Basin Research (2006) 18, 351–373, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2117.2006.00294.

Burial/exhumation histories for the Cooper^

Eromanga Basins and implications for hydrocarbon
exploration, Eastern Australia
Angelos Mavromatidis
Petroleum Development Oman LLC, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman

ABSTRACT
The Cooper^Eromanga Basins of South Australia and Queensland are not at their maximum burial
depth due to Late Cretaceous^Tertiary, and LateTriassic^Early Jurassic exhumation. Apparent
exhumation (maximum burial depth^present burial depth) for the Cooper Basin has been quanti¢ed
using the compaction methodology.The results show that exhumation of the Cooper Basin for the
majority of the wells is greater than the exhumation of the Eromanga Basin. Using the compaction
methodology, apparent exhumation of Early to MiddleTriassic age Arrabury and Tinchoo Formatios
has been quanti¢ed. Both units yield similar results and do not support that the Arrabury/Tinchoo
boundary represents the Cooper^Eromanga boundary. Hence, the Cooper Basin is believed to have
reached its maximum burial depth in LateTriassic times. Sonic log data are not available for the units
overlying the Late Cretaceous Winton Formation; thus, it is not possible to date exhumation beyond
the Late Cretaceous^Tertiary using the compaction methodology.Tertiary sequences as are preserved
are relatively thin and separated by marked unconformities and weathered surfaces; hence,
exhumation rather than sedimentation dominated theTertiary, and in exhumed areas, maximum
burial depth was attained in Late Cretaceous times.The burial/exhumation history of representative
wells was synthesized using sediment decompaction and establishing porosity/depth relations for the
Cooper^Eromanga units. Considering the relative signi¢cance of the major periods of exhumation in
the Cooper/Eromanga Basins, three broad types of burial/exhumation histories can be distinguished.
Maximum burial depth of the Cooper Basin sequence was attained before the deposition of the
Eromanga Basin sequence, i.e. LateTriassic^Early Jurassic times; maximum burial depth of the
Cooper and Eromanga Basin sequences attained in Late Cretaceous times; and Cooper and
Eromanga Basin sequences are currently at maximum burial-depth. Incorporation of exhumation
into burial history has major implications for hydrocarbon exploration.

INTRODUCTION manga Basin sediments, major sedimentation ceased and

The Cooper and Eromanga Basins are Australia’s largest
onshore petroleum province, and are located in central
and eastern Australia (Fig.1a).The sediments of the Coop-
er Basin were deposited during Late Carboniferous-Per-
mian and Triassic times in predominantly £uvial and
lacustrine environments (Thornton, 1979). In Late Trias-
sic^Early Jurassic times, an exhumational event took
place, which resulted in the basinwide Nappamerri uncon-
formity (Thornton, 1979; Kuang, 1985) (Fig. 1b). Subse-
quently, the Eromanga Basin sediments were deposited in
Jurassic and Cretaceous times in mainly £uvial-lacustrine
and shallow marine environments (Bowering, 1982). The
Eromanga Basin is the larger of the two and completely
overlies the Cooper Basin. After the deposition of the Ero -
Correspondence: Angelos Mavromatidis, Petroleum Develop-
ment Oman LLC, PO Box 81, Muscat 113, Sultanate of Oman.
E-mail: angelos97@hotmail.com.
over the last 90 Myr, the basin has been characterized by
periods of exhumation and minor sedimentation (Moore
& Pitt, 1984; Shaw, 1991; Mavromatidis, 1997; Mavromati-
dis & Hillis, 2005) (Fig. 1b).
The aims of this study are to:

determine the magnitude of LateTriassic^Early Juras-
sic exhumation using sonic velocity data from the
Nappamerri Group from 133 wells (Fig. 1c),

compare the exhumation values in this study with the
exhumation values in Late Cretaceous^Tertiary times
(Mavromatidis & Hillis, 2005),

discuss the timing and duration of exhumational
events during the major unconformities and deter-
mine the burial/exhumation history of representative
wells and

discuss the implications of the exhumation results
with respect to exploration and thermal maturity of
source rocks.

r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 351
A. Mavromatidis

(a)

(b) (c)

Fig. 1. (a) Location map for the Cooper^Eromanga Basins (B, Permo -Triassic in age Bowen Basin; E, Permian-Jurassic in age Esk
Trough; C-M,Triassic^Jurassic in age Clarence^Moreton Basin; G, Permo -Triassic in age Gallilee Basin; S, Jurassic^Cretaceous in age
Surat Basin). (b) Cooper^Eromanga Basins stratigraphic nomenclature (FM, formation; GRP, group; MBR, member; SST, sandstone)
(modi¢ed after Moore, 1986). (c) Location map of the wells used in compaction analysis of the Nappamerri Group. Major tectonic
elements are also shown (NM, Nappacoongee^Murteree; GMI, Gidgealpa^Merrimelia^Innamincka; RW, Roseneath^Wolgolla; PNJ,
Pepita^Naccowlah^Jackson South; Patch, Patchawarra).

The term exhumation (as opposed to erosion or uplift) is face. For principally tectonic/geodynamic reasons,
used here, in the sense of England & Molnar (1990), to de- displacement of the Earth’s surface with respect to the
scribe the displacement of rocks with respect to the sur- geoid (surface uplift), displacement of rocks with respect

352 r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Basin Research, 18, 351^373
 Burial/exhumation histories for the Cooper^Eromanga Basins
to the geoid (uplift of rocks) and displacement of rocks with
respect to the surface (exhumation) should be distin-
guished. Although all three quantities are related (surface
uplift 5 uplift of rock ^ exhumation), they cannot be
equal, unless all are zero (England & Molnar, 1990). It is
important to distinguish these di¡erent quantities, be-
cause only surface uplift requires work against gravity, and
hence a tectonic driving force. Uplifting of rocks or exhu-
mation, although signi¢cant with regard to geohistory
modelling, may be caused solely by changes in sedimen-
tary or the erosional base level (e.g. sea level). Analysis of
sonic log data as presented here quanti¢es the displace-
ment of rocks with respect to the surface. Although pre-
vious authors (Bulat & Stoker, 1987; Hillis, 1991) have
used the term‘uplift’ to describe this quantity, the term‘ex-
humation’ is used herein following the de¢nitions of Eng-
land & Molnar (1990). The term ‘erosion’ is avoided
because it refers not only to the process of elevating rocks
with respect to the surface but also to the removal and
transport of weathered material. Only removed rocks are
eroded; however, the entire rock column is exhumed as a
result of erosion.
QUANTIFYING EXHUMATION USING
THE COMPACTION METHODOLOGY
The degree of compaction (as evidenced by porosities) of
the rocks in these basins was attained at burial depths
greater than that presently observed. The compaction
methodology attempts to quantify the magnitude of exhu-
mation by analysing the amount of overcompaction of the
rocks. It is an assumption of the compaction-based meth-
od of determining exhumation that burial depth, at the
formational and regional scale, exerts the primary control
on compaction. As porosity describes compaction state,
the sonic log is an appropriate indicator of compaction,
and hence appropriate for quantifying exhumation from
compaction. Furthermore, the sonic log is routinely run
in exploration wells and hence is widely available.
Quantification of apparent exhumation
The reduction of interval transit time (reciprocal of velo -
city) of each unit with increasing burial depth is a largely
non-reversible process (Hillis, 1995a, b). As depth- con-
trolled compaction is largely irreversible, units that are
shallower than their greatest burial depth will be overcom-
pacted, with respect to their present burial depth (e.g. Ma-
gara,1976; Bulat & Stoker,1987; Hillis, 1991,1995a, b; Issler,
1992; Japsen, 2000).The units analysed are assumed to fol-
low a normal compaction trend with burial, and compac-
tion is assumed not to be reversed by subsequent
exhumation. With these assumptions, the amount of ele-
vation of exhumed sedimentary rocks above their maxi-
mum burial depth, termed ‘apparent exhumation’ (EA),
which is given by the displacement, along the depth axis,
of the observed compaction trend (i.e. mean sonic log va-
r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Basin Research, 18, 351^373
lue in each well for speci¢c unit) from the normal, undis-
turbed trend (Fig. 2a).
Data
The use of multiple lithologies in the compaction-based
analysis of maximum burial depth has several advantages
(Japsen, 2000; Mavromatidis & Hillis, 2005). However,
only the Nappamerri Group was selected from the Cooper
Basin. The Nappamerri Group was selected as it is devoid
of coals, which are found in the rest of the Cooper Basin
units. The unit does not show bulk lateral facies variation,
which satis¢es the assumption that their compaction
trends are laterally consistent. The Group consists of in-
terbedded shales, sandstones and siltstones and was de-
posited in a continental £uviatile and lacustrine
environment. The Nappamerri Group is devoid of smec-
tite, which can lead to overestimates of porosity and hence
sonic time in sediments (Brown & Ransom,1996).The sec-
tion is in excess of 400 m in the northern Cooper Basin.
There is a considerable thinning of the Group over the
Gidgealpa^Merrimelia^Innamincka (GMI) trend. If less
than 40 m of a unit is present, that unit was not analysed
because relatively condensed sequences of a given unit
are likely to have anomalous porosity/compaction charac-
teristics.
Normal compaction relationship
Published results for compaction curves support a linear
interval transit time/depth function and the assumption
that linearity is valid over a large range of depths (Perrier
& Quiblier, 1974; Bulat & Stoker, 1987; Wells, 1990; Issler,
1992; Japsen,1993; Hillis,1993,1995a, b). Although porosity
directly describes compaction state, sonic velocity is
widely used as an indicator of compaction state because it
is strongly dependent on porosity (e.g. Wyllie et al., 1956;
Raiga-Clemenceau et al., 1988). The mean sonic interval
transit time (Dt) was determined from the sonic log data
and plotted against the depth of the midpoint of the unit
(Fig. 2a). Sonic log calibration was checked with reference
to the continuous sonic velocity (check shot) data.
The de¢nition of a normal compaction trend is crucial
as exhumation estimates depend on this. For consistency,
the same de¢nition applied in the Eromanga Basin exhu-
mation study of Mavromatidis & Hillis (2005) was applied
herein, as one of the objectives in this study is to compare
the exhumation between the Cooper and Eromanga Basins.
In an area subject to exhumation, wells with the highest Dt
values (lowest velocity) for their given burial depth should
be taken to be normally compacted, provided that their re-
latively high Dt is not due to phenomena that may inhibit
normal compaction (such as overpressure or hydrocar-
bon- ¢lled porosity). For a linear decrease of Dt with depth,
any two wells that can be linked by a straight line that has no
points falling to the lower compacted side de¢ne the nor-
mal compaction trend. These are termed the reference
wells (Fig. 2a). In this study, three wells determine the nor-
mal compaction trend, named as Beanbush-1, Steward-1
353
A. Mavromatidis

and Wimma-1 (Table1), as on the line connecting two refer- It must be assumed that the reference wells de¢ning the
ence wells according to the above principle (e.g. Steward-1 normal compaction relation are at maximum burial depth,
and Wimma-1) one more well is located (i.e. Beanbush-1). and have not themselves been exhumed. Support for the
wells being su⁄cient to constrain the normal compaction
(a) 1000 trend comes from the following points:
(a) The reference wells Beanbush-1, Steward-1 and Wim-
normal ma-1 are located away from major inversion axes and in
1500 compaction
midpoint (m below ground level)

trend
major troughs such as the Patchawarra (Beanbush-1,
Depth to nappameri group

Wimma-1) and Windorah Trough (Steward-1) (Fig. 1c).

