179Journal of Petroleum Geology, Vol. 27(2), April 2004, pp 179 - 190

.

DEPOSITIONAL HISTORY AND SEQUENCESTRATIGRAPHY OF OUTCROPPING TERTIARYCARBONATES IN THE JAHRUM AND ASMARIFORMATIONS, SHIRAZ AREA (SW IRAN)

M. Nadjafi*, A. Mahboubi*, R. Moussavi-Harami*+ and R. Mirzaee*

The Oligo-Miocene Asmari Formation is one of the most important petroleum reservoir units inthe Zagros Basin of south and SW Iran. It mainly consists of limestones and dolomitic limestoneswith interbedded shales, together with a few intervals of sandstone and gypsum assigned to theAhwaz and Kalhur Members, respectively. The Asmari Formation rests on the thin-bedded limestonesof the Jahrum Formation (Paleocene-Eocene). In this paper, we report on the lithofacies characteristicsof these two formations using data from three measured outcrop sections near Shiraz in SW Iran.From field and petrographic data, we have identified four major lithofacies and twelve subfacieswhich are interpreted to have been deposited in open-marine, shoal, lagoon and tidal flat settings.

We show that the Asmari and Jahrum Formations constitute two separate depositional sequenceswhich are separated by a thin palaeosol, representing a type-one sequence boundary which canbe correlated with global curves of relative sea-level. Each depositional sequence is composed ofmany metre-scale shallowing-upward parasequences. This is the first time that the Asmari andJahrum Formations have been differentiated in the study area. We hope that this study will lead toa better understanding of the Asmari Formation in the subsurface in other parts of the ZagrosBasin.

*Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, FerdowsiUniversity of Mashhad, Mashhad 91775-1436, Iran.

*+corresponding author, email: Harami@science1.um.ac.ir

INTRODUCTION

Several thousand metres of carbonate, siliciclastic andevaporite sediments were deposited in the ZagrosBasin of south and SW Iran from Cambrian throughQuaternary time (James and Wynd, 1965; Motiei,1993). These sediments are folded into simple parallelanticlines and synclines whose structural significancehas been studied by numerous researchers (e.g. Alavi,1980, 1994; Berberian and King, 1981; Sengor, 1984;Talbot and Alavi, 1996; Hessami et al., 2001a and b).This study focuses on Tertiary carbonates assigned tothe Jahrum (Paleocene-Eocene) and Asmari (Oligo-Miocene) Formations which are exposed in the Shirazarea of Interior Fars Province, SW Iran. The AsmariFormation is one of the most important reservoir unitsin the Zagros Basin but has not been studied in detailbefore at this locality. Based on petrographicobservations, we interpret the depositional history of

the Jahrum and Asmari Formations and identify theirprecise stratigraphic relationship in a sequencestratigraphic context. This study may help todifferentiate these two units elsewhere in thesubsurface.

At its type locality at Tang-e-Bal in the north flankof the Jahrum Mountains (Motiei, 1993), the JahrumFormation consists of 468m of dolomite and dolomiticlimestones which are overlain with an unconformableand erosional contact by the Asmari Formation.Beneath the Jahrum Formation are the evaporites ofthe Sachun Formation (Motiei, 1993). The AsmariFormation consists at its type locality in the AsmariMountains to the SW of Masjed-Solaiman and NE ofHaftgel (Motiei, 1993) of 314m of limestones withinterbedded shales. The Asmari Formation is overlainthere by the evaporites (mainly gypsum) of theGachsaran Formation, and rests on the shellylimestones of the Pabdeh Formation. In the Shirazarea, the Asmari Formation is overlain by the RazakFormation and is underlain by the Jahrum Formation,from which it has not hitherto been differentiated (Fig.1).

180 Jahrum and Asmari Formations, SW Iran

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three stratigraphic sections near Shiraz (at Dodaj,Sarvestan and Sadra: Fig. 2) were measured anddescribed, and some 258 thin sections were preparedand stained with Alizarin Red S (Dickson, 1966).Carbonate rocks were classified following Dunham(1962). Depositional processes were interpreted fromthe presence of skeletal and non-skeletal components,sedimentary structures, rock textures and bedcontinuity (Wilson, 1975; Flugel, 1982; Carozzi,1989; Einsele, 2000; Tucker, 2001). Depositionalsequences were differentiated based on the field andthin section studies.

