Downloaded from http://mem.lyellcollection.

org/ at Indiana University Libraries on May 13, 2015

Chapter 32

Geology and petroleum potential of the Arctic Alaska petroleum province

KENNETH J. BIRD1* & DAVID W. HOUSEKNECHT2

1
US Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA
2
US Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA 20192, USA
*Corresponding author (e-mail: kbird@usgs.gov)

Abstract: The Arctic Alaska petroleum province encompasses all lands and adjacent continental shelf areas north of the Brooks
Range–Herald Arch orogenic belt and south of the northern (outboard) margin of the Beaufort Rift shoulder. Even though only
a small part is thoroughly explored, it is one of the most prolific petroleum provinces in North America with total known resources
(cumulative production plus proved reserves) of c. 28 BBOE. The province constitutes a significant part of a displaced continental frag-
ment, the Arctic Alaska microplate, that was probably rifted from the Canadian Arctic margin during formation of the Canada Basin.
Petroleum prospective rocks in the province, mostly Mississippian and younger, record a sequential geological evolution through
passive margin, rift and foreland basin tectonic stages. Significant petroleum source and reservoir rocks were formed during each tectonic
stage but it was the foreland basin stage that provided the necessary burial heating to generate petroleum from the source rocks. The lion’s
share of known petroleum resources in the province occur in combination structural– stratigraphic traps formed as a consequence of
rifting and located along the rift shoulder. Since the discovery of the super-giant Prudhoe Bay accumulation in one of these traps in
the late 1960s, exploration activity preferentially focused on these types of traps. More recent activity, however, has emphasized the
potential for stratigraphic traps and the prospect of a natural gas pipeline in this region has spurred renewed interest in structural
traps. For assessment purposes, the province is divided into a Platform assessment unit (AU), comprising the Beaufort Rift shoulder
and its relatively undeformed flanks, and a Fold-and-Thrust Belt AU, comprising the deformed area north of the Brooks Range and
Herald Arch tectonic belt. Mean estimates of undiscovered, technically recoverable resources include nearly 28 billion barrels of oil
(BBO) and 122 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of nonassociated gas in the Platform AU and 2 BBO and 59 TCF of nonassociated gas in the
Fold-and-Thrust Belt AU.

In 2008 an appraisal of possible future additions to world
conventional oil and gas resources was completed by a team of
US Geological Survey scientists for the region north of the
Arctic Circle. This Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal (CARA)
project mapped and evaluated all of the basins of the Arctic and
the present article is derived from that project. The methodology
followed in the project and the overall results obtained are pre-
sented in this volume in the articles by, respectively, Charpentier
& Gautier (2011) and Gautier et al. (2011).
The Arctic Alaska petroleum province is one of the most
petroleum productive areas of the USA and the Circum-Arctic
region as well and is an area of ongoing active petroleum explora-
tion. Extensive seismic surveys, hundreds of exploration wells and
decades of field studies have made it one of the geologically better
known regions of the Arctic. As defined for the 2008 Circum-
Arctic Assessment, the Arctic Alaska petroleum province extends
from the northern margin of the Brooks Range and Herald Arch
tectonic belts on the south and SW to the northern margin of the
Beaufort Rift shoulder on the north, and from the axis of the
Chukchi platform on the NW to the western margin of the Mack-
enzie delta on the east (Fig. 32.1). The province is c. 1400 km long
(west –east) and ranges in width (south – north) from c. 500 km in
the west to c. 50 km in the east and covers an area of nearly
350 000 km2. The province includes the Alaska North Slope, the
Alaska and Canada Brooks Range foothills, part of the Alaska
and Canada Beaufort Shelf, most of the US Chukchi Shelf and a
small part of the Russian Chukchi Shelf.
The objectives of this paper are to review the regional geological
framework and petroleum geology of the Arctic Alaska petroleum
province and to summarize the yet-to-be-discovered petroleum
potential estimated in the 2008 Circum-Arctic Assessment.
Geological framework
The Arctic Alaska petroleum province comprises a significant
part of the Arctic Alaska microplate (Hubbard et al. 1987), a
continental fragment that includes the Brooks Range, the North
Slope and the adjacent Beaufort and Chukchi Sea shelves, the
Chukchi Borderland, and part of the East Siberian Sea and northern
Chukotka Peninsula. It is generally agreed that the Arctic Alaska
microplate rifted from the Canadian Arctic margin during for-
mation of the Canada Basin in Jurassic – Early Cretaceous time
(Grantz & May 1982; Embry 1990, 1998; Grantz et al. 1990;
Lawver & Scotese 1990; Lane 1997). The most prominent geologi-
cal features of the Arctic Alaska petroleum province, from oldest
to youngest, are the Hanna Trough, the Beaufort Rift shoulder,
the Colville foreland basin, and the Brooks Range and Herald
Arch fold-and-thrust belts (Figs 32.1 & 32.2).
The Hanna Trough is a north-trending structural sag beneath the
Chukchi Shelf characterized by a complex array of north-trending
Late Devonian(?) – Permian grabens and half-grabens interpreted
as a failed rift; the relatively thick and generally unfaulted
overlying Permian – Jurassic strata are interpreted as a sag-phase
succession (Sherwood et al. 1998, 2002). The Hanna Trough sep-
arates high standing (,2 km) acoustic basement of the Beaufort
Rift shoulder to the NE from that of the Chukchi platform to the
west (Fig. 32.1). Acoustic basement in the trough axis typically
lies at depths in excess of 9 km and locally more than 13 km
(Sherwood et al. 1998, 2002). Hanna Trough is part of a region-
wide episode of extension following Devonian (Ellesmerian)
orogenesis. Numerous north- to NW-trending half-grabens and
sags of equivalent age are known to occur beneath the Alaskan
North Slope (ANS) as far east as 1478W (Hubbard et al. 1987;
Bird 2001). Restoration of the north Alaskan margin against the
Canadian margin by counterclockwise plate rotation prior to
opening of the Canada Basin shows alignment of the axis of
Hanna Trough with that of Sverdrup Basin. That alignment and
general stratigraphic similarities suggest that Hanna Trough is an
extension of Sverdrup Basin (Embry 1990, 1998; Embry et al.
1994).
The Beaufort Rift shoulder formed during Jurassic –Early
Cretaceous opening of the Canada Basin (Grantz & May 1982;
Grantz et al. 1990; Houseknecht et al. 2011). The Arctic Alaska

From: Spencer, A. M., Embry, A. F., Gautier, D. L., Stoupakova, A. V. & Sørensen, K. (eds) Arctic Petroleum Geology. Geological Society, London, Memoirs,
35, 485– 499. 0435-4052/11/$15.00 # The Geological Society of London 2011. DOI: 10.1144/M35.32
 Downloaded from http://mem.lyellcollection.org/ at Indiana University Libraries on May 13, 2015

486 K. J. BIRD & D. W. HOUSEKNECHT

Fig. 32.1. Map of Arctic Alaska Province (outlined in red) showing major tectono-stratigraphic features, location of cross section (Fig. 32.2), and boundaries of adjacent
assessment units (green lines). Blue lines, bathymetry in metres.

microplate rifted from Arctic Canada, perhaps by counter-
clockwise rotational opening of the Canada Basin or alternative
motions (Grantz & May 1982; Embry 1990, 1998; Grantz et al.
1990; Lawver & Scotese 1990; Lane 1997; Grantz & Hart
2008). The rift shoulder is defined by high-standing acoustic base-
ment that generally dips southward beneath Arctic Alaska and the
Chukchi Shelf, and that steps northward over a short distance
across normal faults to great depths beneath the Beaufort Shelf
(Fig. 32.2). This abrupt northern boundary of the rift shoulder
defines the ‘Beaufort hinge’ and the northern boundary of the pro-
vince (Figs 32.1 & 32.2). The crest of the rift shoulder is commonly
referred to as the Barrow Arch.
The Colville foreland basin is an east –west-trending asym-
metric basin with sedimentary fill increasing southward to as

