See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/249549852

Facies characteristics and depositional models of highly

bioturbated shallow marine siliciclastic strata: An example
from the Fulmar Formation (Late Juras....

Article  in  Geological Society London Special Publications · January 1996

DOI: 10.1144/GSL.SP.1996.114.01.09

CITATIONS READS
80 686

1 author:

Stuart Gowland
Petrostrat Ltd
14 PUBLICATIONS   628 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Highly bioturbated shallow-marine reservoirs View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Stuart Gowland on 12 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Facies characteristics and depositional models of highly bioturbated
shallow marine siliciclastic strata: an example from the Fulmar
Formation (Late Jurassic), UK Central Graben
STUART GOWLAND
Ichron Limited, 16 Dalby Court, Gadbrook Business Centre, Rudheath, Northwich,
Cheshire, CW9 7TN, UK

Abstract: An extensive core database from the Late Jurassic Fulmar Formation illustrates
the practicalities of facies analysis and depositional modelling in highly bioturbated,
heterolithic, shallow marine siliciclastic strata. Twelve major sedimentary facies (1-12) are
defined on the basis of lithology, grain size, visually estimated sand-silt content and the
presence or absence of primary sedimentary structures. Ichnofabric characteristics are also
defined and have proved to be not always facies specific. For purposes of depositional
modelling the 12 facies types are resolved into six facies associations (A-F), each
representative of distinct shoreline/shallow marine environments. From these associations
three broad depositional models have been constructed: storm-influencedshoreface (model
1), bioturbated shoreface (model 2) and a speculative bioturbated shelf model (model 3).
Stratigraphical and palaeontological criteria suggest that models 1 and 2 are shoreline-
attached; sedimentological data indicate that they occur as end-members to a spectrum of
shoreline settings constrained by incident wave energy 'bands'. For shorefaces subject to
significant storm influence, well-preserved event beds occur seaward of the upper
shoreface. In the bioturbated shoreface model, however, the lower shoreface and adjacent
shelf deposits are characterized by intense infaunal reworking. The bioturbated shelf model
displays no clear evidence of shoreline connection, with the resultant facies often exhibiting
highly abundant siliceous sponge spicules, together with other open marine indicators such
as belemnites and rare ammonites. Unlike the shoreface sand bodies, which received
sediment from basin-margin fluvial systems, shelf sand bodies in the Fulmar Formation are
more likely to have been intrabasinally sourced along relay ramps or other forms of transfer
zone. This sediment may have undergone a long transit/residence period on the shelf prior
to eventual burial in hanging-wall depocentres strongly influenced by Zechstein salt
withdrawal.
This study demonstrates that an ichnofabric approach (as opposed to one of simple
ichnodiversity) is highly significant with respect to the description and modelling of highly
bioturbated shallow marine siliciclastic strata. In the Fulmar formation, ichnofabric analysis
is capable of providing sensitive information on fluctuations in depositional energy levels,
water depth, sedimentation rates, erosion rates, substrate consistency and dissolved oxygen
levels. Evidence of these fluctuations is often apparent at intra-facies scale, but would
largely go unnoticed using a conventional sedimentological approach to data gathering,
based on ichnodiversity at best. Depositionally significant changes in ichnofabric may occur
without any significant change in ichnodiversity. Ichnofabric analysis also plays an
important role in the hierarchical assessment of key stratal surfaces for purposes of
sequence stratigraphic modelling.

Over the past three decades many workers have
developed sedimentary facies schemes for allu-
vial, deltaic and relatively deep marine siliciclas-
tic systems. Based mainly on stratification styles
and bounding surface characteristics (rather
than facies sensu stricto) advances have also
been made in the description and interpretation
of aeolian sediments. Much less attention,
however, has focused on the detailed analysis of
highly bioturbated, shallow marine siliciclastic
strata, particularly those of a heterolithic (mixed
sand-silt) composition. This situation probably
prevails for two main reasons: (1) the highly
restricted preservation of diagnostic primary
sedimentary structures, and (2) a general lack of
expertise in trace fossil analysis amongst sedi-

From Hurst, A. et al. (eds), 1996, Geology of the Humber Group: CentralGrabenand Moray Firth, UKCS, 185
Geological Society Special Publication No. 114, pp. 185-214.
186 S. GOWLAND

KEY

Uplifted and eroded Jurassic highe

Largely slable Jurassic platfo,'ma

Weakly deformed marginal laull blocks

1-3 Sandstone-dormnated Late Jutssslc

successions here assigned generally
to the Fulmar Formalion
1 'Lower Fuimar Member' of Oonovan et e l (1993)

% 2
3
Puflin Formation of Price e t el

'UpperFulmar Member' of Donovan

(1993)
at e1.(1993)

(4 'Angus Sands' of Hall 1992 which contatn

elements with strong 'Fulmar' affinities)
-!1-- Extensional fault
Post-Jurassic inversion fault
ArE Argyll Embeyment
AnE Angus Embeymenl
GN Grensen Nose
O Dogger High
M Mendel

57"N

c,y~ ~ , ,

Angus:
t
MIO NORTH SEA HIGH J
- ~ ~~29 30 1 ,;E
Fig. 1. Late Jurassic structural configuration of the North Sea Central Graben as defined by Roberts et al.
(1990), but also including structural information from Hall (1992). Field areas and other areas for which
published stratigraphical data exists for the Fulmar Formation are highlighted.

mentologists. The last three years have seen an
increasing application of trace fossil concepts
(derived from the study of animal-sediment
relationships) to subsurface facies analysis and
sequence stratigraphy (Pemberton 1992; Taylor
& Goldring 1993). Increasingly, petroleum
exploration companies are recognizing the use
of ichnology in stratigraphic correlation and
reservoir prediction. Despite this progress,
however, there is still a dearth of published
subsurface examples of facies analysis in highly
bioturbated, shallow marine siliciclastic suc-
cessions. This paper provides such an example,
based upon core-derived data from a North Sea
Late Jurassic interval of continuing economic
importance to the oil sector: the Fulmar For-
mation.
Geological setting of the Fulmar Formation
The Fulmar Formation of the North Sea Central
Graben constitutes the main producing interval
in a number of oil fields, including the Fulmar,
Clyde and Kittiwake fields (Johnson e t a l . 1986;
Stevens & Wallis 1991; Stockbridge & Gray
1991; Glennie & Armstrong 1991) (Fig. 1). It
also constitutes a secondary reservoir elsewhere
in the Central Graben (e.g. within the Gannet
Cluster) and is still the focus of considerable
exploration interest. Comprising highly biotur-
bated sandstones and siltstones of shallow
marine origin (Johnson e t a l . 1986), the for-
mation may exceed 1000ft in thickness (Stock-
bridge & Gray 1991) and may occur at depths in
excess of 18 000 ft (TVSS).
 FACIES & DEPOSITIONAL MODELS, FULMAR FM. 187

Fig. 2. Stratigraphical summary of the topmost Triassic - Base Cretaceous interval in the UK Central Graben.
Note those sandstone dominated successions (1-3) which for the purposes of this paper are assigned to the
Fulmar Formation. (1) Lower Fulmar Member of Donovan et al. (1993); (2) Puffin Formation of Price et al.
(1993); (3) Upper Fulmar Member of Donovan et al. (1993); (4) 'Angus' sands of UK blocks 31/21 and 31/26a
(Hall 1992) which, in addition to comprising turbidity current deposits, display shallow-marine intervals with
strong 'Fulmar' affinities.

T h e lithostratigraphic f r a m e w o r k of the Cen- contentious; the spatial and t e m p o r a l distri-

tral G r a b e n Late Jurassic succession remains bution of the Fulmar F o r m a t i o n , and the
188 S. GOWLAND
sub-division of the formation itself, is still open
to question (see the collection of papers in
Parker 1993). In this paper the term Fulmar
Formation is used in its original and broadest
sense (cf. Johnson & Stewart 1985). It describes
dominantly shallow marine siliciclastic strata of
Oxfordian-Kimmeridgian age (although Do-
novan et al. 1993 also record Callovian strata)
typified by high levels of bioturbation and
showing a distinct assemblage of sedimentary
facies.
The Fulmar Formation was deposited along
the western flank of the North Sea Central
Graben in a complex basinal setting attributed to
the interplay between Late Jurassic structural
extension and differential salt withdrawal
(Zechstein evaporites) at depth (Roberts et al.
1990). The extensional regime produced a series
of predominantly ENE-dipping tilted fault
blocks bounded by faults striking NNW-SSE
(Fig. 1). This configuration resulted in a complex
topography of linked sub-basins and intrabasinal
highs which exerted a profound control upon
sites of sediment accumulation (Hodgson et al.
1992). Deposition occurred in sub-basins in-
variably floored by Triassic (Smith Bank and
Skagerrak Formations) or Middle Jurassic
(Pentland and Rattray Formations) strata (Fig.
2). A Triassic sediment source is envisaged,
derived mainly from the Western Platform but
with local contributions from intrabasinal struc-
tural elements (e.g. Forties-Montrose High and
Josephine Ridge). The precise mode of sedi-
ment input to the basin margins is uncertain,
although a number of unreleased wells show
evidence of broadly contemporaneous coastal
plain development. According to Roberts et al.
(1990), the good correspondence between sites
of sand deposition and the location of transfer
zones between active fault strands, suggests that
these zones could have acted as conduits for
fluvial feeder systems. By analogy, they may also
have acted as conduits for large volumes of
shallow marine sediment undergoing reworking
in intrabasinal areas.
Typical Fulmar Formation deposits occur in
the form of large-scale coarsening-upward suc-
cessions evolving from siltstone into fine-
medium-grained sandstone. Up to 180 m thick,
and with sequence-stratigraphic attributes
ranging from discrete parasequences to more
complex, composite sequence sets, these inter-
vals indicate basin-fill through a combination of
progradation and aggradation, punctuated by
periods of marine flooding. Sand body develop-
ment occurred against a background of coeval
shelf mud deposition represented by the
Heather and Kimmeridge Clay Formations.
Despite the prominence of the coarsening-
upward motif, fining-upward retrogradational
intervals are also recognized and attributed to a
steady increase in the creation of accommo-
dation space through time. This latter form of
development is most commonly developed at
the top of the Fulmar Formation, where it
reflects the failure of sediment input rates to
counteract the effects of Late Jurassic eustatic
sea-level rise.
A significant aspect of the Fulmar Formation
is that certain intervals contain abundant sili-
ceous sponge spicules referable to the genus
Rhaxella. Locally, these spicules are the domi-
nant rock-forming component, giving rise to
true spiculites. Abundant Rhaxella spicules
suggest a strong open-marine influence during
deposition. In broadly time-equivalent deposits
in the UK, for example the Corallian beds of
Yorkshire and Dorset, spicules occur in cal-
careous sandstones, micritic carbonates, oolites
and coral beds, all of which contain ammonites
(Hemingway 1974; Fiirsich 1976; Sellwood 1978;
Wright 1986).
High concentrations of siliceous sponge spi-
cules have important implications for reservoir
quality as a result of the inherent instability of
biogenic silica. Easily dissolved, this silica
component may locally reprecipitate in the form
of nodular chert cements characterized by high
microporosity and low permeability (Stevens &
Wallis 1991).
Sedimentary facies characteristics
At first glance, a typical core through the Fulmar
Formation appears to comprise a monotonous
assemblage of bioturbated, heterolithic, sand-
silt deposits showing little in the way of building
blocks necessary for facies characterization.
More detailed study usually reveals some varia-
bility within the cored section, notably subtle
associations of grain size, silt/clay content, trace
fossil types, ichnofabric development and, oc-
casionally, primary sedimentary structures. Ich-
nofabric characterization (Ekdale & Bromley
1983) is of particular significance in that it
provides a powerful insight into all aspects of
infaunal reworking, including bioturbation in-
tensity, ichnodiversity, burrow ordering, bur-
row orientation and tier development (Taylor &
Goldring 1993). This study also demonstrates
that changes in ichnofabric (and therefore
bioturbation history) may occur without any
significant change in ichnodiversity.
Detailed evaluation of over 30 000 ft of Ful-
mar Formation core (taken from seventy-five
wells over UK North Sea Licence Quads 21, 22,
 F A C I E S & D E P O S I T I O N A L M O P D E L S , F U L M A R FM. 189

