Marine and Petroleum Geology 127 (2021) 104948

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine and Petroleum Geology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpetgeo

Structural restoration and basin modelling of the central apennine orogen/

foredeep/foreland system: New insights on the regional petroleum system
Andrea D’Ambrosio a, *, Lorenzo Lipparini a, Sabina Bigi a, Teodoro Cassola b,
Victoire Roblet Bambridge b, Jan Federik Derks b, Fabio Trippetta a
a
Earth Science Department, “Sapienza” University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185, Roma, Italy
b
Schlumberger, Aachen, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Basin modelling represents an important approach for the prediction of hydrocarbon generation/migration,
Thick vs thin-skin tectonic identifying possible prospects and reducing the risk in exploration areas. This modelling can be also used to study
Basin modelling the structural evolution of an area. Main input are the thermal/burial history of the sedimentary basin (key
Structural restoration
parameters for source rock maturity) and the adopted crustal model.
Thermal modelling
We applied a basin modelling approach to the study of a portion of the Central Apennine orogen (Central
Italy Petroleum system
Central Italy Italy), where both thick-vs thin-skin interpretation models were historically proposed, and to the adjoining
Central apennine Central Adriatic foredeep/foreland system, to contribute reducing the tectonic and petroleum system un­
Oil migration certainties of this structurally complex area.
We started from the available dataset obtained from the past hydrocarbon exploration activities, that resulted
in several small/medium oil discoveries (evidence of an active petroleum system), making a structural review of
the different crustal models proposed by the literature.
We built two balanced 2D regional sections using MOVE software: one across the off-shore Central Adriatic
foreland; and one from the front of the Central Apennine through the Central Adriatic foredeep/foreland system.
This last section was modelled testing both a thick and a thin-skin structural scenario, implementing a structural
restoration step using Dynel2D software. Using PetroMod2D we then compared the obtained petroleum system
results to verify which structural scenario better fit with the present-day known distribution of hydrocarbon
occurrences, both on-shore/off-shore. A 3D model was then implemented over key sectors to better understand
the main hydrocarbon generation trends.
Results suggest the thick-skin model as most suitable to justify the known hydrocarbon occurrences in the
area. In addition, modelling indicates a lateral hydrocarbon migration as a key process for known hydrocarbon
accumulation, active from the Upper Miocene (in the Central Apennine foredeep) and Upper Pliocene (in the
Central Adriatic foreland) to present-day.

1. Introduction
Basin modelling is a powerful tool used to test the petroleum system
evolution of an area and to understand the key processes responsible for
the hydrocarbon generation and migration. This kind of studies are the
base of prospect inventory and exploration activities; in this work
instead, this analysis has been used to identify the most likely style of the
structural evolution of an area.
A correct interpretation of the geological structural setting of the root
of an orogen can be indeed very challenging, due to the limited
evidences of the deep structural deformation on the surface (rarely the
main thrust outcrops, as well as the basement), the lack of adequate
coverage of deep-penetration geophysical data (mainly reflection
seismic), and limited information from past exploration wells (Coward,
1983; Calabrò et al., 2003; Scrocca, 2010; Pfiffner, 2017).
The Central Apennine (Fig. 1) is a good example of how complex it is
to address these uncertainties (Masini et al., 2011 and reference
therein). Different structural crustal models have been historically pro­
posed for the Central Apennine NW-SE orogen (Bally et al., 1986; Butler
et al., 2004; Masini et al., 2011 and reference therein; Pace et al., 2015),

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: a.dambrosio@uniroma1.it (A. D’Ambrosio).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2021.104948
Received 29 June 2020; Received in revised form 17 January 2021; Accepted 26 January 2021
Available online 6 February 2021
0264-8172/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. D’Ambrosio et al.
Fig. 1. Summary map of the 2D regional models built in the study area over a thickness map of the Plio-Quaternary foredeep (modified form Cazzini et al., 2015).
The Apulia carbonate platform paleo-environment in light green, in green the main oil fields. The regional geological sections along which we built our 2D modelling
exercises are shown as bold dark lines (section 1 and 2).
where a major point of discussion has been the possible involvement of
the basement in the thrusting mechanism (thin-versus thick-skinned
models) and the subsurface definition of the regional detachment
layer/s. The thick-skin tectonic crustal model (or autochthonous model)
considers mostly vertical movements and the involvement of the base­
ment in the orogen deformation, while the thin-skin tectonic (or
allochthonous tectonic model) considers the deformation of the orogen
as occurring mainly through lateral displacements (Coward, 1983).
Considering the direct relationship between the structural style of an
area, its thermal history and the development of a petroleum system,
choosing the correct structural model is crucial for the hydrocarbon
exploration activities. This is true also for a mature area such as the
Central Italy, where a wide occurrence of oil discoveries represents the
clear evidence of the occurrence of an active petroleum system (Mat­
tavelli and Novelli, 1990; Zappaterra, 1994; Katz, 2000; Cazzini et al.,
2015; Lipparini et al., 2018).
To better define the evolution of the Apennine fold and thrust belt
and make a structural review of the proposed crustal models (Bally et al.,
1986; Mostardini and Merlini, 1986; Ghisetti et al., 1993; Tozer et al.,
2002; Patacca et al., 2004; Calamita et al., 2007; Patacca et al., 2008;
Masini et al., 2011 and reference therein; Porreca et al., 2018), we
started from the well-known oil and gas occurrence their distributions,
characteristics and the lithological/thermal data obtained from explo­
ration wells.
We built and balanced two 2D regional sections across the different
tectonic settings (orogen/foredeep/foreland), both on-shore and off-
shore (Fig. 1). The first 2D section was built over the off-shore Central
Adriatic foreland, across the Apulia Mesozoic Carbonate Platform (ACP)
and its transition to adjacent basins (in which except for some exten­
sional tectonic effects, the lateral continuity of the stratigraphic units is
preserved; section 1 in Fig. 1). The second 2D section was built from the
front of the Central Apennine orogen through the Central Adriatic
foredeep/foreland system (section 2, Fig. 1). For this section, the two
different structural scenarios (thin and thick-skin) were implemented.
Then, using the 2D and 3D basin modelling approach, we compared the
2
Marine and Petroleum Geology 127 (2021) 104948
results to verify which structural model can better explain the present-
day known distribution of hydrocarbons in the area.
2. Structural and geological setting
The study is located in Central Italy and is geologically characterized
by the present-day NW-SE Apennines fold-and-thrust belt front with its
on-shore/off-shore foredeep system and by the presence of a preserved
Mesozoic carbonate platform/margin/basin system that has been iden­
tified both in the subsurface and in outcrop (Santantonio et al., 2013;
Nicolai and Gambini, 2007; Zappaterra, 1994, Fig. 1).
The Mesozoic Apulia Carbonate Platform (ACP), which encompasses
Triassic to Miocene rocks (Fig. 1), was initially dominated by
aggradation (Santantonio et al., 2013).
In the surrounding area, the Upper Triassic to Lower Jurassic rifting
phase led to the development of a horst and graben configuration and
the deposition of the Umbria-Marche basinal succession. In the on-shore
sector, the ACP platform-to-basin transition is well exposed in the
Maiella outcrops (Fig. 1) and in the Gargano area (Fig. 2) to the South of
the study area. Off-shore, this transition, and the overall structural
setting, are well preserved and documented by the publicly available
exploration wells and seismic sections in the Central Adriatic foreland
(Vecsei et al., 1998; Morsilli et al., 2002; Rusciadelli, 2005; Scrocca
et al., 2007; Rusciadelli e Ricci, 2008; Santantonio et al., 2013; Morsilli
et al., 2017; Eberli, 2019).
Starting from the late Oligocene, the geodynamic evolution of the
area has been driven by the NE-ward rollback of a W-directed subduc­
tion. The related eastward migration of the Apennine compressive front
was progressively accompanied by crustal thinning, connected to the
Plio-Quaternary normal faulting up to the current configuration
(Doglioni, 1991; Carminati and Doglioni, 2012).
As a result of the eastward propagation of the Apennine thrust front,
the foredeep depocenter migrated gradually to the east reaching
present-day configuration, in which a thickness of 6 km of deposits is
reached in the on-shore/off-shore domain (Scisciani and Montefalcone,
A. D’Ambrosio et al. Marine and Petroleum Geology 127 (2021) 104948