Fig. 32.2. Cross section showing generalized

stratigraphic and structural relations from the
Brooks Range to the northern margin of the
Beaufort Rift shoulder, central North Slope of
Alaska. Note that Beaufort Rift shoulder in this
area includes Dinkum graben and plateau.
Location of cross section is shown in
Figure 32.1. Modified from Bird & Bader
(1987).
 Downloaded from http://mem.lyellcollection.org/ at Indiana University Libraries on May 13, 2015
CHAPTER 32 PETROLEUM GEOLOGY OF ARCTIC ALASKA
much as 10 km near the front of the Brooks Range (Fig. 32.2). It
records the subsidence related to crustal loading and the accumu-
lation of sediment debris shed from the Jurassic –Cenozoic ero-
sional unroofing of the Brooks Range orogenic belt. Initiation
and early development of the foreland basin was coincident
with rifting and opening of the Canada Basin. The foreland
basin consists primarily of Aptian to Palaeogene marine to non-
marine clastic deposits that filled the basin, onlapped and even-
tually overtopped the rift shoulder, and built the adjacent
continental terrace. Throughout the basin, clinoform geometry is
a distinctive feature on seismic reflection records (Molenaar
1988; Bird & Molenaar 1992; Houseknecht et al. 2009). Analysis
shows that the Albian clinoform sequences are significantly thicker
here than most reported in the literature elsewhere in the world
(600 –2500 v. 250– 500 m, respectively), indicating significant
subsidence followed by rapid sediment influx (Houseknecht
et al. 2009). Shelf margin trends based on clinoform dip directions,
outcrop lithofacies and palaeocurrent indicators, and regional age
relations indicate primarily longitudinal, SW to NE filling of the
basin (Bird & Molenaar 1992; Moore et al. 1994; Houseknecht
et al. 2009). These observations lead to the conclusion that the
dominant sediment source terrain for the basin included highlands
in the southern Chukchi Sea (now subsided and buried beneath
Hope Basin) and the Chukotka Peninsula with the ancestral
Brooks Range constituting a lesser source (Molenaar 1985).
The Brooks Range and Herald Arch, which form the southern
boundary of the Arctic Alaska petroleum province, are parts of a
north-directed fold-and-thrust belt. The Brooks Range is consi-
dered to represent two superposed contractional orogens (Moore
et al. 2004): (1) an older orogen that was active from Middle
Jurassic to Early Cretaceous (160 –120 Ma) and produced a
thin-skinned deformational wedge characterized by far-travelled
allochthons with relatively low structural relief; and (2) a
younger orogen that deformed the older one, produced a thrust
belt and frontal triangle zone with low amounts of shortening
but relatively high structural relief, and extended north of the
Brooks Range –Herald Arch well into the foreland basin
(Fig. 32.1). Apatite fission-track data show that younger orogen
deformation occurred primarily during the Palaeogene (c. 60 and
c. 45 Ma) in most parts of the basin and as young as 23 Ma in
the NE (O’Sullivan et al. 1993, 1997), where the fold-and-thrust
belt extends northward across the rift shoulder and into the
passive margin (the Canning –Mackenzie deformed margin,
Fig. 32.1). Ongoing deformation in this northeastern area is indi-
cated by earthquake epicentres (Grantz et al. 1990). Complicating
this picture of two superposed orogens are mid-Cretaceous radio-
metric ages (113 –90 Ma) from metamorphic rocks in the southern
Brooks Range that have been interpreted as showing either con-
tractional deformation (Till & Patrick 1991; Till & Snee 1995;
Gottschalk & Snee 1998) or extensional deformation (Miller &
Hudson 1991; Little et al. 1994; Christiansen & Snee 1994).
Thus, that part of the Albian –Cenomanian sedimentary fill in
the Colville Basin derived from the Brooks Range may have
been shed from uplift caused either by continued contractional
deformation in the orogen or, alternatively, to uplift related to
regional extensional deformation in the hinterland of the Brooks
Range orogen.
The Herald Arch and its onshore extension, the Lisburne Hills, is
a NE- to east-vergent fold-and-thrust belt. East of the Liburne
Hills, folds in the adjacent foreland basin intersect those of the
western Brooks Range producing prominent interference struc-
tures (readily visible in Google Earth images) in an area termed
the ‘Chukchi syntaxis’ by Tailleur & Brosgé (1970; Fig. 32.1). Off-
shore, seismic reflection profiles show that Herald Arch is a high
-tanding block of acoustic basement at the sea floor, that its north-
ern boundary is composed of SW-dipping thrust faults that juxta-
pose acoustic basement and mid-Cretaceous foreland basin
strata, and that its southern boundary is a gentle south-dipping ero-
sional surface onlapped by Palaeogene strata of the extensional
487
Hope Basin (Tolson 1987). Moore et al. (2002), in their study of
the northern Lisburne Hills, the only detailed study of this trend,
conclude that timing of deformation and degree of shortening is
similar to that of the Brooks Range with greatest uplift (c. 5 km)
occurring in Early Cretaceous (c. 115 Ma) and with lesser uplift
(2 –3 km) occurring sometime during post-mid Cretaceous. The
origin of the NW structural trend is unknown.
Stratigraphy
The stratigraphic record of the northern Alaska province ranges
from Cenozoic to Precambrian, but rocks with petroleum potential
are mostly younger than Devonian (Fig. 32.3). Rich in detail, the
stratigraphy is simplified here by the traditional grouping of the
rocks into tectono-stratigraphic sequences, a scheme, proposed
by Lerand (1973) and modified by later investigators, that empha-
sizes tectonic history, provenance and genetic relations. The
sequences are briefly described here with additional details pro-
vided later in discussions of petroleum potential.
The Franklinian sequence includes Devonian and older
sedimentary and some igneous rocks of unknown but substantial
thickness representing diverse origins and a complex geological
history. Although knowledge of these rocks is limited, it is
known that they have everywhere been buried, deformed and
metamorphosed beyond the thermal stage for oil preservation.
Thus, they are generally considered economic basement and in
most areas they also represent acoustic basement, except for the
NE Chukchi Basin beneath the Chukchi Shelf (Fig. 32.1). This
basin, clearly imaged on seismic data but not penetrated by any
wells, is estimated to consist of .9 km of carbonate and clastic
rocks (Grantz et al. 1990; Sherwood 1994) with seismic reflection
characteristics similar to those of early and mid-Palaeozoic rocks
of the Parry Island fold belt of the Canadian Arctic Islands
(Embry 1990; Sherwood 1994).
The Mississippian to Jurassic Ellesmerian sequence consists of
carbonate and nonmarine to marine siliciclastic continental-shelf
deposits developed on a south-facing passive margin; from a north-
ern pinchout or erosional edge, they thicken southward to a typical
thickness of about 2 km (Moore et al. 1994). Westward, these
deposits thicken dramatically into the Hanna Trough and then
thin against the Chukchi platform. In the Hanna Trough, Devo-
nian(?) and Mississippian rocks are thick graben-filling (synrift)
deposits, and younger Permian to Jurassic strata are interpreted
as thermal sag-phase deposits (Sherwood et al. 1998). The
Ellesmerian sequence includes both reservoir and source rocks.
However, because the sequence is generally thin, Triassic and
Early Jurassic source rocks lying near the top of the sequence
were not capable of petroleum generation until they were buried
by Beaufortian and Brookian deposits.
The Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous (Neocomian) Beaufortian
sequence of Hubbard et al. (1987) or Barrovian sequence of
Carman & Hardwick (1983) consists of synrift deposits derived
locally or from the north. This stratigraphically complex, mud-
dominated sequence with multiple unconformities and large vari-
ations in thickness includes source rocks and reservoir rocks.
Normal faulting and development of sediment-filled grabens and
half grabens, some with more than 3 km of fill (e.g. Dinkum
graben; Grantz & May 1982), occur mainly on the north flank of
the rift shoulder and in the northern part of the Hanna Trough
(Sherwood et al. 1998, 2002). On the south flank of the rift
shoulder in the central onshore part of the province, four sequence
sets with a total thickness of more than 1200 m have been mapped
on seismic reflection profiles showing southward prograding shelf
deposits each of which eventually downlap and coalesce into a
basinal condensed section (Houseknecht & Bird 2004). Part or
all of this basinal condensed section is represented in the Brooks
Range thrust belt by the ,20 m-thick Blankenship member of
the Otuk Formation, some parts of which are rich oil shale (Tailleur
 Downloaded from http://mem.lyellcollection.org/ at Indiana University Libraries on May 13, 2015
488 K. J. BIRD & D. W. HOUSEKNECHT
1964). The Beaufortian sequence beneath the Chukchi Shelf
is similar to that of the ANS, except that it is punctuated by
several unconformities (e.g. Jurassic unconformity; Fig. 32.3)
that appear to be more significant than those to the east (Sherwood
et al. 1998). The Beaufortian sequence and, in many areas, the
Ellesmerian sequence are truncated progressively northward
beneath the Lower Cretaceous unconformity (Fig. 32.2, LCU),
considered to be the breakup unconformity formed during rift-
shoulder uplift; Franklinian basement subcrops the LCU in areas
of maximum uplift (Fig. 32.4a). Because it truncates many reser-
voir and source rocks, the LCU plays an important role in many
of the largest oil fields in northern Alaska. This role includes devel-
opment of enhanced porosity in sub-unconformity reservoirs
(Shanmugam & Higgins 1988; Jameson 1994); provision of a
migration pathway for hydrocarbons to charge multiple sub- and
supra-unconformity reservoirs; and juxtaposition of overlying
marine mudstone source and seal rocks – pebble shale unit and
gamma-ray zone (GRZ) of the Hue Shale – with sub-unconformity
reservoir rocks. The Barrow Arch, first formed during rift-related
uplift and subsequently accentuated by subsidence to the north
and south, is a regional basement high and a key element in the for-
mation of most north Alaskan oil fields. Subsidence of the rift
margin and the ensuing marine transgression resulted in deposition
of a blanket-like marine mudstone (pebble shale unit) that marks
the end of the Beaufortian sequence.
Cretaceous and Cenozoic deposits derived from the Brooks
Range orogen are assigned to the Brookian sequence. These volu-
minous deposits filled the Colville foreland basin, overtopped the
rift shoulder and built the passive margin that forms the present
continental terrace north of Alaska. The Brookian sequence con-
sists of a complex assemblage of siliciclastic strata that includes
Fig. 32.3. Generalized chronostratigraphy for
the Arctic Alaska petroleum province, based on
the Alaska North Slope. Tectonostratigraphic
sequence names shown in all caps at left.
Oil-prone source-rock systems discussed in text
are indicated at right: 1, Triassic source-rock
system, comprising the Shublik Formation and
Triassic part of the Otuk Formation; 2, Jurassic
source-rock system, comprising the lower
Kingak Shale and Blankenship Member (B) of
the Otuk Formation; and 3, Cretaceous –
Palaeogene source-rock system, comprising
(a) the Lower Cretaceous Pebble Shale Unit
and GRZ, (b) the Upper Cretaceous Seabee
Formation and (c) lower Palaeogene
organic-rich tongues of the Canning Formation.
Most important reservoir rocks in terms of
known hydrocarbon accumulations are
indicated by circled ‘R’ symbol. LCU, Lower
Cretaceous unconformity; JU, Jurassic
unconformity; F, Fortress Mountain Formation;
N, Nanushuk Formation; T, Tuluvak Formation.
Italicized labels (Otuk Formation and B,
Blankenship Member) indicate units that crop
out in the Brooks Range frontal thrust belt and
that represent southern distal facies equivalents
of formations present beneath the Alaska North
Slope. Arctic Alaska stratigraphy modified from
Bird (1985, 2001) and Mull et al. (2003); ages
from Gradstein et al. (2004).
distal, condensed marine mudstone (Hue Shale); relatively deep
marine basinal, slope and outer-shelf mudstones and turbiditic
sandstones (Torok, Seabee and Canning formations); and shallow-
marine to coal-bearing nonmarine sandstone, mudstone and
conglomerate (Nanushuk, Tuluvak, Prince Creek, Schrader Bluff
and Sagavanirktok formations). The lower part of the Hue Shale,
an important source rock, is characterized by an interval of high
gamma-ray readings known as the gamma-ray zone (GRZ) or
the highly radioactive zone (HRZ) (Molenaar et al. 1987). This
unit typically occurs in a bottomset seismic facies and interfingers
with downlapping clinoform strata. The Brookian sequence
beneath the Chukchi Shelf comprises Lower Cretaceous (mostly
Aptian –Albian) and Cenozoic successions separated by a signifi-
cant Paleocene unconformity (Sherwood et al. 1998). The Lower
Cretaceous succession displays a regional geometry suggesting
influences of both a sag basin developed above the Hanna
Trough and a foreland basin related to the Herald Arch and
western Brooks Range. Lower Cretaceous strata grade eastward
into foreland basin deposits of the ANS (Houseknecht et al.
2009). The Cenozoic succession, in contrast, is thickest
in syndepositional grabens that open northward into the North
Chukchi Basin (Fig. 32.1; Sherwood et al. 1998). South of the
rift shoulder, no apparent stratigraphic continuity exists between
the Cenozoic successions beneath the Chukchi Shelf and the
eastern ANS. Evidence suggests broad uplift of the western
ANS during this time (Burns et al. 2007), essentially segment-
ing the foreland into a Chukchi depocentre influenced by
wrench tectonics (Lothamer 1994; Sherwood et al. 1998) and an
eastern ANS depocentre influenced by contractional tectonics
associated with the eastern Brooks Range (Moore et al. 1994;
Potter et al. 2004).
 Downloaded from http://mem.lyellcollection.org/ at Indiana University Libraries on May 13, 2015