(b) The greater the number of wells and the larger the
2000
Steward-1 study area, the more likely the reference wells are to
be close at maximum burial depth. It is signi¢cant that
in this study the reference wells were picked among133
2500
wells throughout the entire Cooper Basin.
(c) Beanbush-1and Wimma-1wells have been used for the
Wimma-1
normal compaction trends in the Eromanga Basin ex-
3000 Beanbush-1
humation study (Mavromatidis & Hillis, 2005).The re-
sults of this study indicated that these wells, and the
locations they belong to are currently at/or close to
3500
60 80 100 120 maximum burial depth.
Interval transit time (µs / ft) (d) There is no indication (from log analysis) of either
overpressure or hydrocarbon- ¢lled porosity in the
(b) 0 wells for the Nappamerri Group.
An additional constraint on the selection of the normal
compaction relation/reference wells is that the surface in-
Nappamerri Group
5000 tercept on the velocity/depth plots should have a value
close to, or less than, 189 ms ft  1, the interval transit time
for salt water.
Depth (ft)

10000 Discussion on normal compaction

relationship
The selection of normal compaction relationship as men-
15000 tioned previously is crucial as apparent exhumation esti-
mates are based on this trend. Di¡erent algorithms have
been proposed for di¡erent lithologies and depositional
environments (e.g. Japsen et al., 2002; Corcoran & Dore,
20000
0 20 40 60 80 2005). It has been found that realistic compaction trend
Porosity (%) baselines are best achieved through evaluation of physical
models for a given lithology and not via an arbitrary choice
(c) 1000
‘possible’ normal of mathematical functions (Japsen, 1998). An extensive
compaction
trends well database and good stratigraphic control allows a bet-
ter de¢nition of normal compaction trends even in areas
midpoint (m below ground level)

1500
Depth to nappameri group

Steward-1
2000 Fig. 2. (a) Mean sonic Dt/depth to unit midpoint plot in the
Nappamerri Group.The normal compaction relationship (i.e.
‘possible’ normal
compaction
those una¡ected by exhumation, determined as outlined in the
2500 trend with text) is also shown. (b) Relationship between porosity and depth
surface intercept of burial for shales and argillaceous sediments in di¡erent parts
of 178µs/ft
Beanbush-1 of the world (after Rieke & Chilingarian,1974) and in this study. (c)
‘Possible’ normal compaction relationships that were determined
3000 Hypothetical missing
wells in this study from Patchawarra Trough wells (e.g. Beanbush-1) and
Confidence that wells hypothetical wells that ‘were not’available or have not been
are at/or close to maximum
burial-depth drilled; a ‘possible maximum in range’ normal trend is
3500
determined from PatchawarraTrough wells (grey area in the lower
60 80 100 120
part of the compaction trends), and a surface interecept of
Interval transit time (µs/ ft)
178 m s ft  1 (determined as outlined in the text) is also shown.

354 r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Basin Research, 18, 351^373

Table1. Data de¢ning normal compaction relationship
Normally
Stratigraphic compacted
unit wells
Nappamerri Steward-1
Group Wimma-1
Beanbush-1
n
m bgl, metres below ground level.
wDt, interval transit time (m s ft  1); dbgl, depth below ground level (in metres).
with lithological variations (Japsen, 1998, 1999). However,
in this study the available data (mean sonic values and mid-
point depths) come from only one unit and hence further
analysis of the methodology is not possible. In addition,
the scope of this study is to compare the exhumation in
Eromanga Basin with the Cooper Basin. Exhumation in
the Eromanga Basin has already been determined (Mavro -
matidis & Hillis, 2005), and hence using the same compac-
tion methodology in the Cooper Basin a reasonable
comparison is attempted in the following sections.
Nevertheless, in this study the principles of identi¢ca-
tion of a baseline were incorporated.These principles are:
detection of a relatively homogenous lithological unit, and
selection of data points representing normal compaction
and assigning a functional expression to the velocity (or in-
terval transit time)^depth trend (e.g. Bulat & Stoker, 1987;
Hillis, 1995a; Japsen, 1998, 2000).
The surface intercept of the selected normal compac-
tion relationship (116.1 ms ft  1) is reasonable for a mixed
lithological unit comprised of shales, sandstones and silt-
stones, which would be expected to have a surface porosity
of 40% in the examined area (Gallagher & Lambeck, 1989).
Using Wyllie et al.’s (1956) time average equation, consider-
ing a calcite matrix of 66.8 ms ft  1 (71 ms ft  1 for shale and
57 ms ft  1 for sandstone (Liu & Roaldset, 1994), and aver-
aged values of 70% for shale and 30% for sandstones) and
a pore £uid of 189 ms ft  1, the porosity decreases to 26.7%
at 2 km and 13% at 2 km, which is consistent with Galla-
gher & Lambeck’s (1989) porosity studies in shaly- sand-
stone lithologies in the Cooper^Eromanga Basins. In
addition, the decrease in porosity with depth is considered
reasonable in comparison with various porosity^depth
trends in other parts of the world (Fig. 2b).
The normal compaction trend was determined from133
wells; however, if more wells were available, the normal
compaction trend might had been di¡erent if the new
wells have high Dt (lower velocities) in shallower depths.
The Beanbush-1 and Wimma-1 wells come form an area
that is most probably at maximum burial depth as men-
tioned in the previous section. Hence, there is con¢dence
regarding the lower group of well(s) in the compaction line
that determines the normal trend. However, the Steward-1
well comes from an area that has shown exhumation in
Late Cretaceous^Tertiary times. Although it is located in
an area with a thick section of the Nappamerri Group and
away from an inversion axis, there is a possibility that had
r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Basin Research, 18, 351^373
Burial/exhumation histories for the Cooper^Eromanga Basins
Equation of
Mean Dt Midpoint normal compaction
(m s ft  1) depth (m bgl)n relationshipw
81.1 2099.8
67.9 2889.1 Dt 5 116.167  0.0167 dbgl
67.1 2936.2
more wells been available the trend of the normal compac-
tion line would be di¡erent. It is possible that the area of
the Windorah Trough in which Steward-1 is located might
have experienced exhumation in LateTriassic^Early Juras-
sic times. In this case, the ‘possible’ new compaction trend
will give greater apparent exhumation values for all wells,
except Beanbush-1 and/or the wells belonging to the
Patchawarra Trough (Fig. 2c).
The Nappamerri Group has a lithology similar to the
Winton, Cadna- owie and Birkhead Formations (Thorn-
ton, 1979). The normal compaction trends from the above
Eromanga Basin units have been determined and the
trends have been justi¢ed as reasonable for the area (Mav-
romatidis & Hillis, 2005). In an attempt to derive the best
estimate of a ‘possible’ new compaction trend for the Nap-
pamerri Group, the maximum Dt surface intercept of the
above Eromanga Basin units compaction trends together
with the Beanbush-1 is considered to establish a new ‘pos-
sible’ compaction trend (Fig. 2c). The maximum surface
intercept from the normal compaction trends of the above
Eromanga Basin units is 178.4 ms ft  1 and derives from the
normal compaction trend of the Winton Formation (Mav-
romatidis & Hillis, 2005). However, this trend will lead to
greater apparent exhumation values than determined
using the normal compaction trend in Table 1 and indeed
for the well Steward-1 will give an exhumation of more
than 1200 m, not very realistic as the well is located in an
area where the Nappamerri Group has its maximum pre-
sent thickness.
RESULTS OF APPARENT EXHUMATION
The map of apparent exhumation is shown in Fig. 3 and
listed in Appendix A. The Patchawarra and Ullenbury
Troughs seem to be at/or near maximum burial depth as
the reference wells come from these areas. The Wimma-1
and Beanbush-1 wells, located in Patchawarra Trough, are
at maximum burial depth at the present day as apparent
exhumation values during Late Triassic^Early Jurassic
and in Late Cretaceous^Tertiary times (Mavromatidis &
Hillis, 2005) are at/or close to zero.
The boundary between the Patchawarra Trough and the
anticlinal GMI trend is apparent on the map of exhuma-
tion (Fig. 3).This suggests that the GMI trend has experi-
enced Late Triassic^Early Jurassic deformation. This
355
A. Mavromatidis

24 45 00S
NAPPAMERRI GROUP
Apparent Exhumation 25 00 00S

0
20
0 0
80 60 40
0

40
0
Queensland
26 00 00S
South Australia

00
600

10
0
40
40

27 00 00S
0

0
20
800

600
800
600
1000 28 00 00S
0
40

0
80
600

Queensland
29 00 00S
New South Wales

29 15 00S
139 10 00E 140 00 00E 141 00 00E 142 00 00E 143 10 00E

Fig. 3. Apparent exhumation (m) (maximum burial depth^present burial depth) in the Nappamerri Group.Well control points and
tectonic elements are also shown. (FL, Fly Lake; GMI, Gidgealpa^Merrimelia^Innamincka; NT, Nappamerri Trough; NY, Naryilco^
Yanko; PNJ, Pepita^Naccowlah^Jackson, RW, Roseneath^Wolgolla; TC, Tirrawarra^Cuttapirrie).

evidence for exhumation of the GMI trend is supported by
the thinning of sedimentary strata of the Cooper Basin
over the structural highs and in some places are absent
due to exhumation (Apak etal.,1993).Thinning of the Nap-
pamerri Formation close to the structural high and thick-
ening away from it indicates reactivation of faults in
Middle to Late Triassic times (Kuang, 1985). The Nappa-
merri Trough is separated from the Patchawarra Trough
by the GMI trend. Unlike the PatchawarraTrough, signi¢ -
cant exhumation has occurred in the Nappamerri Trough.
Exhumation from maximum burial depth is almost simi-
lar to 600^800 m in the south and west of the Nappamerri
Trough and in its north- eastern (NE)/Queensland part.
Broadly speaking, exhumation increases eastwards from

356 r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Basin Research, 18, 351^373
 Burial/exhumation histories for the Cooper^Eromanga Basins
1400
1200
Apparent exhumation from
1000
nappamerri group (m)
800
600
400
200
0 upon, systematic errors in the results are dependent on
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Mean apparent exhumation from
eromanga basin units (m)
Fig. 4. Crossplots of apparent exhumation (in metres) in the
Nappamerri Group (Cooper Basin) against those from the mean
Eromanga Basin units.The line illustrating the 1 : 1 relationship
between apparent exhumation values from each pair of units
analysed is shown.
the PatchawarraTrough, through the GMI trend and Nap-
pamerri Trough into Queensland, with values of approxi-
mately 600^800 m in the Jackson^Naccowlah area. The
other area of maximum exhumation, which reaches ap-
proximately 1km, lies near the extreme NE boundary of
South Australia, in the vicinity of the Curalle-1 well, and
apparent exhumation reaches approximately 1.2 km, north
of the Jackson^Naccowlah area.
These results are consistent with the exhumation pat-
tern in Late Cretaceous^Tertiary times (Mavromatidis &
Hillis, 2005), i.e. maximum exhumation areas are concen-
trated in the Curalle and Morney and Jackson anticlines,
and hence this supports the hypothesis that many anticli-
nal features were breached by reactivated faults (Powis,
1989; Shaw, 1991).
Exhumation as expressed in the Nappamerri Group
and analysed in the Cooper Basin is, to some extent, the
complement of Nappamerri thickness. The Nappamerri
is very thin over the maximum in exhumation to the north
of the Jackson^Naccowlah area and in the vicinity of the
Curalle-1 well (Powis, 1989). The region of lower exhuma-
tion between these two maximum (Windorah Trough) cor-
responds to a minor depocentre, which holds in excess of
400 m of Nappamerri sediments (Thornton, 1979; Powis,
1989). The Patchawarra Trough is a part of the major Nap-
pamerri depocentre of the area, with up to 500 m of Nap-
pamerri sediments (Powis, 1989), and this is consistent
with the interpretation that it is currently at maximum
burial depth.This Nappamerri depocentre does, however,
extend south of the Patchawarra Trough, extending over
the GMI trend and into the southern part of the Nappa-
merri Trough (Powis, 1989). The trend of the Nappamerri
depocentre follows the Patchawarra Trough, and may have
been inherited from it. However, the structural grain of the
r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Basin Research, 18, 351^373
GMI trend and Nappamerri Trough appears to have ex-
erted little in£uence on the Nappamerri Group depocen-
tre.
COOPER BASIN VS. EROMANGA BASIN
APPARENT EXHUMATION
It is di⁄cult to ascribe error limits to the apparent exhu-
mation values that have been determined here and in the
exhumation study of Mavromatidis & Hillis (2005) in the
Eromanga Basin. For individual units (in the study of the
Eromanga Basin), and for the mean results based there-
the extent to which the assumptions in the method are vio -
lated, principally, the extent to which units do not follow
the normal compaction relation with burial in all wells,
and the extent to which compaction is reversed by subse-
quent exhumation. Measurement errors are likely to be in-
signi¢cant in comparison with the potential systematic
errors. The spread of the exhumation values around the
one-to - one relation for units within the Eromanga Basin
gives an indication of the errors in exhumation values from
these units, and, although no detailed statistical analysis
has been undertaken, a value of  200 m seems reasonable
from inspection of the Eromanga exhumation study (Fig. 5
in Mavromatidis & Hillis, 2005). An indication of the er-
rors in the exhumation values derived from the unit(s) ana-
lysed in the Cooper and Eromanga Basins can be obtained
by considering Fig. 4, whereas the apparent exhumation
from the Nappamerri Group is compared with the mean
exhumation of the Eromanga Basin. In the absence of
major lateral tectonic movement (as may be reasonably as-
sumed in the relatively tectonically quiescent Cooper^
Eromanga Basins), any exhumation to which the Cooper
Basin was subjected must also have a¡ected the Eromanga
Basin. Hence, in the absence of errors, exhumation from
units in Eromanga Basin could not exceed that from units
in the Cooper Basin. However, the tendency for Cooper
Basin unit, i.e. Nappemerri Group, to yield greater appar-
ent exhumation values than those of the Eromanga Basin is
beyond the demonstrable error limits of the data. It is thus
inferred that some areas of the Cooper Basin did reach
maximum burial depth before the deposition of the Ero -
manga Basin sequence; the location and structural signif-
icance of these areas is discussed later in this section.
In order to further analyse the greater exhumation va-
lues yielded by Nappamerri unit, the di¡erence between
the mean exhumation value yielded by the sonic log data
from the Cooper Basin units and those from the Eromanga
Basin units has been illustrated in Fig. 5. Given a  200 m
error on exhumation values from individual units, much of
the excess of apparent exhumation of the Cooper Basin
over that of the Eromanga Basin is within the error limits.
However, there are signi¢cant areas (17 wells) where the
di¡erence is in excess of 400 m, and, perhaps even more
importantly, the map of the di¡erence between Cooper
and Eromanga Basin exhumations (Fig. 5) has a demon-
357
A. Mavromatidis