2006; Crescenti et al., 2004; Artoni, 2007; Cazzini et al., 2015). Table 1
The Central Apennine orogenesis was accompanied by syntectonic Summary table of the wells and regional geological maps used for the strati­
sedimentation into the foredeep basins and by the subsequent Plio- graphic column construction for each geological domain. *Wells used for the
Quaternary extension (Doglioni et al., 1997). thermal calibration (temperatures from the ViDEPI and GeoThopica catalogues).
The structural setting of the study area is dominated by the presence **Key wells for the source rocks calibration. Wells position in Fig. 2.
of the Central Apennine frontal structures, characterized by a dominant Exploration Wells
E/NE tectonic vergence. In particular, the Gran Sasso range (Fig. 1) is Apulia Carbonate Platform Basin Geological
maps
made of a Meso-Cenozoic carbonate succession moved over the basinal
On-shore Off-shore On-shore Off-shore Scale 1:50.000
domain during the Messinian (Patacca and Scandone, 2007). The Cen­ Casalbordino Ombrina Caramanico 1 Elsa 1* L’Aquila
tral Apennine compressional deformation continued eastwards through 1 Mare 1 "foglio 359′′
geological time, involving the Meso-Cenozoic platform to basin transi­ Foresta Katia 1* Burano 1** Camilla 1* Torre
Umbra 1 dé Passeri
tion (Fig. 1) with the youngest Morrone Mt. thrusting in the Late
"foglio 360′′
Messinian-Early Pliocene (Cavinato and Celles, 1999) and, in Late Gargano 1 Monica 1* Musellaro 1 Eleonora Chieti "foglio
Pliocene times, with the structuring of the Maiella Mt. (Patacca and 11X* 361′′
Scandone, 2007; Masini et al., 2011). In this sector, the Central Apen­ Lanciano 1,2* Rombo Poggiofiorito EmmaW Avezzano
nine structural trends can be reconstructed using seismic lines and deep Mare 1 1,2,3,4,5,6* 11X* "foglio 368′′
Maiella 1 Sabrina 1* Vallecupa 45 Enigma 1* Sulmona
exploration wells, such as Villadegna1 (Fig. 1), in which the Maiella
"foglio 369′′
anticline is buried 2 km blow the Apennine on-shore foredeep (Bigi Maiella 2 Sonia 1* Vicoli 1 Esmeralda
et al., 2013). 1*
Marcone 1* Vasto Villa Degna 1 Eterno 1*
Mare 1*
3. Regional petroleum system
Orsogna 1 Vasto Villafonsina Fratello 1*
Mare 2* 1,2,3*
Since the past century, the study area has been of great interest for oil Puglia 1* Grifone 1**
and gas exploration (Mattavelli and Novelli, 1990; Mattavelli et al., S.Maria 1,2* Patrizia 1*
1991; Zappaterra, 1994; Bertello et al., 2010; Brandano et al., 2013; Silvana 1*
Sparviero 1
Casero and Bigi, 2013; Santantonio et al., 2013; Cazzini et al., 2015;
Bis**
Lipparini et al., 2018, 2018a, Fig. 1). In particular, important oil dis­ Spinello
coveries have been identified within the Lower Cretaceous karstified Mare 1*
platform carbonates (such as the Rospo and Katia oil fields; Fig. 1) and in Vanessa 1*
Viviana
the turbiditic deposits of the Upper Cretaceous Scaglia formation in the
1Dir*
basinal environment (e.g. Emilio oil field, Fig. 1; Mattavelli et al., 1991;
André and Doulcet, 1991; Cazzini et al., 2015). Hydrocarbon accumu­
lations are also documented in the Maiolica fm., in the Elsa and
Miglianico oil fields (Fig. 1; Santantonio et al., 2013).
On the base of geochemical analysis and oil-to-oil correlations, two
Afterwards, we defined the Jurassic-Lower Cretaceous stratigraphy
source rocks have been recognized in the area: the Rhaetian-lower
of the ACP by referring to the public exploration wells data from the
Jurassic limestone drilled by the Emma1, Sparviero 1Bis and Grifone 1
ViDEPI (2012) and GeoThopica project catalogues (Table 1, Fig. 2).
wells (Fig. 2; Cazzini et al., 2015) and the upper Triassic Burano bitu­
Additional information has also been collected for the Rospo area, in
minous dolomite (Mattavelli and Novelli, 1990; Zappaterra, 1994;
which the widespread karst of the Lower Cretaceous Cupello limestone
Cazzini et al., 2015) drilled by the Burano1 well (Fig. 2). The Burano
represents one of the most important carbonate reservoirs (Andrè and
source rock has been also proved in several outcrops in Central Italy
Doulcet, 1991) of the area. The analogue reservoir exhumed in the
(such as Gran Sasso area; Cazzini et al., 2015).
Maiella mountain has also been considered for the stratigraphic and
Considering the geochemical characteristic of the oils and the
lithological calibration (Crescenti et al., 1969; Vecsei et al., 1998; Mutti
present-day geographical positions of the fields, an important lateral
and Bernoulli, 2003; Rusciadelli, 2005).
migration has been recently proposed to explain the on-shore/off-shore
The Jurassic/Upper Triassic stratigraphic interval of the platform has
hydrocarbon occurrences (e.g. the Maiella area, Rospo, Elsa/Miglianico
been completed using very deep wells, which drilled the whole ACP
and Emilio oil fields; Fig. 1, Brandano et al., 2013; Scrocca et al., 2013;
down to the Permian basement (Puglia 1, Gargano 1 and Foresta Umbra
Lipparini et al., 2018; D’Ambrosio et al., 2019; Trippetta et al., 2020;
1 wells, located south of the study area, Fig. 2). We used these deep wells
Trippetta and Geremia, 2019).
also to locate the most likely position of the Permian basement, which
was extended to the base of the models using a “mixed continental crust
4. Input data & method
lithology” from the PetroMod lithology catalog.
The ACP platform-basin transition has been characterized by
2D structural restoration and thermal modelling in order to prepare
analyzing both public seismic data (Scrocca et al., 2007; Casero and Bigi,
the input for the final 2D/3D regional basin modelling analysis has been
2013) and depth converted models from literature (Santantonio et al.,
completed. Data collection was carried out to cover several geological
2013) as well as off-shore well data (Table 1), from the ViDEPI and
aspects at a regional scale, such as the definition of the present-day
GeoThopica catalogues.
thermal regime, stratigraphic architecture, the structural and thermal
In its central portion, the ACP platform-to-basin transition is char­
evolution of the chain in the foredeep/foreland sectors and the
acterized by the presence of several Jurassic horsts and graben, as
geochemical characteristic of oil founds and produced in the region.
testified by thicknesses variation in the stratigraphic units recorded by
Present-day thermal data (Table 1) have been collected from the
boreholes (Fig. 3).
public ViDEPI well catalogue, analysing the composite logs of about 30
For the sector, the stratigraphic characterization of the basinal
on-shore and off-shore exploration wells, using the public temperatures
domain has been carried out by using the geological regional maps from
from the GeoThopica database (GeoThopica Project, in progress; E.
the “Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale”
Trumpy et al., 2017). Additional thermal data were extracted from
(ISPRA) website and the “CARtografia Geologica project” (CARG). We
surface heat flow regional maps form literature (Della Vedova et al.,
used geological maps (at the scale 1:50.000) to create the surface
2001).