CHAPTER 32 PETROLEUM GEOLOGY OF ARCTIC ALASKA 489

Fig. 32.4. Maps showing the three major oil-prone source-rock systems in the Arctic Alaska province, with colors depicting the inferred original distribution of
oil-prone (green) v. gas-prone (yellow) kerogen. Maps are highly generalized and based on published information (see text) and original palaeogeographic
reconstructions. (a) Triassic source-rock system, comprising the Shublik Formation across most of the map area and the Triassic part of the Otuk Formation in the
southernmost part of the map area (frontal thrust belt of the Brooks Range). (b) Jurassic source-rock system, comprising primarily the lower Kingak Shale across most of
the map area and the Jurassic Blankenship Member of the Otuk Formation in the southernmost part of the map area (frontal thrust belt of the Brooks Range). The abrupt
yellow-to-green boundary occurs at the shelf margin of the lower Kingak depositional sequence (Houseknecht & Bird 2004). (c) Cretaceous– Palaeogene source-rock
system, comprising primarily the pebble shale unit, GRZ and Seabee Formation south of the Beaufort hinge and Cretaceous and Palaeogene condensed mudstones north
of the Beaufort hinge (Houseknecht et al. 2011). Pink areas in (a) and (b) show areas of greatest uplift of rift shoulder during Jurassic–Early Cretaceous; Triassic
and Jurassic source rocks are absent by erosion in those areas. Note that Triassic and Jurassic source rocks are probably absent or buried to extreme depths north of
the Beaufort hinge. Presence of Cretaceous– Palaeogene source rocks north of Beaufort hinge is inferred based on palaeogeographic reconstructions (Houseknecht
et al. 2011).
 Downloaded from http://mem.lyellcollection.org/ at Indiana University Libraries on May 13, 2015
490 K. J. BIRD & D. W. HOUSEKNECHT
Charge considerations
Petroleum systems
Multiple petroleum systems have been identified in Arctic Alaska
and many oil accumulations appear to be mixtures of oil expelled
from two or more source rocks (Magoon et al. 2003; Peters et al.
2008). The regional source-rock potential of Arctic Alaska is con-
sidered within a framework of three source-rock systems, Triassic,
Jurassic and Cretaceous –Palaeogene. The Triassic source-rock
system includes the Shublik Formation and its southern distal
equivalent, the Triassic part of the Otuk Formation, which crops
out in the frontal thrust belt of the Brooks Range (Mull et al.
1982; Kupecz 1995; Masterson 2001; Parrish et al. 2001a, b;
Peters et al. 2006). The Jurassic source-rock system includes the
lower Kingak Shale and its southern distal equivalent, the Jurassic
Blankenship Member of the Otuk Formation, which crops out
in the frontal thrust belt of the Brooks Range (Mull et al. 1982;
Masterson 2001; Houseknecht & Bird 2004; Peters et al. 2006).
The Cretaceous –Palaeogene source rock system includes the
Lower Cretaceous Pebble Shale Unit and GRZ of the Hue Shale,
the Upper Cretaceous Hue Shale and (mostly Turonian) Seabee
Formation, and Palaeogene organic-rich beds in the Canning
Formation (Fig. 32.3; Mull et al. 2003; Macquaker & Keller
2005; Peters et al. 2006; Houseknecht et al. 2011).
The present character of these source-rock systems has been
documented in the most heavily explored part of the Arctic
Alaska petroleum province (e.g. Magoon & Claypool 1985;
Magoon & Bird 1988; Magoon et al. 1999; Masterson 2001)
and the original (pre-maturation) character has been inferred for
the same area (Peters et al. 2006). However, the source-rock
quality across much of the province remains poorly known
because of limited data. Outcrop samples from the Brooks
Range frontal thrust belt (Dow & Talukdar 1995; Dow 1998;
Mull 2000; C. G. Mull, pers. comm. 2009) suggest that the
Triassic and Jurassic source-rock systems originally graded
southward to be richer (higher total organic carbon content) and
more oil-prone (higher hydrogen index values). In contrast,
thrust-belt outcrop samples of the pebble shale and GRZ display
highly variable character; they tend to be lean and gas-prone
across much of the thrust belt but locally are rich and oil-prone
(Dow & Talukdar 1995; Dow 1998; Mull 2000; C. G. Mull,
pers. comm. 2009).
Maps depicting the highly generalized, original character of
these three source-rock systems are shown in Figure 32.4. The
Triassic and Jurassic source-rock systems were deposited on a
south-facing (present coordinates) passive continental margin
and, when the character of outcrop samples from the Brooks
Range frontal thrust belt is considered, they appear originally to
have been richer (higher total organic carbon content) and more
oil-prone (higher hydrogen index values) towards the south
(Fig. 32.4a, b; Dow & Talukdar 1995; Kupecz 1995; Dow 1998;
Mull 2000; Masterson 2001; Parrish et al. 2001a, b; Peters et al.
2006; C. G. Mull, pers. comm. 2009). The Lower Cretaceous
Pebble Shale Unit and GRZ, deposited during and following the
opening of the Canada Basin and the onset of Brooks Range tecton-
ism and foreland basin development, appear originally to have
been richer and more oil-prone towards the east and north
(Fig. 32.4c; Dow & Talukdar 1995; Dow 1998; Mull 2000;
Peters et al. 2006; C. G. Mull, pers. comm. 2009). However,
organic-rich and oil-prone source rocks also have been documen-
ted locally in outcrops of the pebble shale unit and GRZ along the
western part of the Brooks Range frontal thrust belt (C. G. Mull,
pers. comm. 2009), so exceptions to the generalized regional
trends have been documented. Although not confirmed by drilling,
the potential exists for rich and oil-prone Cretaceous and Palaeo-
gene source rocks in the Canada Basin, north of the Beaufort
Rift shoulder (Houseknecht et al. 2011), and this potential is
reflected in Figure 32.4c; their presence in the Canada Basin,
however, is not considered a significant factor in the oil and gas
assessment of the Arctic Alaska Province.
In addition to the major source-rock systems discussed above,
oil-prone source rocks are known to occur in the upper part of
the Upper Palaeozoic Lisburne Group (Fig. 32.3) and several
Arctic Alaska oil accumulations are inferred to have been partly
charged from Lisburne source rocks (Magoon et al. 2003; Dumou-
lin et al. 2008). Moreover, gas-prone mudstones and local coals
occur in strata ranging from Mississippian (Endicott Group) to
Palaeogene (Nanushuk, Prince Creek, and Sagavanirktok for-
mations) in age (Fig. 32.3). However, gas studies (e.g. Burruss
et al. 2003) provide no clear linkage of gas accumulations to
these rocks and suggest that, like the oil accumulations, multiple
sources contributed to each accumulation.
Thermal maturity
Thermal maturity of these source rocks generally reflects the dis-
tribution and thickness of Cretaceous and younger foreland-basin
and, for Triassic and Jurassic source rocks, the additional burial
imposed by Beaufort passive-margin deposits. A structure contour
map on the Lower Cretaceous unconformity and its correlative
horizon (Fig. 32.5) provides a view of the present-day thickness
and distribution of Cretaceous and younger foreland basin rocks.
It shows a minimum thickness of 1 km or less along the western
part of the rift shoulder and the southern part of the Chukchi Plat-
form with abruptly increasing thickness to more than 8 km north of
the rift shoulder and in the North Chukchi Basin and more gradual
increasing thickness southward into the axis of the foreland basin
and Hanna Trough. A thermal maturity map on this horizon
(Fig. 32.6) shows that all source rocks in the foredeep are overma-
ture with respect to the oil window, are mostly mature on the north-
ern flank of the foreland basin, and are mostly early-mature to
immature on the rift shoulder. Modeling of burial history and
hydrocarbon generation (Figs 32.6 & 32.7) indicates that most
oil generation occurred during Early to middle Cretaceous in the
western to central part of the province and during the Palaeogene
in the eastern part of the province; these maturation dates corre-
spond to times when the thickest foreland basin successions
were deposited (Houseknecht et al. 2011). In the Canada Basin,
maturation of all source rocks generally occurred during the
Palaeogene – Neogene, except in a depocentre immediately north
of the Beaufort Rift shoulder along the NE Chukchi margin,
where maturation of the oldest source rocks may have occurred
during the Early Cretaceous (Houseknecht et al. 2011).
Throughout the history of hydrocarbon generation, the Beaufort
Rift shoulder remained a structurally high focus for migration of
hydrocarbons generated both in the Arctic Alaska province and
in the adjacent margins of the southern Canada Basin. Most dis-
covered oil accumulations (including the super-giant Prudhoe
Bay field) and many discovered gas accumulations occur along
the rift shoulder and its flanks.
Petroleum potential
The geological synthesis presented above was used to conduct an
assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources of the Arctic
Alaska Province (Houseknecht & Bird in press). For this assess-
ment, the province was subdivided into two assessment units
(AU): the Platform AU in the north and the Fold-and-Thrust
Belt AU in the south (Figs 32.6 & 32.8). The northern limit of
the fold-and-thrust belt (Fig. 32.1) serves as the common boundary
between these assessment units. Initial considerations focused on
three broadly defined risk factors that influence the occurrence of
significant oil and gas resources, defined as at least one undiscov-
ered accumulation of .50 million barrels of oil equivalent
(MMBOE): (1) ‘Charge’ includes the presence of adequate
 Downloaded from http://mem.lyellcollection.org/ at Indiana University Libraries on May 13, 2015

CHAPTER 32 PETROLEUM GEOLOGY OF ARCTIC ALASKA 491

Fig. 32.5. Structure contour map (in metres sub-sea) of the Lower Cretaceous unconformity (LCU) and correlative horizon in the Arctic Alaska Province based on
seismic reflection and well data. The LCU approximates the base of the Brookian sequence and that of the youngest of the three most important petroleum source rock
intervals in the province (Figs 32.3 & 32.4). See Figure 32.6 for map of thermal maturity at this horizon. Contour interval, 500 m.

