Geology Reports⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · pp1824CC

Geology and assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources of the Lomonosov-Makarov Province, 2008

Thomas E. Moore·Kenneth J. Bird·Janet K. Pitman
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The Lomonosov-Makarov Province lies in the central Arctic Ocean and encompasses the northern part of the oceanic Amerasia Basin (Makarov and Podvodnikov Basins) and the adjoining Lomonosov Ridge and Siberian continental margins. The Amerasia Basin is thought to have been created in the Jurassic and Early Cretaceous by rotational rifting of the Alaska-Siberia margin away from the Canada margin about a pivot point in the Mackenzie Delta and an associated continental-scale transform fault along the Lomonosov Ridge. The province is bounded on the south by the Cretaceous Alpha-Mendeleev Ridge, an undersea ridge composed of plume-type volcanic rocks that obliquely crosses the Amerasia Basin, dividing it into northern and southern parts. The thickest passive-margin succession in the province lies along the Siberian margin, where sediments thin from a maximum thickness along the continental margin to less than 2 km in the basin. The northern part of the province consists of the Lomonosov Ridge, which was rifted away from the Eurasia Plate in the Paleocene during formation of the oceanic Eurasia Basin, creating an isolated, narrow, submerged, but high-standing microcontinent. This part of the province contains sediments that were shed from the Eurasia Plate in the Mesozoic and covered by pelagic and hemipelagic sediments in the Cenozoic, creating depositional successions with thicknesses ranging from about 1 to more than 5 km. This tectonic framework provides the basis for division of the province into four assessment units (AUs), including (1) Lomonosov Ridge AU, (2) Makarov Basin Margin AU, (3) Siberian Passive Margin AU, and (4) Makarov Basin AU. The Lomonosov Ridge and Makarov Basin Margin AUs compose a displaced part of the Cretaceous shelf and slope, respectively, of the Eurasia continental margin with a covering drape of pelagic Cenozoic sediments. The Siberian Passive Margin and Makarov Basin AUs represent the slope of the Siberian continental margin and adjoining basin plain deposits, respectively, deposited on oceanic crust of the northern Amerasia Basin. All of the AUs are entirely submarine and covered by the polar icecap, and consequently have not been explored for petroleum. Petroleum source rock units considered in the assessment of the province are mostly hypothetical, and include Triassic and Jurassic platformal marine shale units on the Lomonosov Ridge, and province-wide Lower Cretaceous synrift, Lower and Upper Cretaceous postrift, and Paleogene organic-rich shale intervals. The most prospective reservoirs and traps are envisioned to include base-of-slope turbidite-fan complexes, slope channels and basins, extensional and growth fault structures, and other stratigraphic, structural, and composite trap features typically present on clastic-dominated continental passive margins. Because of concerns about reservoir quality in the Makarov Basin AU and the detrimental effect of Paleocene rifting in the Lomonosov Ridge AU, these units were not quantitatively assessed, as they were judged to have less than 10 percent probability of containing at least one accumulation of hydrocarbons equal to or greater than 50 million barrels of oil equivalent (MMBOE). The mean volumes of undiscovered resources for the Makarov Basin Margin AU are estimated to be 0.12 billion barrels of oil and 0.74 trillion cubic feet of nonassociated gas, whereas the undiscovered resources for the Siberian Passive Margin AU are estimated to be ~1 billion barrels of oil and 4.7 trillion cubic feet of nonassociated gas.