3
A. D’Ambrosio et al.
Fig. 2. Basemap of the main Mesozoic geological domains of the area (modified after Cazzini et al., 2015), in which the exploration wells used for lithostratigraphic
(red dots) and source rocks (black dots) calibration are visible. The ACP is shown in light green, while in blue are visible the most likely Emma basin domains. The
regional geological sections are shown as bold dark lines (section 1 and 2).
interpretation of the regional geology (Table 1).
For the Central Apennine subsurface geological characterization, we
extracted information from the key deep well Caramanico 1 (Fig. 2),
which drilled the Maiella anticline for about 5 km without reaching the
basal thrust. We used this well in order to complete two different 1D
structural interpretations for the Maiella anticline (thick and thin-skin
pseudowells, Fig. 3).
The 1D pseudowell has been then constructed down to 5 km depth
assuming for the thin case, the doubling of the entire stratigraphic
sequence (Fig. 3). For the thick case, the involvement of the basement in
structuring the Maiella anticline has been assumed. In addition, we
considered also several public deep wells located within and to the
North of the study area (Vallecupa 45, Vicoli 1 and Villa Degna 1) to
extend the collected information to a regional scale.
2D geological sections were then built using the Petrel software
(mark of Schlumberger) and MOVE (mark of Midland Valley/Petroleum
Experts). Once we defined the present-day 2D structural setting for the
main geological and sedimentological intervals, we carried out the 2D
structural restoration work. For the Central Adriatic model (Fig. 4), the
restoration was carried out using exclusively PetroMod2D (mark of
Schlumberger). A different workflow was adopted for the restoration of
the Central Apennine models (Fig. 5), in which we used Dynel2D and
PetroMod2D (both mark of Schlumberger) to solve the structural
complexity of the crustal model.
We concluded the 2D basin modelling workflow by performing the
thermal and source rocks maturity/hydrocarbon generation models,
using the software PetroMod 2D, following the methodological
approach reported by Hantschel and Kauerauf (2009), and Allen and
Allen (2013). Finally, the hydrocarbon generation results obtained from
the 2D basin modelling work were used as an input for the construction
of dedicated 3D models, in order to better understand and describe the
maturity and generation of hydrocarbons in key sectors of the study
area.
4
Marine and Petroleum Geology 127 (2021) 104948
4.1. 2D geological modelling and structural restoration
4.1.1. The Central Adriatic 2D model
We started the modelling from the almost undeformed Central
Adriatic foredeep/foreland sector (section 1, Fig. 2). To build section 1,
we used the collected geophysical and lithological information, merging
data from several wells drilled in the area (e.g. Spinello Mare 1 and
Esmeralda 1 in the Central Adriatic depocenter, Silvana 1 and Elsa 1 for
the structural highs of the basin, and Ombrina Mare 1 and Katia 1 for the
off-shore ACP, Fig. 4).
Seismic and depth converted models from literature have been used
(Andrè&Doulcet, 1991; Santantonio et al., 2013; Cazzini et al., 2015)
together with additional key deep wells (Gargano 1, Puglia 1 and Foresta
Umbra 1, Fig. 3) to complete the NNW-SSE part of the section, down to
the hypothetical basement (Fig. 4). The structural setting of this section
is characterized by the ACP/pelagic basin and structural highs differ­
entiation from the northern platform margin, due to the Early Jurassic
rift phase, in which the listric faults geometries detaching within the
Upper Triassic evaporites, have been associated with a thin-skin tectonic
(Cosentino and Parotto, 1991; Santantonio et al., 2013).
For the geometries of normal faults of the ACP domain and the
neighbouring basin (from the platform to the Spinello Mare 1 well,
Fig. 4), we used the structural and stratigraphic interpretation carried
out by Santantonio et al. (2013). The remaining northern part of the
model (the N–S oriented transect of section 1, Fig. 4) has been completed
by using well correlations, assuming a horst and graben structural
configuration.
The structural restoration was used to investigate: i) the Late
Triassic-Early Jurassic rifting phase (Zappaterra, 1994), which led to the
platform to basin differentiation, ii) the ACP evolution, as well as its
vertical movements and tilting, iii) the structuring of the Plio-Quaternay
foredeep/foreland depocenter, associated to the Central Apennine
orogeny.
For the restoration work, we used paleo-bathymetric indicators such
as the paleo-water depth of the ACP from the Upper Triassic to the
Lower-Upper Cretaceous, including the platform emersion event and
A. D’Ambrosio et al.
Fig. 3. Stratigraphic characterization of the regional geological domains of the study area (Basemap in Fig. 2). A pseudo-stratigraphic column is shows for main
representative geological sectors. The 1D Caramanico thick and thin-skin models are also presented. The red arrow represents the modelled Maiella basal
thrust position.
karsts formation (Andrè and Doulcet, 1991; Santantonio et al., 2013).
The compaction/decompaction rate for each geological interval was
calculated by the PetroMod software, using lithology as defined based
on composite logs analysis and data from literature (Andrè and Doulcet,
1991; Santantonio et al., 2013; Cazzini et al., 2015). We assumed an
Early Jurassic activation of normal faults both in the basin and the
platform domain, and a second extensional phase in the Lower-Upper
Cretaceous stage that led to the additional normal faulting of the ACP
(Fig. 4).
4.1.2. The Central Apennine 2D models
Section 2 was chosen normal across the external portion of the
Apennine chain (Fig. 2). We started the construction of the models using
the same interpretation of the surface geology for both the thick and
thin-skin cases (Bally et al., 1986; Mostardini and Merlini, 1986; Ghisetti
et al., 1993; Tozer et al., 2002; Patacca and Scandone, 2004; Calamita
et al., 2007; Patacca et al., 2008; Masini et al., 2011 Porreca et al.,
2018). Then, we built and balanced the 2D West to East regional section
across the front of the Central Apennine and the Central Adriatic fore­
deep/foreland system (Fig. 2, section 2), considering both the hypoth­
esis of a thick-skin (Fig. 5A), versus a thin-skin (Fig. 5B) crustal model.
5
Marine and Petroleum Geology 127 (2021) 104948
Following data sources of Table 1, for the restoration of both Central
Apennine models, we considered the overlap of different tectonic phases
that occurred in the area through geological time: i) the Upper Triassic-
Lower Jurassic crustal thinning (that lead to the platform to basin paleo-
environment differentiation), ii) the crustal shortening due to the Cen­
tral Apennine fold and thrust belt building, iii) and the Plio-Quaternary
extensional tectonics of the Apennine intramontane basins such as the
Sulmona and Caramanico basins (Fig. 1).
The present-day 2D geometry of the models has been discretized
within Dynel2D using a triangular mesh, which is used to calculate the
rock deformation through geomechanic equations based on linear
elasticity on the base of the elastic properties of the modelled rock, such
as Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio. In addition, the lithostatic load
is also applied to calculate the compaction rate through time for each
layer. In particular, compaction is calculated by the software by
assuming hydrostatic pressure, based on the model of Sclater and
Christie (1980). Therefore, potential overpressure has been not consid­
ered during the compaction modelling carried out in Dynel2D. All the
rock properties (referred to the time of deposition) have been extracted
from Dynel2D rock catalogue following the stratigraphy of the wells
(Table 2).
 A. D’Ambrosio et al.
6

Fig. 4. Present-day structural and geological model of the Central Adriatic system (trace section 1, basemap in Fig. 1), in which the Mesozoic ACP to basin evolution is represented. Part of the used exploration wells
are shown.

Marine and Petroleum Geology 127 (2021) 104948

A. D’Ambrosio et al.
In particular, we assigned a limestone lithology to the whole Upper
Triassic – Lower Cretaceous platform domain (Table 2). For the basinal
succession we used a limestone lithology for the Corniola fm., for
Lower/Middel Jurassic basinal deposits and for the Maiolica fm., while a
shale lithology has been assigned to the Lower Cretaceous Marne a
Fucoidi formation. The Scaglia Detritica fm. and the Plio-Quaternay
deposits were modelled using a sandstone lithology (Table 2).
For the basement, whose composition is still under-constrained, we
assumed a granite lithology during the restoration workflow. Whereas
for the basin modelling phase where thermal proprieties are considered,
we used the composition of the upper part of the basement using the
Puglia 1 Well that drilled about 1 km of Permian sandstones, and
completed the remaining part by assigning a “mixed continental crust
lithology” from the PetroMod lithology catalogue.
For the restoration of both crustal scenarios (Fig. 5), for each paleo-
sections restored, we reconstructed the corresponding paleo-topography
as well as the eroded geological beds, assuming an erosion rate of 0.2
mm/yr (Carminati and Doglioni, 2012) for both sections.
4.1.2.1. Thick-skin crustal model (2 TK). On section 2 TK (Fig. 5A) fold-
related faulting was reconstructed on the base of geological surface data
and dip direction data from well logs (Caramanico 1, Musellaro 1,
Maiella 1 and 2, Vallecupa 45, Vicoli 1 and Villa Degna 1 wells),
respecting the thickness of the geological formation, and their lateral
variation.
The NW part of the section is characterized by the presence of NW-SE
oriented normal faults (Fig. 5A), linked to a Plio-Quaternary extensional
tectonic, which resulted in several half-graben intramontane basins such
as the Sulmona and Caramanico valley (Miccadei et al., 2002; Gori et al.,
2014). These basins limit respectively the western part of the Morrone
and Maiella mountains (Fig. 1). The relationship between the develop­
ment of these normal faults and the Central Apennine uplift is discussed
in literature (Ghisetti and Vezzani, 2002; Scisciani et al., 2001; Masini
et al., 2011 and reference therein). In particular, several authors suggest
a pre-thrusting activation of the Caramanico fault (from the Late
Miocene), and consider the Maiella anticline as a result of an inherited
horst structure involved and tilted by a Late Pliocene (Piacenzian stage)
– Early Pleistocene (Gelasian stage) thrusting phase (Scisciani et al.,
2002; Masini et al., 2011). In our reconstruction we assumed a
pre-thrusting extensional phase for this normal fault system, followed by
the deformation of a Permian basement drilled by the Puglia 1 and
Gargano 1 wells (location in Fig. 2).
For the thick-skin scenario, we considered the presence of several
morphologic obstacles (represented by the ACP body in the foredeep/
foreland domain and the Maiella structural high) being responsible for
the involvement of the basement during the Central Apennine orogeny.
Retro-deformation of the section was performed restoring several
deformation episodes through geological time; i) Plio-Quaternary
normal faults; ii) contractional fault related folds; iii) Mesozoic exten­
sional normal faults (responsible for platform to basin paleo-
environments differentiation).
We proceeded by first removing the youngest Quaternary deposits,
allowing the decompaction of the underlying rocks as well as their
isostatic uplift. Then, we moved the extensional Quaternary faults in
order to remove the present-day displacement and restore the past ho­
rizon continuity. Afterwards, following the same approach, we focused
on the restoration of the Maiella anticline (paleo-section of the Upper
Pliocene). The compressional deformation has been removed applying a
free sliding movement along the Maiella thrust and the un-faulted
parameter to the horizons, in order to reconstruct their lateral conti­
nuity. Then, using the same methodology, we completed the restoration
of the paleo-section by removing the Morrone/Gran Sasso deformation
(Upper Miocene).
Once all elements affected by compressional tectonics had been
removed, we completed the remaining part of the restoration work
7
Marine and Petroleum Geology 127 (2021) 104948
(back-stripping) within PetroMod2D (as done for the Central Adriatic
model).
4.1.2.2. Thin-skin crustal model (2 TN). For the section 2 TN (Fig. 5B)
we assumed the presence of a regional detachment level represented by
the anhydrite-rich interval of the Upper Triassic Burano formation.
From a structural point of view, we introduced the doubling of the
entire stratigraphic sequence, assuming the hanging-wall sliding along
the thick Burano anhydrites drilled by several wells (e.g. Foresta Umbra
1, Gargano 1, Puglia 1) as proposed for the Maiella mountain (Mos­
tardini and Merlini, 1986; Patacca et al., 2008). For the model building,
we adopted the methodological approach used for the thick-skin case,
considering the coherence of stratigraphy and geometry constrained by
wells and seismic data in particular for the first 2–3 km depth.
As a result of the structural complexity of the section, as well as the
high displacement amount of this regional thrust, a more intense
restoration work was needed in order to remove both the Maiella and
Gran Sasso/Morrone thrusting from each paleo-section. As an additional
constraint of the model, we guided the restoration applying a westward
movement to the entire hanging-wall blocks, proportional to the amount
of displacement reached by the thrusts.
4.2. Basin modelling
The Petroleum system modelling was defined at basinal scale,
adopting the geochemical characteristics of source rocks. After that, the
evolution of the sedimentary basin was carried out through geological
time, in terms of present-day and paleo-thermal conditions (boundary
conditions), following the workflow described in Hantschel and Kauer­
auf (2009) and Allen and Allen (2013).
4.2.1. Source rock modelling
Source rocks geochemical characteristics have been based on liter­
ature (Mattavelli and Novelli, 1990; Zappaterra, 1994; Katz, 2000;
Cazzini et al., 2015). For the geochemical calibration of the Upper
Triassic Burano source rock, we assumed the following values: Total
organic carbon (TOC = 4%), hydrogen index (HI = 500 mg HC/g TOC),
type of kerogen (type II) and the sulfur content (S = 4–9%). For the
Lower Jurassic Emma source rock, we assumed a TOC of 5%, HI of about
700 mg HC/g TOC, a kerogen (type II) and the Sulfur content up to 17%.
We modelled the Burano source assuming a layer of 100m located 1
km below the top of the formation, as seen in the Burano 1 well. We
assumed for both the Burano and Emma source rocks a kinetic model
from the PetroMod software catalog (Pepper and Corvi 1995 T-II S(A)),
based on source rocks paleo-environment and organic matter/oil
characteristics.
4.2.2. Boundary conditions and thermal modelling
The definition of the boundary conditions represents an important
step in the modelling of the thermal evolution of the basin, as well as the
source rocks maturity and hydrocarbon generation through geological
time. The conditions can be summarized as per the following:
• Paleo Water Depths (PWD) – bathymetric data
• Surface Water-Interface Temperature (SWIT) – thermal data
• Basal Heat Flow (BHF) – thermal data
PWD and SWIT define the upper thermal boundary and BHF the
bottom thermal boundary of the model.
For the 2D Paleo-Water-Depths of the Central Apennine area, infor­
mation is based on the several studies published over the Maiella
analogue, where the ACP and its margin are well exposed and studied (e.
g. Crescenti et al., 1969; Mutti and Bernoulli, 2003; Vecsei et al., 1998;
Rusciadelli, 2005). We also considered several paleo-bathymetric indi­
cator provided by the platform stratigraphy: first, a constant
 A. D’Ambrosio et al.
8