RESULTS:STRATIGRAPHY AND LITHOFACIES

Measured stratigraphic logs of the Asmari and JahrumFormations at the Dodaj, Sarvestan and Sadralocalitites are illustrated in Fig. 3. At Dodaj (Fig. 3b),the Asmari Formation is 34m thick and consists ofthin-bedded, grey to buff limestones containingforaminifera such as Peneroplis thamasi, Archaias sp.and Austrotrillina sp. The Jahrum Formation is 180mthick and consists of grey to green, thin- to medium-bedded limestones and dolomitic limestones. The twoformations are separated by a 10cm palaeosol horizon(Fig. 4). This is a yellow-brown pedogenic zonecontaining iron-oxide nodules. Neither verticalzonation nor complete pedogenic transformation ofthe primary sediments were observed in the palaeosol.The palaeosol was not present at the Sarvestan andSadra sections and pinches out laterally from theDodaj area towards the SE and NW. This suggeststhat the study area may have been exposed for a longperiod of time and that the palaeosol was reworkedduring a subsequent marine transgression.

The Asmari Formation also pinches out laterallyto the SE and NW and was not recorded at Sarvestanor Sadra (Fig. 3a,c). At these localities, the JahrumFormation is composed of limestones and dolomiticlimestones with thicknesses of 250m and 160m,respectively.

Lithofacies characteristicsOn the basis of petrographic and field observations,four major lithofacies (A, B, C and D) and twelvesubfacies were recognised in the Jahrum and AsmariFormation carbonates (Fig. 3). These are describedbriefly below.The general depositional environment is interpretedto have been a shallow-marine carbonate shelf, withdepositional conditions ranging from relatively open-marine (lithofacies A) to supratidal flats (lithofaciesD).

Lithofacies ALithofacies A is thinly bedded and dark grey atoutcrop. Based on the abundance of pelagicforaminifera, the lithofacies can be divided intosubfacies A1, a pelagic foraminiferal packstone; andsubfacies A2, a pelagic foraminiferal wackestone(Plate 1a and b: page 186). Skeletal grains aredominated by planktonic foraminifera such asGlobigerina and Globorotalia, present both incomplete form and as fragments.

Lithofacies BLithofacies B is medium-bedded, light tan to light greyin colour at outcrop, and characterized by cross-bedding and cross-lamination. The lithofacies can bedivided into subfacies B1 (a bioclast grainstone) andB2, an intraclast grainstone (Plate 1c and d).

Subfacies B1 includes diverse marine biotaincluding echinoderms, foraminifera and brachiopods,together with benthic foraminifera such as Milliolidea.Subfacies B2 is characterized by an abundance ofskeletal grains with micrite envelopes, and by thepresence of medium crystals of sparry calcite whichfill entire void spaces. Intraclasts are generally micriticand are subangular to subrounded. They range in sizefrom 0.5 to 1.3mm.

In both subfacies, the original intergranular porespaces appear to have been destroyed as a result ofearly compaction and the precipitation of medium-crystalline sparry calcite cement which fills porespaces in skeletal and non-skeletal allochems.

Lithofacies CAt outcrop, this lithofacies is characterized by variablybut thinly laminated beds which are green to grey andlight tan in colour. It is composed of five subfacies --C1, C2, C3, C4 and C5.

Subfacies C1 (Plate 1e) is an intraclast peloidalgrainstone containing peloids and 1mm intraclastswhose abundance ranges from 15-18%.

Subfacies C2 is a bioclast peloidal grainstone(Plate 1f) containing peloids and benthic foraminiferasuch as Coskinolina, Alsania and Biloculina, as wellas scattered marine fauna such as echinoderms.Interparticle porosity is filled by fine to very finelycrystalline sparry calcite. In some cases, syntaxialovergrowth rim cement encloses the echinodermgrains.

Subfacies C3, a bioclast peloidal wackestone-packstone (Plate 2a), is similar to C2 but is mudsupported rather than grain supported.

Benthic foraminifera are less abundant in subfaciesC4 (Plate 2b), a dolomitized benthic foraminiferalwackestone. The bioclasts are scattered in a mud-supported fabric. Allochems and orthochems arevariably dolomitized; this process has completely

181M. Nadjafi et al.

