
Florida cores where no distinct lithologic change occurs, biostratigraphy (change in foraminiferal coiling
carbonates from the subsurface of the Florida Keys.
They found that sonic velocity in these mixed-system
direction, change in benthic-foraminiferal fauna, posisediments is controlled by three factors: (1) porosity and
tion of a prominent first appearance) has helped conprimary pore type, (2) quartz content, and (3) dolomitestrain this sequence boundary to within an interval of
limestone proportion. In this case, the combination of
several meters (Figure 12). The location of the biodepositional fabric and diagenetic alterations has prostratigraphic change is coincident with an upwardduced almost identical impedance, yielding similar
coarsening in quartz-sand grain size and a slight change
p-wave velocity for the fine-grained carbonates, the
in color of the dry sediment (Figure 13). Confirmation
of the TB3.3 3.4 sequence boundary in this mixture of
siliciclastics, and the admixtures (Figure 15). The mixed
35
36
McNeill et al.
FIGURE 12. A summary and comparison of key features found across a regionally established early Pliocene sequence
boundary (SB) (TB3.3 3.4 of Haq et al., 1987) in the Florida Bahamas region. The sequence boundary is lithologically
subtle in the Florida mixed-system sediments, and biostratigraphic data was used to confirm and constrain its position.
This mixed quartz sand (85%) and low-magnesium calcite (LMC) (15%) mineralogy, both above and below the
boundary, poorly records or preserves features indicative of a discontinuity. The carbonate end member is considerably
better at recording diagenetic changes associated with erosion, nondeposition, and subaerial exposure. Florida data are
from Guertin (1998). Core Clino and core Unda data are from Kenter et al. (2001).
carbonates and siliciclastic sediments of the Stock Island and Long Key Formations both are characterized
by low seismic reflectivity or even seismic transparency. The similarity of core-based sonic velocity between the carbonates, siliciclastics, and admixtures of
the two led to difficulty in identification of lithofacies
from sonic logs, synthetic seismograms, and offshore
marine seismic data (Warzeski et al., 1996; Anselmetti
et al., 1997). Consequently, for the Florida mixed system, in offshore areas where no well data were available, seismic data could not be used to distinguish between the prograding quartz sand and the prograding
fine-grained carbonates.
The significance as applied to ancient mixed systems is that it may be difficult to map lateral changes
from seismic data between two time-equivalent mixed
units because of similar acoustic character. Recognition
might eventually depend on the type and amount of
burial diagenesis, assuming that this diagenesis will generate a contrast in sonic velocity. The significant point
here is that the combination of depositional characteristics and diagenetic factors may, on occasion, produce
sonic velocity signatures that are remarkably similar.
This acoustic similarity can make it very difficult to
discern predominantly carbonate deposits from siliciclastic deposits, but conversely, it may also be a useful,
distinctive signature of the admixed lithofacies.
COMPARISON TO SOME
ANCIENT EXAMPLES
The depositional themes compiled from the Neogene mixed sediments of south Florida were formulated
for the purpose of highlighting common processes that
are fundamental to the interpretation of other mixed
carbonate-siliciclastic deposits. Each mixed depositional
setting has individual variations in the source, the volume, the transport mechanisms of siliciclastic sediment,
FIGURE 13. Core photograph of the early Pliocene TB3.3

3.4 sequence boundary (SB) in the Carysfort Marina core. A
slight change in grain size and color are noticeable across the
boundary. Planktonic- and benthic-foraminiferal data have
aided in constraining this sequence boundary, a boundary
where the disconformity is not especially distinct based
solely on lithologic characteristics. Note, however, that
there are gaps in core recovery and that some other indicative characteristics of the boundary may not have
been recovered.
and variations in the carbonate platform or ramp morphology. These individual variations are further impacted by the regional physical influences that result from
the change in sea level, intensity of ocean currents, and
the prevailing climate regime. To apply some of the depositional themes derived from this Neogene example,
several select ancient examples are cited, in which similar
controls or processes may have impacted mixed-system
deposition.
The concept of template control, where precursor
topography influences subsequent deposition, is not
new. That reef- or karst-generated paleotopographic
highs are sites for the reoccupation of reefs during subsequent highstands is a widely accepted concept. The
idea of paleotopography in limestone surfaces controlling siliciclastic sedimentation and the idea of siliciclastics providing the foundation for carbonates also
are not uncommon but are less widely documented