Marine and Petroleum Geology 127 (2021) 104948

Fig. 5. Present-day structural and geological models displayed through the software MOVE for both the thick-skin case (A) and the thin-skin case (B). The legend for each geological formation is reported in Fig. 4.
A. D’Ambrosio et al. Marine and Petroleum Geology 127 (2021) 104948

Table 2 GeoThopica public dataset). The present-day heat flow map by Della
Rock properties of the main lithotype used for the restoration (values extracted Vedova (2001) was also considered. As a result, different heat flow
from the Dynel catalog). trends were constructed for each 2D model through geological time: for
Material Rock properties the Central Adriatic model, two different BHF trends have been obtained
Young’s Poisson’s Density Porosity Compaction
in order to calibrate the present-day well temperatures along the entire
modulus ratio (Kg/m^3) (0–1) constant (1/ section (present-day BHF value of 45 mW/m2 for the platform envi­
(Pa) m) ronment, and 35 mW/m2 for the basinal area), whereas for the whole
limestone 4.8 e10 0.25 2500 0.3 0.116419 Central Apennine model we adopted the present-day BHF value of 45
Shale 2.8 e10 0.14 2530 0.63 0.517390 mW/m2 (Fig. 6).
Sandstone 2.2 e10 0.24 2480 0.49 0.274787
Granite 4.5 e10 0.23 2650 0.02 0.032838

4.3. 3D models construction

paoleo-bathimetry of about 50 m of water depth due to the depositional
environment from the Triassic up to the Lower/Upper Cretaceous; sec­
ond, the emersion event and the subaerial exposure (with subsequent
diffused paleo-karsts) at top Lower Cretaceous as evidenced in the Upper
Cretaceous Cupello limestone (André and Doulcet, 1991). For the basin
area, the paleo-bathymetric profiles from Carminati et al. (2013) have
been used.
The Surface-Water-Interface-Temperature (SWIT) is an information
that is strongly linked both to the PWD (which defines the horizon on
which this thermal information is distributed) and to the paleo climatic
conditions of the environment. We define this value starting from
defined PWDs, using the semiautomatic tool in PetroMod.
The Basal Heat Flow (BHF, paleo and present-day basal thermal
input of the model) has been calibrated by matching the paleo-thermal
reconstruction proposed by Ronchi et al. (2010) for the study area, with
the present-day thermal borehole data (using the ViDEPI and
Starting from the 2D modelling phase, following the most probable
structural solution indicated by the 2D basin modelling, a 3D work has
been carried out to better characterize the hydrocarbon generation
trends for the key source intervals (the Upper Triassic Burano source
rock), supporting the regional hydrocarbon migration model.
For this modelling step, two key areas have been chosen for the oil
generation/migration potential (hypothetical kitchen areas) and then
modelled using Petrel 3D software. The first 3D model was built over the
foreland sector, including the buried locked basin (Santantonio et al.,
2013), geologically delimited by the ACP margin (Ombrina and Rombo
Mare area, Fig. 1) and the Elsa/Miglianico structural high in the basinal
domain. For the geometry of this model, we laterally extended the
geological horizons of section 1 using the public wells of the area (e.g.
Ombrina Mare 1, Rombo Mare 1, Elsa 1, Silvana 1), time/depth struc­
tural map form the ViDEPI catalogue and geological models from liter­
ature (Andrè and Doucet, 1991; Nicolai and Gambini, 2007; Santantonio

Fig. 6. BHF trend reconstructed for the platform and the basinal domains, starting from the HF trend of Ronchi et al. (2010).

9
A. D’Ambrosio et al. Marine and Petroleum Geology 127 (2021) 104948

Fig. 7. Restoration of the Central Adriatic 2D model (section 1) and lateral Paleo-Water-Depths definition using the PetroMod2D software. In the figure the main
paleo-bathymetric indicators for the platform paleo-environment are shown. Legend of geological formation in Fig. 9.

et al., 2013; Cazzini et al., 2015). A second 3D model was built over the
Maiella area (Fig. 1), in which the hypothetical occurrence of the Burano
source rock has been suggested due to the widespread hydrocarbon
occurrences of this sector (e.g. the Maiella bitumen field and the Bomba
thermogenic gas field, Fig. 1). This 3D reconstruction was carried out
based on the 2 TK section, combining information form exploration
wells (e.g. Caramanico 1, Musellaro 1, Maiella 2), seismic sections/maps
from ViDEPI catalogue and digitalized geological maps (Table 1). For
both the 3D models we applied the hydrocarbon generation trends
extracted from the 2D basin modelling analysis to the modelled Burano
source rock, taking into account the possible variation of the source rock
maturity with increasing/decreasing burial depth.
This 3D modelling exercise allow to better understand and visualize
the petroleum system evolution over the area, including 3D hydrocar­
bon generation and likely oil migration model for key sector of the area.