29 and 30), shows that the succession comprises

twelve main sedimentary facies types (Fig. 3).
These facies types are designated on the basis of
",~ lithology, grain size, visually estimated sand-silt
content and the presence or absence of specific
primary sedimentary structures. Mud-
o .~ dominated deposits (facies 1-3) grade into
b, 'clean' bioturbated sandstone (facies 11) via a
continuum of heterolithic sand-silt deposits
(facies 4, 5 and 6). Facies 7, 8 and 9 retain well
o e,
defined primary sedimentary structures, whilst
massive sandstones comprise facies 10. A range
of pebbly deposits is also recognized (facies 12).
The most distinctive feature of the Fulmar
Formation is that over 95% of recovered
,t=
sand-dominated sections comprise high biotur-
bated deposits (facies 4, 5, 6 and 11). A detailed
E account of these 12 facies types is presented in
the Appendix.
o= "~
Facies associations
The 12 sedimentary facies types recognized (Figs
o ~ ~
3-6; Appendix) can be grouped into six broad
facies associations (A-F: Table 1). These associ-
ations represent distinct shoreface and shallow
marine shelf environments distinguished by
lithology, grain size, silt/clay content, primary
sedimentary structures, siliceous sponge spicule
Z .~o o abundance and the degree and form of biogenic
reworking. The characteristics of these associ-
ations are discussed below as a prelude to a
section modelling sand body development.
",~
Facies association A (upper shoreface) rep-
~ ~.~ resents the highest energy facies belt. It is
~ ~ < relatively rare, accounting for less than 5% of
most recovered sections. Where present, it
invariably defines the upper parts of medium- to
large-scale coarsening-upward successions (Figs
.,~
~-~o 7 & 8), or appears in the middle parts of more
symmetrical coarsening- to fining-upward de-
velopments. Two factors account for its under-
--7 representation in the sedimentary record: (i)
t'---
relatively low preservation potential and (ii) the
fact that certain sand-prone depocentres were
clearly located beyond the progradational
maxima of this, the highest energy facies belt.
Facies association A records the deposition of
belts of 'clean', moderately to well sorted sand
ranging from fine to very coarse sand grade.
b Vigorous wave and current activity is indicated
~'~ o by the range of primary sedimentary structures
E
present, the paucity of detrital silt and also the
trace fossil assemblage. The presence of hori-
zontal stratification, low-angle planar cross-
o~ x..,, stratification, combined flow ripple cross-
lamination, and occasional swaley laminae-sets
190 S. G O W L A N D

++_+,..~
' ++ ' ~'
+:::
-
++:.
"
+.+ ,o_
|=_"
,+
i:+
:o+
"-
+P' ++ j++++- P'
_o,
+,
= g--~ E g = :.~ + E ; p +.;
-o~. i~o -
-,..
. = ,., ~+ -':'+
,+-= .++ ~
..++ "~"
.-, ~o!
_ =_ .-"~ p '+
.., -~m --'o+
_-
o= +~.. +m P '~
. -. !~'~ -_ -~o ~o . ~ - . ~-"
"~
=:,,, ~ ~.~ ~.~ io,,, ..p,= = . +-~
en
. . . . -~ +++ ,,, + . + ..

1+ 1+ +.+ o~ ++ j++ ~i _+ -'-+ ++~ - :-+

.=,
~o
0~
9 +o....
+o+ .- 3..>,
+,, :o+ i++
>>,
~" ~0~+ !"++ = =._.+
,.++
=oo
"0= o v~
>.= _m+' ++=~ ~ o o~ -=c
~.c,
~e
~-o
~
. . . .
~m
~ = c> =
'~_~ ++
.mo ".,o
~,~
>,
. .
-v, .-, ,,+
~-,m
'- +m o.
. . +i
+~
g-~
~0~. o
'
o~

"-+- ~+ +o+ ~+
-_~

- _:.1 -
o=
~
''
.
o=o=
.-'=
--
,,~

=..'-'
._,' =c:
o -"~
+. ."~|
| ._
.=c . '"~~:|E~ '"- .~+,
-OP--,+ ~"~ "' ~ ' + + i -- a-'o' '+~- ~i '~or~E.' -I' ~o E+ o>,'
'nO~" o"+r~, + +'o'+|

' . . ,

+ +~- ,,+
o..
'+ ,"+"~ ++-
-.+~
. ",+o
~ o-~. + , +,++E
,.~. .~+ +_~o' ,Aii ,'.~ ++
+,
',+.
~ .".+ .~:,"

. o _ ',. es m

cm .,: ,.._ I~~ ;,~, --

~~,.'.' ~ ' ->. . . ,-1=
u ~m
.~ ~ 0
- oE_O> E .~c
9o ~ . - -.-, co= o . , c ,.~ -
,~, ~ ~. .-"+o+- ~:+o"
0) u '~-
++"-o_,=+,
s . z: "~176
_.++_+ +,~
J j , ,

. ' +t
,..., ,,, g ~
~1 +.~ .+ 9 .~ ~ o
o, ~, !~ -. ,-
+ + _
ii,- ,0 ~176 ..~
,oc=
,. +,.~ ~ .
,
: ~ .-- ~ o s o1..-. .,,-
; 1 ~ ,I. ~'~ ~~ ==~ .~.~ ,r <

i0 I,,,1~

i: + i'~)= ..
] ~lo, "~ "~
- _L +_]~,.0_~-. ~ - fmq~,
9 - '~'0' "'"'" I ..,'-'.,r.'.' ".',.'..'-'.'.'.'.'.1 "-'.'.'.'.'-" 9. . . . . .'.'. : i ll,~,J

-' : ~tiLi~ ~:,.i"!iii~!~i~i~

" ~i~i~i~iiiiii
..... "....iiiii~iiiiiii
"" "~i~i~]iii::ii~ ~i~ i~]iii]i i]ili:~!i~ii~!i~:i::~]i:~
..................... " ~
9
I
9I.
. I . I I, '"'""."
. , . r , 1,1,1,1,1,1,1
. I . 1 . 1 . 1 ~
- + +~i.'.i~ :::::::::....~........"....... .:+~:.?:~::::::::::t::-b..:~~:zil~l~'z41~ilil,,

Fig. 3. Sedimentary facies nomenclature for Fulmar Formation strata.

 FACIES & DEPOSITIONAL MODELS, FULMAR FM. 191

KEY TO SEDIMENTARY LOGS AND FACIES MODELS

LITHOLOGY BIOGENIC STRUCTURES

Sandstone ,JL, Asterosoma/ Phoebichnus

Chondrites
Siltstone
Helminthopsis horizontalis
~ Heterolithics .... Macaronichnus segregatis

~ Sandstone with Ophiomorpha

clay/silt <<5%
Palaeophycus

o Coarse sand-granL~les ==, Planolites

Pebbles ===, P/anolites (cf. montanus )

~, Sandstone Siphonichnus
o Siltstone/claystone
Skolithos

M Mica U Teichichnus rectus

G Glauconite Teichichnus zigzag (well-defined)

~.-.~ Teichichnus zigzag (diffuse)

o Prominent nodular
chert cements c:= Terebellina

Thalassinoides
== Zoophycos
PRIMARY SEDIMENTARY STRUCTURES \~, General burrow mottling

Horizontal lamination 9:. Silty faecal pellets

Parallel lamination/low-
angle cross-stratification
BIOTA
Trough cross-stratification
~I In situ deep-burrowing bivalves
Dune-scale bedforms 9-- Bivalves

Ripple-scale bedforms Gastropods

%%% Siliceous sponge spicules
,~=== Hummocky cross-stratification
<> Serpulids
..,==:>
Ripple forms, lenses and pinstripes ,X Crinoid/echinoderm remains
!.====..
in heterolithic lithologies
.,~ Ammonites

BIOTURBATION INDEX .,==--- Belemnites

--~ Fine plant debris
O. No bioturbation
Coarse plant debris
:1. Occasional burrows
2. Bioturbated; bedding dominant ~- Rootlets
3. Bioturbated; bioturbation dominant
4. No primary structures evident
192 S. G O W L A N D
 FACIES & DEPOSITIONAL MODELS, FULMAR FM. 193

(subfacies 7a, 7b and facies 8) reflects fluctu-
ations in wave climate ranging from fairweather
to storm magnitude (Harms et al. 1975; Leckie &
Walker 1982; McCubbin 1982). Medium-scale
angle-of-repose cross-stratification (facies 9)
records the migration of sinuous-crested dunes
in shallow water. Some examples of this stratifi-
cation type may have developed in a channelised
environment, for example ephemeral rip-
current cells or the mouths of tidally influenced
distributary channels. Other significant sedi-
mentological features are winnowed lags of
pebble to granule grade (intraclasts and re-
worked Triassic clasts; facies 12) and shell
veneers composed of convex-upward bivalves.
Bioturbation (Table 2) is largely restricted to
non-diagnostic burrow mottles (ichnofabric D;
Table 3) together with Ophiomorpha, Thalassi-
noides, Skolithos and Planolites. Ophiomorpha
nodosa is the most prominent trace fossil, with
the traces tending to become fewer, larger and
showing better developed shafts with increasing
grain size (ichnofabric Or). A well established
deposit-feeing community would appear to have
been precluded by the restricted organic content
of the sediment, itself a function of vigorous
wave climate.
The above sedimentological and ichnological
characteristics compare favourably with those
reported from the upper shoreface zone of
beach--offshore profiles developed along present
day intermediate-high wave energy coasts
(Reineck 1976; Howard & Reineck 1981; Num-
medal & Penland 1981; Short 1984). Given the
rather limited wave fetch across the narrow
Central Graben it is considered unlikely that the
'Fulmar' coastline was ever a high energy shore
(i.e. characterized by high average incident
wave energy; McCubbin 1982). An intermediate
wave energy setting is thus preferred.
Certain examples of facies association A
display abundant siliceous sponge spicules. A
speculative model (model 3) for the deposition
of these spicule-rich deposits in a more open
shelf environment is presented in a subsequent
section.
Facies association B (storm-influenced lower
shoreface/offshore transition zone) is of even
more restricted occurrence than facies associ-
ation A. However, it shows good development
in the Kimmeridgian deposits of the Clyde Field
(block 30/17b) where it occurs below the main
hydrocarbon-producing horizon. The associ-
ation usually comprises coarsening-upward/
thickening-upward sandstone packages (parase-
quences; Van Wagoner et al. 1990) up to 12.0 m
thick, developed against a background of highly
bioturbated heterolithic deposits (facies associ-
ations D and E) (Fig. 9). Locally it is observed
passing upwards into facies association A.
In the lower parts of the parasequences
sandstones are represented by thin (<10cm)
very fine-grained beds exhibiting horizontal
lamination and wave ripple cross-lamination
(subfacies 7a and 7b). Occasionally, these
appear as distinct laminated-bioturbated
couplets interbedded with biogenically re-
worked heterolithic sand-silt deposits (facies 4).
The sandstone beds thicken upwards (to 10-
30 cm) and display a combination of hummocky
cross-stratification and horizontal lamination
attributed to storm activity (Harms et al. 1975;
Dott & Bourgeois 1982; Duke 1985). Ulti-
mately, these sandstones pass upwards into
fine-medium grained sandstones belonging