Fig. 2. Location maps of the Shiraz area in SW Iran; map at left shows the location of the measuredstratigraphic sections at Dodaj, Sadra and Sarvestan.

Fig. 1. General stratigraphic column for the Tertiary interval in the Shiraz area of SW Iran (modified fromJames and Wynd, 1965).

182 Jahrum and Asmari Formations, SW Iran

Fig. 3. Measured logs at the Sadra (A), Dodaj (B) and Sarvestan (C) outcrop sections.

destroyed the internal structures of some bioclasts,while in other cases, the internal structures is preservedby finely crystalline replacive dolomite.

Subfacies C5 (Plate 2c) is a dolo-peloidalgrainstone which is characterized by an absence ofskeletal grains and an abundance of peloids.Hypidiotopic and idiotopic fine crystals of dolomiteare also abundant in this subfacies.

Lithofacies DThis lithofacies can be divided into subfacies D1, D2and D3. Subfacies D1 (Plate 2d), a dolo-peloidalwackestone, is dominated by peloids with fine crystalsof dolomite, minor evaporite minerals (gypsum andanhydrite) with fenestral vugs. Subfacies D2 (Plate

2e), a mudstone, is composed of lime mud with about10% fine crystals of dolomite. Subfacies D3 (Plate2f) is an algal stromatolite boundstone and consistsof irregular algal laminae with minor peloids in a limemud matrix. In some samples, fenestrate fabrics arepresent and are filled with sparry calcite.

Interpretation: Depositional HistoryFrom the above observations and by comparison withother published models (e.g. Wilson, 1975; Flugel,1982; Vecsei and Sanders, 1999; Spencer and Tucker,1999; El Gadi and Brookfield, 1999; Nichols, 1999;Tucker, 2001), we interpret the Jahrum and AsmariFormation carbonates in the study area to have beendeposited on a shallow-marine carbonate shelf.

183M. Nadjafi et al.

The abundance of lime mud and planktonicforaminifera in lithofacies A together with its thinly-bedded form suggest that it was deposited in low-energy open-marine conditions. The greaterabundance of pelagic fauna in subfacies A1 suggeststhat it was deposited in relatively deeper waters thansubfacies A2.

Lithofacies B is mud-free and is cross-beddedand cross-laminated; i t contains a diverseassemblage of marine and lagoonal fauna. Weinterpret it to have been deposited in a high-energyshoal or bar setting.

The abundance of peloids and Milliolids inlithofacies C together with the mud-supported fabricsuggests that this lithofacies was deposited in arestricted or semi-restricted lagoonal environment.The presence of coarse intraclasts, composed of limemud and scattered Milliolidae in subfacies C1 showthat it was probably deposited in relatively higher-energy conditions, perhaps near a bar or barrier. Inlithofacies D, the absence of skeletal debris togetherwith the mud-supported fabric and the algal-laminatedboundstone suggest that it was deposited in asupratidal setting. The presence of anhydrite andgypsum together with finely crystalline dolomites arealso evidence for deposition in an upper tidal-flatenvironment.

Our palaeogeographic reconstructions (Fig. 5)suggest that during the Paleocene, the Shiraz area wasthe site of red-bed and evaporite deposition (Sachun

Formation) in a semi-restricted to continentalenvironment, marine waters having retreated to thesouth. A marine transgression then occurred duringthe Lower to Middle Eocene and a carbonate platformwas established in the Interior Fars area (JahrumFormation). During the following marine regression,the platform was exposed to erosion and a thinpalaeosol formed on top of the Jahrum Formation. Asecond transgression occurred in Oligo-Miocene timeresulting in deposition of the Asmari Formation onthe top of the palaeosol in the Shiraz area (only aroundthe Dodaj area). Correlation of the three measuredsections (Fig. 6) shows that eastern and westernportions of the study area may have been exposed fora long period of time; therefore, only a thin intervalof the Asmari Formation was deposited in the Dodajarea, while the Sadra and Sarvestan areas were sitesof erosion. With reference to the biostratigraphic workof James and Wynd (1965), we suggest that the Dodajarea was exposed from the Middle Eocene to theOligocene, while the Sadra and Sarvestan areas wereexposed for a longer period, between the MiddleEocene and the Miocene.

SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY

Sequence stratigraphy developed from aconsideration of stratal geometries as expressed onseismic section (e.g. Vail et al., 1984). Idealized andempirical models for carbonate sequence stratigraphy

Fig. 4. Field photograph of the palaeosol at the Dodaj section. The yellow-brown colour is due to scatterediron oxide nodules.

184 Jahrum and Asmari Formations, SW Iran

Fig. 5. Block diagrams showing the deposition of the Jahrum Formation (I), the formation of the palaeosol(II), and the deposition of Asmari Formation (III) in the Shiraz area. For sea-level fluctuations, see Fig. 7.Letters show lithofacies, and A, B, and C are the location of the measured sections.

have been expanded for example by Sarg, 1988; Haq,1991; Handford and Loucks, 1993; Emery andMeyers, 1996; and Einsele, 2000. Many studies haveattempted to apply carbonate sequence stratigraphyto outcrop and petrographic observations (e.g.Mahboubi et al., 2001). The present study focuses onthe internal architecture of depositional sequences,with particular emphasis on the lateral and verticalstacking patterns within a systems tract framework.

The carbonates of the Jahrum and AsmariFormations in the Dodaj area can be divided into two

depositional sequences (DS1 and DS2) which arebounded below by a type one sequence boundary(SB1) (Fig. 7). At the other two outcrop sections (Sadraand Sarvestan), only the Jahrum Formation is exposedand therefore only one depositional sequence couldbe identified. Each depositional sequence can besubdivided into lowstand, transgressive and highstandsystems tracts based on the nature of the boundingsurfaces, the stratal geometries and the position withinthe overall sequence. The systems tracts in all thesections are described below, but since the clearest

185M. Nadjafi et al.

exposure of the Jahrum and Asmai Formations is atDodaj, our interpretation of the relative sea levelchanges refers mainly to this locality.

Lowstand Systems TractLowstand systems tract sediments were depositedduring intervals when the platform top was subaeriallyexposed. Semi-restricted to continental evaporites ofthe Sachun Formation, which are present at all threestudied localities, together with the paleosol observedin the Dodaj section, are typical lowstand deposits.These were formed at a type one sequence boundary(SB1) sensu Haq et al. (1987).

Transgressive Systems TractThe transgressive systems tract (TST) can be definedas the deposits which occur during shorelinetransgression, commonly occurring during intervalsof rapid relative sea-level rise.

At the Dodaj section, TST deposits in DS1 areapproximately 45m thick, whereas those in DS2 areabout 21m thick. The transgressive systems tract isrecognized in DS1 by the presence of the dolo-foramwackestone subfacies (lithofacies C) which weredeposited under lagoonal conditions. Dolomitizationhas destroyed some of the primary fabrics in thislithofacies, so the depositional environment was

Fig. 6. Correlation of the measured sections at Sadra, Dodaj and Sarvestan. Datum line is the base of theJahrum Formation.

186 Jahrum and Asmari Formations, SW Iran

Plate 1. Photomicrographs of lithofacies A, B and C (all PPL):

a. Pelagic foraminiferal packstone (A1).b. Pelagic foraminiferal wackestone (A2). Note that A2 has a looser packing than A1.c. Bioclast grainstone (B1). This lithofacies was deposited in a high energy shoal environment and includesbenthic and pelagic biota.d. Intraclast grainstone (B2); intraclasts are mainly composed of micrite but peloids are also present (right).e. Intraclast peloidal grainstone (C1). The presence of coarse intraclasts indicates deposition in a lagoon nearto a bar.f. Bioclast peloidal grainstone (C2). This subfacies contains benthic foraminifera (milliolidae) and peloids whichindicate deposition in a semi-restricted lagoon.

187M. Nadjafi et al.