(some Cenozoic examples: Gvirtzman and Buchbinder,
1978; Choi and Holmes, 1982; Santisteban and Taberner, 1988; Friedman, 1988). For a carbonate template,
Handford and Loucks (1993) noted the importance of
karst processes in the development of paleotopography, as conceptualized in their sequence model for a
humid carbonate-siliciclastic rimmed shelf. In addition,
of key importance is the influence of structural modification on carbonate platforms and the generation of relief
as a controlling template. Several key examples can be
found in the literature regarding the importance of a
carbonate template in siliciclastic sedimentation. Cuzella et al. (1991) have documented the importance of
Mississippian carbonates of central Kansas as a controlling template. They have shown that basal Pennsylvanian conglomerates and fluvial sands (siliciclastics) are
associated distinctly with valleys developed in the underlying carbonates. The coarser conglomeritic beds probably were deposited in braided streams that were later
reworked by coastal processes. Simo (1989) illustrated a
similar example in the Upper Cretaceous Tremp Basin
(Aren sequence), where the Aren subsequence 5-B lower
boundary is characterized by karst topography and
incised valleys cut into the karst surface. The incised
valley depressions in the underlying limestone contain
quartz-pebble conglomerates, a clear example of paleotopography-controlled sedimentation. Likewise, the contribution of siliciclastics as the foundation for carbonate
deposition is nicely demonstrated by an example from
the Frasnian Famennian reef complex of the Canning
Basin, Western Australia (Southgate et al., 1993). This
analysis of seismic and well data suggests that major
lowstand siliciclastic deposits on the shelf margin provided a foundation for the overlying transgressive and
highstand reefal and platform carbonates. Cenozoic
examples of the importance of siliciclastics as a reefal
foundation are more well known, as cited above. This
siliciclastic-to-carbonate succession is a key component
of the template concept and likely has been operative
over much of the Phanerozoic, especially important
during times when reef framebuilders were dominant.
The distal transport of coarse siliciclastics (gravel
size) into predominantly carbonate basins is a process
that likely is underappreciated and underrecognized by
carbonate sedimentologists. Of course, this excludes settings where a nearby source of coarse siliciclastic sediment is admixed with shallow-water carbonates, for
example, the Devonian reefs of the Canning Basin
(Playford et al., 1989; Holmes and Christie-Blick, 1993).
Conceptually, Handford and Loucks (1993, p. 19) have
described this process. They state that under lowstand
conditions, fluvial-deltaic processes . . .can spread
siliciclastic sediments far and wide across subaerially
exposed platforms during lowstands. The Neogene
example from Florida is one such example of this type
37
38
McNeill et al.
FIGURE 14. Lithologic and paleontologic characteristics of the mixed siliciclastic-carbonate sediments in the Long Key
Formation. Changes in planktonic foraminifera coiling direction, benthic foraminifera depth indicators, age-diagnostic
first occurrence (FO), and slight grain-size differences have contributed to the constraint of the sequence boundary
position. The outer shelf (o.s.) and inner shelf (i.s.) designations are from benthic foraminifera habitat ranges. The
spatial difference and transitions in each sequence from outer shelf to inner shelf probably reflect the point-source
input of the siliciclastics. The figure is reproduced from Guertin et al. (1999) and used with permission of the Society
for Sedimentary Geology (SEPM). Intervals I, II, and III represent the key depositional intervals as determined by
Guertin et al. (1999).
of deposition, albeit with not only sand-sized material,

as in most cases, but also with flat-pebble-sized material
as much as 4 cm in diameter. An interesting example of
distal transport recently was reported by Brenner et al.
(2001), who documented the long-distance (>500 km)
transport of pebbles and small cobbles via fluvial processes. They describe middle Cretaceous coarse siliciclastics that were deposited in incised valleys cut in Paleozoic
strata of Iowa and eastern Nebraska, along the eastern
margin of the Western Interior Seaway. Brenner et al.
(2001) have speculated that long-distance transport was
related to seasonal monsoon climatic conditions that
characterized the region during the middle Cretaceous.
A second example of pebble and cobble transport (of at
least 100 km) is the example described from the Albian
mixed systems of northern Spain by Garca-Mondejar
and Fernandez-Mendiola (1993). They describe quartzite and sandstone pebbles that followed a paleokarst
limestone surface and likely were transported into the
predominantly carbonate setting by strong fluvial currents during subaerial exposure. Garca-Mondejar and
Fernandez-Mendiola (1993) suggest that the fines were
selectively removed from the siliciclastics during the