COOPER BASIN (Nappamerri group) apparent exhumation -

EROMANGA BASIN mean apparent exhumation
<0 0-400 > 400

Queensland
South Australia

Queensland
New South Wales

Fig. 5. Map showing the di¡erence between apparent exhumation in Cooper Basin and Eromanga Basin. Major ¢elds, well control
points and tectonic elements are also shown.

strable link with the structural history of the basins. The
major Troughs within the Cooper^Eromanga Basins;
Patchawarra, Arrabury and Windorah, which were depo -
centres during the development of the Cooper Basin
(Stuart et al., 1988; Heath et al., 1989), correspond with areas
where maximum burial depth was attained subsequent to
the deposition of the Eromanga Basin. A number of the
areas where Cooper Basin exhumation is signi¢cantly
greater than that of the Eromanga Basin are Permo -Trias-
sic structural highs such as the Murteree and Roseneath^
Wolgolla and a signi¢cant area centred on the Toolachee
Field in the Nappacoongee trend.
Exhumation estimates based on vitrinite re£ectance and
apatite ¢ssion analyis track analysis indicate that exhumation
was higher than and equal to the exhumation in Late Cretac-
eous^Tertiary and LateTriassic^Early Jurassic times. However,
there is great uncertainty in palaeogeothermal gradients,
which is crucial in such studies (Mavromatidis, 1997).

358 r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Basin Research, 18, 351^373
 Burial/exhumation histories for the Cooper^Eromanga Basins
Implications for hydrocarbon exploration
A major region of hydrocarbon accumulations from Fly
Lake through Gidgealpa, and Moomba lie between the
Patchawarra and Nappamerri Troughs, where high
geothermal gradients (Pitt, 1986) and maximum burial
depth were attained after deposition of the Eromanga Ba-
sin, and an NNW^SSE trending axis where the Cooper
Basin attained maximum burial depth before the deposi-
tion of the Eromanga Basin.TheToolachee and surround-
ing ¢elds are located in another region where the Cooper
Basin attained maximum burial depth before the deposi-
tion of the Eromanga Basin. Given that Permian- sourced
oils are highly unlikely to be preserved where the sources
attained maximum burial depth before the deposition of
the Eromanga Basin, it is suggested that the Nappamerri
Trough, or other more local areas where maximum burial
depth was attained after deposition of the Eromanga Ba-
sin, may be the primary source of Permian hydrocarbons.
This implies some degree of lateral migration of hydrocar-
bons to ¢ll reservoirs located on structural highs where
maximum burial depth was attained before the deposition
of the Eromanga Basin.
TIMING OF MAJOR PERIODS OF
EXHUMATION IN THE COOPER ^
EROMANGA BASINS
The Daralingie and Nappamerri
unconformities
A hiatus witnessed by the absence of palynological zones
between the Early and Late Permian is apparent in the rock
record as the Daralingie unconformity (e.g. Heath, 1989;
also Fig.1b). At the end of Early Permian/beginning of Late
Permian times, a compressional phase resulted in rejuve-
nation of older basement structures and produced, for ex-
ample, the northeast- orientated GMI trend (Apak et al.,
1993). Although the tectonic activity along pre-Permian
fault trends (Stuart, 1976; Stanmore & Johnstone, 1988)
caused uplift and erosion of previously deposited sedi-
ments, sediment accumulation was continuous in deeper
parts of the basin (Battersby, 1976; Stuart, 1976). Vitrinite
re£ectance modelling showed that there is no o¡set in the
amounts of exhumation determined from the Lower Per-
mian units (Patchawarra Formation, Murteree Shale and
Roseneath Shale) and those determined from Upper Per-
mian and Triassic units (Toolachee Formation and Nappa-
merri Group) (Mavromatidis,1997). Hence, it appears that
the pre-Daralingie, Lower Permian units did not reach
maximum burial depth during the hiatus associated with
the Daralingie unconformity.
Deposition of the Cooper Basin sequence was termi-
nated by major uplift in LateTriassic^Early Jurassic times,
which resulted in a northeasterly tilting of the Cooper Ba-
sin (Kuang, 1985), rejuvenation of pre- existing structures
and a basin-wide unconformity (Thornton, 1979; Kuang,
1985; Channon & Wood, 1989). Kuang (1985) considered
r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Basin Research, 18, 351^373
this event as being due to wrench-induced northeast^
southwest compressional stress. Wiltshire (1982a) and
Gallagher et al. (1994) related the unconformity to the
Mid^Late Triassic Hunter/Bowen orogeny in the New
England Fold Belt. It would seem reasonable to correlate
the unconformities, with more intense deformation
observed in the Sydney and Bowen Basins to the east
(Veevers, 1984). Detailed mapping of seismic lines in the
Bowen and Surat Basins has shown that major unconfor-
mities developed near thrust and reverse faults in response
to compressional reactivation of these faults (Elliott, 1993).
In the Cooper^Eromanga Basins, the timing of erosion
associated with the Triassic^Jurassic unconformity is lo -
cally constrained where the Late Triassic Cuddapan For-
mation is observed (Fig. 1b). However, the Cuddapan
Formation is limited to the Windorah Trough and the
Patchawarra Trough, having a maximum thickness of 50 m
(Powis, 1989). Powis (1989) argued that erosion before de-
position of the Lower Jurassic Poolowanna Formation re-
sulted in these isolated remnants of Late Triassic strata.
However,Wiltshire (1982b) noticed that the thickest devel-
opment of the unit is in areas where Lower Jurassic sedi-
ments are also thick, i.e. this Late Triassic sedimentation
was apparently a precursor of Eromanga Basin sedimenta-
tion. Wiltshire (1982b) argued that the unit in terms of
lithology, log character and area of distribution has much
greater a⁄nity to the overlying Eromanga Basin sequence
than to the Cooper Basin, and thus it presumably
post-dates erosion. Powis (1989) argued that the boundary
between the Lower and Middle Triassic Arrabury and
Tinchoo Formations, which is a mappable seismic marker
in the Queensland sector of the study area, is associated
with a tectonic event. Powis (1989) suggested that this was
a major event (of Early/Middle Triassic age) that initiated
the termination of the Cooper Basin phase of deposition.
In order to check whether the Arrabury/Tinchoo
boundary represented the main uplift event between the
Cooper and Eromanga Basins, the compaction method
was applied separately to the Arrabury and Tinchoo For-
mations in 37 wells selected to provide regional coverage
(Figs 6a^ c). Apparent exhumation from both units is very
consistent (Fig. 6d). Apparent exhumation values do not
support Powis’s (1989) suggestion that the Arrabury/
Tinchoo boundary represents the boundary between the
Cooper and Eromanga Basins hence accepting Wiltshire’s
(1982b) interpretation that the Cuddapan Formation is
part of the Eromanga Basin sequence, where the Cooper
Basin is believed to have reached its maximum burial
depth, before the deposition of the Eromanga Basin, in
LateTriassic times.
Late Cretaceous^Tertiary unconformities
Deposition of the Winton Formation ceased in Late Cen-
omanian or EarlyTuronian times (Moore & Pitt, 1984).The
Winton Formation is unconformably overlain by the Late
Palaeocene^Late Eocene Eyre Formation. The Eyre For-
359
 1500 1500

360
(a)
(b) (c)

N
A. Mavromatidis

2000 2000 normal

normal compaction
Queensland compaction trend
trend
South Australia

2500 2500

(m below ground level)

(mbelow ground level)
Depth to tinchoo formation midpoint

Depth to arrabury formation midpoint

3000 3000
60 70 80 90 60 70 80 90
Interval transit time (µs/ft) Interval transit time (µs /ft)

1000
(d)

NM = Nappacoongee-Murteree 500
GMI = Gidgealpa-Merrimelia-Innamincka
RW = Roseneath-Wolgolla

formation (m)
PNJ = Pepita-Naccowlah-Jackson South
Patch = Patchawarra
Queensland

interval transit time in tinchoo

Apparent exhumation from sonic
New South Wales
0
0 100 0 500 1000
Kilometres
Apparent exhumation from sonic
interval transit time in arrabury
formation (m)

Fig. 6. (a) Location of wells used in compaction analysis. Mean interval transit time/depth to unit midpoint for (b) Arrabury Formation and (c) Tinchoo Formation.The normal compaction
relationship for each unit is also shown. (d) Crossplot of apparent exhumation (in metres) derived from interval transit time in Tinchoo Formation against those from Arrabury Formation.The line
illustrating the 1 : 1 relationship between apparent exhumation values from each pair of units analysed is shown.

r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Basin Research, 18, 351^373
 Burial/exhumation histories for the Cooper^Eromanga Basins

Seismic
horizon
My Rate of
Age Stratigraphy Structuring
Erosion /dep'n

QUAT. Cadelga limestone

Pliocene and equivalents
10
Miocene Etadunna
20 formation

Oligo-
30 cene
?