Fig. 4. (a) Rare example of facies 1 which is here present to a thickness of only 0.15 ft (defined by arrows). It
comprises Chondrites-bioturbated calcareous silty claystone and passes transitionally into adjacent silty
sandstones/sandy siltstones assigned to facies 4. The latter have been thoroughly reworked by Helminthopsis
horizontalis (ichnofabric H). (b) Typical example of an argillaceous siltstone referable to facies 2. Relict
stratification is defined by fluctuations in the abundance of subordinate quartzose silt and very fine sand. The
ichnofabric comprises prominent Terebellina burrows (T) developed against a diffuse background of
Chondrites (C) and H. horizontalis (H) (ichnofabrics C and H-C2). (c) Facies 3 argillaceous siltstone showing
well-developed millimetre-scale pinstripes of coarse quartzose silt and very fine sand. Note the low incidence of
bioturbation; infaunal reworking is confined to sporadic non-diagnostic burrow mottles (M) (ichnofabric D).
(d) Highly bioturbated sandy siltstone/silty very fine grained sandstone referable to facies 4. The bulk of the
ichnofabric comprises H. horizontalis with subordinate Chondrites (H-C), although Terebellina (T) and a
longitudinal section through a large Teichichnus zigzag burrow (Tz) are also present (ichnofabric H-C1). (e)
Typical example of facies 5 in the form of a highly bioturbated, silty and micaceous, moderately to well-sorted
very fine-grained sandstone (dip of bedding approximately 45~ The ichnofabric is dominated by a mosaic of
large Teichichnus zigzag burrows (Tz), the spreiten of which are enhanced to varying degrees by drapes
composed of dark grey silt and/or mica (ichnofabric Tz). (f) Less silty and micaceous example of facies 5 in
which T. zigzag burrows are much more diffuse, many having been reworked by a later generation of silt-filled
Helminthopsis/Chondrites. An inclined Teichichnus rectus burrow (Tr) is also apparent (ichnofabric Tz). (Scale
bars in metric feet).
194 S. GOWLAND
 FACIES & DEPOSITIONAL MODELS, FULMAR FM. 195

to facies association A. Carbonaceous debris is indicated by laminated-bioturbated couplets

found in the majority of examples.
A range of ichnofabrics is recognised in facies
association B, controlled by substrate character-
istics and hence depositional energy levels.
Sandy siltstones and silty sandstones present in
the lower parts of the parasequences (facies 4)
display Teichichnus (T. rectus and T. zigzag),
Thalassinoides, Helminthopsis horizontalis,
Chondrites, Palaeophycus, Planolites and As-
terosoma/Phoebichnus. H-CI, H-C2 and Tz are
the dominant ichnofabrics (Fig. 4d). In contrast,
the overlying storm-emplaced sandstones
display Ophiomorpha, Thalassinoides, Palaeo-
phycus, Skolithos and non-diagnostic burrow-
mottling within ichnofabrics Oh, Ov, T-S and D
(Figs 5e and 6a; Table 3).
Facies association B reflects the progradation
of storm-influenced lower shoreface belts into a
muddy shelf environment. Thin sandstones
interbedded with bioturbated sandy siltstones in
the lower parts of the parasequences are
considered typical of the offshore transition
zone. The succeeding sandstone beds, which are
characterized by hummocky cross-stratification
and show a marked tendency to amalgamate, are
the product of vigorous combined flows over the
lower shoreface during major storm events.
Facies association C (bioturbated lower shore-
face) is of widespread occurrence and commonly
the highest energy facies association present.
Dominated by highly bioturbated, moderately
to well sorted, slightly silty sandstones (facies 6),
it reflects deposition within fairweather wave
base. Fine sand predominates, with very fine and
medium to very coarse sand units recognized
locally (Fig. 10). Occasional event beds are
(subfacies 7a and 7b) and by centimetre- to
lower decimetre-scale beds defined by fluctu-
ations in grain size and/or silt content. Periods of
elevated wave and current energy are also
indicated by granule/pebble lags, shell coquinas
and relict medium-scale cross-stratification at-
tributed to pulsed subaqueous dune migration
(facies 9).
Ichnotaxa recorded include Ophiomorpha
nodosa, Macaronichnus segregatis, Skolithos,
Planolites, Siphonichnus, Thalassinoides, and
diffuse Teichichnus zigzag. Where the detrital
silt content is only 1-2% a highly mottled
Ophiomorpha-Macaronichnus ichnofabric is
frequently developed (ichnofabric O-M; Table
3; Fig. 5a). With increasing silt content (3-5%)
the ichnofabric develops a strong horizontal
component dominated by Ophiomorpha galler-
ies, but possibly including Macaronichnus, Pla-
nolites, Siphonichnus, and diffuse T. zigzag
(ichnofabric Oh; Table 3). Deep-tier reworking
by the Ophiomorpha producing crustacean is
probably the main reason for the limited
preservation of sedimentary structures. Omis-
sion surface colonisation is sometimes clearly
indicated by a local overprint of Thalassinoides
and/or Skolithos (ichnofabric T-S; Table 3;
Taylor & Gawthorpe 1993).
The remains of bivalves and occasional crin-
oids and serpulids form the bulk of the shelly
component. In the majority of bivalves primary
aragonitic shell layers have been replaced by
thin clay films. These films are commonly
misidentified as burrow-walls, sometimes result-
ing in major under-estimation of the skeletal
content of the original sediment. Some thick
coquinas (1.0-2.0 m), however, contain thick-

Fig. 5. (a) Typical example of facies 6 in the form of a highly bioturbated, slightly silty, moderately to well
sorted very fine to fine grained sandstone. The ichnofabric comprises Ophiomorpha (0), Macaronichnus (M)
and Thalassinoides(Th) (ichnofabric O-M). (b) Further example of facies 6, this time showing nodular chert
cementation attributed to the remobilisation of biogenic silica derived from siliceous sponge spicules. The
white patches are spicule-rich burrow-fills accumulated through the passive infiltration of burrow networks
open to the sea-floor (possibly Thalassinoides). (c) Photomicrograph of a well-sorted fine-grained sandstone
referable to facies 6 which is of feldspathic arenite composition (dark minerals are k-feldspar grains). In
monochrome view porosity resolution is poor, but petrographic observations indicate a 'clean' well connected
pore network bounded by syntaxial quartz and epitaxial k-feldspar overgrowths (modal porosity 11.0%; helium
porosity 22.20%; horizontal permeability 265 mD). (Scale bar in microns). PPL. (d) Photomicrograph of a
facies 6 example rich in siliceous sponge spicules. Spicules show both spherical Rhaxella and numerous elongate
monaxon elements, many of which have been leached out of the rock fabric. The vast bulk of the sample is
cemented by microporous chert cements (C) which reduce the horizontal permeability to negligible
proportions. (Scale bar in microns). PPL. (e) An example of facies 7 in the form of a sharp-based very fine
grained sandstone unit. Above a sharp erosive base the bed exhibits horizontal lamination (after removal of
tectonic dip/well deviation) throughout and may be assigned to subfacies 7a. Note the diffuse Skolithos burrows
(S) perforating the top of the bed. The bed is underlain by facies 2 sandy siltstones and overlain by silty very
fine grained sandstones referable to facies 5. (Scale bars in metric feet).
196 S. G O W L A N D
 FACIES & DEPOSITIONAL MODELS, FULMAR FM. 197

shelled calcitic oysters assigned to the genus
Ostrea. In common with facies association A
some examples of association C contain massive
volumes of siliceous sponge spicules. As pre-
viously indicated, such examples are not easily
assigned to a lower shoreface setting and may
need to be viewed within a more open shelf
environment.
Facies association D (distal lower shoreface/
proximal offshore transition) is dominated by
highly bioturbated, micaceous, moderately to
well sorted very fine- to fine-grained sandstones
(facies 5). A detrital silt content of around
5-20% indicates periods of reduced current
activity during which fines settled out of suspen-
sion and were subsequently incorporated into
the sediment by an active infauna. The preser-
vation of only occasional event beds (facies 7)
reflects low rates of deposition whilst rare
examples of hummocky cross-stratification in-
dicate deposition above storm wave base. More
protracted periods of seabed quiescence are
indicated by cm-scale sandy siltstones (facies 4).
High levels of bioturbation are reflected in a
diverse ichnofauna: Teichichnus (both T. zigzag
and T. rectus), Palaeophycus, Thalassinoides,
Ophiomorpha, Skolithos, Asterosoma/
Phoebichnus, Planolites, Siphonichnus, Chon-
dries (sand- and silt-filled forms) and Hel-
minthopsis horizontalis. The most prominent
ichnofabric comprises large superimposed
spreiten-bearing traces assigned to T. zigzag,
supplemented by Planolites montanus and H.
horizontalis (Bromley 1990) (ichnofabric Tz;
Table 3; Fig. 4e and f). Since no primary
stratification is retained this Teichichnus-
dominated ichnofabric clearly reflects reworking
by a highly active deposit feeding community.
The shelly fauna present compares with that
found in facies association C, although discrete
shell beds tend to be much less common,
probably due to reduced current winnowing.
Since facies association D may grade con-
formably into association C it was clearly
deposited in an adjacent facies belt. With the
exception of spicule-rich examples, a distal
lower shoreface/proximal offshore transition
zone setting is considered appropriate. Sand
grade sediment is likely to have been derived
from the contemporaneous upper shoreface
during storm events and bioturbated during
intervening fairweather periods. Time-averaged
rates of sedimentation were clearly low as
indicated by the restricted preservation of event
beds.
Facies association E (offshore transition) is
conformable with facies association D in vertical
succession, confirming deposition in an adjacent
facies belt (Figs 7, 9, 10 and 11). It is strongly
heterolithic in nature; highly bioturbated, mi-
caceous silty sandstones and sandy siltstones
prevail (facies 4). Detrital silt content is around
20-60%. Within this heterolithic assemblage
relict centimetre to lower decimetre-scale fining-
upward units indicate the biogenic reworking of
thin sand-silt couplets emplaced by storm ac-
tivity. Rare sandstone event beds (facies 7)
exhibiting horizontal lamination or hummocky
cross-stratification reinforce this interpretation.
Thin siltstone beds (facies 2) reflect periods of
very much reduced current energy.
Ichnodiversity in facies association E com-
pares with that found in association D. How-
ever, changes in both substrate characteristics
(i.e. sand-silt ratio) and depositional history
(deposition v. erosion or hiatus) often result in
new ichnofabrics. The 'cleaner' examples of
facies 4 are texturally gradational with facies 5
and therefore commonly display the same T.
zigzag dominated ichnofabric (ichnofabric Tz;