Explore related subjects

Professional PaperReport

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Thomas E. Moore, Kenneth J. Bird, Janet K. Pitman. 2019-11-08. Geology and assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources of the Lomonosov-Makarov Province, 2008. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1824cc

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Allostratigraphy and formalizing the Cold Harbor Alloformation, Virginia Coastal Plain, Eastern Virginia

Introduction Distinct morphologic features in the Virginia part of the Coastal Plain Province (herein referred to as the Virginia Coastal Plain) were noted in one of the earliest geologic surveys in 1839 (Rogers, 1884). South of the James River, Rogers (1884, p. 252) described a western bench that ranged from “a low rocky coast…of the primeval sea” to an eastern facing scarp east of the City of Suffolk, Virginia. His eastern bench extended from the scarp at Suffolk, which he suggested was a former shoreline, to the present Atlantic Ocean. Notably, the eastern plain was described as less dissected than the western plain. In Virginia, creation and publication of topographic maps by the U. S. Geological Survey began in the mid-1880s. By 1905, many areas in eastern Virginia were mapped as 30-minute and 15-minute series with 10-foot (ft) contour interval accuracy (Virginia Division of Mineral Resources [VDMR] , 2008). After the continued release of these early maps that displayed Virginia Coastal Plain morphology in increasingly greater detail, several geological reports were published where scarps and plains were traced, named, and origins proposed (Shaler, 1890; Shattuck, 1901; Clark and Miller, 1906, 1912; Wentworth, 1930). Shattuck (1901) recognized three continuous scarps in Maryland and most importantly suggested that there was a correlation between surficial deposits (geologic formations) and morphologic terraces; this defined the terrace-formation concept that became the basis of geologic mapping of the Upper Pliocene and Pleistocene sediments in the Virginia Coastal Plain. Clark and Miller (1912) described three Pleistocene formations and supported the terrace-formation concept because the sediments within each formation were lithologically similar to one another, and differentiating them by comparing key vertical sections was not helpful. In Virginia, Wentworth (1930) defined and mapped five Pleistocene terraces on the basis of correlating morphologic terraces with their underlying formation sediments. Similarly, Cooke (1931) identified and traced seven marine shorelines and proposed corresponding terrace names from Maryland to Florida. Cooke (1931) also pointed out that the various elevations of scarps were related to interglacial sea-level highstands whereas prior workers called on vertical land movement of emergence and submergence to create shoreline scarps. Cooke’s (1936) geologic map of eastern South Carolina showing the Pleistocene sediments is also based on the terrace-formation concept. Detailed geologic mapping of the Virginia Coastal Plain by Virginia Division of Mineral Resources (VDMR) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) followed lithostratigraphic convention for Early Pliocene and older marine sediments. However, geologic mapping of Upper Pliocene and Pleistocene sediments used the concept of morphologic setting and elevations of scarp toe and flat-plain, or the terrace-formation concept. The 1983 version of the North American Stratigraphic Code (hereafter the Code) (North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature [NACSN] , 1983) introduced allostratigraphy that gave credence to the terrace-formation concept. According to the current Code (NACSN, 2021; Article 58), “an allostratigraphic unit is a mappable body of rock that is defined and identified on the basis of its bounding discontinuities,” and, “formal allostratigraphic units may be defined or distinguish between different (1) superposed discontinuity-bounded deposits of similar lithology, (2) contiguous discontinuity-bounded deposits of similar lithology, or (3) geographically separated discontinuity-bounded units of similar lithology…The lithology of an allostratigraphic unit plays no part in its definition.” However, definition and placement of bounding discontinuities relies on lateral and vertical knowledge of lithology and is so recognized in Article 58e, “A type locality and type area must be designated; a composite stratotype or a type section and several reference sections are desirable.” We understand that each of the terrace formations of Late Pliocene and Pleistocene age were deposited during a marine transgressive event tied to an interglacial sea-level highstand (scarp above the Poquoson Member of the Tabb Formation may be the result of a still-stand as sea level was falling after deposition of the Lynnhaven Member, refer to fig. 1). The base of each map unit is an unconformity (or is at least in part for the base of the Poquoson) and nomenclature for each unit might be changed from “formation” to “alloformation,” as suggested by Doar and Berquist (2009). Figure 1 shows the relative placement of these mapped and named alloformations as used in the Virginia Coastal Plain and Fall Zone (a zone of transition between the Piedmont and Coastal Plain Provinces) (Berquist, 2021). Except perhaps for the Poquoson, many of these proposed alloformations are unlikely to interfinger or grade laterally seaward into extensive deep marine sediments. After their deposition, erosion during sea-level fall and then rise for the next depositional event would seemingly obliterate any marine connection without a basal unconformity. All these alloformations contain sediments deposited in fluvial, estuarine, and shallow-marine environments and are bound everywhere by unconformities. This paper documents the Cold Harbor Alloformation as a formal stratigraphic unit and the rationale for mapping the sediments using an allostratigraphic classification. The Cold Harbor Alloformation is composed of sediments from a variety of environments such as gravel beds, shoreline beach sands, marsh and estuarine sand and mud, and shallow marine sands. These sediments are found at elevations up to 240 ft and lie unconformably above older sediments and rocks. Our work relied on observations of outcrops and many auger borings to identify basal unconformities.

