Carbonates and Evaporites

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 89–94 | Cite as

Case histories of isostatic factor variations along carbonate buildups

  • M. A. Perlmutter
  • I. Lerche


A simple procedure for estimating the fraction of the mantle response that is actually isostatic is used here with four carbonate buildups to provide variations of the isostatic fraction along the buildups. In all cases it is found that the fraction is small compared to that needed to allow isostasy to be the dominant component. Tectonic variations, sea-level effects, and compaction of underlying substrates after carbonate deposition all contribute to the non-isostatic response. In addition, the relative variation of the equivalent isostatic factor along each carbonate buildup is shown to be a direct consequence of changes in tectonism, sea-level and/or compaction with lateral position. These identifications are made through use of the general geologic description of the region for each buildup. The isostatic factor method is thus shown to provide a simple and powerful procedure for identifying not only the over-all non-isostatic response but also variations of the non-isostatic factors along the buildups.


Cretaceous Devonian Evaporite Carbonate Platform Fiducial Mark 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. DREES, N.C.M., 1988, The Middle Devonian Sub-Watt Mountain Unconformity Across the Tathlina Uplift; District of Mackenzie and Northern Alberta, Canada, in Devonian of the World (eds. N.J. McMillan, A.F. Embry and D.J. Glass).Can. Soc. Petrol. Geol., Calgary, Canada, p. 477–494.Google Scholar
  2. FLÜGEL, E, and FLÜGEL-KAHLER, E., 1992, Phanerozoic Reef Evolution:Basic Questions and Data Base, in Facies 26, p. 167–278.Google Scholar
  3. JAMES, N.P., 1983, in P.A. Scholle, D.G. Bebout, and C.H. Moore, eds., Carbonate depositional environments:American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 33, p. 345–444.Google Scholar
  4. LERCHE, I. and PERLMUTTER, M.A., 1993, Fractional isostatic mantle compensation of carbonate buildups.American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 77, p. 276–279.Google Scholar
  5. RUDOLPH, K.W. and LEHMANN, P.J., 1989, Platform Evolution and Sequence Stratigraphy of the Natuna Platform, South China Sea, in Controls on Carbonate Platform and Basin Development,SEPM Special Publication No. 44, p. 353–361.Google Scholar
  6. SCHLAGER, W., 1981, The paradox of drowned reefs and carbonate platforms:Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 92, p. 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. SIMO, A., 1989, Upper Cretaceous Platform-to-Basin Depositional-Sequence Development, Tremp Basin, South-central Pyrennes, Spain, in Controls on Carbonate Platforms and Basin Development,SEPM Special Publication No. 44, p. 365–378.Google Scholar
  8. SMITH, D.B., 1981, The Magnesian Limestone (Upper Permian) Reef Complex of Northeastern England,SEPM Special Publication No. 30, p. 161–186.Google Scholar
  9. WERMUND, E.G., 1975, Upper Pennsylvanian limestone banks, north central Texas:University of Texas Bureau of Economic Geology, Circular 75–3.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. A. Perlmutter
    • 1
  • I. Lerche
    • 2
  1. 1.Exploration and Production Technology DepartmentTexaco, Inc.Houston
  2. 2.Department of Geological ScienceUniversity of South CarolinaColumbia

Personalised recommendations