Fig. 6. (a) Subfacies 7b developed in the form of a fining-upward laminated-bioturbated couplet. Hummocky
cross-stratified fine grained sandstones pass upwards into horizontally laminated, micaceous very fine-grained
sandstones and, ultimately, into silty sandstones bioturbated by Thalassinoides(Th). (b) Example of facies 8
comprising moderately to well sorted fine grained sandstone and showing prominent horizontal/low-angle
stratification (after removal of tectonic dip/well deviation). Note the absence of bioturbation in this example.
(c) Facies 9 represented by moderately sorted, fine-grained sandstones characterized by medium-scale trough
cross-stratification attributed to the migration of sinuous-crested subaqueous dunes. Note the prominent
vertical Ophiomorpha burrows (ichnofabric Ov). (d) Structurally massive, moderately sorted, fine- to
medium-grained sandstone assigned to facies 10. (e) Example of facies 11 as developed in moderately to
well-sorted fine-grained sandstone. Note the relatively 'clean' nature of the sandstone; silt is present only in the
form of Ophiomorpha wall-linings (O) and as disseminated faecal pellets. Inclined silt-filled fractures occur in
the lower part of the field of view (F). (f) Subfacies 12b comprising a matrix of moderately sorted, fine-grained
sandstone, with sporadic light grey claystone pebbles (P), numerous granules of dark grey siltstone (G) and
coarse abraded shelly debris (S). The bulk of the silt component is a replacement of leached bivalve shells, a
number of which show a convex-upward orientation (B). (Scale bars in metric feet).
198 S. GOWLAND

GRAINSIZE & ~ A R Y
o GR 1so STRt.K;TtJ:ES
DEPOSITIONAL.
! ' i I i E N ~
140 DT 40
c m,f f st,

II~,lM=e

UPPER
SHOREFACE

LOWER
SHOREFACE

DISTAL LOWER
SHOREFACE/
OFFSHORE
TRANSITION

OFFSHORE
TRANSITION
~dino surface

Fig. 7. Parasequence reflecting the progradation of a sandy shoreface system characterized by relatively weak
storm influence and high levels of bioturbation seaward of the upper shoreface (model 2).

Table 3). However, with a reduction in sand
content (to around 60-70%) the T. zigzag fabric
is often replaced by one dominated by H.
horizontalis and Chondrites (mainly silt-filled-
forms) (ichnofabric H-C1; Table 3; Fig. 4d). A
further reduction in sand content (to around
40-60%) sees a denser Helminthopsis and
Chondrites fabric disrupted by a combination of
T. rectus, Zoophycos and, locally, Terebellina
(ichnofabric H-C2; Table 3). Cross-cutting re-
lationships suggest that Helminthopsis was pro-
duced at a shallow depth in the sediment.
 FACIES & DEPOSITIONAL MODELS, FULMAR FM. 199

"

o GR DEPOSITIONAL
E N ~
~4o BCSL 0

Ol 2 34
~ c c m t f st c

1!,
I i |

5 D
9:.::.:::.::::,
:: i:::;ii! i: iil Oh R~
~ ~,~ " ~ : ~
[-~-~-:~..".-~'.
...-..............

......... n ~.~,::== .- . --~ ,,: . "".:.;,:.:.'.'.;,:.:.'/=s

. . . . . . . . . ":i~ LOWER SHOREFACE
.....................
9 T.s- t ~.:~.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.:.:.:, 7_~=~,~,,,,

6 t Oh I "-'- ~ --~='.'.'.'~'.'.'.~M, 10

~T-S- 9 "--~=~ " " " '"" -- F ~ .,,a..,

!
I
I
^ ~: o-,, ~ ~ : - : ~ 1 SHOREFACE
i :: ~ ~ - - " ".':::::::I DUNE FIELD
::i:: ~::::::::::::I (May include some
i!i: ~ "~':.'.::'." 9 - " "~
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'."
tidaly influenced
o .

|
""""'"'"""'"" 3o interaction)
I
::::::::::::::::::::::
I
~ < ~-~ :::::::::::::::::::::
I : O-M

1 ! 440

9 . . :?!

. . . . . ~ . - ........ . . . . . . ...:. i LOWER

6 C ::: ' ' ~.:-./-~, - ".._~" L'""'""'"'"'"':'I~ - so SHOREFACE

~ ~ o~,. .
-:----
~,~.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
~ . ..

' I
Fig. 8. Relatively rare example of a physically stratified upper shoreface succession indicating deposition in the
form of subaqueous sinuous-crested dunes. The sharp base of the upper shoreface package may be viewed as a
candidate sequence boundary (model 2).

Indeed, a further ichnofabric is one comprising siltstones (facies 3) and, locally, silty claystones
only pervasive Helminthopsis, suggesting the (facies 1) (Fig. 11). Waning storm-generated
colonisation of thin (centimetre-scale) event flows and hemipelagic 'fall-out' were probably
beds in a highly opportunistic manner (ichno- responsible for the bulk of deposition. However,
fabric H; Table 3). low density turbidity currents may also have
Shelly faunas present include the remains of been active during the latter stages of Fulmar
bivalves, serpulids, crinoids, locally common deposition; they almost certainly prevailed dur-
belemnites and rare ammonites. Some examples ing deposition of texturally similar muds in the
are rich in siliceous sponge spicules. Facies lower parts of the Heather and Kimmeridge
association E is indicative of the offshore Clay Formations.
transition zone, with storm-induced currents the Mud deposition occurred well below mean
main agent of deposition. storm wave base, although the presence of sandy
siltstones (facies 2 and 4), silty sandstones (facies
Facies association F (muddy offshore shelf) is at 4 and 5) and thinly bedded sandstones (subfacies
the lower end of the depositional energy 7a and 7c) indicates that bottom currents
gradient, dominated as it is by dark grey occasionally transported sand grade sediment.
argillaceous siltstones (facies 2), pinstriped Only the most severe storms ever proved
200 S. GOWLAND

Table 2. Distribution and relative abundance of ichnotaxa with respect to sedimentary facies types designated for
the Fulmar Formation
SEDIMENTARY FACIES
ICHNOTAXA
1 2 I 3 I , ~lmlP 6 7 8 9 10 11 i12
Asterosoma/ I ~ : !
Ohoebichnus
p
Chondrites
(sand-filled)

Chondrites
(silt-filled) I I

Helminthopsis I
horizontalis t I I I

Macaronichnus
segregatis I

Ophiomorpha
noclosa I

Palaeophycus ~

I
Planolites
(sand-filled) t I I
Planolites !
cf. montanus p-

(silt-filled) I

Siphonichnus =. ---4

Skolithos

Teichichnus
rectus

Teichichnus
zigzag

Terebellina

Thalassinoides
cf.suevicus
, I
Zoophycos I I I
d i I
Non-specific
burrow mot ties - ~
L l , ;

Note that facies 12 ichnotaxa distribution applies only to shoreface/shallow marine environments; it does not
include clast-rich turbidity current or debris-flow deposits

capable of projecting oscillatory currents to the The pattern of bioturbation in this mud-
seafloor (evidenced by rare wave modification of dominated facies association is variable; thick
sandy pinstripes; facies 3). developments may either be very weakly biotur-
 FACIES & DEPOSITIONAL MODELS, FULMAR FM. 201

GRAI'CSIZE & ~ A R Y
o GR 1so STR.X3TURES D~a~sx.qnlE~'~JL
ENVRO~
1~ DT

ilIOTI.~TED
LOWER~"IORL=FACE

PROC~ADATIONAL
STORM-
INFLUENCED
LOWER
SHOREFACE

PROC~AOATIONAL
STORM-
INFL~D
~ SI-IORB=N~
OFFSHORE
TRANSITION

~ADATIONAL
= "-' ~ STORM-
INFL~D
- ~F~.tO~

R1 ~.~1-t_~,\~,~-: PROC~ADATIONAL
SrAL LowER

k'~ ~ "t~: TRANSITION

R\ OI~-'TALLOWERSHOREFACE

Fig. 9. Example of stacked coarsening-upward parasequences reflecting multiple progradational phases in the
history of a storm-influenced sandy shoreface complex (model 1).

bated (Fig. 4c) or display alternating cm-scale
bioturbated and non-bioturbated horizons. The
former situation suggests dissolved oxygen de-
pletion at the seafloor, whilst the latter indicates
periodic oxygenation, possibly due to thermo-
cline decay in the overlying water column.
Ichnofabrics tend to be poorly defined due to
insufficient grain contrast (ichnofabric D). How-
ever, ichnofabrics H-C2, H and C are sometimes
evident where the ichnotaxa include H. horizon-
talis, Chondrites and Zoophycos (Table 3).
Shelly remains present include belemnites,
fish debris, occasional thin-shelled bivalves and,
locally, abundant sponge spicules.
Due to its mud-dominated nature, evidence
for periodic, if not sustained, dissolved oxygen
depletion, and a prominent nektonic fauna,
facies association F is assigned to a muddy
offshore shelf/basin environment.
Depositional models
Three depositional models for the Fulmar
Formation are proposed on the basis of sand
body modelling within proprietary biostrati-
graphically calibrated sequence stratigraphic
frameworks:
(1) storm-influenced shoreface model;
202 S. GOWLAND

o I=

.o C
t~

o
~8

b
9. ~ ~ 9

:.e -~ .~ ~ ~
=.~ = ~
_o ~. ~
~? ~
~ o
~
~ ~ ~ ~
..
"'b'~ ~'~ "I ~ ~- ~ "~ 0 ~
s
.~ = ~ ~

. ~ .~ ~. ~..~ o.~.~ ~ 9 ~

9- ~ ~ "~ ~ ~.~ b

9- . "~-~ ~.~. s

~ ~ ~ - .,~

.., ~ t~ t::~ --~ "~ .

~"~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~" ~ ~=o

.,..~ 9

b
~o~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o 0

o
,.o

0
dnn~
 FACIES & DEPOSITIONAL MODELS, FULMAR FM. 203

G R ~ & ~TARY
o C~ I~o STI:IJCTURES D E P O ~
ENVIRONI~NT
1so BCSL o

Flooding==-face

LOWER
SHOREFACE

DISTAL LOWER
SHOREFACE/
OFFSHORE
TRANSITION

OFFSHORE
TRANSITION

Y Floodingsurface

PENTLANDFORMATION
~IOTAPPLICABLE COASTALPLAIN

Fig. 10. Example of a major progradational shoreface package characterized by intense levels of bioturbation
and systematic substrate-related ichnofabric development. Physically stratified upper shoreface deposits are
absent either through non-deposition or subsequent erosion (model 2).