10
A. D’Ambrosio et al.
Fig. 8. Central Apennine thin-skin restoration model extracted by the PetroMod2D software. The structural evolution has been presented from the Messinian age to
the present-day, including the crustal shortening and extensional parameters. On the left the basemap with the Central Apennine sections trace (section 2). The
legend for each geological formation is reported in Fig. 9.
5. Results
5.1. 2D structural restoration
5.1.1. The Central Adriatic foreland case
The restoration of section 1 (Fig. 7) describes the structural and
geological evolution of the Central Adriatic foreland area, and highlights
the key geological steps across time (respecting the present-day cali­
bration from wells) preparing the ground for the subsequent basin
modelling phase.
Starting from the Lower Jurassic paleo-section (from 190 to 182 Ma,
Fig. 7), the effect of the Upper Triassic- Lower Jurassic crustal rifting is
shown. In terms of paleo-environment differentiation, the first paleo­
geographic configuration of the ACP becomes evident on the SE sector of
the paleo-section (182 Ma). At this time interval, the model shows the
rapid and tectonically controlled evolution of a basin environment (on
the NW sector of the section), which is characterized by the occurrence
of intra basinal horsts (e.g. the Elsa structural high) and grabens (e.g. the
Spinello Mare depocenter, Fig. 7). During the Jurassic time, as shown in
the paleo-section at 145 Ma, an increasing differentiation between the
more tectonically stable ACP and the neighbouring basin can be
observed. The carbonate platform sediments have been deposited and
partially accumulated in “locked basins”, due to the occurrence of paleo-
geographic obstacles close the platform margin (such as the Elsa-
Miglianico trend, Santantonio et al., 2013).
During Lower Cretaceous time (100 Ma, Fig. 7), the model shows the
completedrowning of the structural highs in the basinal domain and the
onset of a wide carbonate platform domain/deposition (Cupello fm.).
The carbonate platform sedimentation will be interrupted as a result of
an emersion event, witnessed by the known intense karst features of the
Lower Cretaceous limestone of the Cupello fm., representing one of the
important reservoirs for hydrocarbons in the area (Zappaterra, 1994;
11
Marine and Petroleum Geology 127 (2021) 104948
Andrè and Doucet, 1991; Cazzini et al., 2015; Lipparini et al., 2018a).
The paleo-section modelled at the end of the Messinian age (about 5
Ma, Fig. 7) shows the drowning of the ACP as well as the platform
margin sealing by the basin deposits and in particular by the Gessoso
Solfifera formation.
The present-day configuration (Fig. 7) shows the accumulation of the
entire Adriatic domain, in which the Plio-Quaternary sedimentation
filled the basinal area reaching a thickness of about 3 km (foredeep/
foreland depocenter).
In addition, the tilting of the ACP, partially due to the structuring of
the Plio-Quaternary depocenter and to the hypothetical effect of the
Central Apennine compressional setting, can be observed. The tilted
area in this model represents an important geometrical element for
hydrocarbon trap configuration of the platform domain (e.g. for the
Rospo oil field, Fig. 1), as well as a key factor for the hydrocarbon
exploration of the area.
5.1.2. The Central Apennine thin-skin case
The 2 TN structural model (Fig. 8), shows an estimated shortening of
62 km, calculated from the original length of the section of about 166 km
(37% shortening), and a shortening rate of about 12 mm/yr, represen­
tative for the interval time of the Apennine orogeny in this area.
These values are coherent with the work of Ghisetti et al., 1993, in
which a crustal shortening of about 50% and a shortening rate of 24
mm/yr has been proposed.
The calculated amount of displacement for the Maiella frontal thrust
was estimated at around 30 km as a result of the thin-skin tectonic. Most
of the displacement is accommodated horizontally, sliding on the
evaporitic detachment layer of the Triassic Burano formation (Fig. 8).
5.1.3. The Central Apennine thick-skin case
The 2 TK structural model (Fig. 9), shows a shortening of 5.5% and a
A. D’Ambrosio et al.
Fig. 9. Central Apennine thick-skin restoration model extracted by the PetroMod2D software. The structural evolution has been presented from the Messinian age to
the present-day, including the crustal shortening and extensional parameters. The legend for each geological formation is reported on the left. The location of the
section is reported in Fig. 8.
corresponding shortening rate of 1.2 mm/yr, for the last 5 Ma. For the
Maiella mountain, we calculated an amount of displacement of the
frontal thrust around 3–4 km, as a response of its deep geometry as well
as of the petrophysical property of the rocks affected by the deformation.
Regarding the post-thrusting extensional phase, a value of about 2
km of extension has been quantified for the Plio-Quaternary crustal
thinning for both the section 2 TN and section 2 TK (Figs. 8 and 9). From
a paleogeographic point of view, the 2 TK model shows a section length
generally shorter than the section 2 TN.
This difference reflects the hypothesis of a restricted lateral extension
of the paleo-depositional basin environment, laterally confined by the
occurrence of the ACP to the east, where both seismic and many
exploration wells provide structural and lithological control (5.3 Ma,
Fig. 9). Indeed, in the 2 TK model the lateral size of the basin is of about
60 km at the Messinian stage and corresponds to the still unfolded area,
whereas in the 2 TN model the same basin has a greater paleo-
depocenter of approximately 117 km, resulting from the structural
restoration of the sections (thin-skin section at 5.3 Ma, Fig. 9). In
addition, according to the low erosion rate proposed for the study area
(0.2 mm/yr, Carminati e Doglioni, 2012), we reconstructed a 2D
paleo-topography for each model across geological time, defining the
paleo-altitude trend for the Gran Sasso, Morrone and Maiella mountains.
5.2. Basin modelling
To test the petroleum system activation at a regional scale and
reduce the uncertainties related to the structural model of the study
12
Marine and Petroleum Geology 127 (2021) 104948
area, we decided to perform 2D thermal models for the most accredited
end-member geological models proposed in literature (Masini et al.,
2011 and reference therein), represented here by the 2 TN and 2 TK
models. We then used the basin modelling approach to complete two 2D
hydrocarbon generation models in order to verify the most realistic
structural case.
We started composing a pseudo-sedimentary succession based on
exploration wells, geological maps and literature (Andrè and Dolcet,
1991; Zappaterra, 1994; Scrocca et al., 2007; Santantonio et al., 2013;
Cazzini et al., 2015; Eberli et al., 2019). We thermally calibrated the
present-day model using a basal thermal input of 45 mW/m2 , matching
the present-day well temperatures. For the paleo heat flow history
reconstruction, we used the work Ronchi et al. (2010).
The petroleum system modelling results allowed us to link the
different tectonic evolution of the area to the relative hydrocarbon
generation model. Finally, we compared the accumulation distribution
derived from the simulation results of the petroleum system model with
the present-day on-shore/off-shore hydrocarbon occurrences to verify
the most likely structural scenario.
5.2.1. 2D thermal models
In the thermal modelling work we were able to reach a coherent
distribution of present-day temperatures for the entire set of 2D
geological sections (section 1, sections 2 TN and 2 TK, Fig. 10), partic­
ularly over the ACP foreland domain where the calibration has been
matched using the same basal thermal input (45 mW/m2 ) for all the
wells with the single exception of Rospo Mare 2 well, where a punctual
A. D’Ambrosio et al.
Fig. 10. Present-day 2D thermal models in which the well temperatures (◦ C) calibration and the required basal heat flow (mW/m2 ) are shown.