source rocks, a thermal maturation history suitable for generating
hydrocarbons, and favourable migration pathways for hydrocar-
bons expelled from source rocks to reach traps; (2) ‘Rocks’ is an
evaluation of the presence of adequate reservoir rocks, traps, and
seals; and (3) ‘Timing’ considers the chronological history of pet-
roleum systems, specifically the relative timing between charge
and the development of rock attributes. The following sections
describe each assessment unit and summarize our evaluation of
these risk factors and the resulting assessment of undiscovered
oil and gas resources for each.
Arctic Alaska Platform
The Arctic Alaska Platform AU extends from the northern limit of
the Brooks Range foothills fold-and-thrust-belt on the south to the
northern margin of the Beaufort Rift shoulder (Beaufort hinge) on
the north and from the axis of the Chukchi platform (near the USA–
Russia maritime boundary) on the west to a wedge-out on the east
where the Brooks Range tectonic front has overridden the rift
shoulder (Fig. 32.8). The AU encompasses an area of 193 000 km2.
The AU includes the Beaufort Rift shoulder (whose crest is the
Barrow Arch) and the Chukchi Platform, including much of the
Chukchi Shelf. The tectonic history of the AU includes a late
Palaeozoic and early Mesozoic south-facing passive continental
margin transected in the west by a Devonian(?) – Mississippian
failed rift (Fig. 32.1, Hanna Trough); an episode of extension in
Jurassic and rifting in early Cretaceous; and deeper burial in the
Cretaceous and Cenozoic by southerly sourced foreland basin
strata (Moore et al. 1994). Petroleum prospective strata are mostly
Mississippian and younger, although postulated Lower Palaeozoic
strata in the NE Chukchi Basin (Fig. 32.1; Grantz et al. 1990;
Sherwood 1994; Sherwood et al. 1998) also are included.
Although this assessment unit is the most intensely explored in
Arctic Alaska, most exploration has been concentrated in a
relatively small part of the AU, onshore and near-shore along the
trend of the rift shoulder (Fig. 32.8). More than two dozen accumu-
lations have been discovered in the AU, including at least 15 oil
and two gas accumulations .50 MMBOE plus numerous
smaller oil and gas accumulations (Figs 32.8 & 32.9). Currently,
10 fields are producing, including the largest conventional oil
field in North America (Prudhoe Bay). As at 2005, about
15 billion barrels of oil (BBO) have been produced with reserves
of 6.7 BBO and 35 trillion cubic feet of gas (TCFG) (Houseknecht
& Bird 2006). Considering the history of discovery in this AU and
the vast area that is lightly explored, the probability that the Arctic
Alaska Platform AU contains at least one undiscovered accumu-
lation .50 MMBOE is considered to be 100% (Table 32.1).
Charge. Demonstrated source rocks that occur within this AU as
well as in the Fold-and-Thrust Belt AU to the south include the
Triassic Shublik Formation, Jurassic lower Kingak Shale and Cre-
taceous Pebble Shale Unit and Hue Shale. Regional seismic, well
and outcrop data, and burial history modelling indicate that pet-
roleum generation was controlled by burial related to filling of
the Colville Foreland Basin which began in the SW in the Early
Cretaceous (c. 120–110 Ma) and progressed eastward to the
middle Palaeogene (c. 45 Ma). As foreland basin fill prograded
northward across the subsiding rift shoulder, petroleum generation
occurred north of the rift shoulder, where a thick prism of Brookian
sediment was deposited (Fig. 32.5). Regional migration pathways
follow strata and unconformities updip toward the Barrow Arch,
but local pathways are postulated to be controlled by faults in
the entire stratigraphic section and by clinoforms in the Beau-
fortian and Brookian sequences. Mixing of oil from these
source rocks is common in this AU (Magoon et al. 2003; Peters
et al. 2008).
Rocks. The dominant reservoir lithology in this AU is sandstone,
although Upper Palaeozoic carbonate reservoirs (Lisburne
 Downloaded from http://mem.lyellcollection.org/ at Indiana University Libraries on May 13, 2015

492 K. J. BIRD & D. W. HOUSEKNECHT

Fig. 32.6. Map of thermal maturity of the base of the Brookian Sequence across the Arctic Alaska Province and the southern Canada Basin. This map is derived from
thermal history modelling and honors empirical vitrinite reflectance data from 97 exploration wells in the Arctic Alaska Province. Crosses are exploration wells and
pseudowells used for modelling. Circled wells with labels (7a, 7b) are shown in Figure 32.7. Maturity values .3% vitrinite reflectance are approximate as those values
exceed the validity range of kinetics used for calculation. Location of the Beaufort hinge is shown by the heavy blue line. Modified from Houseknecht et al. (2011).

Group) are locally important. Nearly every sandstone unit is
known to contain oil and or gas somewhere in the AU. The greatest
volumes of known petroleum resources (cumulative production
plus reserves) are reservoired in fluvial –deltaic sandstone of the
Ivishak and Kekiktuk formations (Triassic and Mississippian,
respectively) and the shallow marine sandstone of the Kuparuk
Formation and stratigraphically equivalent units (Early Creta-
ceous) and the Jurassic part of the Kingak Shale (Fig. 32.3).
The largest known accumulations (Prudhoe Bay, Kuparuk, Point
Thomson, Burger; Fig. 32.9) occur in combination structural –
stratigraphic traps related to rifting, but an increasing number of
accumulations are known to occur in purely stratigraphic traps in
both deep marine (Meltwater, Tarn, Nanuq) and shallow marine
(Alpine, Fiord, Rendezvous, Moose’s Tooth, Tabasco) facies.
Seals are provided by marine shale.
Timing. Oil generation began in the south and west parts of the
Arctic Alaska province in the Early Cretaceous (Fig. 32.7a)
and progressed eastward and northward through the Cenozoic
(Houseknecht et al. 2011). Onshore, most generation probably
ended in late Eocene (c. 45 Ma) but may still be ongoing offshore
in the eastern part of the AU where sedimentation continues on the
shelf of the Beaufort Sea (Houseknecht et al. 2011).
The potential for loss of trapped hydrocarbons occurred during
the Palaeogene, when the Beaufort Rift shoulder tilted downward
to the east, apparently as the result of tectonic loading by the north-
ward advance of the NE Brooks Range (Hubbard et al. 1987). This
regional tilting caused spilling of oil from the super-giant Prudhoe
Bay accumulation and remigration of that oil to shallower traps
(Jones & Speers 1976; Erickson & Sneider 1997; Masterson
2001). Some of those traps are so shallow (610 –1370 m) that the
oil has been biodegraded, resulting in multi-billion barrel accumu-
lations of heavy oil in the Prudhoe Bay – Kuparuk area (Werner
1987). Also during the Palaeogene, the western part of the Beaufort
Rift shoulder was uplifted, increasing the possibility of oil displa-
cement by gas expansion (Burns et al. 2007).
Assessment. Minimum, median and maximum values for the
number and sizes of undiscovered accumulations and for the
ratio of oil to gas accumulations (Table 32.1) were estimated on
the basis of exploration and discovery history; published reserve
estimates for discovered accumulations; maps of seismically ident-
ified, untested structures; and global analogues (Charpentier et al.
2008). A list of the 34 global analogues considered for this AU is
provided in Houseknecht & Bird (in press). Assessment input was
influenced strongly by the geology, sizes and numbers of discov-
ered accumulations in the AU and by the assessments of undiscov-
ered resources conducted by the USGS and US Minerals
Management Service (MMS), which were largely based on the
mapping of favourable trap geometries from reflection seismic
 Downloaded from http://mem.lyellcollection.org/ at Indiana University Libraries on May 13, 2015
CHAPTER 32 PETROLEUM GEOLOGY OF ARCTIC ALASKA
Fig. 32.7. Petroleum systems plots for two wells in the Arctic Alaska province.
(a) Husky Awuna 1, representative of burial and thermal maturation history in
the fold-and-thrust belt assessment unit. Stratigraphy below total depth of well
(TD in stratigraphic column) was estimated from seismic data. Timing of
indicated trap formation reflects Palaeogene deformation and does not include
development of stratigraphic traps and pre-Palaeogene structural traps. Note
rapid and nearly simultaneous oil generation in all three main source–rock
systems, as expressed by plot of time v. transformation ratio. (b) Mobil West
Kuparuk 3-11-11, representative of burial and thermal maturation history in the
platform assessment unit. Well penetrated entire stratigraphic section and
reached total depth in Franklinian basement. Timing of indicated trap formation
reflects development of the LCU-truncation trap (main trap at Prudhoe Bay) and
does not include other stratigraphic and structural trap development. Note that
none of the main oil-prone source rocks has generated oil at this location, as
indicated by the plot of time v. transformation ratio. In the stratigraphic column
of both plots, only major stratigraphic units are named whereas burial history
plots include more detailed subdivision of strata. Well locations are shown in
Figures 32.6 and 32.8.
data. In those assessments a total of 69 plays were identified and
assessed within the area considered in the Arctic Alaska Platform
AU (Sherwood 1998; ANWR Assessment Team 1999; Bird &
Houseknecht 2002; Bird et al. 2005). The most important plays
in those assessments are mainly Brookian (stratigraphic traps in
topset and turbidite facies) and Beaufortian (primarily strati-
graphic but some structural traps all in topset facies). From those
assessments, the mean value of undiscovered resources and
493
number and sizes of undiscovered pools larger than 50 MMBOE
were tabulated and used as a guide for completing the assessment
input. These parameters and ancillary information provided the
input for a Monte Carlo-based estimation of the oil and gas
resources of the Arctic Alaska Platform (Charpentier & Gautier
2011). The resulting probabilistic estimates of undiscovered,
technically recoverable oil and gas for the Platform AU are sum-
marized in Table 32.2. These results include mean estimates
of nearly 28 BBO, 38 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of associated gas
and 122 TCF of nonassociated gas. The mean estimates for the
largest undiscovered oil and nonassociated gas accumulations
are 3.3 BBO and 17.9 TCFG, respectively.
Arctic Alaska fold-and-thrust belt
The Arctic Alaska Fold-and-Thrust Belt AU extends from the north-
ern edges of the Brooks Range and Herald Arch on the south to the
northern limit of significant detachment folding that marks the
boundary with the Arctic Alaska Platform AU (Fig. 32.8). The
eastern quarter of the AU, where the Brooks Range tectonic front
has overridden the Beaufort Rift shoulder, is bounded on the
north by growth-faulted and contractionally deformed Cenozoic
strata deposited north of the rift shoulder (part of the Canning–
Mackenzie deformed margin AU of the Amerasia Basin province;
Fig. 32.1). The AU encompasses an area of 156 000 km2.
As defined, the AU includes the southern part of the Chukchi
Shelf, the Hanna Trough and the Colville foreland basin as well
as the entire frontal thrust belt of the Brooks Range in northeastern
Alaska and northwestern Canada (Fig. 32.8). This AU is character-
ized by detachment folds and thrust faults related to Brooks Range
compression. The detachment level generally steps stratigraphi-
cally down section southward toward the Brooks Range, from
Cretaceous –Cenozoic foreland basin strata in the north, through
Jurassic – Lower Cretaceous rift-related strata, and into Lower
Mesozoic–Upper Palaeozoic passive margin strata in the south
(Moore et al. 1994). Petroleum prospective strata span the strati-
graphic section from Upper Palaeozoic through Cenozoic.
The AU contains several oil-prone source-rock systems that have
been demonstrated to have charged discovered oil and gas accumu-
lations (Magoon et al. 2003; Peters et al. 2008). The main oil-prone
source rocks include the Triassic Shublik Formation, the Jurassic
lower Kingak Shale and the Lower Cretaceous Pebble Shale Unit
and GRZ (Fig. 32.3). The Triassic –Lower Jurassic Otuk For-
mation, the distal stratigraphic equivalent of the Shublik Formation
and lower Kingak Shale, is an important component of the
source-rock system in the southern part of the AU where it is
present on thrust sheets and probably in autochthonous positions
beneath the disturbed belt of the frontal Brooks Range. Locally,
the Otuk Formation in outcrop occurs at levels of thermal maturity
that are in the oil window (Dow & Talukdar 1995; Dow 1998; Mull
2000; C. G. Mull, pers. comm. 2009). Additional oil-prone source
rocks are locally present in Upper Palaeozoic strata, most notably
the Kuna Formation of the Lisburne Group (Dumoulin et al.
2008). Gas-prone source rocks are present in several formations
spanning Upper Palaeozoic through Cenozoic strata.
Several gas accumulations and one oil accumulation have
been discovered in the AU (Houseknecht & Bird 2006). Only the
Gubik gas accumulation (c. 600 billion cubic feet (BCF)) and
the Umiat oil accumulation (c. 70 MMBO) are larger than the
minimum size considered in this assessment (Figs 32.8 & 32.9).
However, most of the discovered gas accumulations are based
on a single well and thus are too poorly characterized to determine
their size (e.g. Kumar et al. 2002). No commercial production has
occurred in this AU, although c. 40 000 barrels of oil were
produced for local consumption and testing at Umiat prior to
1953 (Molenaar 1982).
The likelihood that the Arctic Alaska fold-and-thrust belt AU
contains at least one undiscovered accumulation .50 MMBOE
 Downloaded from http://mem.lyellcollection.org/ at Indiana University Libraries on May 13, 2015