Tertiary
40 ?
Eocene Eyre
?
Formation
50

Paleo-
60 cene

70

Senonian
80
Late

90 Tourinian
Cretaceous

Cenomanian Winton formation

B Mackunda formation
100 Oodna- Allaru mudstone
Albian datta fm
Subgroup

Toolebuc fm
Marree

Coorikiana sst
11 0 BX Bulldog Wallumbilla
Early

shale formation
Aptian

120
C
Cadna-owie formation
Neocomian
130 Algebuckina sst
140 MOOGA Murta member
DN Late jurassic FM. Namur sandstone

Fig. 7. Summary of stratigraphy and structuring in Eromanga^Tertiary sediments (synthesized from various Santos Ltd reports).

mation is itself unconformably overlain by the Early^Mid-
dle Miocene Etadunna Formation (Fig. 7).
Unfortunately, no log data are available for the units
overlying the Winton Formation; thus, it is not possible
to date the exhumation beyond post-Cenomanian using
the compaction methodology. As the Tertiary units are
relatively thin, the timing of Late Cretaceous^Tertiary
deformation, which may be contemporaneous with
exhumation, cannot be determined from seismic re£ec-
tion data using standard techniques (i.e. interpretation
of Tertiary units a¡ected/una¡ected by deformation).
Information on the age of Tertiary deformation and
exhumation is restricted to analysis of the outcropping
Tertiary.
Even in the subsurface, the Winton Formation is deeply
weathered in its upper part (Wopfner et al., 1974; Senior et
al., 1978; Williams & Moriarty, 1986), indicating that it was
subject to a long period of exposure, and potentially exhu-
mation, beforeTertiary deposition. Furthermore, an angu-
lar unconformity of a few degrees separates the Winton
and Eyre Formations on the crests of major anticlines
(Sprigg, 1958; Wopfner et al., 1974). Hence, there was a per-
iod of exposure and deformation before deposition of the
Eyre Formation.
Deep chemical weathering during late Eocene^Oligo -
cene times, between the deposition of the Eyre and Eta-
dunna Formations, caused silici¢cation the Eyre and
Winton Formations. This period may also have been one
of signi¢cant exhumation. Structuring continued subse-
quent to the deposition of the Eyre Formation, producing
the major surface anticlines and the uplifted silcrete- cov-
ered tablelands seen today (Moore & Pitt, 1984).
Regionally, Late Miocene-Recent exhumation, subse-
quent to the deposition of the Etadunna Formation, is wit-
nessed by the uplift of the Sturgon Volcanics in central
Queensland (Coventry et al., 1985), and by uplift of the
Flinders Ranges (Callen & Tedford,1986). However, Moore
& Pitt (1984) suggested that there is no clear evidence of
post-Etadunna folding of Eromanga Basin sediments.
In summary, although the chronology of Late Cretac-
eous^Tertiary basin development is not well constrained,
uplift and deformation appears to have been multi-phase
or episodic throughout Late Cretaceous and Tertiary
times (Moore & Pitt, 1984; Shaw, 1991; Mavromatidis &

r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Basin Research, 18, 351^373 361
A. Mavromatidis

Age (Ma)
0 23 97 112 124 132 135 141 146 155 157 178 187 209 245 252 260 269
0 7f 8g 10i 12k 15n 16o 17p
3b 5d 13l 16n 17o
1
4c 8f 13k
14m 17n Decompacted depth
14l
4b 5c 6d 6e 9h 11j 18o 18p 18q to Cooper - Eromanga
14k 16m basement
5b 9g 11i
9f 16l 18n
2a 15m
16k 15l
6c
7e 15k
2 7d 17l 17m
6b 8e 10g 10h 12j
10f 12i 13j 17k 18m
8d 13i 18l
7c 9e 11g 11h 18k
1000 3a 8c 11f
9d 14j
7b 14i
4a 8b 10e
3 12g 12h 15i
5a 9c 12f 13h 16j
10d 13f 13g
16i 15j
4 9b
10c 11e 1. Tertiary Unnamed
Sediment thickness (m)

5 11d 17j
6a 14g 14h 17i
10b 12e
14f 2. Winton Formation
11c 13e 18i 18j
6
12d 16g 16h 3. Mackunda Formation
11b 13d 16f 15g 15h
7a 12c 15f 4. Allaru Mudstone
8a 12b 13c 14e 17g 17h
13b
17f 5. Toolebuc Formation
7 14d
2000 9a 16e 18g 18h 6. Wallumbilla Formation
8 18f
14c 16d 15e 7. Cadna-owie Formation
9 10a 14b 15d
15c
16c 17e 8. Murta Member
10 11a 17d 18e
16b
18d
9. Namur Sandstone Member
15b 17c
11 12a
17b 18c
10. Birkhead Formation
13a
12 18b
11. Hutton Sandstone
13
12. Basal Jurassic
14a
13. Cuddapan Formation
14
3000 16a 14. Nappamerri Group
15a
605m 15. Toolachee Formation
15 17a
16 16. Murteree Shale
17 18a
17. Patchawarra Formation
18
3500 153m
18. Tirrawarra Sandstone

Fig. 8. Progressive decompaction of the Cooper^Eromanga sequence in well Beanbush-1.

Hillis, 2005). Given that such Tertiary sequences as are
preserved are relatively thin and separated by marked un-
conformities/weathered surfaces, it is suggested that exhu-
mation and/or no sedimentation rather than
sedimentation dominated the Tertiary, and that in ex-
humed areas, maximum burial depth was attained in Late
Cretaceous times.
BURIAL /EXHUMATION HISTORY
Sediment decompaction
In order to re- create burial/exhumation history through
time, the preserved rock record must be decompacted. Se-
dimentary rock decompaction aims to restore the original
depositional thickness of now-buried and compacted stra-
tigraphic units and thus re- create burial history (e.g. Scla-
ter & Christie, 1980; Falvey & Deighton, 1982). To restore
the original thickness of a stratigraphic unit, its normal
porosity/depth relationship and maximum burial depth
must be determined. Restored thicknesses are calculated
from the porosity (hence, associated volume) increase in-
dicated by the porosity/depth relationship as the rock unit
is raised from its maximum burial depth to the surface.
To illustrate the technique of sediment decompaction,
the decompacted depth to the base Permian in the Bean-
bush-1 well is calculated by removing and decompacting
the overlying sediment sequence unit by unit (Fig. 8).The
top unit (1), from which there are no well returns, is re-
moved ¢rst and the underlying units are decompacted, in-
creasing in thickness.
The thickness increase of underlying units counteracts
the removal of the top 240 m of sediments; hence, the de-
crease in decompacted depth to ‘basement’ from the pre-
sent to the end of the Miocene, with removal of the
topmost 240 m, is only 150 m. The Cenomanian Winton
Formation is removed next: its thickness has increased
from 910 m (2) to 950 m (2a) due to the removal of the top
unit; however, the decompaction of the underlying sedi-
ments as the 950 m of Winton Formation is removed
means that the decrease in decompacted depth to base-
ment is only 600 m. This continues until approximately
the middle of the sequence where the decompaction of

362 r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Basin Research, 18, 351^373
 Burial/exhumation histories for the Cooper^Eromanga Basins
Table 2. Relationships between porosity and interval transit time for the units to be backstripped in the Cooper^Eromanga Basins
Lithology Stratigraphic unit
Sandstone
Hutton sandstone
Shale
Bulldog Shale/Wallumbilla Formation,
Roseneath Shale, Murteree Shale
Sandy Shale
80% shale^20% Allaru Mudstone/Oodnadatta Formation
sandstone
70% shale^30% Winton Formation, Cadna- owie Formation,
sandstone Birkhead Formation, Nappamerri Group
65% shale^35% Patchawarra Formation
sandstone
60% shale^40% Mackunda Formation,
sandstone Toolachee Formation
the unit being removed becomes greater than the decom-
paction of the underlying units due to its removal, and de-
compacted depths to ‘basement’ change by more than the
present-day thickness of the unit being backstripped. De-
compacting a sediment sequence hence predicts more ra-
pid early and slower later subsidence than present well
thicknesses. An important assumption is that levels be-
neath compaction basement are fully compacted before
the onset of sedimentation and do not compact further
during subsequent deposition.
Several algorithms for decompaction have been pro -
posed based on the rate of reduction of porosity with
depth and conservation of the solid volume of sediments
(Athy, 1930; Perrier & Quiblier, 1974; Sclater & Christie,
1980; Baldwin & Butler, 1985). Among these algorithms,
Perrier & Quiblier’s (1974) and Sclater & Christie’s (1980)
are the most acceptable (Liu & Roaldset, 1994). In this
study, Sclater & Christie’s (1980) algorithm, as incorpo -
rated in the BasinModt software, was used. It has been
used in this study with porosity^depth parameters derived
from the Cooper^Eromanga Basins as discussed in the
next section.
Porosity^depth relations and sediment
decompaction in the Cooper^Eromanga
Basins
In order to decompact sedimentary rocks in exhumed
wells, their undisturbed porosity^depth trend and the
amount of exhumation must be known. Like the normal
velocity^depth trend used to estimate exhumation, the
normal porosity^depth trend is de¢ned by the wells that
are the least compacted (highest porosity) for their burial
depth. In order to determine porosity^depth trends, the
sonic log values of 204 wells were converted to porosity va-
lues using Hansen’s (1996) equation for shales (Eqn. (1))
and Raiga-Clemenceau et al.’s (1988) equation for sand-
stones (Eqn. (2)):
r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Basin Research, 18, 351^373
Interval transit time^porosity equation
f 5 1  (55.5/Dt)1/1.6
f 5 (1/1.57)([Dt  59]/[189  59])
f 5 0.8(1/1.57)([Dt  59]/[189  59])10.2(1  (55.5/Dt)1/1.6)
f 5 0.7(1/1.57)([Dt  59]/[189  59])10.3(1  (55.5/Dt)1/1.6)
f 5 0.65(1/1.57)([Dt  59]/[189  59])10.35(1  (55.5/Dt)1/1.6)
f 5 0.6(1/1.57)([Dt  59]/[189  59])10.4(1  (55.5/Dt)1/1.6)
f ¼ ð1=1:57Þð½Dt  59=½189  59Þ ð1Þ
Dtma 1=x
f¼1 ð2Þ
Dt
where Dtma (m s ft  1) 5 55.5 and x 5 1.6 (Raiga-Clemen-
ceau et al., 1988).
Most of the stratigraphic units are combinations of the
above lithologies; the above equations were modi¢ed ac-
cording to the approximate fraction of the lithology in
each unit. The relationships applied are summarized in
Table 2 and Fig. 9.
Sclater & Christie’s (1980) method is based on Athy’s
(1930) equation relating porosity (f) to depth (z):
fz ¼ fo ecz ð3Þ
where fz and fo are porosity at depth z and surface por-
osity, respectively, and c is the exponential factor to allow
for the varying compressibilities of di¡erent lithologies.
Rubey & Hubbert’ (1959) equation has been ¢tted to the
least compacted porosity^depth points for each unit (Fig.
10). Surface porosities have been taken from the literature.
Sclater & Christie’s (1980) suggested 63% for shales,
whereas Pryor (1973) showed that sandstone surface poros-
ity is facies dependent and a simple average of these facies,
which is 46%, was taken to represent the varied sandstone
facies of the Cooper^Eromanga Basins. Sediment grain
densities were taken from Sclater & Christie’s (1980), and
these are 2.72 and 2.65 g cm  3 for shales and sandstones,
respectively. The surface porosity and density values were
assigned according to the fraction of each lithology in each
unit. Table 3 summarizes the porosity^depth values used
in sediment decompaction.
Discussion of burial/exhumation histories
Considering the relative signi¢cance of the major periods
of exhumation in the Cooper/Eromanga Basins, three
363
A. Mavromatidis
75
60
Porosity (%)
45
Sandy shale (a)
30 Sandy shale (b)
Sandy shale (c)
Sandy shale (d)
15
Shale
Sandstone
0 cated by the compaction of the Cooper Basin units is
50 100 150 200
Interval transit time (µs / ft)
Fig. 9. Interval transit time (Dt)/porosity relationships.
Sandstone interval transit time/porosity relationship is after
Raiga-Clemenceau et al. (1988) and was used to convert sonic log
based Dt to porosity in the Hutton Sandstone. The shale interval
transit time (Dt)/porosity relationship is after Hansen (1996) and
was used to convert sonic log-based Dt to porosity in the Bulldog
Shale/Wallumbilla Formation, Roseneath and Murteree Shales.
Sandy shale interval transit time (Dt)/porosity relationships are
combinations of a: (a) 80% shale and 20% sandstone relations
suitable for the Allaru Mudstone/Oodnadatta Formation, (b)
70% shale and 30% sandstone relations suitable for the Winton
Formation, Cadna- owie Formation, Birkhead Formation, and
Nappamerri Group, (c) 65% shale and 35% sandstone relations
suitable for the Patchawarra Formation and (d) 60% shale and
40% sandstone relations suitable for the Mackunda and
Toolachee Formations.
broad types of burial/exhumation histories can be distin-
guished (Fig. 11):