(2) bioturbated shoreface model; dismissed without serious consideration. The

(3) bioturbated shelf model.
The models have validity for different parts of
the succession in different geographic areas,
thus highlighting the localised influences of
tectonic setting, sediment flux and incident wave
energy. Of the three models, models 1 and 2 are
the most robust; they can be regarded as
end-members to a spectrum of shoreline settings
in which facies architecture is strongly influ-
enced by wave climate. Model 3 (bioturbated
shelf) is more speculative in that it does not
readily comply with certain sequence strati-
graphic principles. However, it should not be
three models are described below, supported by
actual well data.
(1) Storm-influenced shoreface model
Facies association B (storm-influenced lower
shoreface/offshore transition), the pivotal as-
sociation in this depositional model, appears
more common in the older, mainly Late Ox-
fordian part of the succession (e.g. northern
Quad 29). It is, however, well represented in the
Clyde Field (30/17b; Kimmeridgian) below the
main hydrocarbon-producing zone. At parase-
204 S. GOWLAND

h I ~h~ I ~ I ~ I~1

~: I ~ . ~:~ ~:~'t.~,. ~

'~ I ~ ~ I

.~ j~ i~iI ~il

' [

J Ii _ _
. #el - _

II
w
L 30N3nt)~ --I~
I- L 3ON3n03s
 FACIES & DEPOSITIONAL MODELS, FULMAR FM. 205

quence scale facies association B either directly
overlies association E or a thin intervening
development of association D is present. In both
cases the palaeoenvironmental implication is the
same; storm-influenced shoreface sands pro-
graded across a muddy shelf (Fig. 12). Tran-
sition zone response is seen in the form of
alternating physically stratified sands and highly
bioturbated silty sands and sandy silts. The
essence of the model is that during storms
powerful oscillatory wave motions suspended
sand over the upper shoreface prior to rede-
positing it over the lower shoreface and adjacent
transition zone. Where storm waves interacted
with bottom currents hummocky cross-stratifi-
cation and horizontal lamination reflect con-
ditions of intense oscillatory sheet flow. Below
storm wave base horizontally laminated sands
were produced through simple suspension 'fall-
out' or plane bed deposition from storm-induced
bottom currents flowing obliquely offshore.
Fairweather periods were characterized by silt
deposition over the distal lower shoreface and
adjacent shelf, and widespread bioturbation
seaward of the upper shoreface. The upper
shoreface zone (facies association A) accreted
through the addition of sand transported on-
shore by fairweather wave oscillations.
(2) Bioturbated shoreface model
This model has widespread applicability within
the Fulmar Formation. Where facies association
A is present, it is more likely to be conformably
underlain by facies association C (bioturbated
lower shoreface) than by association B (storm-
influenced lower shoreface/offshore transition).
Thus, in the majority of coarsening-upward
successions, there may be no significant preser-
vation of primary sedimentary structures below
facies association A. Such examples demon-
strate the full continuum of shallowing-upward
facies associations, ranging from muddy off-
shore shelf to upper shoreface end members
(facies associations F, E, D, C and A in vertical
sequence). The relative positions of the facies
associations with respect to the time-averaged
palaeoenvironmental energy gradient are the
essential aspects of the bioturbated shoreface
model.
In model 2 a muddy offshore shelf environ-
ment, located below mean storm wave base,
passes landwards into facies belts associated
with the offshore transition and shoreface zones
(Fig. 13). The upper shoreface zone (facies
association A) was characterized by the de-
position of 'clean', well winnowed, fine to
medium, but locally coarse to very coarse, sand.
Fairweather wave surge was the main depo-
sitional agent here, producing horizontal stratifi-
cation, low-angle planar cross-stratification and
ephemeral trains of combined flow ripples of low
preservation potential. Fields of sinuous-crested
subaqueous dunes also evolved, migrating
alongshore at rates determined by the velocities
of longshore currents. These dunes may even
have been organized into low amplitude bar-
forms orientated parallel to the shoreline.
Dune fields may also have developed within
the mouths of any tidally-influenced distributory
channels cutting through the shoreface, or
within tip-current cells discharging to seaward
water piled up along the shoreline during
storms. The incidence of storm activity was
significantly lower than in the storm-influenced
shoreface model, with the upper shoreface (and
foreshore) response to such events dominantly
erosional. Winnowed pebble lags (not to be
confused with drapes to ravinement surfaces),
coquinas composed mainly of thick-shelled
oysters, and the localized reworking of very
fine/fine sand into swaley laminae-sets, marked
the passage of these high energy events.
The geological record of biogenic activity over
the upper shoreface is restricted to occasional
traces of shrimp-like crustacea (Ophiomorpha)
and various polychaetes (Skolithos and Pla-
nolites). Large vertical Ophiomorpha burrows
predominate since they reflect deep-tier re-
working at depth which ensured their preser-
vation throughout all but the highest magnitude
storms. The intensity of infaunal reworking
increased seawards towards the boundary with
the lower shoreface.
The substrate of the lower shoreface (facies
association C) was composed largely of moder-
ately to well-sorted fine sand deposited within
fairweather wave base. Derived largely from the
upper shoreface during storm events, and
possibly subject to some degree of longshore
transport, sediment was deposited over the
lower shoreface as distinct event beds. During

Fig. 11. Two-well example of bioturbated open-shelf deposits in which proximal-distal relationships are
constrained within a sequence stratigraphic framework. Sequence 1 is defined by a basal transgressive surface
with the overlying maximum flooding surface dated as eudoxus. The base of sequence 2 is picked at a point of
deepening with coincident transgression and maximum flooding. Sequence 3 is picked on a major transgressive
surface defining the onset of retrogradation. SB, sequence boundary; TS, transgressive surface; cFS, candidate
flooding surface; MFS, maximum flooding surface.
206 S. GOWLAND

ak~-~ze
~f~es
FOREgHORE ~ SHOREFACE LOWERS44OREFACIE OFFSHORETRANSITION
l~n, mahm ammmt ProMle~al Distal
~ ~ octlhofe MUDDY
~ ~ ~ e
trer.k t o r m OFFSHORE

~ . . _ . . . ~ ~ ~ ........ :4---:~ - :=..~.:~.:~.~:~:-:-.~:: ...... . ....... ,-.-.: .-..--:-:-: 9 -:-: : - - : -

9[ | . _ _ _ _
1 4 k N ~.lllL T (~tATIO

" ~ , = ~ " ' 71---~-, - -

/meoc0Ax~ou
mOTUmA V

Fig. 12. Schematic representation of the storm-influenced shoreface model (model 1) during a major storm
episode. Incision of the foreshore and upper shoreface zones by intense wind-generated wave and current
activity has provided a ready source of sand grade material for deposition on the lower shoreface and adjacent
shelf.

the most severe storms the lower shoreface itself sponsible for the large spreiten-bearing trace
underwent phases of winnowing, resulting in Teichichnus zigzag.
granule/pebble lags and coquina-scale concen- Further offshore, transition zone deposition
trations of shelly material. Unlike the more featured strongly heterolithic sediments pro-
strongly storm-influenced shoreface model, the duced by the biogenic reworking of storm-
preservation of event beds here was extremely emplaced sand-silt couplets (facies association
limited due to intense reworking by infauna. E). Deposit feeding organisms again dominated
Deep-tier reworking by Ophiomorpha (crus- the infauna, with Teichichnus zigzag dominant
taceans) and Macaronichnus (polychaetes) was in the more proximal, sand-dominated facies,
particularly disruptive; it also accounts for the and Helminthopsis horizontalis and Chondrites
highly restricted preservation of bedforms de- reworking siltier sediments. Even further off-
posited in equilibrium with the fairweather wave shore mud accumulation prevailed, with sand
climate (almost certainly combined flow only being introduced as mm-cm scale layers
ripples). High levels of bioturbation were also during the most severe storms (facies association
responsible for introducing a significant faecal F).
pellet component to the sediment, and for
dispersing minor amounts of detrital silt derived
from suspension. (3) Bioturbated shelf model
Towards the toe of the shoreface, into the Unlike the previous two models, which relate to
more proximal offshore transition zone, waning shoreline-attached sand bodies, this latter model
energy levels dictated a subtle grain size reduc- describes shallowing-upward successions
tion (to very fine/fine sand), the influx of (ranging from simple parasequences to more
appreciable amounts of mica and an increase in complex sequence sets) which exhibit no clear
detrital silt content (to around 5-20%; facies evidence (stratigraphic or faunal) of linkage to a
association D). Again, sand grade sediment was contemporaneous shoreline (Figs 11 & 14).
introduced during storms prior to intense biotur- Current sequence stratigraphic theory predicts
bation; only rare examples of hummocky cross- that such 'shelfal' sand bodies, particularly those
stratification are preserved. The increased detri- enclosed in offshore mudstones, are the prod-
tal silt content fostered substrate colonization by ucts of falling sea level (forced regression) or
deposit-feeding organisms, notably those re- lowstand deposition (Posamentier et al. 1992;
 FACIES & DEPOSITIONAL MODELS, FULMAR FM. 207

=---.-----,------ POOR ~ POTENTIAL ~ grakl-size

praises

IqD~ES~IORE UPPER $HOREFACE LGff/ER SHOREFACE OFFSHORE TRANSITION

~ ~ ~ ~ '

-- ~ ~ ~ . . . . . . . . . . MSWB

...... : I

t,,~lcles,lUIIOCI/mON -.----= A -- e -- o == E r e
9

Fig. 13. Schematic representation of the bioturbated shoreface model (model 2) during fairweather conditions.
This model differs from model 1 in that the frequency and magnitude of major storms is very much reduced,
resulting in a highly bioturbated substrate seaward of the upper shoreface. Note that the distribution of
ichnofabric H-C1 is much more constrained than in model 1, presumably reflecting the decreased significance
of laterally extensive event style stratification.

I
150
G~t~lra5se,'J

PIK~(IMAL SHELF OUTER PROXIMAL SHELF INTERMEDIATE HETEROLITHIC

SHELF 9 -0

DISTAL MUDDY SHELF

w . A . ~ ,~ ~ , m ~ ~, . . . .