494 K. J. BIRD & D. W. HOUSEKNECHT

Fig. 32.8. Map of Arctic Alaska Platform and Fold-and-Thrust Belt assessment units showing locations of exploration wells and outlines of the largest oil and gas
fields. Colored dots (green, oil; red, gas) locate smaller accumulations. (7a and 7b) Location of Husky Awuna 1 and Mobil West Kuparuk 3-11-11 wells, respectively, for
which petroleum systems plots are shown in Figure 32.7.

is considered to be 100% (Table 32.1) based on the occurrence
of two discoveries greater than the minimum size, the large
number of prospects that are evident in seismic data and surface
geological map patterns, and the underexplored status of the AU.
Many untested prospects involve anticlines, including relatively
simple detachment anticlines and more complex thrust-faulted
anticlines (e.g. Oldow et al. 1987; Bird 1988; Moore et al.
2004; Potter et al. 2004). Stratigraphic traps and combination
structural –stratigraphic traps also are likely to occur (e.g. House-
knecht & Schenk 2007).
Charge. Demonstrated source rocks that occur within this AU
include the Mississippian Kuna Formation in the upper part of
the Lisburne Group, Triassic Shublik Formation, Jurassic lower
Kingak Shale, Triassic –Jurassic Otuk Formation and Cretaceous
Pebble Shale Unit and Hue Shale (Fig. 32.3). Regional seismic,
well and outcrop data, and burial history modelling indicate that
petroleum generation was controlled by sedimentary and tectonic
burial. Initial hydrocarbon generation induced by sedimentation in
the western Colville foredeep began c. 120– 110 Ma (Fig. 32.7a)
and progressed eastward and northward until c. 90 Ma, with rela-
tively modest additional generation occurring during the Late Cre-
taceous and Palaeogene as the result of additional sedimentary
burial and, near the mountain front, tectonic burial (Houseknecht
et al. 2011). This timing reflects the progressive filling of the
foredeep and the broader foreland basin from SW to NE (Bird &
Molenaar 1992; Houseknecht et al. 2009). Migration pathways
in this AU are probably controlled by stratal geometry (e.g. clino-
forms), unconformities and faults. Geochemical evidence from oil-
stained rocks in outcrop in this AU indicates widespread mixing of
oil from two or more source rocks (Lillis et al. 2002). In addition,
gas generation in the foredeep and gas expansion related to Palaeo-
gene uplift probably caused remigration of some accumulated oil.
Gas also may have been generated from thermal cracking of oil
accumulations. Consideration of kerogen composition in the
three major source-rock systems (Fig. 32.4) and thermal maturity
(Figs 32.6 & 32.7a) indicates that the AU is significantly
gas-prone, although the potential for oil is demonstrated by the
discovered Umiat accumulation, which is thought to have been
sourced from the GRZ (Magoon et al. 2003).
Rocks. The dominant reservoirs in this AU are sandstone, although
late Palaeozoic carbonate reservoirs (Lisburne Group) also are
viable, especially in thrust sheets close to the Brooks Range
(Bird 2001). Oil and gas shows are common in this AU. Reservoir
potential is greatest in Cretaceous and Cenozoic fluvial – deltaic
(topset) sandstone (Fortress Mountain, Nanushuk, Tuluvak, Schra-
der Bluff and Sagavanirktok Formations) and coeval toe-of-slope
turbidite sandstone (Torok, Seabee and Canning Formations;
Fig. 32.3). The largest known accumulations (Umiat oil accumu-
lation and Gubik gas accumulation) occur in sandstone reservoirs
of topset seismic facies in detachment-anticline traps. Strati-
graphic traps in both deep marine and shallow marine sandstone
are likely. Seals are provided by marine shale and mudstone.
Timing. Oil generation began in the southern and western parts of
the AU in the Early Cretaceous and progressed eastward and north-
ward (Houseknecht et al. 2011). Onshore, generation probably
ended in late Eocene (c. 45 Ma) but may be ongoing offshore in
the eastern part of the AU where sedimentation and contractional
deformation continue. Except for that eastern part of the assess-
ment unit, most structural traps probably formed, or were modified
by additional contraction, in the Palaeogene (Fig. 32.7a), so the
timing of structural trap development is poor for oil and is favour-
able for gas. Uplift and oil displacement by gas expansion may
have occurred in the southern half of the central and western
part of the AU in the Palaeogene as a consequence of uplift in
the frontal thrust belt of the Brooks Range.
 Downloaded from http://mem.lyellcollection.org/ at Indiana University Libraries on May 13, 2015

CHAPTER 32 PETROLEUM GEOLOGY OF ARCTIC ALASKA 495

Table 32.1. Arctic Alaska Province input parameters for assessment of

undiscovered, technically recoverable petroleum resources of the Platform
and Fold-and-Thrust Belt assessment units (AU)

Platform AU Fold-and-Thrust belt AU

Probability (risk) attribute

Charge 1.0 1.0
Rocks 1.0 1.0
Timing 1.0 1.0
Overall probability 1.0 1.0
Accumulations Min Med Max Min Med Max
Oil– gas ratio 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.3
Number
Total 25 150 300 10 60 250
Oil 8 85 240 1 12 75
Gas 5 60 200 7 50 225
Size
Oil (MMBO) 50 150 8000 50 100 2000
Gas (BCFG) 300 900 50 000 300 700 14 000

Top part of table summarizes probability of sufficient charge, rocks, timing and
overall probability for the occurrence of at least one accumulation of
.50 million barrels of oil equivalent (MMBOE). Lower part of table
provides minimum, median and maximum values for ratio of oil
accumulations to total number of accumulations (oil– gas ratio), total number
of accumulations, number of oil and gas accumulations and sizes of oil and
nonassociated gas accumulations. MMBO, million barrels of oil; BCFG,
billion cubic feet of gas. See text for additional explanation.