maximum burial depth of the Cooper Basin sequence
attained before the deposition of the Eromanga Basin
sequence, i.e. LateTriassic^Early Jurassic exhumation
was of greater magnitude than subsequent burial dur-
ing development of the Eromanga Basin;

maximum burial depth of the Cooper and Eromanga
Basin sequences attained in Late Cretaceous times,
beforeTertiary exhumation; and

currently at maximum burial depth.
There are relatively few wells where the stratigraphic units
analysed lie on or close to the normal velocity/depth com-
paction trends in the Eromanga Basin (Fig. 4 in Mavroma-
tidis & Hillis, 2005) and three wells in this study. Hence, it
is inferred that few wells are currently at maximum burial
depth. In the vast majority of wells (133 of those analysed),
the mean exhumation yielded from compaction analysis of
the Cooper Basin units is greater than the mean value
yielded from the Eromanga Basin units. As discussed pre-
viously in the Cooper vs. Eromanga Basin apparent exhu-
mation Section, in these wells it is inferred that the Cooper
Basin sequence attained maximum burial depth before the
deposition of the Eromanga Basin sequence. However, it
should be mentioned that in many cases, the di¡erence is
less than the sum of the probable error bounds on the two
364 r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Basin Research, 18, 351^373
estimates of exhumation. In 19 wells, the mean
exhumation yielded from compaction analysis of the
Cooper Basin units is less than the mean value yielded
from the Eromanga Basin units. In these wells there is no
evidence, from compaction analysis, of exhumation in
LateTriassic^Early Jurassic times. However, in the absence
of major lateral tectonic movement, the Cooper Basin
units must have been subjected to the same magnitude of
Late Cretaceous^Tertiary exhumation as the Eromanga
Basin units. Thus, the wells in which exhumation indi-
less than the mean value indicated by the Eromanga
Basin units give an indication of the error associated with
the method.
Figure 12a illustrates the burial/exhumation history for
several wells where the Cooper Basin sequence attained
maximum burial depth before the deposition of the Ero -
manga Basin sequence. As LateTriassic^Early Jurassic ex-
humation was of greater magnitude than subsequent
burial during development of the Eromanga Basin, the
pre- exhumation (Cooper Basin) units would not have
compacted during deposition of the Eromanga Basin se-
quence. Hence, the Cooper Basin sequence acts as a com-
paction basement during decompaction of the Eromanga
Basin units, i.e. all horizons in the Cooper Basin would
have followed a burial/exhumation path parallel to that il-
lustrated for the base Permian. In practice, Cooper Basin
units were decompacted as a separate sequence, with the
addition of 2700 m of sediments inferred to have been re-
moved during Late Triassic^Early Jurassic exhumation.
These wells also exhibit signi¢cant Late Cretaceous^Ter-
tiary exhumation. The incorporation of the Late Cretac-
eous^Tertiary exhumation into the burial histories of
these wells signi¢cantly increases maximum burial depth
of the Eromanga Basin sequence from that observed at
the present day. Consequently, the Eromanga Basin de-
compacts considerably more when allowance is made for
Late Cretaceous^Tertiary exhumation.
Figure 12b illustrates the burial/exhumation history for
wells where maximum burial depth was attained in Late
Cretaceous times. All that can be said with con¢dence
about any LateTriassic^Early Jurassic exhumation in such
wells is that it was of lesser magnitude than subsequent
burial during the deposition of the Eromanga Basin. Given
that many wells in the Cooper^Eromanga Basin show ma-
jor exhumation at this time, and that there is a regional an-
gular unconformity between the Cooper and Eromanga
Basins, it seems unlikely that these wells were not subject
to any exhumation at this time. Figure 12b shows a dotted
line, which indicates the maximum possible burial and
subsequent exhumation during LateTriassic^Early Juras-
sic times in these wells.The true amount of burial and ex-
humation at this time may have been anywhere between
none and that indicated by the dotted line. Given the mag-
nitude of exhumation in other wells and the regional an-
gular unconformity, the author believes that it is closer to
the latter than the former. In these wells, the e¡ect on de-
compaction of incorporating Late Cretaceous^Tertiary ex-
 Burial/exhumation histories for the Cooper^Eromanga Basins

(a) (b) (i) (j)

(c) (d) (k) (l)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

Fig. 10. Porosity/mid-point depth plots for units

backstripped in the Cooper^Eromanga Basins (a) the
Winton Formation, (b) the Mackunda Formation, (c) the
Allaru Mudstone/Oodnadatta Formation, (d) the Bulldog
Shale/Wallumbilla Formation, (e) the Cadna- owie
Formation, (f) the Birkhead Formation, (g) the Hutton
Sandstone, (h) the Nappamerri Group, (i) theToolachee
Formation, (j) the Roseneath Shale, (k) the Murteree Shale
and (l) the Patchawarra Formation.

r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Basin Research, 18, 351^373 365
A. Mavromatidis

Table 3. Porosity^depth parameters and sediment grain (matrix) tory and palaeogeothermal gradients or palaeo -heat£ow/
densities used in sediment decompaction thermal conductivity (e.g. Falvey & Deighton, 1982). To as-
sess the in£uence of LateTriassic^Early Jurassic on source
fo c rma
rock maturity, vitrinite re£ectance levels have been mod-
Unit (%) (km  1) (g cm  3)
elled in Jackson South-1. The palaeogeothermal gradients
Eromanga Basin used in modelling were adopted from the Mavromatidis &
Winton Formation 58 0.45 2.69 Hillis (2005) vitrinite re£ectance study and are as follows:
Mackunda Formation 56 0.52 2.69 during deposition of the Cooper Basin section (i.e. 286^
Allaru Mudstone/Oodnadatta 60 0.55 2.70 193 Ma) a 49 1C km  1, during deposition of the Eromanga
Formation Basin section (i.e. from 193 to 0 Ma) a 34 1C km  1 was used
Bulldog Shale/Wallumbilla 63 0.60 2.72
from 193 to 91 Ma and a 55 1C km  1 from 91 Ma to present
Formation
day. Source rock maturity has been modelled (in terms of
Cadna- owie Formation 58 0.57 2.69
Birkhead Formation 58 0.61 2.69 vitrinite re£ectance) both with and without considering
Hutton sandstone 46 0.40 2.65 exhumation in Late Cretaceous^Tertiary times (Mavro -
Cooper Basin matidis & Hillis, 2005), and in this study considering ex-
Nappamerri Group 58 0.70 2.69 humation in Late Triassic^Early Jurassic and Late
Toolachee Formation 56 0.60 2.69 Cretaceous^Tertiary times (Figs 13a^ c).
Roseneath Shale and 63 0.80 2.72 Modelling was undertaken using the BasinModt soft-
Murteree Shale ware in which vitrinite re£ectance is calculated using the
Patchawarra Formation 57 0.57 2.69 kinetics of Sweeney & Burnham (1990). All burial/
exhumation histories were decompacted using the metho -
dology of Sclater & Christie (1980) with the decompaction
parameters de¢ned in this study. Ages were taken from
humation is more readily apparent than it is in the wells il- the operators’ composite logs and geochronologically
lustrated in Fig.12a, because the Cooper Basin sequence is calibrated after the time scale of Harland et al. (1989). The
not acting as a compaction basement during decompac- apparent exhumation values (in metres) in Late Cretac-
tion of the Eromanga Basin units. eous^Tertiary times were adopted from Mavromatidis &
Figure 12c illustrates the burial/exhumation history for Hillis (2005), and for the Late Triassic^Early Jurassic the
a well believed to currently be at maximum burial depth. value of 800 m was used (Fig. 4). The major potential
There are only three such wells in this study. There is source rocks for liquid hydrocarbon generation are the
no evidence, from compaction trends, of exhumation Patchawarra and Toolachee Formations in the Cooper
either in Late Triassic^Jurassic or Late Cretaceous^ Basin (Jenkins, 1989), and the Basal Jurassic (Hawkins
Tertiary times in these wells. Indeed, these are the wells et al., 1989), Birkhead Formation (Jenkins, 1989) and
that were used as reference wells in the compaction plots, Murta Member (Michaelsen & McKirdy, 1989) in the
i.e. wells de¢ning the normal compaction relation. It is, of Eromanga Basin.
course, possible that these wells are above maximum bur- In modelling, without allowance for burial/exhumation,
ial depth and that the amount of exhumation inferred in the Patchawarra Formation reaches a vitrinite re£ectance
all wells is reduced from the true amount by the amount level of 0.5% RO, equivalent to early maturity for oil gen-
of exhumation to which these reference wells were eration during Late Cretaceous times and the rest of the
subjected. However, comparison of normal compaction source rocks during Tertiary times.Without allowance for
trends in this study with those published worldwide exhumation, no source rocks reach mid maturity (0.7^
(e.g. Fig. 2b), suggests that if such is the case, the amount 1.0% RO) (Fig. 13a). However, with the incorporation of
of exhumation is not signi¢cant. Exhumation is seen in Late Cretaceous^Tertiary exhumation, all source rocks
wells in close proximity to the reference wells, both during reach a vitrinite re£ectance of 0.5% RO, during Late Cre-
Late Triassic^Early Jurassic and during Late Cretaceous^ taceous times, and the Patchawarra Formation reaches a
Tertiary times. Hence, it is considered likely that the vitrinite re£ectance of 0.7% RO, equivalent to mid matur-
reference wells were exhumed at these times, but by a ity for oil generation duringTertiary times (Fig.13b).When
smaller amount than subsequent burial. The dotted lines maturation modelling incorporates Late Triassic^Early
in Fig. 12c indicate the minimum (zero) and maximum Jurassic exhumation, the Patchawarra and Toolachee For-
amount of exhumation to which these wells may have mations pass through early oil generation during Mid
been subjected. Triassic times and the Patchawarra Formation reaches
mid maturity during LateTriassic times (Fig.13c). Consid-
ering Late Triassic^Early Jurassic exhumation, the Toola-
chee Formation reaches mid mature oil generation at
INFLUENCE OF EXHUMATION ON
around the Late Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary. Incorpor-
SOURCE ROCK MATURITY ating Late Triassic^Early Jurassic and Late Cretaceous^
The source rock thermal history required to model ob- Tertiary exhumation into maturation modelling is
served maturity is generally determined from burial his- consistent with the sourcing of the oil ¢elds of the

366 r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Basin Research, 18, 351^373
 Burial/exhumation histories for the Cooper^Eromanga Basins

Age

Cooper Basin Unconformity Eromanga Basin Unconformity

(a)

Depth

Age
Cooper Basin Unconformity Eromanga Basin Unconformity
(b)
Depth

Age
Cooper Basin Unconformity Eromanga Basin Unconformity
(c)
Depth

?? ?

Fig. 11. Types of burial/exhumation histories for the Cooper^Eromanga Basins. In type (a), the burial/exhumation event in the Cooper
Basin unconformity is not apparent, in type (b), the well is at maximum burial depth and no previous burial/exhumation events are
apparent, and in type (c), the well is at maximum burial depth and no previous burial/exhumation events are apparent.