Plate 2. Photomicrographs of lagoonal and tidal flat subfacies.

a. Bioclast peloidal wackestone-packstone (C3). Peloids and benthic foraminifera are abundant in thislithofacies indicating deposition in low energy conditions.b. Dolomitized benthic foraminiferal wackestone (C4) stained by Alizarin Red S. Replacive dolomite crystalsare present and are colourless in this photomicrograph.c. Dolo-peloidal grainstone (C5). This sample is also stained. Dolomite crystals are larger than in subfacies C4.d. Dolo-peloidal wackestone (D1). Fine crystals of dolomite with abundant peloids indicate that this subfacieswas deposited in a tidal flat setting.e. Mudstone (D2) containing scattered skeletal allochems.f. Boundstone with algal lamination (D3), deposited in a tidal flat setting.

188 Jahrum and Asmari Formations, SW Iran

interpreted from the presence of skeletal debris suchas Milliolids.

The maximum flooding surface in DS1 isrepresented by subfacies A1. Along the outcrop belt,we recognized the transgressive systems tract by thepresence of grey dolomitic limestones which areinterbedded with thin beds of grey dolomite. Note thatthe coarsely-crystalline dolomites have replacedcalcite during burial as indicated by the ghosts ofbioclasts, and did not therefore form near the surface.The transgressive systems tract in DS2 begins with adolo peloidal wackestone subfacies and is boundedwith a pelagic foraminiferal wackestone subfaciesrepresenting the maximum flooding surface. In theSadra section (Fig. 3a), the TST is about 69m thickand begins with a dolo foram wackestone. Themaximum flooding surface at this locality isrepresented by a pelagic wackestone. In the Sarvestansection (Fig. 3c), the TST is about 59m thick andbegins with a dolo foram wackestone (see Fig. 3c);the maximum transgression is indicated by a shoalbioclastic grainstone.

Highstand Systems TractHighstand systems tract deposits are laid down duringintervals of slowing relative sea level rise and formplatform-top deposits. In the Dodaj section, aninterpreted highstand systems tract is observed tooverlie the transgressive systems tract. In the firstdepositional sequence at Dodaj (DS1), we divided thehighstand systems tract into early and late HSTintervals based on biofacies characteristics. Faciesdeposited during the early highstand are mainlycomposed of foraminifera such as Alveolinids andMilliolids, whereas late-stage HST deposits containforaminifera such as Nummulites.

The highstand systems tract in DS1 occurred duringthe last stages of eustatic sea-level rise (i.e. a still-stand) and is composed of approximately metre-scaleshallowing-upward units. These parasequencesfrequently pass vertically up from shoal subfacies(intraclast and bioclast grainstones) to lagoonal andtidal-flat subfacies (C and D). These incompleteshallowing-up cycles occur several times in thissuccession with an overall thickness of 140m in DS1.

The thickness of highstand systems tract depositsin DS2 is less than that in DS1 (13m). Aftertransgression and a second still-stand, sea level beganto fall again and repeated small-scale shallowing-upward HST cycles developed comprising open-marine deposits (subfacies A2) to shoal deposits(subfacies B1) and finally lagoonal and tidal-flatlithofacies (subfacies C and D).

At outcrop, HST deposits in DS1 are characterizedby grey cliff-forming limestones and dolomiticlimestones which are bounded above by a palaeosol.

Highstand systems tract deposits in DS2 are recognizedby their similar colour and lithologic characteristics.In the Sadra section, the HST is 180m thick and iscomposed of many shallowing-upwardparasequences. At this locality, the lower part of theHST consists of shoal to lagoonal facies (Facies Band C), while the upper part of this shallowingparasequence is composed of lagoonal to supratidalfacies (Facies C and D: see Fig. 3a). At Sarvestan, theHST is about 100m thick and consists of shallowing-upward parasequences that were deposited in a tidalflat setting (Facies D). These carbonate sediments areoverlain by the fluvial siliciclastics of the RazakFormation.

Sea Level ChangesWe interpreted relative sea-level changes within theJahrum and Asmari Formations in the study area byconsidering sediment types to result from shiftingdepositional facies and subaerial exposure. As shownin Fig. 7 and described above, these two formationscan be divided into two depositional sequences. Thelower sequence (DS1), equivalent to the JahrumFormation, ranges from Paleocene to Middle Eocenein age. Although the precise extent of this unit isuncertain, we can relate it to part of the third-ordercycle of Duval et al. (1992). The upper sequence (DS2= Asmari Formation), which is Oligo-Miocene, is alsorelated to a third-order cycle but was deposited in ashorter period of time than DS1. In addition, eachdepositional sequence is composed of a number ofmetre-scale parasequences, as described above.