subsequent transgression, a partitioning scenario very
similar to that proposed in our south Florida example.
The distal transport of fine and medium sand-sized
material and both horizontal and vertical mixing with
carbonate sediments is a relatively common process,
and numerous examples (i.e., the Permian Basin) exist.
Although the input of gravel-sized material is less commonly reported, we propose that it can be a significant
component of mixed carbonate-siliciclastic depositional systems when an adequate source exists.
The demise of carbonate platforms by the influx of
siliciclastics (lowstand burial excluded) still is a widely
debated topic. From a sequence-stratigraphic viewpoint,
Schlager (1989, p. 17) argued that For the final geometry, it makes little difference whether a platform was
killed by rapid submergence and later buried by siliciclastics, or whether burial by the siliciclastics caused
the demise. From a geologic standpoint, however, the
timing of siliciclastic input relative to platform demise
is important for both regional depositional models
as well as reservoir models and seal prediction. An
gin and shelf deposits (e.g., Cambrian of central Texas, King and
Chafetz, 1983; Upper Permian of
the Permian Basin, Mazzullo et al.,
1991; Upper Cretaceous of Angola,
Lomando and Walker, 1991). One
classic example is the Yates Formation in the Central Basin Platform
in the Permian Basin (Borer and
Harris, 1989, 1991a, b; Mutti and
Simo, 1993), and others exist in
the same basin (e.g. the Queen
and Grayburg Formations). In the
Yates Formation example of Borer
and Harris (1991b), a series of cores
along a dip-oriented transect documents the lateral mixing of siliciclastics and carbonates at a middleshelf location behind the carbonate-rich shelf margin. The main
zone of mixed sediment on the
middle shelf was about 25 30 km
wide. The cyclic nature of the siliciclastic and carbonate beds on the
middle shelf, in conjunction with
biostratigraphic age control, led to
the interpretation that low-amplitude sea level changes caused by
FIGURE 15. Sonic-velocity logs and discrete-sample velocity data from the Stock orbital forcing were the main conIsland and Long Key Formations. The carbonates of the Stock Island Formation
trol on sediment type. If interfinand the siliciclastics of the Long Key Formation have remarkably similar acoustic
gered carbonates and siliciclastics
characteristics. This similarity makes the seismic determination of lithofacies
extremely difficult using seismic data alone. Several ancient examples discussed of the Yates Formation were a
result of high-frequency sea level
in the text show that siliciclastic and carbonate admixtures sometimes retain this
acoustic similarity through burial. The figure is from Anselmetti et al. (1997) and changes, these alternating lithologies appear also to have conused with permission of Elsevier Publishing.
trolled the eventual reservoir properties (Borer and Harris, 1991b). In
interpretation that commonly is proposed for a sharp
the Yates, siliciclastic sand (lowstand deposit) forms the
boundary in which siliciclastics overlie carbonate is one
main reservoir units and is interbedded with nonreserof decreased or terminated carbonate production caused
voir carbonates (highstand deposit). In the lowstand
by smothering or burial. The Florida Neogene example
siliciclastics, spatial differences exist in reservoir quality
adds to the growing evidence that not all deepeningbecause of local controls such as the steeper depositional
upward, carbonate-to-siliciclastic sequences are a result
slope, locally faster subsidence, and the amount of winof a burial smothering mechanism. The approximately
nowing related to current energy. We might expect some
8-m.y. hiatus between the final carbonate deposition
of the same controls to have produced the interfingered
and the first siliciclastic accumulation clearly points to
carbonate-siliciclastic facies of the Florida example. Evensome other cause of platform demise. An excellent
tual reservoir properties likely will be determined by
example of a carbonate platform subjected to environsimilar depositional influences: high-frequency sea levmental stress prior to siliciclastic burial and the occurel changes, sediment grain-size partitioning by currents,
rence of a considerable hiatus between the carbonate
and progressive differences in diagenesis and cemenand siliciclastic deposition was described by Erlich et al.
tation between adjacent beds. These influences might
(1990, 1993) for the Upper Jurassic Lower Cretaceous
ultimately produce stacked reservoir and nonreservoir
carbonate platform of the Baltimore Canyon area.
intervals, as found in the Yates Formation example.
The horizontal mixing and stratigraphic interfinThe acoustic characteristics of mixed carbonategering of carbonates and siliciclastics described in the
siliciclastic sediments were found to be nearly identical
Florida example is similar to many ancient platform mar(low reflectivity, nearly transparent acoustically) in
39
40
McNeill et al.
the Florida example. Thus, it was difficult to image the

anatomy of horizontally mixed and interfingered
facies using seismic data alone. In most cases, however,
we would expect burial diagenesis to produce some contrast in acoustic signature of the interbedded limestones
and sandstones. Where the two sediment types are admixed on the shelf margin or ramp setting, the acoustic signature also can be nearly transparent. Several key
examples exist for shelf-margin deposits similar to those
in the Florida Neogene. Southgate et al. (1993) have
documented a Late Devonian Mississippian mixed
carbonate-siliciclastic ramp system in which highstand
deposits lack internal reflection. These acoustically transparent platform deposits apparently make recognition
of seismic-based lithofacies or geometries difficult in
the highstand deposits. Fortunately, cuttings and cores
were available to document the admixed and interbedded nature of the sandstone, mixed sand dolostone,
and dolostone lithofacies on the inner ramp (Southgate
et al., 1993). In another interesting example, Meyer
(1989) discusses the influence of siliciclastics on the
Mesozoic platform of the Baltimore Canyon trough. In
the shelf-margin system (KimmeridgianBerriasian), he
describes admixing and interbedding of quartzose sand
and silt with shallow-water carbonate grainstone and
framestone textures. This shelf-margin mixed system
has velocity logs that correlate to a seismically quiet zone
with poor reflection characteristics. Acoustic reflectivity improves substantially outward from the shelf-margin
system into both the adjacent slope and shallow-shelf
deposits where admixed carbonates and siliciclastics
are less prevalent. In cases for which only seismic data
exist, the low reflectivity or transparent character may
even be a useful tool in identifying and mapping mixed
deposits.
SUMMARY OF
COMPARATIVE THEMES
Six depositional themes for a late Neogene mixed
carbonate-siliciclastic system have been identified to
help understand facies relations of ancient carbonatesiliciclastic deposits. An improved understanding of
the factors that influence mixing is necessary to generate accurate regional geologic models and provide
some predictability to these spatially and temporally
complex facies. Although each mixed system is unique
with respect to facies geometry, spatial scale, and sediment input, once understood, the relationship between
carbonates and siliciclastics becomes considerably less
intimidating.
These fundamental themes can be applied at different scales. At the regional geology scale, and with
limited two-dimensional seismic data and only sparse
well and log data, the explorationist should be aware of
relatively abrupt, lateral lithofacies changes that can