Jackson^Naccowlah area, in southwestern Queensland, DISCUSSION

from the above source rocks (Vincent et al., 1985).
In summary, the combination of any given palaeo -
geothermal gradients with a burial history plot for a
potential hydrocarbon source that allows for exhumation
indicates earlier and higher levels of organic maturity
than the same palaeogeothermal gradients combined
with a burial history plot that does not allow for
exhumation. This is more discernible when Late
Triassic^Early Jurassic exhumation is incorporated into
maturation modelling. Thus, estimates of exhumation,
such as those presented, should be incorporated into
maturation modelling of wells not at their maximum
burial depth.
It is worth noting that in Jackson-1, the excess of Late
Triassic^Early Jurassic exhumation over subsequent bur-
ial is relatively small, and greater maturities are attained
by Cooper Basin source rocks in Tertiary times than were
attained in Late Triassic^Early Jurassic times. Hence, hy-
drocarbons generated by Cooper Basin source rocks could
have charged reservoirs in these areas in Tertiary times.
Where the excess of LateTriassic^Early Jurassic exhuma-
tion over subsequent burial is relatively small:

Cooper Basin- sourced oils could have directly charged
Eromanga Basin

reservoirs, and

r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Basin Research, 18, 351^373 367
A. Mavromatidis

Cooper Basin reservoirs may have been charged with However, where the excess of Late Triassic^Early Jurassic
Cooper Basin- sourced oils in LateTertiary times, and exhumation over subsequent burial is large (in excess of at
such oils need not have been preserved in reservoirs least 400 m), it is considered unlikely that Cooper Basin
since LateTriassic^Early Jurassic times. sources could have ¢lled Eromanga Basin reservoirs.
Indeed, geochemical work by Michaelsen & McKirdy
(a) 0 (1989) has suggested that Eromanga Basin- sourced oils
Battunga-1 form a signi¢cant component of Eromanga Basin-reser-
voired oils. There are not yet su⁄cient geochemical data
to compare geochemically based determinations of source
1000 rockwith the exhumation values determined herein. How-
ever, in the future, it may be possible to investigate whether
Depth (m BGL)

areas where Cooper Basin sources are currently at maxi-

2000 mum maturity based on exhumation values coincide with
areas where Cooper Basin- sourced oils dominate, and
whether areas where Cooper Basin sources have not re-at-
tained maturity levels attained in Late Triassic^Early Jur-
3000
assic are dominated by Eromanga Basin- sourced oils.

4000
CONCLUSIONS AND
300 200 100 0
RECOMMENDATIONS
Age (Ma)
The aim of this study was to determine the amount of ex-
(b) 0 humation in the Cooper Basin, reconstruct the burial/ex-
Ullenbury-1 humation histories of the Cooper^Eromanga Basins and

1000
Fig. 12. (a) Burial/exhumation history for the base Permian in the
Depth (m BGL)

Battunga-1 well.The dashed line indicates the preserved

stratigraphy.The long dash-dotted line indicates preserved
2000
stratigraphy corrected for compaction.The black line indicates
the decompacted burial/exhumation history of the base Permian
allowing for LateTriassic^Early Jurassic and Late Cretaceous^
3000 Tertiary exhumation. Note that because the Cooper Basin
sequence reached maximum burial depth in these wells before
the deposition of the Eromanga sequence, the Cooper Basin
sequence acts as a compaction basement during Eromanga Basin
4000 burial (i.e. all Cooper Basin units follow parallel burial histories
250 200 100 0 during Eromanga Basin burial). (b) Burial/exhumation history for
Age (Ma)
the baseTriassic in the Ullenbury-1 well.The dashed line
indicates the preserved stratigraphy.The long dash-dotted line
(c) 0 indicates preserved stratigraphy corrected for compaction.The
black line indicates the decompacted burial/exhumation history
Beanbush-1
of the baseTriassic in well Ullenbury-1 allowing for Late
Cretaceous^Tertiary exhumation.There is no evidence from the
1000 compaction method of Cooper Basin having reached maximum
burial depth before the deposition of the Eromanga Basin.The
Depth (m BGL)

dotted line indicates the maximum amount of LateTriassic^

Early Jurassic burial/exhumation that could have occurred
2000 without being witnessed by the compaction method. (c) Burial/
exhumation history for the base Permian in the Beanbush-1 well.
The dashed line indicates the preserved stratigraphy.The long
dash-dotted line indicates preserved stratigraphy corrected for
3000
compaction.There is no evidence from the compaction method
of Cooper^Eromanga Basins having reached maximum burial
depth before the deposition of theTertiary sequence in
4000 Beanbush-1.The dotted line indicates the maximum amount of
LateTriassic - Early Jurassic and Late Cretaceous^Tertiary
300 200 100 0
burial/exhumation that could have occurred without being
Age (Ma) witnessed by the compaction method.

368 r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Basin Research, 18, 351^373
 Burial/exhumation histories for the Cooper^Eromanga Basins

investigate the implications of exhumation to hydrocarbon
exploration.The compaction method was applied in order
to achieve this aim. As porosity describes compaction
state, the sonic log is an appropriate indicator of compac-
tion, and hence is appropriate for quantifying exhumation
from compaction.The sonic log in the Nappamerri Group
(a) 0
1000
Depth (m BGL)
from more than 133 wells has been used. Broadly speaking,
exhumation increases eastwards from the Patchawarra
Trough, through the GMI Trend and Nappamerri Trough
into Queensland, with values of approximately 800 m in
the Jackson^Naccowlah area. The other area of maximum
exhumation, which also reaches approximately 1km, lies
near the extreme NE boundary of South Australia, in the
vicinity of the Curalle-1 well.The region of lower exhuma-
tion between these two maximum (Windorah Trough) cor-
responds to a major depocentre that contains in excess of
400 m of Nappamerri sediments.The Patchawarra Trough
is part of another major Nappamerri depocentre of the
area, and this is consistent with the interpretation that it

is currently at maximum burial-depth.

One of the key results is that in many cases, the Cooper
Basin (Nappamerri Group unit) exhibits more overcom-
paction than the Eromanga Basin units in the same well.
2000
Given a  200 m error on exhumation values from indivi-
dual units, much of the excess of apparent exhumation of
the Cooper Basin over that of the Eromanga Basin is with-
in error limits. However, there are signi¢cant areas where
3000 the di¡erence is in excess of 400 m, and, perhaps even
300 200 100 0 more importantly, the map of the di¡erence between
Age (Ma)
Cooper and Eromanga Basin exhumation has a demon-
0 strable link with the structural history of the basins. The
(b)
major Troughs within the Cooper^Eromanga Basins, e.g.
Patchawarra, Arrabury and Windorah, which were depo -
centres during the development of the Cooper Basin, cor-
respond with areas where maximum burial depth was
1000 attained subsequent to the deposition of the Eromanga
Depth (m BGL)

Basin. A number of the areas where Cooper Basin exhu-

mation is signi¢cantly greater than that of the Eromanga
Basin are Permo -Triassic structural highs such as the Mur-
teree anticline, Roseneath^Wolgolla and on the Toolachee
2000
Field.
Unfortunately, no log data are available for the units
overlying the Winton Formation; thus, it is not possible
to date exhumation beyond Late Cretaceous^Tertiary
3000 using the compaction methodology. As the Tertiary units
300 200 100 0 are relatively thin, the timing of Late Cretaceous^Tertiary
Age (Ma) deformation, which may be contemporaneous with exhu-
(c) mation, cannot be determined from seismic re£ection data
0
using standard techniques (i.e. interpretation of Tertiary
units a¡ected/una¡ected by deformation). Given that such
Tertiary sequences as are preserved are relatively thin and
separated by marked unconformities/weathered surfaces,
1000 it is suggested that exhumation rather and/or no sedimen-
Depth (m BGL)

tation than sedimentation dominated the Tertiary, and

Fig. 13. Burial/exhumation and maturity histories for the

2000 Jackson-1 well, (a) without allowance for exhumation, (b) with
allowance for Late Cretaceous^Tertiary exhumation (value taken
from Mavromatidis & Hillis, 2005) and (c) with allowance for Late
Cretaceous^Tertiary and LateTriassic^Early Jurassic exhumation.
Incorporation of Late Cretaceous-Tertiary exhumation increases
3000 the level of thermal maturity of a given stratigraphic level (Ptch,
300 200 100 0 Patchawarra formation; Tl, Toolachee formation; BJ, Basal
Age (Ma) Jurassic; Brh, Birkhead formation; Mm, Murta member).