Professional Paper↗
USGS2026

Formalization of the Elsing Green Alloformation, Virginia Coastal Plain, Eastern Virginia

The Elsing Green Alloformation is herein formalized as a new Pleistocene alloformation in the Virginia Coastal Plain. This allostratigraphic unit is characterized by an unconformity-bounded terrace deposit occupying a morphologic flat with a mapped elevation range of about 26 to 38 feet (7.9 to 11.6 meters); its landward extent is commonly marked at the base of an erosional scarp where the toe is typically at 38 feet (11.6 meters) and is distinguished by its topographic expression and stratigraphic position. Sediments of this unit were previously mapped as part of the Shirley Formation or Sedgefield Member of the Tabb Formation but differ significantly in their bounding scarps and terrace morphology. The type area is within the Tunstall 7.5-minute quadrangle near Elsing Green Plantation, King William County, Virginia. The reference section is provided by boring 2012270-2. Correlation is proposed with other mid-Pleistocene terrace deposits in the mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain, including the younger Lynch Heights Formation of Delaware and the Butlers Bluff Member of the Nassawadox Formation of the Eastern Shore of Virginia. The age of the Elsing Green Alloformation is interpreted to be Marine Isotope Stage 9e (about 330,000 years).

Professional Paper↗
USGS2026

Resurvey of the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon dam sites in Grand Canyon National Park—Changes in sediment storage and evidence supporting the occurrence of bedrock incision through the mid-20th century

The Bureau of Reclamation developed an extensive plan for a network of dams, water tunnels, and hydropower plants in and around Grand Canyon, Arizona, in the 1940s through 1960s. The two largest of these planned dams were the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon Dams on the Colorado River. Though these dams were ultimately never built, Reclamation conducted extensive topographic, bathymetric, and subsurface exploration work at the sites proposed for these dams in the 1940s and 1950s. Resurveys of these dam sites were conducted between 1998 and 2021 to determine the changes in sediment storage at these dam sites caused by the upstream construction and operation of Glen Canyon Dam and by the recession of Lake Mead, the reservoir impounded by Hoover Dam. The resurveys of the Marble Canyon dam sites indicate that the post-1950s changes in sediment storage at these dam sites are broadly consistent with flux-based estimates of voluminous sand erosion from Marble Canyon since the 1963 closure of Glen Canyon Dam. These resurveys also suggest that the pre-dam longitudinal variation in sediment thickness over bedrock played a key role in determining the locations of the sand erosion induced by Glen Canyon Dam; more sand eroded from locations where more sand was present in the 1950s. The resurvey of the Bridge Canyon dam sites indicates that the Colorado River’s incision of the Lake Mead delta is regulated both by bed-sediment grain size and downstream hydraulic controls. Finally, analyses of bed-sediment thickness and sedimentological data at the dam sites, and observations of bed scour and gravel transport, suggest that sufficient bedrock was exposed to allow bedrock incision during commonly recurring pre-dam snowmelt floods that entrained small boulders into transport.

Arizona↗