FACilE8 A -*- : C D- ~:e E F

~,SOC~A'rmN

v y _

O" ~ ~ T, . ~
mm'rmm,n'm~ o.u o H-c, D
v.r ~ ,,,,,,ew=~

Fig. 14. Representation of the speculative bioturbated shelf model (model 3) with the palaeoenvironmental
energy gradient expressed as a function of shelf water depth. The high energy facies belt (facies association A)
may relate to a discrete shoal-crest setting, in addition to a more laterally extensive, highly proximal, sandy
shelf environment. Unlike shoreface sand bodies, more open-shelf examples often comprise abundant siliceous
sponge spicules.
208 S. GOWLAND
Walker & Plint 1992; Hunt & Tucker 1995).
Stratigraphic isolation is thus due to relative
sea-level changes and not to deposition in a more
open shelf environment distal to sources of
fluvial input. However, some Fulmar Formation
successions show features which do not readily
comply with this concept.
Firstly, some apparently isolated coarsening-
upward successions may achieve thicknesses of
over 100 m (Johnson et al. 1986). Even allowing
for the effects of synsedimentary subsidence,
these examples are much thicker than the
'stranded parasequences' reported from forced
regressive systems tracts. The latter also tend to
be biased in favour of sharp-based sand bodies
(due to low accommodation potential) rather
than gradational coarsening-upward profiles.
Secondly, stratigraphically isolated sand-
bodies in the Fulmar Formation invariably
contain (or display evidence of the dissolution
of) abundant siliceous sponge spicules. In some
cases Rhaxella spicules are the dominant rock-
forming component, giving rise to true spi-
culites. Abundant Rhaxella spicules indicate
normal marine salinities and thus deposition
well away from points of distributary dilution.
Their association with micritic carbonates, oo-
lites, coral beds and ammonite-rich horizons (at
outcrop onshore) is compelling evidence for
deposition in a more open shelf environment.
This relationship is also supported by palyno-
facies data which demonstrate that spicule-rich
Fulmar deposits display an increased marine
dinocyst component and relatively more abun-
dant saccate pollen than 'high confidence'
shoreface successions (M. F. Whitaker pers.
comm. 1993). Sporomorph content is also
greatly reduced, indicating deposition distal to
coastal plain dwelling pteridophytes.
Sediment input to the site of deposition is
inferred to have occurred after transport across
essentially non-depositional shelves (probably
elevated fault block crests) or along relay ramps
or other forms of transfer zone (Gawthorpe &
Hurst 1993) (Fig. 15). There is a distinct
possibility that intrabasinal uplift related to salt
migration led to remobilization and dispersal of
previously deposited shoreface/shelf sands.
Sediment may therefore have undergone a long
period of transit on the shelf, which would
account for both the abundance of siliceous
sponge spicules and the high levels of grain
sorting normally encountered.
For the open shelf model (model 3) the
shoreface-offshore terminology adopted for the
two shoreline models (models 1 and 2) is
considered inappropriate, there being no map-
pable association of contemporaneous coastal
plain and adjacent sandy shelf deposits. Conse-
quently, the bioturbated shelf model is ex-
pressed simply in terms of a proximal-distal
palaeoenvironmental energy gradient based on
a time-averaged decrease in depositional energy
levels (Table 1, model 3; Fig. 14). The energy
gradient is presented as a function of increasing
water depth, although it is conceivable that a
significant portion of the gradient, particularly
that represented by facies associations A, C, D
and E, could occur along a waning current
transport path with no dramatic increases in
water depth involved. This latter scenario would
be partly analogous to the modern tidal current
transport path of the present day Southern
North Sea (Stride et al. 1982). However, the
rather restricted evidence for tidal cyclicity in
the Fulmar Formation is more in keeping with
along-shelf wind-driven flows which, during
storms, may have taken on the characteristics of
geostrophic storm currents (Swift et al. 1986a).
Although establishing likely water depths for
the various facies belts recognised is problematic
it is tentatively suggested that the bulk of sand
deposition occurred in water depth of perhaps
no more than 20 m. This interpretation is based
on equating what must have been limited wave
fetch across the Central Graben, with data
acquired from present day shoreline and shelf
systems, including epicontinental examples
(Howard & Reineck 1981; McCubbin 1982;
Nelson 1982; Shipp 1984; Short 1984; Drake et
al. 1985; Vincent 1986; Swift etal. 1986a, b).
In the bioturbated shelf model, coarsening-
upward parasequences record the progradation
of proximal sand-dominated facies belts across a
distal muddy shelf (Fig. 14). Given the restricted
evidence for tidal activity, it is envisaged that
maximum sand transport occurred during storm
events, when powerful oscillatory wave motions
and prevailing along-shelf currents combined to
significantly increase bed shear stress. Accord-
ing to Swift et al. (1986b), 95% of sediment
transport on the strongly storm-influenced
Middle Atlantic shelf of North America is
accomplished by several major storms each year.
Facies association A (Figs 11 & 14) represents
the highest-energy facies belt, invariably com-
prising mobile subaqueous dune complexes
propagated by wind-driven flows and low relief
'shallows' constructed by shoaling waves and
associated currents. Although this high-energy
facies belt is inferred to have occupied a position
proximal to the point of sediment input to the
basin, it may also reflect the development of
discrete sand shoal or sand ridge features which
nucleated upon lower energy sand sheets.
However, facies association A is relatively rare;
 FACIES & DEPOSITIONAL MODELS, FULMAR FM. 209

e,a~w t~Ja ~ ~ lae~ ~ma~

system traversing basin-margin
trane~r ;lone. CIII~Ito ouffl~mtly
humid to promote thin coal
ofcoaslal shelf to uNimately accumulate in the
. 1 ~ e]tllnlmeb/;~':low due .:2
to-"~" ~ik-~"
- ~ ~ ~ .', , . ' N ~ hanging wall of an Intrablmln~ hmult.
~ t t , ~ r ~ l l ,plm.

~ k~rlrm mmdll int reduced Io depocmltrc

>~--~r.::':':':':') ~ - " ~ v i i ImrldNmlnal relay ramp. May have
. . . . . . . . . .. i: " undergone long realdenne time on
===================== ~ * - ~i ,'~' ~'" ' ?~. . . . . . . . i.~. ' \\\ ,htflf, possibly being derived from
/ nccumu Ited sediment packages

~ \ ~ Major buildups of siliceousspongesin

~ ~ - ? i' ? . ~ ~ " op. . . . . i . . . . I. . . . . . .
Progradatlonal shorefeca . . . . . "~. ".-. ". ". ". '. '. '. " . - - . . . . . - . ' '. ' . . . . . . - \

o.-..,. ,. ..... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

storm-influenced ehoreface

with deposltlonal sequence

architecture controlled largely by

,.,,
m
~ . ~ .cccura
. * ~~. ..~ h ~

$E lo km

Fig. 15. Conceptual model of key elements of the Fulmar Formation depositional setting. In this model the
western margin of the North Sea Central Graben comprises intrabasinal depocentres within which shoreline or
open-shelf sand bodies accumulated and depositional sequence architecture was strongly influenced by
intrabasinal aspect. Eroded fault block crests may have acted as essentially non-depositional shelves,
contributing sediment to adjacent hanging walls. Significant volumes of sediment may also have entered the
sub-basins along relay ramps. The interplay between sediment flux and subsidence history ensured that within
any one sub-basin progradation, retrogradation, and even erosion, could occur simultaneously.

the majority of coarsening-upward successions characterized by all three forms of sedimentary