r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Basin Research, 18, 351^373 369
A. Mavromatidis
that in exhumed areas, maximum burial-depth was at-
tained in Late Cretaceous times.
In the vast majority of wells, the mean exhumation
yielded from compaction analysis of the Nappamerri
Group is greater than the mean value yielded from the
Eromanga Basin units. In these wells, it is inferred that
the Cooper Basin sequence attained maximum burial
depth before the deposition of the Eromanga Basin se-
quence. However, it should be mentioned that in many
cases, the di¡erence is less than the sum of the probable
error bounds on the two estimates of exhumation. In a
few wells, the exhumation yielded from compaction analy-
sis of the Cooper Basin is less than the mean value yielded
from the Eromanga Basin units. In these wells, there is no
evidence, from compaction analysis, of exhumation in
LateTriassic^Early Jurassic times. However, in the absence
of major lateral tectonic movement, the Cooper Basin
units must have been subjected to the same magnitude of
Late Cretaceous^Tertiary exhumation as the Eromanga
Basin units. Indeed, these wells are used to estimate the
likely error bounds on the compaction methodology.
The Permian hiatus associated with the Daralingie un-
conformity was treated as a phase of non-deposition be-
cause there is no evidence from compaction, and other
methods, of exhumation at this time. However, all meth-
ods of quantifying exhumation based on rock properties
are intrinsically insensitive to exhumation associated with
now deeply buried unconformities, because rock proper-
ties are unlikely to hold a memory of such events.
The combination of any given palaeogeothermal gradi-
ents with a burial history plot for a potential hydrocarbon
source that allows for exhumation indicates earlier and
higher levels of organic maturity than the same palaeo -
geothermal gradients combined with a burial history plot
that does not allow for exhumation. Hence, estimates of
exhumation, such as those presented in this thesis, should
be incorporated into maturation modelling of wells not at
their maximum burial depth.
In conclusion, this study has shown that a considerable
amount of exhumation occurred after the deposition of
the Cooper Basin, in Late Triassic^Early Jurassic times.
The signi¢cance of Late Triassic^Early Jurassic times has
not been investigated. It is not surprising that maturation
studies that have not incorporated the e¡ects of exhuma-
tion have failed to produce satisfactory models.The results
of this study will contribute to research into basin forma-
tion and uplift and to petroleum exploration projects.
Although this study has helped elucidate exhumation in
the Cooper^Eromanga Basins, little is known about exhu-
mation in the other geologically and economically impor-
tant basins of Australia’s eastern area. Age unconformities
similar to those in Cooper^Eromanga Basins are observed
in the other basins of eastern Australia (Fig. 1a). Owing to
the availability of petrophysical data and the low cost of the
technique, it is suggested that compaction analysis could
be used to quantify the amount of LateTriassic^Early Jur-
assic exhumation between the Galilee and Eromanga Ba-
sins, between the Bowen and Surat Basins and between
370 r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Basin Research, 18, 351^373
the Esk Trough and Moreton Basins. The compaction
methodology could also be applied to determine Late Cre-
taceous^Tertiary exhumation in the Surat and Moreton
Basins. Given the broad lithological similarity of these ba-
sins to the Cooper^Eromanga Basins, normal compaction
relations would be expected to be similar to those deter-
mined herein. Accurate knowledge of exhumation in the
eastern part of the Australian continent will be useful for
petroleum exploration in these areas to apply a regional
tectonic model for the formation and evolution of the east-
ern part of the continent and its sedimentary basins.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The present work has been made possible thanks to Santos
Ltd, by providing the well data and the software. I warmly
thank Prof. R. Hillis University of Adelaide, Australia, for
his critical reviews. Comments from Prof. Joe Cartwright
and constructive reviews from Prof. Jonathan Turner and
Dr Peter Japsen are sincerely appreciated, and have greatly
improved the manuscript.
REFERENCES
Apak, S.N., Stuart, W.J. & Lemon, N.M. (1993) Structural-
stratigraphic development of the Gidgealpa^Merrimelia^In-
namincka Trend with implications for petroleum trap styles,
Cooper Basin, Australia. Aust. Petrol. Expl. Assoc. J., 33, 94^104.
Athy, L.F. (1930) Density, porosity and compaction of sedimen-
tary rocks. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull., 14, 1^24.
Baldwin, B. & Butler, C.O. (1985) Compaction curves. Am.
Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull., 69, 622^626.
Battersby, D.G. (1976) Cooper Basin oil and gas ¢elds. In: Eco-
nomic Geology of Australia and Papua New Guinea, Monograph Ser-
ies,Vol. 7 (Ed. by R.B. Leslie, H.J. Evans & C.L. Knight), 321^368.
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Adelaide.
Bowering, O.W. (1982) Hydrodynamics and hydrocarbon mi-
gration. A model for the Eromanga Basin. Aust. Petrol. Expl. As-
soc., 22, 227^236.
Brown, K. & Ransom, B. (1996) Porosity corrections for smec-
tite-rich sediments: impact on studies of compaction, £uid
generation, and tectonic history. Geology, 24, 843^846.
Bulat, J. & Stoker, S.J. (1987) Uplift determination from inter-
val velocity studies, UK southern North Sea. In: Petroleum
Geology of North West Europe (Ed. by J. Brooks & K. Glennie),
293^305. Graham & Trotman, London.
Callen, R.A. & Tedford, R.A. (1986) New Cainozoic rock units
and depositional environments, Lake Frome area, South Aus-
tralia. R. Soc. South Aust.Trans., 100, 125^167.
Channon, G.J. & Wood, G.R. (1989) Stratigraphy and hydro -
carbon prospectivity of Triassic sediments in the northern
Cooper Basin. Report 8126, Department of Mines and Energy,
South Australia, unpublished.
Corcoran, D.V. & Dore, A.G. (2005) A review of techniques for
the estimation of magnitude and timing of exhumation in o¡-
shore basins. Earth-Sci. Rev., 72, 129^168.
Coventry, R.J., Stephenson, P.J. & Webb, A.B. (1985) Chron-
ology of landscape and soil development in the upper Flinders
 Burial/exhumation histories for the Cooper^Eromanga Basins
Range area, Queensland, based on isotopic dating of Cainozoic
basalts. Aust. J. Earth Sci., 32, 433^447.
Elliott, L.G. (1993) Post-Carboniferous tectonic evolution of
eastern Australia. Aust. Petrol. Expl. Assoc. J., 33, 215^236.
England, P. & Molnar, P. (1990) Surface uplift, uplift of rocks,
and exhumation of rocks. Geology, 18, 1173^1177.
Falvey, D.A. & Deighton, I. (1982) Recent advances in burial and
thermal geohistory analysis. Aust. Petrol. Expl. Assoc. J., 22, 65^81.
Gallagher, K., Dumitru, T.A. & Gleadow, J.W. (1994) Con-
straints on the vertical motion of eastern Australia during the
mesozoic. Basin Res., 6, 77^94.
Gallagher, K. & Lambeck, K. (1989) Subsidence, sedimenta-
tion and sea-level changes in the Eromanga Basin, Australia.
Basin Res., 2, 115^131.
Hansen, S. (1996) A compaction trend for cretaceous and ter-
tiary shales on the Norwegian shelf based on sonic transit
times. Petrol. Geosci., 2, 159^166.
Harland, W.B., Armstrong, R.L., Cox, A.V., Craig, L.E.,
Smith, A.G. & Smith, D.G. (1989) A Geological Time Scale.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hawkins, P.J., Almond, C.S., Carmichael, D.C., Smith, R.J.
& Williams, L.J. (1989) Kerogen characterisation and organic
and mineral diagenesis of potential source rocks in Jurassic
units, southern Eromanga Basin, Queensland. In: The Cooper
and Eromanga Basins, Australia (Proceedings of the Cooper and
Eromanga Basins Conference, Adelaide, 1989 (Ed. by
B.J. O’Neil), 583^599. Petroleum Exploration Society of Austra-
lia, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Australian Society of Ex-
ploration Geophysicists (South Australia Branches),
Adelaide.
Heath, R.S. (1989) Exploration in the Cooper Basin. Aust. Petrol.
Expl. Assoc. J., 29, 366^378.
Heath, R.S., MCIntyre, S. & Gibbins, N. (1989) A Permian
origin for Jurassic reservoired oil in the Eromanga Basin. In:
The Cooper and Eromanga Basins, Australia (Proceedings of the
Cooper and Eromanga Basins Conference, Adelaide, 1989 (Ed. by
B.J. O’Neil), 405^416. Petroleum Exploration Society of Aus-
tralia, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Australian Society of
Exploration Geophysicists (South Australia Branches), Adelaide.
Hillis, R.R. (1991) Chalk porosity and tertiary uplift, western
approaches trough, SW UK and NW French continental
shelves. J. Geol. Soc. London, 148, 669^679.
Hillis, R.R. (1993) Quantifying erosion in sedimentary basins
from sonic velocities in shales and sandstones. Expl. Geophys.,
24, 561^566.
Hillis, R.R. (1995a) Quanti¢cation of tertiary exhumation in the
United Kingdom Southern North Sea using sonic velocity
data. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull., 79, 130^152.
Hillis, R.R. (1995b) Regional tertiary exhumation in and around
the United Kingdom. In: Basin Inversion (Ed. by J.G. Buchanan
& P.G. Buchanan). 88, 167^190. Geological Society, London,
special publications.
Issler, D.R. (1992) A new approach to shale compaction and
stratigraphic restoration, Beaufort^Mackenzie Basin and
Mackenzie Corridor, Northern Canada. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol.
Bull., 76, 1170^1189.
Japsen, P. (1993) In£uence of lithology and neogene uplift
on seismic velocities in Denmark: implications for depth
conversion of maps. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull., 77,
194^211.
Japsen, P. (1998) Regional velocity-depth anomalies, North Sea
Chalk: a record of overpressure and neogene uplift and ero -
sion. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull., 82, 2031^2074.
r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Basin Research, 18, 351^373
Japsen, P. (1999) Overpressured Cenozoic shale mapped from
velocity anomalies relative to a baseline for marine shale,
North Sea. Petrol. Geosci., 5, 321^336.
Japsen, P. (2000) Investigation of multi-phase erosion using re-
constructed shale trends based on sonic data. Sole Pit axis,
North Sea. Global Planet. Change, 24, 189^210.
Japsen, P., Bidstrup,T. & Lidmar-Bergstr˛m, K. (2002) Neo -
gene uplift and erosion of southern Scandinavia induced by the
rise of the South Sweedish Dome. In: Exhumation of the North
Atlantic Margin:Timing, Mechanisms and Implications for Petroleum
Exploration (Ed. by A.G. Dore¤, J.A. Cartwright, M.S. Stoker, J.P.
Turner & N.White), Geol. Soc. London Spec. Publ., 196, 183^207.
Jenkins, C.C. (1989) Geochemical correlation of source rocks
and crude oils from the Cooper and Eromanga Basins. In:The
Cooper and Eromanga Basins, Australia (Proceedings of the Cooper
and Eromanga Basins Conference, Adelaide, 1989 (Ed. by B.J.
O’Neil), 525^540. Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia,
Society of Petroleum Engineers, Australian Society of Ex-
ploration Geophysicists (South Australia Branches), Adelaide.
Kuang, K.S. (1985) History and style of Cooper^Eromanga Ba-
sin structures. Expl. Geophys., 16, 245^248.
Liu, G. & Roaldset, E. (1994) A new decompaction model and its
application to the northern North Sea. First Break, 12(2), 81^87.
Magara, K. (1976) Thickness of removed sedimentary rocks,
paleopore pressure, and paleotemperature, southwestern Part
of Western Canada Basin. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull., 60,
554^565.
Mavromatidis, A. (1997) Quanti¢cation of exhumation in the
Cooper^Eromanga basins and its implications for hudrocarbon
exploration. PhD Thesis,The University of Adelaide, Australia.
Mavromatidis, A. & Hillis, R.R. (2005) Quanti¢cation of ex-
humation in the Eromanga Basin and its implications for hy-
drocarbon exploration. Petrol. Geosci., 11, 79^92.
Michaelsen, B.H. & MCKirdy, D.M. (1989) Organic facies
and petroleum geochemistry of the lacustrine Murta Member
(Mooga Formation) in the Eromanga Basin, Australia. In: The
Cooper and Eromanga Basins, Australia (Proceedings of the Cooper
and Eromanga Basins Conference, Adelaide, 1989 (Ed. by B.J.
O’Neil), 541^558. Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia,
Society of Petroleum Engineers, Australian Society of Ex-
ploration Geophysicists (South Australia Branches), Adelaide.
Moore, P.S. (1986) An exploration overview of the Eromanga
Basin. In: Contributions to the Geology and Hydrocarbon Potential
of the Eromanga Basin (Ed. by D.I. Gravestock, P.S. Moore &
G.M. Pitt), Geol. Soc. Aust. Spec. Publ., 12, 1^8.
Moore, P.S. & Pitt, G.M. (1984) Cretaceous of the Eromanga
Basin ^ implications For hydrocarbon exploration. Aust. Petrol.
Expl. Assoc. J., 24, 358^376.
Perrier, R. & Quiblier, J. (1974) Thickness changes in sedi-
mentary layers during compaction history; methods for quan-
titative evaluation. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull., 58, 507^520.
Pitt, G.M. (1986) Geothermal gradients, geothermal histories
and the timing of thermal maturation in the Eromanga-Coop-
er Basins. In: Contributions to the Geology and Hydrocarbon Poten-
tial of the Eromanga Basin (Ed. by D.I. Gravestock, P.S. Moore &
G.M. Pitt), Geol. Soc. Aust. Spec. Publ., 12, 323^351.
Powis, G.D. (1989) Revision of Triassic stratigraphy at the Coop-
er Basin to Eromanga Basin transition. In:The Cooper and Ero-
manga Basins, Australia (Proceedings of the Cooper and Eromanga
Basins Conference, Adelaide, 1989 (Ed. by B.J. O’Neil), 265^277.
Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia, Society of Petro -
leum Engineers, Australian Society of Exploration Geophysi-
cists (South Australia Branches), Adelaide.
371
A. Mavromatidis