information provided the input for a Monte Carlo-based estimation

Fig. 32.9. Charts summarizing petroleum discoveries in the Arctic Alaska
Province. (a) Time-series plot of the nearly 70 petroleum discoveries (pools)
made in the province during the last six decades (1946–2006) as a result of
ongoing industry exploration since 1958 and two episodes of government
exploration (1944–1953 and 1974–1981). Significant discoveries are annotated
and their locations shown on Figure 32.8. (b) Size-order ranking of hydrocarbon
accumulations for which size information (produced plus reserves in millions of
barrels of oil equivalent) is available. The super-giant Prudhoe Bay
accumulation necessitates use of a logarithmic scale to see relative sizes of
smaller accumulations. Data are from Alaska Division of Oil and Gas (2007)
and USGS files.
Assessment. Minimum, median and maximum values for the
number and sizes of undiscovered accumulations and for the ratio
of oil to gas accumulations (Table 32.1) were estimated on the
basis of exploration and discovery history; published reserve esti-
mates for discovered accumulations; maps of seismically ident-
ified, untested structures; and global analogues (Charpentier
et al. 2008). A list of the 27 global analogues considered for this
AU is provided in Houseknecht & Bird (in press). Assessment
input was influenced strongly by the geology, sizes and numbers
of discovered accumulations in the AU and by the assessments
of undiscovered resources conducted by the USGS and US
MMS, which were largely based on the mapping of favourable
trap geometries from reflection seismic data. In those assessments
a total of 23 plays were identified and assessed within the area con-
sidered in the Arctic Alaska Fold-and-Thrust Belt AU (Sherwood
1998; ANWR Assessment Team 1999; Bird & Houseknecht 2002;
Bird et al. 2005). The most important plays in those assessments
are Brookian, comprising topset and turbidite facies in structural
traps. From those assessments, the mean value of undiscovered
resources and number and sizes of undiscovered pools larger
than 50 MMBOE were tabulated and used as a guide for complet-
ing the assessment input. These parameters and ancillary
of the oil and gas resources of the Arctic Alaska Fold-and-Thrust
Belt. The resulting probabilistic estimates of undiscovered, techni-
cally recoverable oil and gas for the Fold-and-Thrust Belt AU
are summarized in Table 32.2. These results include mean esti-
mates of 2.1 BBO, 2.8 TCF of associated gas and 59 TCF of
nonassociated gas. The mean estimates for the largest undiscov-
ered oil and nonassociated gas accumulations are 476 MMBO
and 5.8 TCFG, respectively.
Summary and conclusions
The Arctic Alaska petroleum province encompasses all lands and
adjacent continental shelf areas north of the Brooks Range –Herald
Arch orogenic belt and south of the northern (outboard) margin of
the Beaufort Rift shoulder, an area of about 350 000 km2. Even
though only a small part is thoroughly explored, it is one of the
most prolific petroleum provinces in North America with total
known resources (cumulative production plus proved reserves)
of c. 28 BBOE.
The province constitutes a significant part of a displaced conti-
nental fragment, the Arctic Alaska microplate, which was probably
rifted from the Canadian Arctic margin during formation of the
Canada Basin. Petroleum prospective rocks in the province,
mostly Mississippian and younger, record a sequential geological
evolution through passive margin, rift and foreland basin tectonic
stages. Significant petroleum source and reservoir rocks were
formed during each tectonic stage but it was the foreland basin
stage that provided the necessary burial heating to generate pet-
roleum from the source rocks.
Three major source-rock systems (Triassic, Jurassic and Creta-
ceous) are recognized and contribute to the overall richness of the
province, although details of regional (province-wide) source-rock
quality remain poorly known because of limited data. Geochem-
ical analysis indicates that many oil accumulations on the rift
shoulder are mixtures of oils derived from all three source rock
systems, an apparent indication of complex migration pathways
 Downloaded from http://mem.lyellcollection.org/ at Indiana University Libraries on May 13, 2015

496 K. J. BIRD & D. W. HOUSEKNECHT

Table 32.2. Results of petroleum resource assessment of the Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province

F95 F50 F5 Mean Standard deviation

Oil (MMBO)
Platform 13 867 26 707 47 426 27 851 10 451
Fold-and-Thrust Belt 588 1762 4815 2110 1402
Associated gas (BCFG)
Platform 17 176 34 742 68 535 37 693 16 216
Fold-and-Thrust Belt 641 2256 7047 2846 2191
Nonassociated gas (BCFG)
Platform 53 123 112 562 222 712 121 861 53 453
Fold-and-Thrust Belt 24 273 52 465 115 799 58 998 29 621
Oil equivalent (MMBOE)
Platform 27 431 54 679 103 815 58 700
Fold-and-Thrust Belt 5399 12 338 28 588 14 064
Largest oil (MMBO)
Platform 1264 2905 6603 3281 1619
Fold-and-Thrust Belt 151 384 1139 476 318
Largest gas (BCFG)
Platform 6136 15 403 38 866 17 864 9928
Fold-and-Thrust Belt 2475 5195 11 161 5763 2618

Probabilistic estimates of undiscovered, technically recoverable resources for each assessment unit include volumes of oil, associated gas, nonassociated gas and oil
equivalent and of the largest oil and nonassociated gas accumulations. MMBO, million barrels of oil; BCFG, billion cubic feet of gas; MMBOE, million barrels of oil
equivalent. F95, F50 and F5 are 95, 50 and 5% probability fractiles, respectively.