hotter geothermal gradient is recorded.
For section 1 in Fig. 10, from the Platform to the Plio-Quaternary
depocenter of the Central Adriatic Sea, a quite homogeneous present-
day geothermal gradient (22–25 ◦ C/km) can be observed. This value
is significantly lower than the one observed for the neighbouring ACP
environment (29–31 ◦ C/km); and can be explained by a lower basal heat
flow (35 mW/m2 ) required for a correct calibration of present-day well
temperatures.
The thermal disequilibrium represents the difference between the
steady-state thermal condition (in which the system is not perturbated,
temperatures are in equilibrium) and the present-day calibrated thermal
scenario. Therefore, the red/blue areas in Fig. 11 represent zones in
which the temperatures are warmer/cooler, as expected for a thermally
equilibrated scenario.
Observing the thermal disequilibrium of section 1 (Fig. 11A), the red
area below the Plio-Quaternary depocenter (indicating a discrepancy of
about approximately 60 ◦ C) represents the direct effect of the sedi­
mentation rate affected the Plio-Quaternary sedimentary basin
(approximately 3 km in the last 5 Ma), where cold/shallow rocks were
rapidly buried into a deeper hotter sector. Therefore, temperatures need
a longer time to reach equilibrium.
Observing the heat flow distribution in Fig. 11D, in section 1 there is
a higher capacity of heat transfer by the ACP domain (hotter area), with
respect to the neighbouring basin, due to the BHF adopted for the
temperature calibration of the Platform area (45 mW/m2 ) and the small
amount of (cold) Plio-Quaternay deposits. The Central Adriatic basin
shows a lower heat flow distribution because of the combination of the
used BHF (35 mW/m2 ) with the lower thermal conductivity of the li­
thologies of the basin (Fig. 11D).
The comparison between the section 2 TK and section 2 TN shows a
coherent red area below the basin depocenter and the ACP margin
(Fig. 11B and C) indicating, as observed in the Adriatic model (Fig. 11A),
that model temperatures are lower than about 60 ◦ C respect the steady-
13
Marine and Petroleum Geology 127 (2021) 104948
state thermal model.
As a second observation, the thermal disequilibrium analysis of
section 2 TK shows values of disequilibrium temperature close to zero
(Fig. 11B), suggesting a not perturbated present-day thermal configu­
ration. The heat flow distribution of both section 2 TK and section 2 TN
confirms the trends observed for the ACP and basin sectors where, in the
foredeep domain, lower values of the heat flow are associated with
greater thicknesses of Plio-Quaternay deposits (Fig. 11E and F).
For section 2 TK, a higher and well distributed heat transfer is
observed for the chain environment, resulting in a range of values of
about (60–65 mW/m2 ) in the Maiella area (Fig. 11E).
The present-day thermal distribution of the section 2 TN shows lower
values than section 2 TK, with a calculated geothermal gradient of about
23 ◦ C/km (Fig. 10). Significant thermal differences associated to the
structural model have been observed for the thermal disequilibrium of
section 2 TN, that appear more thermally perturbated (value of about
+40 ◦ C, Fig. 11 C).
Finally, as visible in Fig. 11F, the heat flow values of this model
(section 2 TN) seem not to be able to exceed a heat flow value of 45–50
mW/m2 .
5.2.2. Petroleum system modelling
We will discuss the results of the source rocks maturity model, in
terms of vitrinite reflectance (Ro%), which indicates the degree of
thermal alteration of the organic matter. To describe the hydrocarbon
generation potential of this petroleum system across geological time, we
performed several 1D extractions of transformation ratio (TR) vs time,
along all the 2D models (Fig. 12D, E, and F). The transformation ratio
parameter (TR%) represents the percentage of organic matter trans­
formed during the naphthogenesis process. The source rock gets at its
critical moment at the value of 50% TR, which describes the moment
when all key mechanisms of a petroleum system are working (Hantschel
and Kauerauf, 2009). Finally, two dedicated 3D models of the Upper
A. D’Ambrosio et al.
Fig. 11. Present-day thermal models of the Central Adriatic and Central Apennine sections. The sections ABC show the distribution temperatures disequilibrium,
while heat flow values are visible in the sections DEF.
Triassic Burano source rock have been completed for the most likely
generative source rocks (kitchens) areas of the analyzed sectors of the
Central Adriatic (Fig. 15A) and Central Apennine (Fig. 15B).
5.2.3. Thermal maturity & hydrocarbon generation
For section 1 (Fig. 12A), the thermal maturity results show a low
maturity of source rocks (less than 0.70% Ro), whereas higher values
(Burano up to 0.80% Ro, Emma close 0.70% Ro) are observed in the
deeper buried portion of the basin, below the Plio-Quaternay depocenter
(up to 3 km of thickness). We observe a decrease of maturity for the ACP
domain. Maturity results show values mainly close to 0.60–0.70% Ro, in
which a widespread low maturity of the Burano source rock is indicated
by the regional foreland model (Fig. 12A). From the hydrocarbon gen­
eration point of view, we observe a low potential for the Central Adriatic
basin area, in which values close to the 50% TR (the critical moment)
have been reached only at recent time (Fig. 12D).
On the other hand, two peaks were highlighted related to the deep
troughs of the basin for the Burano source (65–75% TR, Fig. 12D),
whereas the Early Jurassic Emma source seem not to exceed the 30% TR.
The whole ACP shows a range of present-day TR values around 40–55%,
indicating also in this case a low maturity of the source rocks of this
paleogeographic domain (Fig. 12D).
Analyzing the same petroleum system from sections 2, we observe a
higher maturity trend of the Burano source rock up to 0.85% Ro
(Fig. 12B and C) and 70% TR (Fig. 12E and F) in the on-shore platform
environment, in correspondence to the buried ACP margin of the fore­
deep domain. For the chain domain, section 2 TK shows a quite equili­
brated vertical distribution of the maturity degree in relation with the
regional maturity trend of the Adriatic model as well as the whole
14
Marine and Petroleum Geology 127 (2021) 104948
sedimentary basin (Fig. 12B). The maturity of the hypothetical source
rocks in the hanging-wall of the Maiella thrust (in accordance also with
the section 2 TN, Fig. 12C) appears immature (Burano about 0.60% Ro,
Emma lower than 0.55% Ro), verified also by the very low TR trend
values (Burano up to 35% TR, while the Emma close to the zero,
Fig. 12F). The basin domain, located below the foredeep depocenter
(Fig. 12B), shows a higher maturity in both the source rocks (Burano up
to 0.85–0.90% of Ro and Emma 0.60% Ro) and a TR range for the
Burano source rock up to 80 %TR and 35% TR for the Jurassic source
rock (Fig. 12E).
Section 2 TN (Fig. 12C) shows a higher maturity degree, as well as a
much higher hydrocarbon potential compared to 2 TK because of the
increase of the burial due to the structural model and the greater
quantity of source rocks due to the thin-skin paleogeographic assump­
tion (larger basin).
In this scenario, thermal maturity distribution of the Central Apen­
nine is more perturbated by the structural crustal model in contrast to
the section 2 TK (Fig. 12C).
For the hangingwall block of the Maiella thrust, both the maturity
and hydrocarbon generation models seem to confirm the results of
section 2 TK. On the other hand, the Maiella footwall block shows a peak
in both maturity parameters (up to 1.50% Ro and close to 100% TR,
Fig. 12C, F) highlighting a more prone hydrocarbon generation area
(potential kitchen area) as a result of the increased burial and the over
maturation of the source rocks located below the Central Apennine
compressive structures.
5.2.4. Hydrocarbon migration
In terms of timing, the Central Adriatic foreland shows a low
A. D’Ambrosio et al. Marine and Petroleum Geology 127 (2021) 104948