Pryor, W.A. (1973) Permeability-porosity patterns and variations in
some Holocene sand bodies. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull., 57,162^189.
Raiga-Clemenceau, J., Martin, J.P. & Nicoletis, S. (1988)
The concept of acoustic formation factor for more accurate
porosity determination from sonic transit time data. Log Anal.,
29, 54^59.
Rieke, H.H. & Chilingarian, G.V. (1974) Compaction of Argillac-
eous Sediments. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p. 424.
Rubey, W.W. & Hubbert, M.K. (1959) Role of £uid pressure
in mechanics of thrust faulting. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., 70,
167^206.
Sclater, J.G. & Christie, P.A.F. (1980) Continental stretching:
an explanation of the post-mid- cretaceous subsidence of the
Central North Sea Basin. J. Geophys. Res., B85, 3711^3739.
Senior, B.R., Mond, A. & Harrison, P.L. (1978) Geology of
the Eromanga Basin. Bur. Mineral Resour. Bull., 167, 102^108.
Shaw, R.D. (1991) Tertiary structuring in Southwest Queensland: im-
plications for petroleum exploration. Expl. Geophys., 22, 339^344.
Sprigg, R.C. (1958) Petroleum prospects of western parts of
Great Australian Artesian Basin. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull.,
42, 2465^2491.
Stanmore, P.J. & Johnstone, E.M. (1988) The search for stra-
tigraphic traps in the southern Patchawarra Trough, South
Australia. Aust. Petrol. Expl. Assoc. J., 28, 156^166.
Stuart, W.J. (1976) The genesis of Permian and Lower Triassic
reservoir sandstones during phases of southern Cooper Basin
Development. Aust. Petrol. Expl. Assoc. J., 16, 37^47.
Stuart,W.J., Kennedy, S. & Thomas, A.D. (1988) In£uence of
structural growth and other factors on the con¢guration of £u-
vial sandstones, Permian Cooper Basin. Aust. Petrol. Expl. Assoc.
J., 28, 255^265.
Sweeney, J.J. & Burnham, A.K. (1990) Evaluation of a simple
model of vitrinite re£ectance based on chemical kinetics. Am.
Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull., 74, 1559^1570.
Appendix A
Thornton, R.C.N. (1979) Regional stratigraphic analysis of the
Gidgealpa Group, southern Cooper Basin, Australia. South
Aust. Geol. Survey Bull., 49, 140^145.
Veevers, J.J. (1984) Phanerozoic Earth History of Australia. Claren-
don Press, Oxford.
Vincent, P.W., Mortimore, I.R. & MCKirdy, D.M. (1985) Hy-
drocarbon generation, migration and entrapment in the Jack-
son^Naccowlah area, ATP 259P, southwestern Queensland.
Aust. Petrol. Expl. Assoc. J., 25, 62^85.
Wells, P.E. (1990) Porosities and seismic velocities of mudstones from
Wairarapa and oil wells of North Island, New Zealand, and their use
in determining burial history. N. Z. J. Geol. Geophys., 33, 29^39.
Williams, T. & Moriarty, K. (1986) Hydrocarbon £ushing in the
Eromanga Basin fact or fallacy? In: Contributions to the Geology and
Hydrocarbon Potential of the Eromanga Basin (Ed. by D.I. Gravestock,
P.S. Moore & G.M. Pitt), Geol. Soc. Aust. Spec. Publ., 12, 377^384.
Wiltshire, M.J. (1982a) Late Triassic and Early Jurassic sedi-
mentation in the Great Artesian Basin. In: Eromanga Basin
Symposium Summary Papers (Ed. by P.S. Moore & T.J. Mount),
58^67. Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia and Geolo -
gical Society of Australia, Adelaide.
Wiltshire, M.J. (1982b) Revision of Eromanga Basin limits. In:
Eromanga Basin Symposium Summary Papers (Ed. by P.S. Moore
& T.J. Mount), 68^75. Petroleum Exploration Society of Austra-
lia and Geological Society of Australia, Adelaide.
Wopfner, H., Callen, R.A. & Harris, W.K. (1974) The lower
Tertiary Eyre Formation of the southwestern Great Artesian
Basin. Geol. Soc. Aust. J., 21, 17^52.
Wyllie, M.R.J., Gregory, A.R. & Gardner, L.W. (1956) Theo -
ry of propagation of elastic waves in a £uid saturated porous
solid. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 28, 168^191.
Manuscript received 22 May 2005; Manuscript accepted 4 April
2006.

Table A1. Midpoint depth and mean interval transit time data and apparent exhumation results in Nappamerri Group.

Midpoint Midpoint
depth Mean Dt depth Mean Dt
Well (m bgl) (m s ft  1) EA (m) EA,EROM Well (m bgl) (m s ft  1) EA (m) EA,EROM

Alkina-1 2379.9 65.3 667.8 529.1 Challum-1 2162.3 66.8 794.2 388.8
Amyema-1 1824.1 74.2 689.3 366.4 Childie-1 1794.4 71.9 857.2 410.9
Andree-1 2521.2 68.0 365.9 166.9 Cooba-1 2427.6 69.1 388.3 162.9
Araburg-1 2196.0 73.5 358.0 460.9 Cook-1 2401.7 70.2 354.0 349.6
Arrakis-1 2101.7 70.4 638.3 253.1 Cook North-1 2415.5 68.6 434.3 414.9
Azolla-1 1775.3 75.8 643.8 357.0 Coonavalla-1 1920.9 68.1 957.7 678.0
Ballera-1 2148.6 65.8 868.5 437.5 Cowan-3 1992.8 72.1 649.3 294.5
Baratta-1 1921.5 68.7 920.3 429.6 Cuddapan-1 2406.7 69.8 370.8 439.2
Barrolka-1 2347.1 67.5 565.8 456.0 Curalle-1 1722.0 73.4 839.5 996.4
Baryulah-1 2128.2 69.2 686.2 366.3 Daer-1 2268.3 67.6 640.7 205.3
Battunga-1 1804.9 76.5 571.1 302.2 Daralingie-15 1941.9 73.4 622.6 428.4
Beanbush-1 2936.2 67.1 0.0 (R1) 66.7 Daralingie-23 1952.2 72.8 644.0 276.7
Belah-1 1724.3 71.8 930.1 434.3 Darter-1 2412.7 72.5 199.9 155.0
Big Lake-26 2171.1 69.4 632.0 583.2 Della-7 1877.8 69.8 896.4 708.7
Big Lake-35 2201.6 67.5 713.3 334.0 Della-10 1863.1 68.8 970.7 557.8
Boldrewood-1 1774.5 66.8 1181.9 818.6 Denley-1 2504.9 70.1 252.7 437.8
Bookabourdie-1 2498.3 67.9 390.8 201.1 Deparanie-1 2312.0 70.5 425.2 227.9
Boxwood-1 1705.9 80.1 456.3 401.4 Doonmulla-1 2466.9 66.9 482.4 356.5
Brolga-2 2527.8 69.4 273.5 260.2 Dullingari-3 2033.6 71.6 635.2 513.6

372 r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Basin Research, 18, 351^373
 Burial/exhumation histories for the Cooper^Eromanga Basins

Table A1. (Continued)

Midpoint Midpoint
depth Mean Dt depth Mean Dt
Well (m bgl) (m s ft  1) EA (m) EA,EROM Well (m bgl) (m s ft  1) EA (m) EA,EROM

Bungee-1 1844.7 75.3 603.8 277.9 Dullingari North-1 2022.5 69.7 759.3 528.1
Burley-2 2470.3 66.9 482.7 385.3 Durham Downs-1 2309.2 68.2 561.4 584.5
Carney-1 1806.6 72.5 811.2 485.5 Fly Lake-1 2477.4 69.0 347.0 142.9
Fly Lake-4 2506.2 69.9 263.1 304.8 Lake Mcmillan-1 2673.6 68.3 192.3 125.1
Garanjanie-2 1753.1 77.1 590.4 266.0 Macadama-1 2412.1 67.2 522.1 335.9
Gidgealpa-42 2072.0 74.7 414.9 266.1 Mackillop-1 2400.6 67.3 524.1 446.2
Gooranie-1 2425.9 68.1 455.2 204.6 Marabooka-2 1890.5 69.6 898.7 401.2
Gooranie-2 2462.5 68.4 397.2 245.4 Marengo -1 2737.2 65.3 310.6 353.8
Hammond-1 2527.1 66.0 475.6 398.4 Marsilea-1 1864.4 73.9 665.0 408.2
Hooley-1 1533.4 70.8 1185.8 757.3 Mawson-1 2195.5 69.5 597.2 214.9
Hume-1 1816.3 67.6 1089.0 449.6 Mcleod-1 2422.1 66.6 546.6 517.3
Ingella-1 2457.9 68.0 426.0 501.3 Meeba-1 2384.1 68.8 451.8 438.1
Innamincka-3 1818.3 69.3 990.6 666.5 Meranji-1 2333.1 69.9 436.1 209.8
Innamincka-4 1926.3 67.7 975.9 666.2 Merrimelia-7 2165.1 73.0 420.4 227.6
Jack Lake-2 2374.9 69.8 403.8 137.1 Merrimelia-25 2199.4 72.0 446.0 349.5
James-1 2339.5 67.6 565.8 371.2 Minkie-1 2221.2 70.2 529.5 295.0
Karmona-2 2079.5 68.8 755.4 446.6 Moolion-1 2621.9 67.5 289.4 179.2
Keeto -2 1809.3 76.4 574.7 332.8 Moomba-27 2353.5 70.4 389.8 335.1
Keilor-1 2243.6 68.7 598.0 425.3 Moomba-57 2264.6 68.3 599.1 324.3
Kenny-1 2628.4 66.0 377.5 241.3 Moomba North-1 2328.1 68.3 535.4 345.5
Kercummurra-1 1645.6 69.0 1181.6 802.0 Moomba South-1 2256.6 68.7 587.3 449.5
Kerna-5 1972.7 72.3 654.6 337.7 Moorari-4 2541.0 68.8 296.3 199.7
Kirby-1 2452.9 67.5 462.8 373.0 Morney-1 1818.4 72.5 797.7 823.7
Kirby-2 2411.7 67.1 529.0 415.0 Mudera-3 1947.1 68.9 881.1 452.7
Kurunda-1 2177.9 70.8 537.8 246.1 Munkah-2 2009.2 68.3 855.7 435.1
Naccowlah East-1 1851.1 78.6 398.8 414.5 Tinchoo -1 2461.9 66.4 517.9 407.8
Naccowlah South-1 1796.5 75.6 636.7 458.2 Tirrawarra-13 2455.8 68.9 371.8 306.0
Navalla-1 1707.5 67.3 1216.2 971.8 Tirrawarra-15 2446.8 69.6 341.1 279.2
Nulla-1 2311.5 70.3 438.2 229.8 Tirrawarra-26 2470.9 69.1 344.9 349.0
Okotoko -1 1986.1 68.1 892.5 516.9 Tirrawarra North-1 2535.3 69.0 288.2 185.3
Packsaddle-4 2032.6 69.1 786.1 457.4 Tirrawarra West-1 2496.0 68.4 361.9 168.7
Paning-1 2606.3 67.9 282.5 253.3 Toby-1 1973.7 66.6 995.6 805.6
Pepita-2 2089.4 67.1 845.9 430.9 Toolachee-9 1823.9 72.1 817.0 445.3
Pondrinie-5 2095.8 69.9 676.8 352.8 Toolachee-21 1848.2 73.6 704.1 396.9
Potiron-1 2073.5 63.8 1061.1 686.6 Toolachee-39 1829.7 73.8 711.1 436.7
Russel-1 2619.5 67.0 323.8 337.4 Turban-1 2127.2 70.3 622.3 457.0
Snake Hole-1 2250.5 73.0 336.6 186.9 Ullenbury-1 2452.5 70.0 310.1 453.0
Spectre-1 2561.4 69.2 253.2 146.2 Wackett-3 1801.2 71.6 870.4 482.8
Steward-1 2099.8 81.1 0.0 (R1) 513.7 Wantana-2 2413.9 66.5 561.8 306.2
Strzelecki-10 1848.8 71.1 849.8 434.2 Wareena-1 1681.2 68.5 1172.2 871.2
Swan Lake-1 2409.3 67.4 509.4 351.1 Warnie East-1 1857.8 71.3 830.8 541.5
Tanbar-1 2636.3 66.3 346.7 388.8 Wicho -1 2491.6 69.2 320.0 360.5
Tanbar North-1 2575.9 67.1 360.0 625.2 Wimma-1 2889.2 67.9 0.0 (R1) 33.8
Tartulla-1 2204.8 68.9 625.0 505.8 Wippo -2 2079.3 69.8 696.7 441.1
Three Queens-1 2089.9 68.4 772.4 476.7 Witchetty-1 1816.8 71.6 850.0 418.5
Thurakinna-5 1929.2 71.3 760.2 287.6 Yanbee-1 2420.9 68.7 419.3 355.3
Thurra-1 1839.9 75.7 586.4 473.8 Yanda-2 2059.0 68.0 824.4 382.0
Yumba-1 2003.3 68.7 840.8 412.3

The mean apparent exhumation from Eromanga Basin was adopted from the Mavromatidis & Hillis (2005) study.
m bgl, metres below ground level; Dt, interval transit time; EA, apparent exhumation derived from Nappamerri Group; EA,EROM, mean apparent exhu-
mation of the Eromanga Basin units; R1 , reference well, i.e. well used to de¢ne normal compaction relationship.

r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Basin Research, 18, 351^373 373