occur in mixed carbonate-siliciclastics settings. That
these lithofacies changes may not always be distinguishable in seismic data is especially important. With progressive burial, the hope is that diagenesis will develop
sufficient petrophysical contrasts to distinguish the
main lithofacies in log and seismic data. Similarly, at
the regional scale, the geophysical log signature of mixed
siliciclastics-carbonates can be nonunique, making accurate lithofacies interpretations difficult when cuttings
are unavailable. In a more positive slant, the predictive
capability of the petroleum geologist can be enhanced
significantly with conceptualization of a depositional
template (either erosional or structural). It has long been
realized that reefs beget reefs, but probably just as important is that limestone paleotopography can have
important control on siliciclastic distribution and facies, and conversely, that siliciclastics can provide a foundation for carbonate initiation and development where
none existed previously. Thus, where feasible, geologic
modeling should evaluate and try to incorporate the
effects of a paleotopographic template in the mapping
of reservoir facies.
At the more local and development scale, the longstanding (and largely incorrect) dogma that siliciclastics limit carbonate deposition has been challenged
with numerous recent examples of reef-siliciclastic coexistence. As such, the nature of a vertical lithofacies
change from carbonate to siliciclastic needs to be cautiously interpreted with respect to cause and effect in
regional geologic models. It should also be recognized
that coarse siliciclastics (gravel as well as sand-sized
sediment) can be transported long distances into predominantly carbonate settings. More importantly, local processes at the depocenter (in this case, the interaction of fluvial deltaic and ocean-current processes)
can act to sort the transported material by grain size and
hydraulic equivalence. In the south Florida example,
fluvial and ocean-current processes concentrated and
segregated the predominantly coarse and fine siliciclastic sediment. This hydraulic sorting and partitioning can form reservoir facies with compartmentalized
properties, especially porosity and permeability. The
south Florida example serves to illustrate the importance of evaluating local and regional ocean currents in
coastal basins as part of the overall basin analysis model. These current-related processes may be just as important as eustatic sea level changes in sculpting the
local sequence geometry. Last, the mixing transition
for laterally equivalent carbonates and siliciclastics may
be important in generating subtle stratigraphic traps as
burial progresses and different diagenetic facies evolve.
In this case, the mixing transition appears to be abrupt
at the regional scale, although in reality, the interfingering of limestone and siliciclastic facies over a
40-km width would provide both the thickness and
spatial dimension for subtle stratigraphic traps. Similarly, stacked reservoir and nonreservoir units may result
from the horizontal and vertical mixing at the carbonatesiliciclastic transition.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This drilling project was made possible through
assistance of the Florida Geological Survey. Their skilled
team provided exceptional recovery of cores at all the
drill sites. We appreciate the efforts of Tom Scott and
Ken Campbell, who managed the survey drilling program. Robert Ginsburgs longstanding efforts and interest in the siliciclastics beneath south Florida were the
impetus for the (long overdue) drilling. The project also
benefited greatly from the initial work of Robert Warzeski. Financial support of the project came from the
donors of the American Chemical Society the Petroleum Research Fund and the industrial associates (ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, Total, ExxonMobil, Japan
National Oil, Encana, Shell, and Statoil ASA) of the
Comparative Sedimentology Laboratory, University of
Miami. The thoughtful, constructive reviews of Gene
Rankey, Sal Mazzullo, and Mitch Harris are greatly
appreciated.
REFERENCES CITED
Alt, D., 1974, Arid climate control of Miocene sedimentation and origin of modern drainage, southeastern
United States, in R. Q. Oaks Jr. and J. R. Dunbar, eds.,
Post-Miocene stratigraphy, central and southern
Atlantic Coastal Plain: Logan, Utah, Utah State University Press, p. 21 29.
Anselmetti, F. S., G. A. von Salis, K. J. Cunningham, and
G. P. Eberli, 1997, Controls and distribution of sonic
velocity in Neogene carbonates and siliciclastics from
the subsurface of the Florida Keys: Implications for
seismic reflectivity: Marine Geology, v. 144, p. 9 31.
Berggren, W. A., D. V. Kent, C. C. Swisher III, and M.-P.
Aubry, 1995, A revised Cenozoic geochronology and
chronostratigraphy, in W. A. Berggren, D. V. Kent,
M.-P. Aubry, and J. Hardenbol, eds., Geochronology,
time scales and global stratigraphic correlation: SEPM
Special Publication 54, p. 129 212.
Bishop, E. W., 1956, Geology and ground water resources
of Highlands County, Florida: Florida Geological
Survey, Report of Investigation 15, 113 p.
Borer, J. M., and P. M. Harris, 1989, Depositional facies and
cycles in Yates Formation outcrops, Guadalupe Mountains, New Mexico, in P. M. Harris and G. A. Grover, eds.,
Subsurface and outcrop examination of the Capitan
shelf margin, northern Delaware basin: SEPM Core
Workshop 13, p. 305 317.
Borer, J. M., and P. M. Harris, 1991a, Depositional facies
and model for mixed siliciclastics and carbonates of
the Yates Formation, Permian Basin, in A. J. Lomando

