Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · ofr75149

Tectonic framework of petroliferous rocks in Alaska

Abstract

Alaska, comprising 3.6 X 10 6 sq km (about 28 percent) of the land, shelf, and upper continental slope of the United States, has been estimated by the U.S. Geological Survey (1974) to contain about 25 percent of the Nation's petroleum resources. Some 11 billion barrels of petroleum liquids and 31 trillion cubic feet of natural gas have been announced as discovered to date. In northern Alaska, Paleozoic and Mesozoic shelf and slope deposits of the Brooks Range orogen were thrust relatively northward over the depressed south margin of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic Arctic platform, upon which a foredeep (the Colville geosyncline) developed in earliest Cretaceous time. Detritus from the Brooks Range filled the foredeep and pro-graded northwest and northeast to fill the Cretaceous and Tertiary North Chukchi and Umiat-Camden basins and form the Beaufort shelf. In southern Alaska, a series of arc-trench systems developed on oceanic rocks during the Jurassic and Cretaceous. Between the arcs and the metamorphic (continental) terranes of east-central and northern Alaska, large back-arc and arc-trench gap basins received thick volcanic and detrital deposits. These deposits were extensively deformed and disrupted by mid-Jurassic to Tertiary plutonism, Laramide oroclinal bending, wrench faulting, and arc-related compression. The Laramide events 'continentalized' the late Mesozoic back-arc basin deposits and welded them to the older continental terranes to the north and east. Subsequent sedimentation was localized and nonmarine except in onshore and offshore coastal basins, where thick mixed marine and nonmarine sections were deposited. The Aleutian arc and associated Queen Charlotte transform fault system have dominated structural and depositional patterns in southern Alaska since the early Cenozoic. The largest petroleum reserves in Alaska (the Prudhoe Bay and associated fields) and the best prospects for additional large discoveries are in northern Alaska, where an extensive terrane is underlain by Upper Paleozoic to Tertiary carbonate and shelf, slope and delta clastic deposits. The pre-Tertiary back-arc and arc-trench gap basins in southern and interior Alaska are too intensely deformed or too low in porosity (because of diagenetic mobilization of labile constituents) to offer more than modest local prospects. The Tertiary coastal basins do, however, offer large tracts of thick marine and nonmarine clastic rocks and in some areas many large folds to exploration. Such basins are known to be petroliferous on Bristol Bay and the Gulf of Alaska and to contain major accumulations of oil and gas at Cook Inlet, but they are relatively little explored.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 50.98609893339354° to 71.45515260247822° latitude; -178.9453125° to -129.97169494628906° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Arthur Grantz, C.E. Kirschner. 1975. Tectonic framework of petroliferous rocks in Alaska. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr75149

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Estimating aftershock risk for entry into earthquake-damaged buildings

We present a simple method to estimate the risk of experiencing strong shaking from aftershocks during entry into earthquake-damaged buildings. We compute wait times until the probability of strong ground shaking from aftershocks reaches a predefined risk threshold; for example, a 0.4 percent probability of experiencing Modified Mercalli Intensity 7 or greater shaking during the planned building entry. We also develop a relation between aftershock probability and the probability of strong shaking, so that users can reference the U.S. Geological Survey aftershock forecast during an ongoing aftershock sequence to determine if the risk threshold has been met. We apply our method to active continental regions (for example, the Western United States), stable continental regions (for example, the Central and Eastern United States), and subduction zones (for example, Cascadia or Alaska).

Open-File Report

End-user needs for remote sensing wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America comprises globally important grassland and wetland ecosystems critical for numerous populations of migratory birds. Due to the importance of this region for migratory birds, and particularly waterfowl, and the threats of habitat loss due to intensifying agriculture, there is a mature and diverse system of conservation organizations, agencies, and partnerships that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on habitat conservation to support migratory bird populations. Remote sensing can be a powerful tool for observing and evaluating global change at large scales as well as expanding inferences from field studies to the broader landscape with statistical models. However, development and utilization of these tools has lagged behind their demand for several reasons, including concerns over spatial and temporal resolution and accuracy of products; perception of a misalignment with decision-maker needs; technological barriers such as skill sets of conservation professionals, computing resources, data access, and usability. In this report, we summarize the needs of conservation professionals and scientists who use or want to use remote sensing data products to inform science about wetland change and conservation of wetlands in the PPR. We assembled this information through several methods leading up to, during, and following a January 2026 PPR Wetland Remote Sensing Workshop. The workshop included United States and Canadian scientists, conservation professionals, and policy experts. Our goal was to bring together end-users and remote sensing product developers jointly to explore reducing the lag between product development and utilization of products to inform science and conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify gaps in wetland remote sensing that limit effective monitoring, management, and conservation in the PPR, and to develop a framework that outlines pathways to address these gaps by fostering collaboration, improving communication networks, encouraging discussion, and building on existing and ongoing efforts. This report summarizes our participants’ descriptions of end-user needs and the outcomes of the workshop.

Prairie Pothole region

Bathymetric survey and storage capacity of Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona in 2024

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the city of Flagstaff, collected bathymetric, light detection and ranging (lidar), and land-survey data of Upper Lake Mary in Arizona during the months of April and October 2024. The city of Flagstaff uses a combination of groundwater from well fields throughout the Flagstaff area and surface water, mainly from Upper Lake Mary, for its potable water supply. The purpose of the survey is to update previous surveys using new technology and compare the results to previous surveys to determine if there was a decrease in storage capacity that could affect the city’s water supply. The lakebed was mapped in April 2024 using a vessel equipped with a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and mobile lidar scanner with positioning captured using a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system (RTK GNSS) base and receivers. In October 2024, areas of the reservoir that were too shallow for the boat and shoreline that were not captured by the vessel-based lidar were surveyed on foot using hand-held RTK GNSS receivers. At full pool (spillway elevation of 6,831.82 feet above NAVD 88 [2,082.34 meters (m)], Upper Lake Mary has a storage capacity of 16,449.80 acre-feet (20,290,611.73 cubic meters) and a surface area of 953.57 acres (3,860,926.075 square meters). The reservoir is 5.7 miles (9.7 kilometers) long and varies in width from 326 feet (99.36 m) near the central, narrow portion of the reservoir to 2,613 feet (796.44 m) in the upper portion. Comparisons between this survey and the previous two surveys from the 1950s and 2006 indicate no apparent decrease in reservoir area or storage capacity. Results of the 2024 survey indicate that Upper Lake Mary’s storage capacity increased by 0.9 percent from the 2006 survey and a 1.6 percent increase in surface area from the 2006 survey.

Arizona