related to unconformities and faults. However, quantitative predic-
tion of the proportion of oil from any particular source rock that
might occur in future discoveries is beyond current capabilities.
The lion’s share of known petroleum resources in the province
occur in combination structural– stratigraphic traps formed as a
consequence of rifting and located along the rift shoulder. Since
the discovery of the super-giant Prudhoe Bay accumulation in
one of these traps in the late 1960s, exploration activity preferen-
tially focused on these types of traps and specifically for oil. More
recent activity, however, has emphasized the potential for strati-
graphic traps and the prospect of a natural gas pipeline in this
region has spurred renewed interest in gas prospects, especially
in structural traps.
In keeping with the broad, regional-scale Circum-Arctic Assess-
ment approach to assessment unit definition, the Arctic Alaska
Province was divided into just two assessment units: the Arctic
Alaska Platform AU, comprising the Beaufort Rift shoulder
and its relatively undeformed flanks, and the Arctic Alaska
Fold-and-Thrust Belt AU, comprising the deformed area north of
the Brooks Range and Herald Arch tectonic belt. The broad-scale
nature of these two AUs is illustrated by the fact that in previous
assessments of the region by the USGS and MMS a total of
92 assessment units (plays) were identified and evaluated, includ-
ing 69 in the presently defined Platform AU and 23 in the
Fold-and-Thrust Belt AU.
In spite of distinctly different burial histories in each AU, the
probability of finding at least one petroleum accumulation of the
minimum size (.50 MMBOE) is considered to be 100% for
each. Evaluation of that probability relied most heavily on pro-
vince discovery history (30 of 70 discoveries greater than the
minimum), and the large, lightly explored nature of the region.
Burial history differences were incorporated in the input details
of the assessment forms.
Input for the assessment of each AU (sizes and numbers of
accumulations, the ratio of oil accumulations to total accumu-
lations, etc.) was strongly influenced by information from known
accumulations, previous detailed assessments, maps of seismically
identified, untested structures and global analogues. By using this
entire suite of information as a guide for arriving at input values we
have achieved a better linkage of specific petroleum geology
details of each AU than could be achieved by reliance on global
analogues alone. For example, the Fold-and Thrust-Belt AU oil –
gas ratio (oil accumulations to total accumulations) of 0.2 at
the mode is a reflection of generally overmature source rocks,
formation of structural traps post-oil generation, and multiple epi-
sodes of uplift and deformation. In contrast, this ratio for the Plat-
form AU (0.6 at the mode) encompasses not only the geologically
long-lived high-standing focus for migrating hydrocarbons, an
abundance of combination structural-stratigraphic and pure strati-
graphic traps, and favourable timing but also recognition of the
Palaeogene uplift history, the possibility of oil displacement by
gas expansion and recent gas and condensate-rich discoveries
such as Burger, Spark, Lookout and Rendezvous.
The assessment of undiscovered, technically recoverable
petroleum resources in conventional accumulations greater than
the minimum size yields the following mean estimates: Arctic
Platform AU, nearly 28 BBO and 38 TCF of associated gas, and
nearly 122 TCF of nonassociated gas; Fold-and-Thrust Belt AU,
about 2 BBO and nearly 3 TCF of associated gas, and about
59 TCF of nonassociated gas.
This report was improved as the result of constructive reviews by E. Johannessen
and P. Nadeau.
References
ALASKA DIVISION OF OIL AND GAS 2007. Alaska oil and
gas report, July 2007. Available online at: http://www.dog.dnr.
state.ak.us/oil/products/publications/annual/report.htm (accessed
2 February 2009).
ANWR ASSESSMENT TEAM 1999. The oil and gas resource potential
of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 Area, Alaska. US
Geological Survey, Reston, VA, Open-File Report, 98 –34. Available
online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1998/ofr-98-0034/ (accessed 2
February 2009).
Bird, K. J. 1985. The framework geology of the North Slope of Alaska as
related to oil-source rock correlations. In: Magoon, L. B. & Clay-
pool, G. E. (eds) Alaska North Slope Oil/Rock Correlation Study.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK, Studies
in Geology, 20, 3– 29.
 Downloaded from http://mem.lyellcollection.org/ at Indiana University Libraries on May 13, 2015
CHAPTER 32 PETROLEUM GEOLOGY OF ARCTIC ALASKA
Bird, K. J. 1988. Structure-contour and isopach maps of the National
Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. In: Gryc, G. (ed.) Geology and
Exploration of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, 1974 to
1982. US Geological Survey, Reston, VA, Professional Papers,
1399, 355 –377.
Bird, K. J. 2001. Alaska: a twenty-first-century petroleum province. In:
Downey, M. W., Threet, J. C. & Morgan, W. A. (eds) Petroleum
Provinces of the Twenty-First Century. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK, Memoirs, 74, 137– 165.
Bird, K. J. & Bader, J. W. 1987. Regional geologic setting and history
of petroleum exploration. In: Bird, K. J. & Magoon, L. B. (eds)
Petroleum Geology of the Northern Part of the Arctic National Wild-
life Refuge, Northeastern Alaska. US Geological Survey, Reston,
VA, Bulletins, 1778, 17 –25.
Bird, K. J. & Houseknecht, D. W. 2002. U.S. Geological Survey 2002
Petroleum Resource Assessment of the National Petroleum Reserve
in Alaska (NPRA). US Geological Survey, Reston, VA, Fact Sheets,
045 – 02. Available online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2002/fs045-
02/fs045-02.pdf (accessed 2 February 2009).
Bird, K. J. & Molenaar, C. M. 1992. The North Slope foreland basin,
Alaska. In: Macqueen, R. W. & Leckie, D. A. (eds) Foreland
Basins and Foldbelts. American Association of Petroleum Geol-
ogists, Tulsa, OK, Memoirs, 55, 363– 393.
Bird, K. J., Houseknecht, D. W. et al. 2005. Oil and Gas Assessment of
Central North Slope, Alaska, 2005. US Geological Survey, Reston,
VA, Fact Sheets, 2005–3043. Available online at: http://pubs.usgs.
gov/fs/2005/3043/fs2005-3043.pdf (accessed 2 February 2009).
Burns, W. M., Hayba, D. O., Rowan, E. L. & Houseknecht, D. W.
2007. Estimating the Amount of Eroded Section in a Partially
Exhumed Basin using Geophysical Logs: an Example from the
Alaska North Slope. US Geological Survey, Reston, VA, Professional
Papers, 1732-D. Available online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/
pp1732/pp1732d/pp1732d.pdf (accessed 2 February 2009).
Burruss, R. C., Lillis, P. G. & Collett, T. S. 2003. Geochemistry of
natural gas, North Slope, Alaska: Implications for gas resources,
NPRA. US Geological Survey, Reston, VA, Open-File Report, 03-
041. Available online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-041/
text.htm.
Carman, G. J. & Hardwick, P. 1983. Geology and regional setting of
Kuparuk oil field, Alaska. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin, 67, 1014– 1031.
Charpentier, R. R. & Gautier, D. L. 2011. US Geological Survey
Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal (CARA): introduction and
summary of organization and methods. In: Spencer, A. M.,
Embry, A. F., Gautier, D. L., Stoupakova, A. V. & Sørensen,
K. (eds) Arctic Petroleum Geology. Geological Society, London,
Memoirs, 35, 145 –150.
Charpentier, R. R., Klett, T. R. & Attanasi, E. D. 2008. Database for
assessment unit-scale analogs (exclusive of the United States). US
Geological Survey, Reston, VA, Open-File Reports, 2007-1404.
Available online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1404/ (accessed
17 March 2009).
Christiansen, P. P. & Snee, L. W. 1994. Structure, metamorphism, and
geochronology of the Cosmos Hills and Ruby Ridge, Brooks Range
Schist belt, Alaska. Tectonics, 13, 193 – 213.
Dow, W. G. 1998. Organic Geochemistry of Cretaceous, Jurassic, and
Triassic Shales from the Northwestern DeLong Mountains, Western
Brooks Range, Alaska, 1994– 1997. Alaska Division of Geological
& Geophysical Surveys, Public Data Files, 98-35. Available
online at: http://www.dggs.dnr.state.ak.us/webpubs/dggs/pdf/
text/pdf1998_035.PDF (accessed 18 March 2009).
Dow, W. G. & Talukdar, S. C. 1995. Geochemical Analysis of Outcrop
Samples Northwestern De Long Mountains, Brooks Range, Alaska.
Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys, Public Data
Files, 95-29. Available online at: http://www.dggs.dnr.state.ak.us/
webpubs/dggs/pdf/text/pdf1995_029.PDF (accessed 18 March
2009).
Dumoulin, J. A., Burruss, R. C. & Lillis, P. G. 2008. Lisburne pet-
roleum system. In: Kelley, K. D. (ed.) Regional Fluid Flow and
Basin Modeling in Northern Alaska. US Geological Survey,
Reston, VA, Circulars, 1319, 36 – 43. Available online at: http://
pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1319/ (accessed 17 March 2009).
497
Embry, A. F. 1990. Geological and geophysical evidence in support of the
hypothesis of anticlockwise rotation of northern Alaska. Marine
Geology, 93, 317 – 329.
Embry, A. F. 1998. Counterclockwise rotation of the Arctic Alaska plate:
best available model or untenable hypothesis for the opening of the
Amerasia basin. Polarforschung, 68, 247 – 255.
Embry, A. F., Mickey, M. B., Haga, H. & Wall, J. H. 1994. Cor-
relation of the Pennsylvanian– Lower Cretaceous succession
between Northwest Alaska and southwest Sverdrup basin: Impli-
cations for Hanna trough stratigraphy. In: Thurston, D. K. &
Fujita, F. (eds) 1992 Proceedings: International Conference on
Arctic Margins, Anchorage, Alaska, September 1994. US Minerals
Management Service, Anchorage, AK, OCS Studies, MMS 94-
0040, 105 –110.
Erickson, J. W. & Sneider, R. M. 1997. Structural and hydrocarbon
histories of the Ivishak (Sadlerochit) reservoir, Prudhoe Bay field.
SPE Reservoir Engineering, 12, 18 – 22.
Gautier, D. L., Bird, K. L. et al. 2011. Oil and gas resource potential
north of the Arctic Circle. In: Spencer, A. M., Embry, A. F.,
Gautier, D. L., Stoupakova, A. V. & Sørensen, K. (eds) Arctic
Petroleum Geology. Geological Society, London, Memoirs, 35,
151– 162.
Gradstein, F. M., Ogg, J. G., Smith, A. G., Bleeker, W. & Lourens, L.
J. 2004. A new geologic time scale, with special reference to Precam-
brian and Neogene. Episodes, 27, 83 –100.
Grantz, A. & Hart, P. E. 2008. Tectonic development of the Amerasia
Basin, Arctic Ocean. 33rd International Geological Congress,
Oslo, Norway, Symposium AAA-01. Available online at: http://
www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1352232.html.
Grantz, A. & May, S. D. 1982. Rifting history and structural develop-
ment of the continental margin north of Alaska. In: Watkins, J. S.
& Drake, C. L. (eds) Studies in Continental Margin Geology.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK,
Memoirs, 34, 77 –100.
Grantz, A., May, S. D. & Hart, P. E. 1990. Geology of the Arctic con-
tinental margin of Alaska. In: Grantz, A., Johnson, L. & Sweeney,
J. F. (eds) The Arctic Ocean Region. The Geology of North America,
L. Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, 257 –288.
Gottschalk, R. R. & Snee, L. W. 1998. Tectonothermal evolution of
metamorphic rocks in the south central Brooks Range, Alaska: con-
straints from 40Ar/39Ar geochronology. In: Oldow, J. S. & Avé
Lallemant, H. G. (eds) Architecture of the Central Brooks Range
Fold and Thrust Belt, Arctic Alaska. Geological Society of
America, Boulder, CO, Special Papers, 324, 225 –252.
Houseknecht, D. W. & Bird, K. J. 2004. Sequence stratigraphy of the
Kingak Shale (Jurassic– Lower Cretaceous), National Petroleum
Reserve in Alaska. American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Bulletin, 88, 279 –302.
Houseknecht, D. W. & Bird, K. J. 2006. Oil and Gas Resources of the
Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province. US Geological Survey, Reston,
VA, Professional Papers, 1732-A. Available online at: http://pubs.
usgs.gov/pp/pp1732/pp1732a/pp1732a.pdf (accessed 2 February
2009).
Houseknecht, D. W. & Bird, K. J. in press. Arctic Alaska Province
(5001). In: US Geological Survey Circum-Arctic Resource
Appraisal – Description and Results. US Geological Survey,
Reston, VA, Professional Paper.
Houseknecht, D. W. & Schenk, C. J. 2007. Outcrops of turbidite
channel facies in the Torok Formation: reservoir analogs for the
Alaska North Slope. In: Nilsen, T., Shew, R. D., Steffens, G. S.
& Studlick, J. R. J. (eds) An Atlas of Deepwater Outcrops –
Models and Analogs. American Association of Petroleum Geologists,
Tulsa, OK, Studies in Geology, 56, 373 –377.
Houseknecht, D. W., Bird, K. J. & Schenk, C. J. 2009. Seismic analysis
of clinoform depositional sequences and shelf-margin trajectories in
Lower Cretaceous (Albian) strata, Alaska North Slope. Basin
Research, 21, 644– 654.
Houseknecht, D. W., Burns, W. M. & Bird, K. J. 2011. Thermal matu-
ration history of Arctic Alaska and the southern Canada basin. In:
Harris, N. B. & Peters, K. E. (eds) Analyzing the Thermal