Fig. 12. Present-day maturity trend of the Central Adriatic and Central Apennine 2D models on the left (section 1 and 2, basemap in Fig. 1), in which the modelled
vitrinite maturity distribution is presented. On the right side, 1D TR-Time extraction of the source rocks of the Central Adriatic model (upper graph), and the Central
Apennine thick and thin-skin models (lower graph). The geographical position of the 1D extraction are displayed on the maturity sections.

Fig. 13. Hydrocarbon generation of the Central Adriatic petroleum system (section 1, basemap Fig. 14). In the Adriatic foreland the oil generation starts at present
day, as a response of the Plio-Quaternary deposition. The legend for each geological formation is reported in Fig. 14.

15
A. D’Ambrosio et al. Marine and Petroleum Geology 127 (2021) 104948

Fig. 14. Hydrocarbon generation model of the Central Apennine petroleum system investigated through a 2D basin modelling exercise (section 2, thick Vs thin
models). For the Central Apennine case, the oil production and migration followed the orogeny structuring, where considering the thin-skinned tectonic seems to be
possible to justify (also in 2D) the hydrocarbon occurrence of the area.

16
A. D’Ambrosio et al.
Fig. 15. 3D Hydrocarbon generation model (%TR) of the Burano source rock carried out for the most probable keachen areas presented with the proposed 2D
structual models (Fig. 15C). The public on-shore/off-shore exploration wells are visible in white color. The 3D source rock model of the keachen area of the Central
Adriatic Sea in visible in Fig. 15A, while the 3D source rock model of the Central Apennine domain is shows in Fig. 15B. The legend for each geological formation is
reported in Fig. 14.
productivity of the petroleum system in the ACP domain (Fig. 13).
Started at 3Ma, a hydrocarbon generation is observed in the buried
portion of the basin (enough to trigger the hydrocarbon migration), as a
result of the formation of the Plio-Quaternary depocenter (Fig. 13). For
the on-shore sector (Fig. 14), the modelling suggests a first important
hydrocarbon generation and migration at the end of the Messinian
Stage, located in the Gran Sasso footwall, as a result of the Central
Apennine structuring (Fig. 14).
Looking at both sections 2 TK and 2 TN in Fig. 14, it is possible to
note the effect of the Central Apennine orogeny on the petroleum system
activation, characterized by a west to east hydrocarbon generation trend
In particular, we observe an increase of oil generation for each geolog­
ical key interval related to the evolution of this sedimentary basin: i)
from 5.3 to 2.58 Ma (Gran Sasso structuring), ii) from 2.58 to 1.80 Ma
(Maiella structuring), iii) from 1.80 to present-day (Plio-Quaternary
foredeep definition). The section 2 TK shows a good hydrocarbon gen­
eration potential extended practically to the on-shore sector, where the
more active kitchen area is represented by the deeper buried Burano and
Emma source rocks of the foredeep basin (Fig. 14).
On the other hand, the ACP related to Central Adriatic domain can be
described as a low/medium oil generation area, not able to justify the
important oil fields known at present (e.g. Rospo, Katia and Ombrina
Mare fields) considering only the vertical migration of hydrocarbons.
According to the maturity model, as visible in Fig. 14, the high hy­
drocarbon generation potential of the section 2 TN is confirmed by the
hydrocarbon overproduction along the entire section (hydrocarbon
liquid phases accumulated in the model show up in light green, Fig. 14).
In particular, we observe the occurrence of two accumulation areas
located: i) below the Central Apennine (Gran Sasso-Morrone area,
assuming the presence of a source rock/rocks and a fluid barrier
behavior for the main modelled master thrust), ii) at the top of the ACP,
where important oil fields are known in the lower Cretaceous karst of the
platform (André and Doulcet, 1991; Cazzini et al., 2015).
6. Discussion
6.1. Thermal evolution
The obtained balanced and restored structural models show signifi­
cant differences in terms of tectonic evolution and past/present-day
17
Marine and Petroleum Geology 127 (2021) 104948
temperatures.
For the Central Adriatic and Central Apennine foredeep/foreland
domains, the models show temperatures about 60 ◦ C lower respect the
steady-state thermal model below the Plio-Quaternary depocenter
(Fig. 11A–C), indicating a rapid burial due to the tectonic evolution of
these geological domains.
Thick and thin-skin thermal models show comparable temperature
distributions in the foredeep/foreland domain (Fig. 10). On the other
hand, thermal modelling of the chain shows a higher degree of variation
in terms of the geothermal gradient, especially in the Maiella area
(29 ◦ C/km for the thick-skin versus 23 ◦ C/km for the thin-skin case,
Fig. 10).
This thermal variation can be associated to the large displacement of
the Maiella thin-skin thrust case, as well as to the high rate in which the
crustal shortening has been achieved through geological time (about 30
km of displacement in 2 Ma). The thermal disequilibrium analysis shows
a more thermally perturbated situation for section 2 TN respect to 2 TK,
in which temperatures are colder than 40 ◦ C respect to the steady-state
thermal model (Fig. 11B and C).
The comparison between the section 2 TK and TN seems to indicate a
different heat flow distribution in which section 2 TK reaches values up
to 60–65 mW⁄m^2, while section 2 TN does not exceed values of 45–50
mW⁄m^2 (Fig. 11E and F). This difference in the heat flow distribution
can be explained considering the important amount of displacement
achieved by the section 2 TN, in which the hot rocks of the hanging wall
overlapped the cold rocks of the footwall block, causing a “thermal
shock” (low temperature zone in the footwall, Fig. 11F) and perturbing
the geothermal gradient of the chain.
6.2. Petroleum system evolution
The basin modelling work allowed us to describe the thermal
maturity evolution of the hypothetical source rocks.
For the Central Adriatic foreland, we generally observed a low
maturity and low generation potential for both source rock layers, where
one exception is represented by the Central Adriatic Plio-Quaternary
depocenter area in which the thickness of the foredeep deposits rea­
ches 3 km (Burano up to 0.80% Ro and 65–75 %TR, Emma close 0.70%
Ro, and up to 30% TR; Fig. 12). Therefore, assuming this hypothetical
kitchen area we can suggest a possible contribution to the Central
A. D’Ambrosio et al.
Adriatic oils (such as Piropo, Emilio and Emma oil fields, in the north
sector, Fig. 1), especially considering the increase in the foredeep
thickness towards the chain (up to 6–8 km, Cazzini et al., 2015, Fig. 1).
In addition, the model seems to identify the narrow and buried basin
bounded between the ACP margin and the Elsa structural high (locked
basin, Santantonio et al., 2013) as a possible kitchen for the Elsa/Mi­
glianico and Ombrina Mare oil fields (Fig. 13).
On the other hand, the whole ACP shows a range of present-day TR
values around 40–55% and about 0.70% Ro, indicating low source rock
maturity in this paleogeographic domain (Fig. 12A, D). The Burano
source seems not to be able to produce large quantities of oils, and
therefore is unable to explain the significant quantities of hydrocarbon
found in those geological sectors via a simple vertical migration (e.g.
Rospo Mare, Ombrina Mare, Katia fields, Fig. 1).
In the Central Apennine domain, an increasing maturity from the off-
shore platform area to the buried carbonate platform margin in the on-
shore area (0.85% Ro and 70% TR) can be observed. Section 2 TK shows
a peak of maturity and generation rate in the neighbouring foredeep
basin, representing the most productive kitchen area for this model.
Assuming this kitchen and the contribution of a lateral migration of oils
(Fig. 14), we can better explain the hydrocarbon occurrences present in
the foredeep/foreland domain (such as Lanciano, Santa Maria, Ombrina
Mare, Katia and Rospo Mare fields, Fig. 1).
For the Maiella mountain, both the section 2 TK and 2 TN highlight
the low maturity of the Burano (Burano about 0.60% Ro, 35% TR) and
Emma (lower than 0.55% Ro and TR close to zero) hypothetical source
rocks (Burano source rock not found by the deep Caramanico 1 well,
Fig. 12B, C, E, F). Consequently, we suggest an allochthonous origin of
the oils generating the present-day Maiella bitumen fields, as proposed
in literature (Scrocca et al., 2013; Lipparini et al., 2018; Trippetta and
Geremia, 2019; Trippetta et al., 2020).
Section 2 TN shows a higher maturity and generation rate compared
to section 2 TK, as a result of the deeper burial achieved by the hypo­
thetical source rocks, due to structural style.
In addition, this important generation rate can be also due to the
larger quantity of source rock available for the thin-skin case, as a result
of the larger extension of the basin and stratigraphic repetitions
modelled (paleogeographic assumption). In this scenario, the vertical
distribution of the thermal maturity seems strongly controlled by the
structural crustal model (Fig. 12C). The Maiella Thrust footwall block, in
the thin-skin case, shows a peak in both the parameters (up to 1.50% Ro
and close to 100% TR, Fig. 12C, F) resulting in a very prone hydrocarbon
generation area (potential kitchen area).
In this case we observe an excessive hydrocarbon production, that
seems to suggest this as a less likely solution (Fig. 14). In terms of timing
we observe for both sections 2 TK and TN an increase of hydrocarbon
generation, strongly related to the Central Apennine growth (on-shore)
and its foredeep/foreland basin formation (on-shore/off-shore), high­
lighting a west to east hydrocarbon generation trend, starting from 5.3
Ma to present-day (Fig. 14). The main results related to the generation of
hydrocarbons in the study area are summarized in Fig. 15, where a 3D
modelling of the Burano source rock is shown for the most likely
structural case.
The hydrocarbon generation potential (%TR) is shown for the main
identified kitchen areas of the region: the locked basin area (a buried
narrow basin confined between the ACP margin and the Elsa-Miglianico
structural high - Fig. 15A) and the Maiella footwall area, at the front of
the Apennine orogen (Fig. 15B). The 3D source rock models allows to
confirm the hydrocarbon generation potential of these two key sectors,
suggested by the 2D analysis, making also possible to extend our inter­
pretation to buried portions of the studied petroleum system not
included in the 2D models but of relevant interest for the understanding
of the migration model at regional scale.
Indeed, we observed an increase of the Burano source rock hydro­
carbon generation potential from the foreland domain (about 60–70%
TR in the buried portions of the locked basin, Fig. 15A) to the foredeep
18
Marine and Petroleum Geology 127 (2021) 104948
(up to 80–85% TR in the footwall of the Maiella thrust, Fig. 15B), where
the observed variation of the TR trend distribution is aligned with the
geological host and graben configuration, the thickness variation of
foredeep deposits as well as the timing of structuration of the Central
Apennine front.
Therefore, the 3D models allowed us to confirm and better visualize
at regional scale the main hydrocarbon generation areas, supporting the
idea that an important contribution of lateral migration of hydrocarbons
must be considered to explain many of the known hydrocarbon accu­
mulations, both on-shore/off-shore.
7. Conclusions
We studied the evolution of the area through 2D structural restora­