The sea-level curve of Haq et al. (1987) for thePaleogene shows numerous small-scale fluctuationsbut no significant long-term trend until after the EarlyOligocene. Major sea-level rises during this periodoccurred in the late Thanetian, early Ypresian, earlyLutetian and early Rupelian, while major falls tookplace in the mid-Thanetian, at the Ypresian-Lutetianboundary, the Bartonian-Priabonian boundary and theRupelian-Chattian boundary. At Dodaj, the Jahrumand Asmari Formations are separated by a palaeosolindicating a long period of exposure. This sequenceboundary can be correlated with a major sea-level fall(Haq et al., 1987) at the Rupelian-Chattian boundary.Within each depositional sequence, we recognized manysmall-scale shallowing-up parasequences with thicknessranging from 1.5 to 11m. These parasequences weredeposited in an open-marine to tidal-flat facies belt andrepresent both complete and incomplete cycles, of whichtwenty are present in the Jahrum and Asmari Formationsuccession. We interpret these small-scale cycles to resultfrom regional-scale influences such as sedimentaryloading and tectonically-driven subsidence which createdthe accommodation space for the deposition of thecarbonates.

189M. Nadjafi et al.

Fig. 7. Lithostratigraphy and depositional cycles interpreted at the Dodaj locality. Depositional sequences,sequence boundaries and system tracts are also shown. Note that the sequence boundary between DS1 andDS2 in the study area is consistent with the falling sea level on the Haq et al. (1987) curve (right-hand column).

CONCLUSIONS

The Asmari and underlying Jahrum Formations inSW Iran are composed of four lithofacies (and twelvesubfacies) reflecting open-marine (A), shoal (B), semi-restricted (C) and tidal flat (D) depositionalenvironments. In the Shiraz area, these two units canbe differentiated in terms of sequence stratigraphy anddepositional history, and two depositional sequencescan be recognized (DS1 and DS2). A thin palaeosolseparates the lower sequence (DS1, equivalent to theJahrum Formation) from the overlying DS2 (AsmariFormation).

Changes in relative sea-level between thePaleocene and the Oligo-Miocene have tentativelybeen identified based on our field and petrographicdata. A major sea-level fall at the Eocene-Oligoceneboundary is consistent with that described by otherworkers world-wide; minor differences in the seal-level curve are probably related to regional factorssuch as tectonism.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the Geology Department, MashhadUniversity, for supporting fieldwork and thin-section

190 Jahrum and Asmari Formations, SW Iran

preparation. We acknowledge financial support by theoffice of the Vice-President of Research, MashhadUniversity. Journal reviewers John Warren and Fransvan Buchem made constructive comments on aprevious version which are acknowledged. We thankP. Mansouri- Daneshvar for drafting the figures.

REFERENCES

ALAVI, M., 1980. Tectonostratigraphic evolution of theZagrosides of Iran. Geology, 8, 144-149.

ALAVI, M., 1994. Tectonics of the Zagros Orogenic Belt ofIran: new data and interpretation. Tectonophysics, 229, 211-238.

BERBERIAN, M. and KING, G.C.P., 1981. Towards apaleogeographic and tectonic evolution of Iran. CanadianJournal of Earth Science, 18, 210-265.

CARROZZI, A.R., 1989. Carbonate Rocks Depositional Models:A Microfacies Approach. Prentice-Hall, London, 604p.

DICKSON, J.A.D., 1966. Carbonate identification and genesisas revealed by staining. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 36,491-505.

DUNHAM, R.J., 1962. Classification of carbonate rocksaccording to depositional texture. In: W.E. HAM (Ed.),Classification of Carbonate Rocks. AAPG Memoir, 1, 108-121.

DUVEL, B., CRAMEZ, C. and VAIL, P.R., 1992. Types andhierarchy of stratigraphic cycles (Abstract). In: Proceedingof Mesozoic and Cenozoic Sequence Stratigraphy ofEuropean Basins. International Symposium, CentreNational de la Recherche Scientifique, pp. 44-45.

EINSELE, G., 2000. Sedimentary Basins; Evolution, Facies andSediment Budget. Springer-Verlag, 792p.