and P. M. Harris, eds., Mixed carbonate-siliciclastic
sequences: SEPM Core Workshop v. 15, p. 1 133.
Borer, J. M., and P. M. Harris, 1991b, Lithofacies and
cyclicity of the Yates Formation, Permian Basin:
Implications for reservoir heterogeneity: AAPG Bulletin, v. 75, p. 726 779.
Brenner, R. L., G. A. Ludvigson, B. J. Witzke, P. L. Phillips,
T. S. White, D. F. Ufnar, and R. M. Joeckel, 2001,
Transporting coarse-grained material long distances
over low gradients: Cretaceous conglomerates filling
incised valleys on the cratonic margin of the Western
Interior Foreland Basin (abs.): AAPG Annual Meeting
Program, v. 10, p. A25.
Brooks, G. R., and C. W. Holmes, 1989, Recent carbonate
slope sediments and sedimentary processes bordering
a non-rimmed platform: Southwest Florida continental margin, in P. Crevello, J. L. Wilson, J. F. Sarg,
and J. F. Read, eds., Controls on carbonate platform
and basin development: SEPM Special Publication 44,
p. 259 272.
Brunner, C. A., 1983, Evidence for increased volume
transport of the Florida Current in the Pliocene and
Pleistocene: Marine Geology, v. 54, p. 223 235.
Brunner, C. A., 1986, Deposition of a muddy sediment
drift in the southern Straits of Florida during the late
Quaternary: Marine Geology, v. 69, p. 235 249.
Budd, D. A., and P. M. Harris, eds., 1990, Carbonatesiliciclastic mixtures: SEPM Reprint Series No. 14, 272 p.
Choi, D. R., and C. W. Holmes, 1982, Foundations of
Quaternary reefs in south-central Belize lagoon,
Central America: AAPG Bulletin, v. 66, p. 2663 2671.
Cunningham, K. J., D. F. McNeill, L. A. Guertin, P. F.
Ciesielski, T. M. Scott, and L. de Verteuil, 1998, New
Tertiary stratigraphy for the Florida Keys and southern peninsula of Florida: Geological Society of
America Bulletin, v. 110, p. 231 258.
Cunningham, K. J., D. Bukry, T. Sato, J. A. Barron, L. A.
Guertin, and R. S. Reese, 2001a, Sequence stratigraphy of a south Florida carbonate ramp and bounding
siliciclastics (late Miocene Pliocene), in T. M. Missimer and T. M. Scott, eds., Geology and hydrology of
Lee County, Florida: Florida Geological Survey
Cunningham, K. J., S. D. Locker, A. C. Hine, D. Bukry,
J. A. Barron, and L. A. Guertin, 2001b, Surface-geophysical characterization of ground-water systems of
the Caloosahatchee River basin, southern Florida:
U. S. Geological Survey Water-resources Investigations Report 01-4084, 76 p.
Cunningham, K. J., S. D. Locker, A. C. Hine, D. Bukry,
J. A. Barron, and L. A. Guertin, 2003, Interplay of late
Cenozoic siliciclastic supply and carbonate response
on the southeast Florida platform: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 73, p. 31 46.
Cuzella, J. J., C. P. Gough, and S. C. Howard, 1991, Depositional environments and facies analysis of the Cherokee Group in west-central Kansas, in A. J. Lomando
and P. M. Harris, eds., Mixed carbonate-siliciclastic
Eberli, G. P., F. Anselmetti, J. A. M. Kenter, D. F. McNeill,
41
42
McNeill et al.
R. N. Ginsburg, P. K. Swart, and L. A. Melim, 2001,