terminate in facies association C, with parase- development there is a tendency for progra-
quences demonstrating gradational passage dational packages to reflect significant early
from distal muddy shelf to inner proximal shelf phases of basin-fill, for aggradational packages
facies belts. to reflect continued basin-fill under 'balanced'
Although progradational (coarsening- subsidence conditions, and for retrogradational
upward) successions tend to be most promi- packages to reflect the final failure of sediment
nent, aggradational and retrogradational shelf input rates to counteract the effects of Late
packages of similar scale are also developed. Jurassic eustatic sea-level rise.
Aggradational packages show a relatively The time-averaged palaeoenvironmental
uniform grain-size profile and indicate no energy gradient for the shelf model defines a
marked lateral shift in facies belts, whereas relative distribution of facies belts (and coloniz-
retrogradational examples display fining- ing infauna) that is directly comparable with
upward development indicating a shift in facies that previously described for the bioturbated
belts towards the basin margin. These alterna- shoreface model (model 2) below the level of
tives to the progradational theme reflect differ- the upper shoreface. Indeed, the only signifi-
ences in the sediment flux-accommodation cant substrata response to the more open-shelf
space equation. Aggradational packages in- hydraulic setting would appear to have been the
dicate that the creation of accommodation was inclusion of abundant siliceous sponge spicules
balanced by the rate of sediment input. Given which, hydrodynamically, probably behaved in
the mobility of underlying Zechstein evaporites a similar manner to sand grains. The strong
it is conceivable that subsidence was driven by similarity between the two models is not really
sediment loading to the extent that accommo- surprising when one considers that any signifi-
dation potential was kept largely constant. cant variations in hydraulic regime would be
Retrogradational packages clearly indicate a more likely to manifest themselves in the high-
steady increase in the creation of accommo- est energy facies belt (facies association A),
dation through time. In those successions which is poorly represented in the succession.
210 S. GOWLAND
Conclusions
(1) Fulmar Formation deposits have been sub-
divided into twelve major sedimentary facies
types which become the building blocks for six
facies associations. Facies designation is based
on grain size, visually estimated silt/clay content,
intensity of bioturbation and the presence of
specific primary sedimentary structures.
(2) In those facies characterized by high
levels of bioturbation (>95% of sand-
dominated successions fall into this category)
changes in facies type are often mirrored by
changes in ichnofabric content. Indeed, ichno-
fabrics in the Fulmar Formation are generally so
sensitive to fluctuations in grain size and silt/clay
content that it is often possible to make fairly
accurate grain size predictions based on ichno-
fabric criteria alone. It is also important to note
that changes in ichnofabric can occur without
any marked change in ichnodiversity.
(3) The six facies associations recognized in
this study constrain three depositional models:
storm-influenced shoreface (model 1), biotur-
bated shoreface (model 2) and bioturbated shelf
(model 3). The first two models display evidence
of shoreline connection and differ principally in
the incidence and magnitude of wave activity
over the lower shoreface and offshore transition
zone. In the case of the storm-influenced
shoreface model, well-preserved event beds are
recognized seaward of the upper shoreface,
whereas in the bioturbated model the lower
shoreface and adj acent shelf deposits are charac-
terised by intense infaunal reworking. The
bioturbated shelf model displays no clear evi-
dence of shoreline connection and is somewhat
speculative in that it is inconsistent with current
sequence stratigraphic theory. Stratigraphically
isolated coarsening-upward successions rich in
siliceous sponge spicules could conceivably
reflect deposition in an open shelf environment
rather than relate to detachment within forced
regressive systems tracts. Aggradational and
retrogradational aspects of the shelf model are
also recognized and reflect fluctuations in the
sediment flux-accommodation space equation.
The author would like to thank a number of people for
their stimulating discussion on the Fulmar Formation
in recent years. Chief amongst these are J. Marshall, J.
Veldkamp and B. LeveU (Shell UK Exploration and
Production Limited), A. Leonard, R. Wallis, P.
Turner and A. Brayshaw (BP Exploration Operating
Company Limited), H. Auld (Phillips Petroleum
Company UK Limited), D. Jones (Texaco Limited),
M. Whitaker (Geochem Group Limited), J. Pollard
(Manchester University) and A. Taylor (Ichron
Limited). Shell UK, BP and Texaco must also be
thanked for granting the author permission to publish
core logs from their operated acreage. The author is
also indebted to Shell UK for allowing the publication
of core photographs relating to key sedimentary facies
types. F. Wehr, H. Johnson and an anonymous referee
greatly improved the original manuscript.
Appendix: Sedimentary facies descriptions
This section provides a detailed account of the twelve
main sedimentary facies types recognized in this study
of the Fulmar Formation (Fig. 3). Emphasis is placed
upon trace fossil attributes, particularly ichnofabric
composition.
Facies 1: silty claystone
Description. Extremely rare. Light to dark grey silty
claystone, ranging from laminated to highly biotur-
bated. Sometimes calcareous and pyritic (Fig. 4a).
Only ichnofabrics C and D recognized to date.
Interpretation. Slow deposition of suspended 'fines'
in a very low energy setting. May include hemipelagic
fall-out.
Facies 2: argillaceous siltstone
Description. Dark grey argillaceous siltstone,
ranging from well laminated to highly bioturbated with
up to 40% admixed very fine sand (Fig. 4b).
Chondrites (both sand- and silt-filled forms), Hel-
minthopsis horizontal& (comparable with An-
conichnus horizontalis), Teichichnus rectus and
Zoophycos are the prominent ichnotaxa. These occur
in ichnofabrics H-C2, H and C. Fish debris, belem-
nites, occasional bivalves and, locally, siliceous sponge
spicules present.
Interpretation. Slow deposition of silt and clay
during the final stages of waning flow; low-density
turbidity currents and/or distal storm-generated cur-
rents most likely.
Facies 3: pinstriped siltstone
Description. Dark grey argillaceous siltstone with
pinstripes, flattened lenses and rare low-amplitude
ripple-forms composed of coarse quartz silt and/or
very fine sand (sand content 0--40%; Fig. 4c).
Bioturbation variable; frequently non-bioturbated
intervals alternate with bioturbated horizons on a
centimetre-scale. Trace fossils mainly represented by
Chondrites (sand- and silt-filled forms). H. horizon-
talis, T. rectus and Zoophycos. Ichnofabrics H-C2, H,
C and D locally developed. Fish debris, belemnites,
siliceous sponge spicules and thin-shelled bivalves are
sometimes present.
Interpretation. Slow deposition of silt and sand from
suspension with modification by bottom currents and,
rarely, oscillatory wave motions. Periodic dissolved
oxygen depletion in bottom waters.
 FACIES & DEPOSITIONAL MODELS, FULMAR FM.
Facies 4: highly bioturbated sandy siltstone/
silty sandstone
Description. Mid to dark grey, burrow-mottled,
heterolithic sand-silt deposits (c. 40--80% sand) in-
variably devoid of primary sedimentary structures
(Fig. 4a and d). Occasional relict centimetre- to lower
decimetre-scale depositional units characterized by a
vertical increase in silt content. Sand component
dominantly moderately to well-sorted very fine sand.
Variable glauconite content and commonly mi-
caceous. Trace fossil assemblage includes Teichichnus
(T. rectus and T. zigzag), Chondrites (sand- and
silt-filled forms), Terebellina, Asterosoma/Phoebich-
nus and H. horizontalis. Wide range of ichnofabrics
may be developed, including Tz, H-CI, H-C2, H, C,
and D. Bivalve, serpulid, crinoid and siliceous sponge
spicule remains. Occasionally belemnites and ammo-
nites. Scattered pellets and occasional fine woody
debris. May display nodular chert cements derived
from the dissolution of siliceous sponge spicules.
Interpretation. Relatively slow deposition of silt and
sand surpassed by the rate of infaunal reworking.
Modes of sediment emplacement equivocal, although
deposition from waning storm-generated currents
below fairweather wave base is considered most
appropriate. Turbidity currents probably take on
greater significance in thick mid-reservoir shale breaks
(e.g. Clyde Field) and where a transitional contact
exists with the Heather and Kimmeridge Clay For-
mations.
Facies 5: highly bioturbated, silty very fine-
to fine-grained sandstone
Description. Light to mid grey-brown, moderately
to well sorted, very fine to fine grained sandstone with
c. 5-20% detrital silt (Fig. 4e and f). Scattered coarse
sand to granule grade sandstone and siltstone/
claystone clasts. Variable glauconite and mica con-
tent. Primary sedimentary structures obliterated by
intense reworking. Occasional centimetre- to lower
decimetre-scale units (either uniform or fining-
upward) defined by subtle fluctuations in grain size
and/or silt content. Trace fossils dominated by large T.
zigzag, silt-filled Planolites(cf. P. montanus), Thalass-
inoides cf. suevicus and Palaeophycus; frequently a
mosaic consisting entirely of superimposed T. zigzag
burrows prevails (ichnofabric Tz; Fig. 4e). Bivalve,
serpulid, crinoid and siliceous sponge spicule remains.
Latter locally so abundant that derived chert cements
impart a nodular fabric to the facies. Scattered faecal
pellets and occasional fine woody debris.
Interpretation. Moderate to slow deposition of sand
and subordinate silt exceeded by the rate of infaunal
reworking. Deposition was probably largely ac-
complished by storm-generated wave and current
activity. Possibility of deposition from moderate/high
density turbidity currents in the topmost Fulmar
Formation and the base of the Heather and Kimmer-
idge Clay Formations.
211
Facies 6: highly bioturbated, slightly silty
sandstone
Description. Light to mid grey-brown sandstone
with a silt content of 5% or less (Fig. 5a-d).
Moderately to well-sorted fine sand predominates,
although intervals characterized by very fine or
medium to very coarse sand may be locally developed.
Sorting level may decrease to poor at coarser end of
the grain size spectrum. Occasional granule/pebble
horizons comprising intraclasts and/or reworked Tri-
assic clasts. Much of the silt component is in the form
of faecal pellets (not primary suspension fall-out).
Variable glauconite content. Primary sedimentary
structures usually destroyed by intense bioturbation,
although subtle fluctuations in grain size and/or silt
content may reveal vestiges of centimetre- to lower
decimetre-scale depositional units. Trace fossil assem-
blage usually dominated by Ophiomorpha nodosa and
Macaronichnus segregatiswith subordinate Planolites,
Thalassinoides, Siphonichnus and diffuse T. zigzag
(ichnofabrics Oh and O-M). Often the facies simply
displays pervasive non-diagnostic burrow mottling
(ichnofabric D). Bivalves sometimes occur in coquina-
scale concentrations characterised by a high percen-
tage of convex-upward valves. In situ Pleuromya-type
bivalves also recognised. Siliceous sponge spicules
locally so abundant that the facies becomes a true
spiculite. Serpulid, crinoid and very rare ammonite
and belemnite remains. Occasional fine woody debris.
Interpretation. Moderate rate of sand deposition
accomplished above storm wave base (probably within
fairweather wave base) by high energy wave and
current activity. Primary sedimentary structures often
obliterated by an extremely active infauna.
Facies 7: thinly bedded (<30 cm thick)
sharp-based sandstone
Description. Light to mid grey-brown, thinly bed-
ded (<30cm thick) sandstone. Units are typically
sharp-based and occur either in isolation or in stacked
and amalgamated successions. Invariably moderately
to well sorted with a grain size of up to fine sand (rarely
medium sand). Fining-upward profiles and silty and/or
bioturbated tops sometimes preserved. Three sub-
facies recognized:
Subfacies 7a: horizontally laminated sandstone (Fig.
5e);
Subfacies 7b: hummocky cross-stratified, wave or
combined flow ripple cross-laminated sandstone
(Fig. 6a);
Subfacies 7c: massive sandstone.
Subfacies 7a and 7b show evidence of bioturbation,
notably Ophiomorpha, Thalassinoides, Skolithos,
Palaeophycus and Teichichnus (T. zigzag and T.
rectus). Oh, Or, Tz, D and T-S are the most common
ichnofabrics.
Interpretation. Rapid but episodic deposition of
sand involving the following.
Storm-generated currents: horizontal lamination
212 S. GOWLAND
reflects either upper flow regime plane beds or
accretion beneath vigorous oscillatory sheet flow
(subfacies 7a). Hummocky cross-stratification and
wave ripple cross-lamination attributed to oscillatory-
dominant combined flows (subfacies 7b).
Turbidity currents: horizontal lamination achieved
through suspension fall-out and/or traction current
deposition (subfacies 7a). Massive examples probably
reflect rapid suspension sedimentation (subfacies 7c).
Generally most applicable to the topmost Fulmar
Formation and basal Heather and Kimmeridge Clay
Formations.
Facies 8: thickly bedded (>30 cm thick)
parallel stratified sandstone
Description. Light to mid grey-brown sandstone
ranging from very fine to coarse sand grade. Generally
moderately to well sorted, although poor sorting may
arise where laminae of contrasting grain size have been
homogenized through bioturbation. Characterized by
low-angle parallel stratification in which slight changes
in dip angle may occur across sharp discontinuities