EL GADI, M.S.M. and BROOKFIELD, M.E., 1999. Opencarbonate ramp facies, microfacies and paleoenvironmentsof the Gramme Formation (Maastrichtian), Pernambuco-Paraiba Basin, northeastern Brazil. Journal of South AmericanEarth Sciences, 12, 411-433.

EMERY, D. and MYERS, K., 1996. Sequence Stratigraphy, Oxford,Blackwell Science, 297p.

FLUGEL, E., 1982. Microfacies Analysis of Limestone. Springer-Verlag, NY, 633pp.

HANDFORD, C.R. and LOUCKS, R.G., 1993. Carbonatedepositional sequences and systems tracts-responses ofcarbonate platforms to relative sea level changes. In: R.G.LOUCKS and J.F. SARG (Eds.), Carbonate sequencestratigraphy – Recent developments and applications. AAPGMemoir 57, 3-41.

HAQ, B.H., 1991. Sequence stratigraphy, sea-level change, andsignificance for the deep sea. Special Publication International

Association of Sedimentology, 12, 3-39.HAQ, B.H., HARDENBOL, L. and VAIL, P.R., 1987. Chronology

of fluctuating sea levels since the Triassic. Science, 235, 1156-1167.

HESSAMI, K., KOYI, H.A. and TALBOT, C.J., 2001a. Thesignificance of strike-slip faulting in the basement of theZagros fold and thrust belt. Journal of Petroleum Geology,24(1), 5-28.

HESSAMI, K., KOYI, H.A., TALBOT, C.J., TABASI, H. andSHABANIAN, E., 2001b. Progressive unconformities withinan evolving foreland fold-thrust belt, Zagros Mountains.Journal Geological Society of London, 158, 969-981.

JAMES, G.A. and WYND, J.G., 1965. Stratigraphic nomenclatureof Iranian oil consortium agreement area. AAPG Bulletin,49, 2182-2245.

MAHBOUBI, A., MOUSSAVI-HARAMI, R., LASEMI, Y. andBRENNER, R.L., 2001. Sequence stratigraphy and sea levelhistory of the Upper Paleocene strata in the Kopet-Daghbasin, northeastern Iran. AAPG Bulletin, 85 (5), 839-859.

MOTIEI, H., 1993. Geology of Iran: Stratigraphy of Zagros.Geological Survey of Iran.

NICOLS, G.R., 1999. Sedimentology and Stratigraphy, BlackwellScience Ltd., 355p.

SARG, J.F., 1988. Carbonate sequence stratigraphy. In: C.K.WILGUS, B. HASTINGS, C. G. St. C. KENDALL, H.W.POSAMENTIER, C.A. ROSS and J.C. VAN WAGONER(Eds.), Sea Level Changes: An Integrated Approach, SEPMSpecial Publication 42, 155-181.

SENGOR, A.M.C., 1984. The Cimmeride orogenic system andthe tectonic of Eurasia. Geological Society of America, SpecialPaper 195.

SPENCER, G.H. and TUCKER, M.E., 1999. Modeling carbonatemicrofacies in the context of high-frequency dynamicrelative sea-level and environmental changes, Journal ofSedimentary Research, 69B (4), 947-961.

TALBOT, G.J. and ALAVI, M., 1996. The past of a future syntaxisacross the Zagros. In: G.I. ALSOP, D.J. BLUNDELL and I.DAVISON (Eds.), Salt Tectonics. Special PublicationGeological Society of London, 100, 89-109.

TUCKER, M.E., 2001. Sedimentary Petrology, Blackwell Science,262p.

VAIL, P.R., HARDENBOL, J. and TODD, G., 1984. Jurassicunconformities, chronostratigraphy and sea level changesfrom seismic stratigraphy and biostratigraphy. In: J.S. Scholle(Ed.), Inter-regional Unconformities and HydrocarbonAccumulation. AAPG Memoir 36, 129-144.

VECSEI, A. and SANDERS, D.G.K., 1999. Facies analysis andsequence stratigraphy of a Miocene warm-temperatecarbonate-ramp, Montagna Della Maiella, Italy, SedimentaryGeology, 123, 103-127.

WILSON, J.L., 1975. Carbonate facies in geologic history,Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 471p.