Facies, diagenesis, and timing of prograding sequences on western Great Bahama Bank, in R. N.
Ginsburg, ed., Subsurface geology of a prograding
carbonate platform margin, Great Bahama Bank:
Results of the Bahamas Drilling Project: SEPM Special
Publication 70, p. 241 265.
Erlich, R. N., S. F. Barrett, and G. B. Ju, 1990, Seismic and
geologic characteristics of drowning events on carbonate platforms: AAPG Bulletin, v. 74, p. 1523 1537.
Erlich, R. N., A. P. Longo, and S. Hyare, 1993, Response of
carbonate platform margins to drowning: Evidence
of environmental collapse, in R. G. Loucks and J. F.
Sarg, eds., Carbonate sequence stratigraphy, recent
developments and applications: AAPG Memoir 57,
p. 241 266.
Esker, D., G. P. Eberli, and D. F. McNeill, 1998, The
structural and sedimentologic controls on the reoccupation of Quaternary incised valleys, Belize southern lagoon: AAPG Bulletin, v. 82, p. 2075 2109.
Farrell, J. W., S. C. Clemens, and L. P. Gromet, 1995,
Improved chronostratigraphic reference curve of late
Neogene seawater 87Sr/86Sr: Geology, v. 23, p. 403
406.
Friedman, G. M., 1988, Case histories of coexisting reefs
and terrigenous sediments: The Gulf of Elat (Red
Sea), Java Sea, and Neogene basin of the Negev,
Israel, in L. J. Doyle and H. H. Roberts, eds.,
Carbonate-clastic transitions: Amsterdam, Elsevier,
p. 77 97.
Garca-Mondejar, J., and P. A. Fernandez-Mendiola, 1993,
Sequence stratigraphy and systems tracts of a mixed
carbonate and siliciclastic platform-basin setting: The
Albian of Lunada and Soba, northern Spain: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 77, p. 245 275.
Ginsburg, R. N., 1956, Environmental relationships of
grain size and constituent composition in some
south Florida carbonate sediments: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 40, p. 2384 2427.
Ginsburg, R. N., K. M. Browne, and G. S. Chung, 1989,
Siliciclastic foundations of south Floridas Quaternary carbonates (abs.): Geological Society of America
Abstracts with Programs, v. 21, p. A-290.
Guertin, L. A., 1998, A late Cenozoic mixed carbonatesiliciclastic system, south Florida: Lithostratigraphy,
chronostratigraphy, and sea-level record: Ph.D. dissertation, University of Miami, Florida, 424 p.
Guertin, L. A., D. F. McNeill, B. H. Lidz, and K. J.
Cunningham, 1999, Biochronology and trangressive/regressive signature in the late Neogene siliciclastic foundation (Long Key Formation) of the
Florida Keys: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 69,
p. 653 666.
Guertin, L. A., T. M. Missimer, and D. F. McNeill, 2000,
Correlative sequence boundaries and their hiatal
duration from the south Florida platform interior to
platform edge: Chronostratigraphic record of Oligocene Pliocene mixed carbonate/siliciclastic sediments: Sedimentary Geology, v. 134, p. 1 26.
Gvirtzman, G., and B. Buchbinder, 1978, Recent and
Pleistocene coral reefs and coastal sediments of the
Gulf of Eilat: Post Congress Guidebook, 10th International Sedimentological Congress, Jerusalem, Israel, p. 163 189.
Hallock, P., and W. Schlager, 1986, Nutrient excess and
the demise of coral reefs and carbonate platforms:
Palaios, v. 1, p. 389 398.
Handford, C. R., and R. G. Loucks, 1993, Carbonate
depositional sequences and systems tracts Responses of carbonate platforms to relative sea-level
changes, in R. G. Loucks and J. F. Sarg, eds.,
Carbonate sequence stratigraphy, recent developments and applications: AAPG Memoir 57, p. 3 41.
Haq, B. U., J. Hardenbol, and P. R. Vail, 1987, The
chronology of fluctuating sea level since the Triassic:
Science, v. 235, p. 1156 1167.
Haq, B. U., J. Hardenbol, and P. R. Vail, 1988, Mesozoic
and Cenozoic chronostratigraphy and eustatic cycles,
in C. K. Wilgus, B. S. Hastings, C. G. St. C. Kendall,
H. W. Posamentier, C. A. Ross, and J. C. Van Wagoner,
eds., Sea-level changes: An integrated approach: SEPM
Hodell, D. A., P. A. Mueller, and J. R. Garrido, 1991, Variations in the strontium isotopic composition of seawater during the Neogene: Geology, v. 19, p. 24 27.
Hoffmeister, J. E., K. W. Stockman, and H. G. Multer,
1967, Miami Limestone of Florida and its recent
Bahamian counterpart: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 78, p. 175 190.
Hoffmeister, J. E., and H. G. Multer, 1968, Geology and
origin of the Florida Keys: Geological Society of
America Bulletin, v. 79, p. 1487 1502.
Holmes, A. E., and N. Christie-Blick, 1993, Origin of sedimentary cycles in mixed carbonate-siliciclastic systems: An example from the Canning Basin, Western
Australia, in R. G. Loucks and J. F. Sarg, eds., Carbonate sequence stratigraphy, recent developments
and applications: AAPG Memoir 57, p. 181 212.
James, N. P., 1997, The cool-water carbonate depositional
realm, in N. P. James and J. A. D. Clarke, eds., Coolwater carbonates: SEPM Special Publication 56, p. 1
20.
Kane, B. C., 1984, Origin of the Grandin Sands (PlioPleistocene), western Putnam County, Florida: M.S.
thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, 85 p.
Kenter, J. A. M., R. N. Ginsburg, and S. R. Troelstra, 2001,
Sea-level driven sedimentation patterns on the slope
and margin, in R. N. Ginsburg, ed., Subsurface geology
of a prograding carbonate platform margin, Great
Bahama Bank: Results of the Bahamas Drilling Project:
SEPM Special Publication 70, p. 61 100.
King Jr., D. T., and H. S. Chafetz, 1983, Tidal-flat to
shallow-shelf deposits in the Cap Mountain Limestone Member of the Riley Formation, upper Cambrian of central Texas: Journal of Sedimentary
Petrology, v. 53, p. 261 273.
Lomando, A. J., and T. L. Walker, 1991, Wamba field,
Peoples Republic of Angola, a Cenomanian mixed
carbonate-siliciclastic reservoir, in A. J. Lomando and
P. M. Harris, eds., Mixed carbonate-siliciclastic
Mazzullo, J., A. Malicse, and J. Siegel, 1991, Facies and
depositional environments of the Shattuck Sandstone on the northwest shelf of the Permian Basin:
Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 61, p. 940 958.
McKinney, M. L., 1984, Suwannee Channel of the
Paleogene coastal plain: Support for the carbonate
suppression model of basin formation: Geology,
v. 12, p. 343 345.
McNeill, D. F., A. G. Coates, A. F. Budd, and P. F. Borne,
2000, Stratigraphy of late Neogene Caribbean reefs
and siliciclastics: A coastal emergence record of the
Isthmus of Panama: Geological Society of America
Bulletin, v. 112, p. 963 981.
McNeill, D. F., G. P. Eberli, B. H. Lidz, P. K. Swart, and
J. A. M. Kenter, 2001, Chronostratigraphy of prograding carbonate platform margins: A record of sea-level
changes and dynamic slope sedimentation, western
Great Bahama Bank, in R. N. Ginsburg, ed., Subsurface
geology of a prograding carbonate platform margin,
Great Bahama Bank: Results of the Bahamas Drilling
Project: SEPM Special Publication 70, p. 101 134.
Melim, L. A., 1996, Limitations on lowstand meteoric
diagenesis in the Pliocene Pleistocene of Florida and
Great Bahama Bank: Implications for eustatic sealevel models: Geology, v. 24, p. 893 896.
Meyer, F. O., 1989, Siliciclastic influence on Mesozoic
platform development: Baltimore Canyon Trough,
western Atlantic, in P. Crevello, J. L. Wilson, J. F.
Sarg, and J. F. Read, eds., Controls on carbonate
platform and basin development: SEPM Special
Publication 44, p. 211 232.
Mutti, M., and J. A. Simo, 1993, Stratigraphic patterns
and cycle-related diagenesis of upper Yates Formation, Permian, Guadalupe Mountains, in R. G. Loucks
and J. F. Sarg, eds., Carbonate sequence stratigraphy,
recent developments and applications: AAPG Memoir 57, p. 515 534.
Oslick, J. S., K. G. Miller, M. D. Feigenson, and J. D.
Wright, 1994, Oligocene Miocene strontium isotopes: Stratigraphic revisions and correlations to an
inferred glacioeustatic record: Paleoceanography,
v. 9, p. 427 443.
Perkins, R. D., 1977, Depositional framework of Pleistocene rocks in south Florida, in P. Enos and R. D.
Perkins, eds., Quaternary sedimentation in south
Florida: Geological Society of America Memoir 147,
p. 131 198.
Pirkle, E. C., W. H. Yoho, and A. T. Allen, 1964, Origin of
the silica sand deposits of the Lake Wales Ridge area
of Florida: Economic Geology, v. 59, p. 1107 1139.
Playford, P. E., N. F. Hurley, C. Kerans, and M. F.
Middleton, 1989, Reefal platform development, Devonian of the Canning Basin, Western Australia, in
P. Crevello, J. L. Wilson, J. F. Sarg, and J. F. Read, eds.,
Controls on carbonate platform and basin development: SEPM Special Publication 44, p. 187 202.
Puri, H. S., and R. O. Vernon, 1964, Summary of the
geology of Florida and a guidebook to the classic
exposures: Florida Geological Survey Special Publication 5, 312 p.
Roberts, H. H., and S. P. Murray, 1988, Gulf of the
northern Red Sea: Depositional setting of abrupt
siliciclastic-carbonate transitions, in L. J. Doyle and