History of Sedimentary Basins. Society for Sedimentary Geology,
Tulsa, OK, Special Publications, in press.
 Downloaded from http://mem.lyellcollection.org/ at Indiana University Libraries on May 13, 2015
498 K. J. BIRD & D. W. HOUSEKNECHT
Hubbard, R. J., Edrich, S. P. & Rattey, R. P. 1987. Geologic evolution
and hydrocarbon habitat of the Arctic Alaska microplate. Marine and
Petroleum Geology, 4, 2 –34.
Jameson, J. 1994. Models of porosity formation and their impact on reser-
voir description, Lisburne field, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 78, 1651– 1678.
Jones, H. P. & Speers, R. G. 1976. Permo-Triassic reservoirs of Prudhoe
Bay field, North Slope, Alaska. In: Braunstein, J. (ed.) North
American Oil and Gas Fields. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, Tulsa, OK, Memoirs, 24, 23– 50.
Kupecz, J. A. 1995. Depositional setting, sequence stratigraphy, diagen-
esis, and reservoir potential of a mixed-lithology, upwelling
deposit: the Upper Triassic Shublik Formation, Prudhoe Bay,
Alaska. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin,
79, 1301– 1319.
Kumar, N., Bird, K. J., Nelson, P. H., Grow, J. A. & Evans, K. R. 2002.
A digital atlas of hydrocarbon accumulations within and adjacent to
the National Petroleum Reserve– Alaska (NPRA). US Geological
Survey, Reston, VA, Open-File Reports, 02-71.
Lane, L. S. 1997. Canada basin, Arctic Ocean: evidence against a
rotational origin. Tectonics, 16, 363 –387.
Lawver, L. A. & Scotese, C. R. 1990. A review of tectonic models for
the evolution of the Canada basin. In: Grantz, A., Johnson, L. &
Sweeney, J. F. (eds) The Arctic Ocean Region. The Geology of
North America, L. Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO,
593 – 618.
Lerand, M. 1973. Beaufort Sea. In: McCrossan, R. G. (ed.) The Future
Petroleum Provinces of Canada – Their Geology and Potential.
Canadian Society of Petroleum Geology, Alberta, Memoirs, 1,
315 – 386.
Lillis, P. G., King, J. D., Warden, A. & Pribil, M. J. 2002. Oil–source
Rock Correlation Studies, Central Brooks Range Foothills and
National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska (NPRA). [Abstract.] American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK, Bulletins, 86, 1150.
Little, T. A., Miller, E. L., Lee, J. & Law, R. D. 1994. Extensional
origin of ductile fabrics in the schist belt, central Brooks Range,
Alaska: Geologic and structural studies. Journal of Structural
Geology, 16, 899 –918.
Lothamer, R. T. 1994. Early Tertiary wrench faulting in the North
Chukchi Basin, Chukchi Sea, Alaska. In: Thurston, D. K. &
Fujita, K. (eds) 1992 Proceedings International Conference on
Arctic Margins. US Minerals Management Service, Anchorage,
AK, OCS Studies, MMS 94-0040, 251 –256.
Macquaker, J. H. S. & Keller, M. A. 2005. Mudstone sedimentation at
high latitudes: Ice as a transport medium for mud and supplier of
nutrients. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 75, 696 –709.
Magoon, L. B. & Bird, K. J. 1988. Evaluation of petroleum source rocks
in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, using organic-carbon
content, hydrocarbon content, visual kerogen, and vitrinite reflec-
tance. In: Gryc, G. (ed.) Geology and Exploration of the National
Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, 1974 to 1982. US Geological Survey,
Reston, VA, Professional Papers, 1399, 381 – 450.
Magoon, L. B. & Claypool, G. E. (eds) 1985. Alaska North Slope Oil/
Source Rock Correlation Study. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, Tulsa, OK, Studies in Geology, 20.
Magoon, L. B., Bird, K. J et al. 1999. Evaluation of hydrocarbon charge
and timing using the petroleum system. In: The Oil and Gas Resource
Potential of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 Area, Alaska.
US Geological Survey, Reston, VA, Open-File Reports, 98-34. Avail-
able online at: http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/OF98-34/PS.pdf (accessed
2 February 2009).
Magoon, L. B., Lillis, P. G., Bird, K. J., Lampe, C. & Peters, K. E.
2003. Alaskan North Slope Petroleum Systems. US Geological
Survey, Reston, VA, Open-File Reports, 03-324. Available online
at: http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of03-324/ (accessed 17
March 2009).
Masterson, W. D. IV. 2001. Petroleum filling history of central
Alaskan North Slope fields. PhD thesis, University of Texas
at Dallas.
Miller, E. L. & Hudson, T. L. 1991. Mid-Cretaceous extensional frag-
mentation of a Jurassic –Early Cretaceous compressional orogen,
Alaska. Tectonics, 10, 781– 796.
Molenaar, C. M. 1982. Umiat field, an oil accumulation in a thrust-
faulted anticline, North Slope of Alaska. In: Powers, R. B. (ed.) Geo-
logic Studies of the Cordilleran Thrust Belt. Rocky Mountain Associ-
ation of Geologists, Denver, CO, 537– 548.
Molenaar, C. M. 1985. Subsurface correlations and depositional history
of the Nanshuk Group and related strata, North Slope, Alaska. In:
Huffman, A. C. Jr. (ed.) Geology of the Nanushuk Group and
Related Rocks, North Slope, Alaska. US Geological Survey, Reston,
VA, Bulletins, 1614, 37 –59.
Molenaar, C. M. 1988. Depositional history and seismic stratigraphy of
Lower Cretaceous rocks in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska
and adjacent areas. In: Gryc, G. (ed.) Geology and Exploration of the
National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, 1974 to 1982. US Geological
Survey, Reston, VA, Professional Papers, 1399, 593 – 621.
Molenaar, C. M., Bird, K. J. & Kirk, A. R. 1987. Cretaceous and Ter-
tiary stratigraphy of northeastern Alaska. In: Tailleur, I. & Weimer,
P. (eds) Alaskan North Slope Geology. Pacific Section, Society of
Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists and Alaska Geological
Society, Bakersfield, CA, 2, 513 – 528.
Moore, T. E., Wallace, W. K., Bird, K. J., Karl, S. M., Mull, C. G. &
Dillon, J. T. 1994. Geology of northern Alaska. In: Plafker, G. &
Berg, H. C. (eds) The Geology of Alaska. The Geology of
North America, G-1. Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO,
49 – 140.
Moore, T. E., Dumitru, T. A., Adams, K. E., Witebsky, S. N. & Harris,
A. G. 2002. Origin of the Lisburne Hills –Herald Arch structural belt:
stratigraphic, structural, and fission– track evidence from the Cape
Lisburne area, northwestern Alaska. In: Miller, E. L., Grantz, A.
& Klemperer, S. L. (eds) Tectonic Evolution of the Bering
Shelf – Chukchi Sea – Arctic Margin and Adjacent Landmasses.
Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, Special Papers, 360,
77 – 109.
Moore, T. E., Potter, C. J., O’Sullivan, P. B., Shelton, K. L. &
Underwood, M. B. 2004. Two stages of deformation and fluid
migration in the west-central Brooks Range fold and thrust belt,
northern Alaska. In: Swennen, R., Roure, F. & Granath, J. W.
(eds) Deformation, Fluid Flow, and Reservoir Appraisal in Foreland
Fold and Thrust Belts. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, Tulsa, OK, Hedberg Series, 1, 157 –186.
Mull, C. G. 2000. Summary report on the geology and hydrocarbon
potential of the foothills of the northwestern DeLong Mountains,
western Brooks Range, Alaska. Alaska Division of Geological and
Geophysical Surveys, Preliminary Interpretive Report, 2000-9.
Available online at: http://www.dggs.dnr.state.ak.us/webpubs/
dggs/pir/text/pir2000_009.PDF (accessed 18 March 2009).
Mull, C. G., Tailleur, I. L., Mayfield, C. F., Ellersieck, I. & Curtis,
S. 1982. New upper Paleozoic and lower Mesozoic stratigraphic
units, central and western Brooks Range, Alaska. American Associ-
ation of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 66, 348 –362.
Mull, C. G., Houseknecht, D. W. & Bird, K. J. 2003. Revised Creta-
ceous and Tertiary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in the East-Central
Colville Basin, Northern Alaska. US Geological Survey, Reston,
VA, Professional Papers, 1673. Available online at: http://pubs.
usgs.gov/prof/p1673/ (accessed 9 February 2009).
Oldow, J. S., Seidensticker, C. M. et al. 1987. Balanced Cross Sections
through the Central Brooks Range and North Slope, Arctic Alaska.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK.
O’Sullivan, P. B., Green, P. F. et al. 1993. Multiple phases of Tertiary
uplift and erosion in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska,
revealed by apatite fission track analysis. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 77, 359 –385.
O’Sullivan, P. B., Murphy, J. M. & Blythe, A. E. 1997. Late Mesozoic
and Cenozoic thermotectonic evolution of the central Brooks Range
and adjacent North Slope foreland basin, Alaska: including fission
track results from the Trans-Alaska Crustal Transect (TACT).
Journal of Geophysical Research, 102, 20821– 20845.
Parrish, J. T., Droser, M. L. & Bottjer, D. J. 2001a. A Triassic upwel-
ling zone: The Shublik Formation, Arctic Alaska. Journal of Sedi-
mentary Research, 71, 272 –285.
Parrish, J. T., Whalen, M. T. & Hulm, E. J. 2001b. Shublik
Formation lithofacies, environments, and sequence stratigraphy,
Arctic Alaska, U.S.A. In: Houseknecht, D. W. (ed.) NPRA Core
 Downloaded from http://mem.lyellcollection.org/ at Indiana University Libraries on May 13, 2015
CHAPTER 32 PETROLEUM GEOLOGY OF ARCTIC ALASKA
Workshop – Petroleum Plays and Systems in the National Petroleum
Reserve – Alaska. SEPM Core Workshop 21, 89 –110.
Peters, K. E., Magoon, L. B., Bird, K. J., Valin, Z. C. & Keller, M. A.
2006. North Slope Alaska: source-rock distribution, richness, thermal
maturity and petroleum charge. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin, 90, 261 – 292.
Peters, K. E., Ramos, L. S., Zumberge, J. E., Valin, Z. C. & Bird, K. J.
2008. De-convoluting mixed crude oil in Prudhoe Bay field, North
Slope, Alaska. Organic Geochemistry, 39, 623 –645.
Potter, C. J., Grow, J. A. et al. 2004. Tertiary thrust systems and fluid
flow beneath the Beaufort coastal plain (1002 area), Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, U.S.A. In: Swennen, R., Roure, F. &
Granath, J. W. (eds) Deformation, Fluid Flow, and Reservoir
Appraisal in Foreland Fold and Thrust Belts. American Association
of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK, Hedberg Series, 1, 187 – 214.
Shanmugam, G. & Higgins, J. B. 1988. Porosity enhancement from chert
dissolution beneath Neocomian unconformity: Ivishak Formation,
North Slope, Alaska. American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Bulletin, 72, 523 –535.
Sherwood, K. W. 1994. Stratigraphy, structure, and origin of the Frank-
linian, Northeast Chukchi Basin, Arctic Alaska Plate. In: Thurston,
D. K. & Fujita, K. (eds) 1992 Proceedings International Conference
on Arctic Margins. US Minerals Management Service, Anchorage,
AK, OCS Studies, MMS 94-0040, 245 – 250.
Sherwood, K. W. (ed.) 1998. Undiscovered oil and gas resources, Alaska
Federal offshore. US Minerals Management Service, Anchorage,
AK, OCS Monographs, MMS 98-0054.
Sherwood, K. W., Craig, J. D., Lothamer, R. T., Johnson, P. P. &
Zerwick, S. A. 1998. Chukchi shelf assessment province. In: Sher-
wood, K. W. (ed.) Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources, Alaska
Federal Offshore. US Minerals Management Service, Anchorage,
AK, OCS Monographs, MMS 98-0054, 115 –196.
499
Sherwood, K. W., Johnson, P. P. et al. 2002. Structure and stratigraphy
of the Hanna trough, U.S. Chukchi shelf, Alaska. In: Miller, E. L.,
Grantz, A. & Klemperer, S. L. (eds) Tectonic Evolution of the
Bering Shelf – Chukchi Sea – Arctic Margin and Adjacent Land-
masses. Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, Special
Papers, 360, 39 –66.
Tailleur, I. L. 1964. Rich oil shale from northern Alaska. US Geological
Survey, Reston, VA, Professional Papers, 475-D, 131– 133.
Tailleur, I. L. & Brosgé, W. P. 1970. Tectonic history of northern
Alaska. In: Adkison, W. L. & Brosgé, M. M. (eds) Proceedings of
Geological Seminar on the North Slope of Alaska. American Associ-
ation of Petroleum Geologists, Pacific Section, Los Angeles, CA,
E1– E19.
Till, A. B. & Patrick, B. E. 1991. Ar40/Ar39 evidence for a 110 –105 Ma
amphibolite facies overprint on blueschist in the south-central Brooks
Range Alaska. Geological Society of America Abstracts with
Programs, 23, A436.
Till, A. B. & Snee, L. W. 1995. Ar40/Ar39 isotopic evidence that blue-
schists formed during collision, not subduction in the Nanielik anti-
form, western Brooks Range, Alaska. Journal of Metamorphic
Geology, 13, 41 –60.
Tolson, R. B. 1987. Structure and stratigraphy of the Hope Basin,
southern Chukchi Sea, Alaska. In: Scholl, D. W., Grantz, A. &
Vedder, J. G. (eds) Geology and Resource Potential of the Continen-
tal Margin of Western North America and Adjacent Ocean Basins:
Beaufort Sea to Baja California. Circum-Pacific Council of Energy
and Mineral Resources, Houston, TX, 6, 59 –72.
Werner, M. R. 1987. West Sak and Ugnu sands: Low-gravity oil zones of
the Kuparuk River area, Alaskan North Slope. In: Tailleur, I. &
Weimer, P. (eds) Alaskan North Slope Geology. Pacific Section,
Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists and Alaska
Geological Society, Bakersfield, CA, 1, 109 – 118.