(Fig. 6b). In very fine- to fine-grained examples,
horizontal lamination, hummocky/swaley laminae-
sets and combined flow ripple cross-lamination are
sometimes defined; definition of the laminae in such
instances may be enhanced by mica, faecal pellets,
shelly debris and fine woody remains. Coarser ex-
amples tend to exhibit a less well defined internal
fabric and are often characterized by diffuse horizontal
stratification. Bioturbation is usually weak to moder-
ate, with Ophiomorpha, Skolithos and Planolites
prominent (ichnofabric O~). Some developments
contain abundant siliceous sponge spicules.
Interpretation. Vigorous wave and current activity
in relatively shallow water. Consistent with the
shoreface, but could conceivably originate in an
offshore shoal/bar setting.
Facies 9: medium-scale cross-stratified
sandstone
Description. Light to mid grey-brown, moderately
to well-sorted, fine- to coarse-grained sandstone
characterized by medium-scale angle-of-repose cross-
stratification (Fig. 6c). Foresets are tangentially based
and locally truncated by reactivation surfaces.
Generally 'clean' although some foresets display
mm-scale 'drapes' composed of detritai silt, ductile
faecal pellets, mica, organic debris and/or a finer sand
fraction. Bioturbation invariably weak to moderate;
only Ophiomorpha, Skolithos and Planolites usually
recognised against a background of general burrow
mottling (ichnofabrics Ov and D).
Interpretation. Cross-strata attributed to the down-
current migration of sinuous-crested subaqueous
dunes. Certain foreset drapes and reactivation surfaces
suggest that some examples were subject to tidal
influence. Channellized origin of some intervals cannot
be ruled out. Depositional rates moderate to high.
Facies 10: massive 'clean' sandstone
Description. Light grey-brown, moderately to well
sorted, massive sandstone (Fig. 6d). Level of sorting
improves with decreasing grain size.
Interpretation. Equivocal; difficult to determine
(without x-ray photography) whether facies is depo-
sitionally massive or reflects the biogenic homogenis-
ation of 'clean' stratified sand. Experience and context
(often intimately associated with facies 6 and 11)
suggest that the latter may be more realistic. De-
position from high-density turbidity currents also
appropriate in the topmost Fulmar Formation, basal
Kimmeridge Clay Formation and parts of the Heather
Formation.
Facies 11: bioturbated 'clean' sandstone
Description. Light grey-brown, moderately to well
sorted fine to coarse grained sandstone. Level of
sorting improves with decreasing grain size. Silt
content negligible; present only as disseminated faecal
pellets and in situ Ophiomorpha burrow-linings (Fig.
6e). Widespread non-diagnostic burrow mottling
(ichnofabric D), although discrete Ophiomorpha,
Skolithos and Planolites are locally recognised (ichno-
fabric Or). Variably abundant bivalve shell debris and
occasional siliceous sponge spicules. Sometimes fine
woody debris present.
Interpretation. Moderate rate of sand deposition
resulting from high-energy wave and current activity.
Detrital silt component retained in suspension. High
rate of infaunal reworking.
Facies 12: matrix- or clast-supported pebbly
deposits
Description. Matrix- or clast-supported pebbly de-
posits with a coarse fraction which may comprise one
or more of the following: intraformational clasts,
sandstone and siltstone/claystone clasts with Triassic
affinities and a wide range of terrigenous clasts of
unknown derivation, some of which may be phos-
phatic in nature. Coarse woody debris may also be
present. Deposits are generally structureless, although
pebble alignment sometimes results in crude horizon-
tal stratification. Weak normal grading and inverse
grading are sometimes developed. Bivalve shell debris
may be locally abundant (Fig. 6f). Two subfacies are
recognized:
Subfacies 12a: sandy conglomerate
Subfacies 12b: pebbly sandstone
Interpretation. Context with other facies types is
critical with regard to determining mode of sediment
emplacement. In the shallow marine environment
possibilities include high energy storm-generated
flows and wave/current winnowing associated with
forced regression and transgressive surfaces. High-
density turbidity currents and even debris flows would
be compatible with a deeper setting.
 FACIES & DEPOSITIONAL MODELS, FULMAR FM.
Facies 4 to 12 may be highly glauconitic in character,
particularly where developed at the base of the Fulmar
Formation or in association with intraformational
transgressive/flooding surfaces. Additionally, facies 4
to 11 may take on a nodular appearance due to
differential chert cementation. This cementation is
attributed to the localised dissolution-reprecipitation
of biogenic silica derived from sponge spicules.
Other facies types recognized in the Fulmar For-
mation (but not in the current database) include rare
examples of thinly bedded coals and pedogenically
modified siltstones and sandstones).
References
BROMLEY, R. G. 1990. Trace Fossils; Biology and
Taphonomy. Unwin Hyman, London.
DONOVAN, A. D., DJAKIC, A. W., IOANNIDES,N. S.,
GARFIELD, T. R. & JONES, C. R. 1993. Sequence
stratigraphic control on Middle and Upper Ju-
rassic reservoir distribution within the UK Cen-
tral North Sea. In: PARKER,J. R. (ed.) Petroleum
Geology of Northwest Europe: Proceedings of the
4th Conference. The Geological Society, London,
251-269.
Doyr, R. H. JR & BOURGEOIS, J. 1982. Hummocky
stratification: significance of its variable bedding
sequences. Geological Society of American Bulle-
tin, 93,663--680.
DRAKE, D. E., CACCHIONE,D. A. & KARL, H. A. 1985.
Bottom currents and sediment transport on San
Pedro Shelf, California. Journal of Sedimentary
Petrology, 55, 15-28.
DUKE, W. L. 1985.Hummocky cross-stratification,
tropical hurricanes, and intense winter storms.
Sedimentology, 32, 167-194.
EKDALE, A. A. & BROMLEY,R. G. 1983. Trace fossils
and ichnofabrics in the Kj01by Gaard Marl,
uppermost Cretaceous, Denmark. Geological
Society of Denmark Bulletin, 31,107-119.
FORSICH, F. T. 1976. The use of macroinvertebrate
associations in interpreting Corallian (Upper
Jurassic) environments. Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 20,235-256.
GAWrHORPE, R. L. & HURST, J. M. 1993. Transfer
zones in extensional basins: their structural style
and influence on drainage development and
stratigraphy. Journal of the Geological Society,
London, 150, 1137-1152.
GLENNIE, K. W. & ARMSTRONG, L. A. 1991. The
Kittiwake Field, Block 21/18, UK North Sea: In:
ABBOTS, I. L. (ed.) United Kingdom Oil and Gas
Fields, 25 Years Commemorative Volume. Geo-
logical Society, London, Memoirs, 14, 339-345.
HALL, S. A. 1992. The Angus Field: a subtle trap. In:
HARDMAN, R. F. P. (ed.) Exploration Britain:
Geological Insights for the Next Decade. Geologi-
cal Society, London, Special Publications, 67,
151-185.
HARMS, J. C., SOUTHARD,J. B., SPEARING, D. R. &
WALKER, R. G. 1975. Depositional environments
as interpreted from primary sedimentary structures
and stratification sequences. Society of Economic
213
Paleontologists and Mineralogists. Short course
No. 2.
HEMMINGWAY,J. E. 1974. Jurassic. In: RAVNER,D. H.
& HEMMINGWAY,J. E. (eds) The Geological and
Mineral Resources of Yorkshire. Yorkshire Geo-
logical Society, 161-223.
HODGSON, N. A., FARNSWORTH, J. & FRASER, A. J.
1992. Salt-related tectonics, sedimentation and
hydrocarbon plays in the Central Graben, North
Sea, UKCS. In: HARDMAN, R. F. P. (ed.)
Exploration Britain: Geological Insights for the
Next Decade. Geological Society, London,
Special Publications, 67, 31-63.
HOWARD, J. D. & REINECK,H.-E. 1981. Depositional
facies of high-energy beach-to-offshore sequence:
comparison with low-energy sequence. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, 65,
807-830.
Hum, D. & TUCKER, M. E. 1995. Stranded
parasequences and the forced regressive wedge
systems tract: deposition during base-level fall -
reply. Sedimentary Geology, 95,147-160.
JOHNSON, H. D. & STEWART,D. J. 1985. The role of
clastic sedimentology in the exploration and
production of oil and gas in the North Sea. In:
BRENCHLEY, P. J. & WILLIAMS,B. P. J. (eds)
Sedimentology: Recent Developments and Ap-
plied Aspects Geological Society, London,
Special Publications, 18,249-310.
--, MACKAY, T. A. & STEWART, D. J. 1986. The
Fulmar Oil-Field (Central North Sea): geological
aspects of its discovery, appraisal and develop-
ment. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 3, 99-125.
LECKIE, D. A. & WALKER, R. G. 1982. Storm- and
tide-dominated shorelines in Cretaceous
Moosebar - Lower Gates interval - outcrop
equivalents of Deep basin gas trap in western
Canada. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin, 66, 138-157.
McCuBBIN, D. G. 1982. Barrier-island and strand-
plain facies. In: SCHOLLE,P. A. & SPEARING,D.
R. (eds) Sandstone Depositional Environments,
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Memoirs, 31,247-280.
NELSON, C. H. 1982. Modern shallow water graded
sand layers from storm surges, Bering Shelf: a
mimic of Bouma sequences and turbidite systems.
Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 52,537-545.
NUMMEDAL, D. & PENLAND, S. 1981. Sediment
dispersal in Norderneyer Seegat, West Germany,
In: Nto, S.-D., SHUTTENHELM, R. T. E. & VAN
WEERING,TJ. C. E. (eds) Marine Sedimentation in
the North Sea Basin Special Publications of the
International Association of Sedimentologists, 5,
187-210.
PARKER, J. R. (ed.) 1993. Petroleum Geology of
Northwest Europe: Proceedings of the 4th Confer-
ence. The Geological Society, London.
PEMBERTON, S. G. 1992. Applications of ichnology to
Petroleum Exploration. Society of Economic
Paleontologists and Mineralogists Core Work-
shop No. 17.
POSAMENTIER,H. W., ALLEN, G. P., JAMES,D. P. &
TESSON, M. 1992. Forced regressions in a se-
214 S. GOWLAND
quence stratigraphic framework: concepts, ex-
amples and exploration significance. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 76,
1687-1709.
PRICE, J., DYER, R., GOODALL, I., McKIE, T.,
WATSON, P. & WILLIAMS, G. 1993. Effective
stratigraphical subdivision of the Humber Group
and the Late Jurassic evolution of the UK Central
Graben. In: PARKER, J. R. (ed.) Petroleum
Geology of Northwest Europe: Proceedings of the
4th Conference. The Geological Society, London,
443-458.
REINECK,H.-E. 1976. Primargefuge, bioturbation und
makrofauna als indikatoren des sandversatzes im
seegebiet vor Norderney (Nordsee). 1. Zo-
nierung von primargefugen und bioturbation.
Senckenberg. Marit. 8, 155-169.
ROBERTS, A. M., PRICE, J. D. & OLSEN, T. S. 1990.
Late Jurassic half-graben control on the siting and
structure of hydrocarbon accumulations: UK/
Norwegian Central Graben. In: HARDMAN,R. F.
P. & BROOK,J. (eds) Tectonic Events Responsible
for Britain's Oil and Gas Reserves. Geological
Society, London, Special Publications, 55, 229-
257.
SELLWOOD,B. W. 1978. Jurassic. In: MCKERROW,W.
S. (ed.) The Ecology of Fossils - An Illustrated
Guide. Duckworth, London.
SHIer, R. C. 1984. Bedforms and depositional struc-
tures of a barred nearshore system, eastern Long
Island, New York. Marine Geology, 60, 235-259.
SHORT, A. D. 1984. Beach and nearshore facies:
southeast Australia. Marine Geology, 60, 261-
282.
STEVENS, D. A. & WALLIS, R. J. 1991. The Clyde
Field, Block 30/17b, UK North Sea. In: ABBOrrS,
I. L. (ed.) United Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields, 25
Years Commemorative Volume. Geological So-
ciety, London, Memoirs, 14,279-285.
STOCKBRIDGE, C. P. & GRAY,D. I. 1991. The Fulmar
Field, Blocks 30/16 & 30/llb, UK North Sea. In:
ABBOTS, I. L. (ed.) United Kingdom Oil and Gas
Fields, 25 Years Commemorative Volume. Geo-
logical Society, London, Memoirs, 14,309-316.
STRIDE, A. H., BELDERSON,R. H., KENYON,N. H. &
JOHNSON, M. A. 1982. Offshore tidal deposits:
sand sheet and sand bank facies. In: STRIDE,A. H.
(ed.) Offshore Tidal Sands. Chapman and Hall,
London, 95-125.
View publication stats
SWIFT, D. J. P., HAN, G. & VINCENT, C. E. 1986a.
Fluid processes and sea-floor response on a
modern storm-dominated shelf: Middle Atlantic
Shelf of North America. Part I: The storm-
current regime. In: KNIGHT, R. J. & MCLEAN, J.
R. (eds) Shelf Sands and Sandstones. Canadian
Society of Petroleum Geologists Memoirs, 11,
99-119.
~, THORNE, J. & OERTEL, G. F. 1986b. Fluid
processes and sea-floor response on a modern
storm-dominated shelf: Middle Atlantic Shelf of
North America. Part II: Response of the shelf
floor. In: KNIGHT, R. J. & MCLEAN, J. R. (eds)
Shelf Sands and Sandstones. Canadian Society of
Petroleum Geologists Memoirs, l l , 191-211.
TAYLOR, A. M. & GAWTHORPE,R. L. 1993. Appli-
cation of sequence stratigraphy and trace fossil
analysis to reservoir description: examples from
the Jurassic of the North Sea. In: PARKER,J. R.
(ed.) Petroleum Geology of Northwest Europe:
Proceedings of the 4th Conference. The Geologi-
cal Society, London, 317-335.
& GOLDRING, R. 1993. Description and analysis
of bioturbation and ichnofabric. Journal of the
Geological Society, London, 150, 141-148.
VAN WAGONER,J. C., MITCHUM,R. M., CAMPION,K.
i . & RAHMANIAN, V. D. 1990. Siliciclastic
sequence stratigraphy in well logs, cores and
outcrops: concepts for high-resolution correlation
of time and facies. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Methods in Exploration
Series, 7.
VINCENT, C. E. 1986. Processes affecting sand trans-
port on a storm-dominated shelf. In: KNIGHT, R.
J. & MCLEAN, J. R. (eds) Shelf Sands and
Sandstones. Canadian Society of Petroleum
Geologists Memoirs, 11,121-132.
WALKER, R. G. & PLINT, A. G. 1992. Wave and
storm-dominated shallow marine systems. In:
WALKER, R. G. & JAMES, N. P. (eds) Facies
models: response to sea level change. Geological
Association of Canada, 219-238.
WRIGHT, J. K. 1986. A new look at the stratigraphy,
sedimentology and ammonite fauna of the Co-
rallian Group (Oxfordian) of south Dorset.
Proceedings of the Geologists Association, 97,
1-21.