H. H. Roberts, eds., Carbonate-clastic transitions:
Amsterdam, Elsevier, p. 99 142.
Santisteban, C., and C. Taberner, 1988, Sedimentary models of siliciclastic deposits and coral reef interrelation, in L. J. Doyle and H. H. Roberts, eds., Carbonateclastic transitions: Amsterdam, Elsevier, p. 35 76.
Schlager, W., 1989, Drowning unconformities on carbonate platforms, in P. Crevello, J. L. Wilson, J. F. Sarg,
and J. F. Read, eds., Controls on carbonate platform
and basin development: SEPM Special Publication 44,
p. 15 25.
Schlager, W., and O. Camber, 1986, Submarine slope
angles, drowning unconformities, and self-erosion of
limestone escarpments: Geology, v. 14, p. 762 765.
Scott, T. M., 1988, The lithostratigraphy of the Hawthorn
Group (Miocene) of Florida: Florida Geological
Survey Bulletin 59, 148 p.
Shinn, E. A., B. H. Lidz, J. L. Kindinger, J. H. Hudson, and
R. B. Halley, 1989, Reefs of Florida and the Dry
Tortugas, a guide to the modern carbonate environments of the Florida Keys and the Dry Tortugas: Field
Trip Guidebook T176 for the 28th International
Geological Congress, Washington, D.C., American
Geophysical Union, 55 p.
Simo, A., 1989, Upper Cretaceous platform-to-basin
depositional-sequence development, Tremp Basin,
south-central Pyrenees, Spain, in P. Crevello, J. L.
Wilson, J. F. Sarg, and J. F. Read, eds., Controls on
carbonate platform and basin development: SEPM
Smosna, R., and D. G. Patchen, 1991, Ordovician limestone and shale in the central Appalachian Basin:
Early sedimentary response to plate collision, in A. J.
Lomando and P. M. Harris, eds., Mixed carbonatesiliciclastic sequences: SEPM Core Workshop v. 15,
p. 485 509.
Southgate, P. N., J. M. Kennard, M. J. Jackson, P. E. OBrien,
and M. J. Sexton, 1993, Reciprocal lowstand clastic
and highstand carbonate sedimentation, subsurface
Devonian reef complex, Canning Basin, Western
Australia, in R. G. Loucks and J. F. Sarg, eds., Carbonate
sequence stratigraphy, recent developments and
applications: AAPG Memoir 57, p. 157 179.
Stanley, S. M., 1966, Paleoecology and diagenesis of Key
Largo Limestone, Florida: AAPG Bulletin, v. 50,
p. 1927 1947.
Van Wagoner, J. C., R. M. Mitchum, K. M. Campion, and
V. D. Rahmanian, 1990, Siliciclastic sequence stratigraphy in well logs, cores, and outcrops: Concepts for
high-resolution correlation of time and facies: AAPG
Methods in Exploration Series 7, 55 p.
Vaughan, T. W., 1910, A contribution to the geologic
history of the Floridian Plateau: Papers from the
Tortugas Laboratory, v. IV: Carnegie Institution of
Washington Special Publication 133, p. 99 185.
Warzeski, E. R., K. J. Cunningham, R. N. Ginsburg, J. B.
Anderson, and Z.-D. Ding, 1996, A Neogene mixed
siliciclastic and carbonate foundation for the Quaternary carbonate shelf, Florida Keys: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 66, p. 788 800.
43

Chapter 2 AAPG

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Chapter 2 AAPG

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

2

McNeill, D. F., K. J. Cunningham, L. A. Guertin, and F. S. Anselmetti, 2004,

Depositional Themes of Mixed

Current affiliation: U.S. Geological Survey, Miami, Florida, U.S.A.

Platform/Ramp: Smothered by Siliciclastics? in this Neogene example, we recognize a

REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING

Depositional Themes of Mixed Carbonate-siliciclastics in the South Florida Neogene

tion can contain as much as several percent quartz sand

of fine-grained skeletal limestone with minor amounts

likely were transported by shallow currents flowing out

Depositional Themes of Mixed Carbonate-siliciclastics in the South Florida Neogene

and Miami (oolitic sand) Formations. These well-studied,

borings. Warzeski et al. (1996) proposed that a trend of

FIGURE 3. Gamma-ray, mineralogic, and formational

Concept of Template Control on Both

occupy paleotopographic highs often related to earlier

Distal Transport of Coarse Clastics

Depositional Themes of Mixed Carbonate-siliciclastics in the South Florida Neogene

duction of fluvial sand

Depositional Themes of Mixed Carbonate-siliciclastics in the South Florida Neogene

ically, these current-driven and prograding deposits

FIGURE 6. (A) Coarse quartz-sand and gravel from a piece

FIGURE 7. Miocene paleogeographic reconstruction of

Depositional Themes of Mixed Carbonate-siliciclastics in the South Florida Neogene

boundary of the Arcadia is replaced by a thin layer of

The Mixing Transition: Abrupt Vertical

The lateral transition of carbonate to siliciclastics

mixing migrated back and forth

Depositional Themes of Mixed Carbonate-siliciclastics in the South Florida Neogene

Depositional Themes of Mixed Carbonate-siliciclastics in the South Florida Neogene

FIGURE 13. Core photograph of the early Pliocene TB3.3

are not uncommon but are less widely documented

of deposition, albeit with not only sand-sized material,

selectively removed from the siliciclastics during the

Depositional Themes of Mixed Carbonate-siliciclastics in the South Florida Neogene

the Florida example. Thus, it was difficult to image the

relatively abrupt, lateral lithofacies changes that can

Depositional Themes of Mixed Carbonate-siliciclastics in the South Florida Neogene

the Yates Formation, Permian Basin, in A. J. Lomando

R. N. Ginsburg, P. K. Swart, and L. A. Melim, 2001,

Depositional Themes of Mixed Carbonate-siliciclastics in the South Florida Neogene

siliciclastic-carbonate transitions, in L. J. Doyle and

Anda mungkin juga menyukai