tion and thermal modelling work over the Central Adriatic and Central
Apennine orogen/foredeep/foreland system, by testing two possible
geological structural models of the Apennine orogen: thick-skin versus
thin-skin tectonic. We then carried out a 2D and 3D regional petroleum
system analysis, to investigate which of the two structural models could
better explain the current known distribution of hydrocarbons in the
subsurface.
The Central Adriatic thermal modelling suggests a low maturity and
low generation capacity for the hypothetical source rocks at present day
in the Apulian Carbonate Platform (ACP) setting (Burano 40–55 %TR
and about 0.70% Ro), while source rock intervals appear possibly
mature in the more buried basinal setting close to the margin platform
(e.g. locked basin area) and to the North (Burano up to 0.80% Ro and
65–75 %TR, Emma close 0.70% Ro, and up to 30% TR), where a thicker
Plio-Quaternay foredeep succession is deposited and preserved. Hy­
drocarbon migration in these geological settings is modelled to have
started in the Late Pliocene, around 3 Ma ago, and is still active at
present. These possible basinal kitchen areas seem to correctly explain
the known distribution of hydrocarbons in the basinal setting, while
they could not explain the several proven hydrocarbon occurrences over
the Apulia platform setting. Consequently, an important contribution of
a lateral hydrocarbon migration is required from other possible kitchen
areas in the region.
The Central Apennine orogen/foredeep/foreland system modelling
indicate higher maturity of both source rock intervals modelled respect
the foreland domain (Burano up to 0.85–0.90% Ro and 80 %TR, Emma
0.60% Ro and 35% TR).
The source rocks, possibly present within the Maiella footwall both
in the thick and thin-skin models, result to have reached a high matu­
rity/hydrocarbon generation potential (up to 1.50% Ro and close to
100% TR), in which the hydrocarbon migration results to have started
by the Late Miocene and is still active, following the fold and thrust belt
structuring.
In the hanging-wall of the Maiella anticline instead, a very low
source rock maturity is obtained from modelling, implying an important
lateral migration of hydrocarbons for those occurrences known in this
sector, likely from the North (Pescara Basin).
Overall, the thick-skin hydrocarbon generation model is able to
explain the oil occurrences known in the foredeep/foreland domain,
without introduce a shortening value of about 37% (estimated for the
thin-skin case). On the other hand, thin-skin model lead to hydrocarbon
overproduction with respect to the known evidences of hydrocarbons in
the area, representing the less probable structural solution.
We show, moreover, how 2D/3D models may be directly used as a
high-value de-risking tools for petroleum exploration activities We wish
that the results of this study will represent a basis for future exploration
efforts in the study area and more generally can serve as analogue for
similar geological setting especially but not limited to the Adriatic
region.
A. D’Ambrosio et al.
Credit statement
Andrea D’Ambrosio: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Lorenzo Lipparini: Conceptualization, Supervision, Investigation,
Writing – review & editing. Sabina Bigi: Conceptualization, Supervision,
Investigation. Teodoro Cassola: Methodology, Software, Validation,
Supervision, Writing – review & editing. Victoire Roblet Bambridg:
Methodology, Software. Jan Federik Derks: Software, Supervision,
Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing. Fabio Trippetta:
Visualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
We thank the exploration team of Schlumberger of Aachen for
technical support and suggestions. Special thanks to Miquel A. Marin
Pérez for his important advice and structural discussions. Petroleum
Experts and Schlumberger are thanked for providing access to Move,
Petrel, Dynel and PetroMod software. Financial support for the work
was provided by Schlumberger during a research internship in Aachen,
Germany (year 2018). Finally, we thank the editors Massimo Zecchin
and Marco Franceschi for the manuscript revision.
References
Allen, P.A., Allen, J.R., 2013. Basin Analysis: Principles and Application to Petroleum
Play Assessment. John Wiley & Sons.
André, P., Doulcet, A., 1991. Rospo Mare field, Italy, apulian platform, Adriatic Sea. In:
Foster, N.H., Beaumont, E.A. (Eds.), Stratigraphic Traps II: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin Treatise of Petroleum Geology, Atlas of Oil and Gas
Fields, pp. 29–54.
Artoni, A., 2007. Growth rates and two-mode accretion in the outer orogenic wedge-
foreland basin system of Central Apennine (Italy). Bollettino Società Geologica
Italiana 126, 531e556.
Bally, A.W., 1986. Balanced sections and seismic reflection profiles across the Central
Apennines. Mem. Soc. Geol. It. 35, 257–310.
Bertello, F., Fantoni, R., Franciosi, R., Gatti, V., Ghielmi, M., Pugliese, A., 2010. From
thrust-and-fold belt to foreland: hydrocarbon occurrences in Italy. In: Vining, B.A.,
Pickering, S.C. (Eds.), Petroleum Geology: from Mature Basins to New Frontiers”,
Proceedings of the 7th Petroleum Geology Conference, pp. 113–126. https://doi.
org/10.1144/0070113.
Brandano, M., Scrocca, D., Lipparini, L., Petracchini, L., Tomassetti, L., Campagnoni, V.,
Mascaro, G., 2013, September. Physical stratigraphy and tectonic settings of
Bolognano Formation (Majella): a potential carbonate reservoir. In: Journal of
Mediterranean Earth Sciences Pre-Congress Field Trip Guide, pp. 151–176.
Butler, R.W.H., Mazzoli, S., Corrado, S., De Donatis, M., Di Bucci, D., Gambini, R.,
Zucconi, V., 2004. Applying Thick-Skinned Tectonic Models to the Apennine Thrust
Belt of Italy—Limitations and Implications.
Calabrò, R.A., Corrado, S., Di Bucci, D., Robustini, P., Tornaghi, M., 2003. Thin-skinned
vs. thick-skinned tectonics in the Matese Massif, Central–Southern Apennines (Italy).
Tectonophysics 377 (3–4), 269–297.
Calamita, F., Esestime, P., Paltrinieri, W., Satolli, S., 2007. The Role of Adria
Paleomargin Architecture on the Geometry and Kinematics of the Central-Southern
Apennine Chain during the Neogene-Quaternary Evolution.
CARG project. http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/en/publications/reports/geological-
map-of-italy-in-scale-1-50-000-carg.
Carminati, E., Doglioni, C., 2012. Alps vs. Apennines: the paradigm of a tectonically
asymmetric Earth. Earth Sci. Rev. 112 (1–2), 67–96.
Carminati, E., Corda, L., Mariotti, G., Scifoni, A., Trippetta, F., 2013. Mesozoic syn-and
postrifting evolution of the central Apennines, Italy: the role of triassic evaporites.
J. Geol. 121 (4), 327–354.
Casero, P., Bigi, S., 2013. Structural setting of the Adriatic basin and the main related
petroleum exploration plays. Mar. Petrol. Geol. 42, 135–147.
Cavinato, G.P., Celles, P.D., 1999. Extensional basins in the tectonically bimodal central
Apennines fold-thrust belt, Italy: response to corner flow above a subducting slab in
retrograde motion. Geology 27 (10), 955–958.
Cazzini, F., Dal Zotto, O., Fantoni, R., Ghielmi, M., Ronchi, P., Scotti, P., 2015. Oil and
gas in the adriatic foreland, Italy. J. Petrol. Geol. 38 (3), 255–279. July 2015.
Cosentino, D., Parotto, M., 1991. La Struttura a Falde Della Sabina (Appennino Centrale).
Coward, M.P., 1983. Thrust tectonics, thin skinned or thick skinned, and the
continuation of thrusts to deep in the crust. J. Struct. Geol. 5 (2), 113–123.
19
Marine and Petroleum Geology 127 (2021) 104948
Crescenti, U., Crostella, A., Donzelli, G., Raffi, G., 1969. Stratigrafia Della Serie Calcarea
Dal Lias Al Miocene Nella Regione Marchigiano Abruzzese: Parte II. Litostratigrafia,
Biostratigrafia, Paleogeografia.
Crescenti, U., Milia, M.L., Rusciadelli, G., 2004. Stratigraphic and tectonic evolution of
the Pliocene abruzzi basin (central Apennines, Italy). Bollettino Società Geologica
Italiana 123, 163e173.
D’Ambrosio, A., Lipparini, L., Cassola, T., Derks, J.F., 2019. June). A new integrated
pseudo-3D petroleum system model of Central Italy and Adriatic Sea: insights and
exploration potential. In: 81st EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2019, vol. 2019.
European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, pp. 1–5, 1.
Della Vedova, B., Bellani, S., Pellis, G., Squarci, P., 2001. Deep temperatures and surface
heat flow distribution. In: Vai, G.B., Martini, I.P. (Eds.), Anatomy of an Orogen. The
Apennines and Adjacent Mediterranean Basins. Kluwer Ac. Publ., Great Britain,
pp. 65–76.
Doglioni, C., Prosser, G., 1997. Fold uplift versus regional subsidence and sedimentation
rate. Mar. Petrol. Geol. 14 (2), 179–190.
Eberli, G.P., Bernoulli, D., Vecsei, A., Sekti, R., Grasmueck, M., Lüdmann, T., Porta, G.D.,
2019. A Cretaceous carbonate delta drift in the Montagna della Maiella, Italy.
Sedimentology 66 (4), 1266–1301.
Ghisetti, F., Vezzani, L., 2002. Normal faulting, extension and uplift in the outer thrust
belt of the central Apennines (Italy): role of the Caramanico fault. Basin Res. 14 (2),
225–236.
Ghisetti, F., Barchi, M., Bally, A.W., Moretti, I., Vezzani, L., 1993. Conflicting balanced
structural sections across the Central Apennines (Italy): problems and implications.
In: Generation, Accumulation and Production of Europe’s Hydrocarbons III.
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 219–231.
Gori, S., Falcucci, E., Dramis, F., Galadini, F., Galli, P., Giaccio, B., Cosentino, D., 2014.
Deep-seated gravitational slope deformation, large-scale rock failure, and active
normal faulting along Mt. Morrone (Sulmona basin, Central Italy): geomorphological
and paleoseismological analyses. Geomorphology 208, 88–101.
Hantschel, T., Kauerauf, A.I., 2009. Fundamentals of Basin and Petroleum Systems
Modeling. Springer Science & Business Media.
ISPRA, Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale. https://www.ispra
mbiente.gov.it/it/attivita/suolo-e-territorio.
Katz, B.J., Dittmar, E.I., Ehret, G.E., 2000. A geochemical review of carbonate source
rocks in Italy. J. Petrol. Geol. 23 (4), 399–424. October 2000.
Lipparini, L., Trippetta, F., Ruggieri, R., Brandano, M., Romi, A., 2018. Oil distribution in
outcropping carbonate-ramp reservoirs (Maiella Mountain, Central Italy): three-
dimensional models constrained by dense historical well data and laboratory
measurements. AAPG Bulletin, July 2018 102 (7), 1273–1298.
Lipparini, L., Bencini, R., Gerali, F., 2018a. “Sgorga il Petrolio dalla Terra d’Abruzzo”: oil
exploration and production history in the Abruzzo region (Central Italy) across the
20th century. Rendiconti Online della Società Geologica Italiana 44 (2018), 51–57.
https://doi.org/10.3301/ROL.2018.08.
Masini, M., Bigi, S., Poblet, J., Bulnes, M., Di Cuia, R., Casabianca, D., 2011. Kinematic
evolution and strain simulation, based on cross-section restoration, of the Maiella
Mountain: an analogue for oil fields in the Apennines (Italy). Geological Society,
London, Special Publications 349 (1), 25–44.
Mattavelli, L., Novelli, L., 1990. Geochemistry and habitat of oils in Italy. American
association of petroleum geologists bulletin. Bull. Volcanol. 74. (10), 1623–1639,
1990.
Mattavelli, L., Novelli, L., Anelli, L., 1991. Occurrence of hydrocarbons in the Adriatic
basin. Special pubblication of the European Associations of Petroleum Geoscientists
1, 369–380.
Merlini, S., Mostardini, F., 1986. Appennino centro-meridionale: sesioni geologiche e
proposta di modello strutturale. In: Geologia dell’Italia Centrale. Congresso
Nazionale, vol. 73, pp. 147–149.
Miccadei, E., Piacentini, T., Barberi, R., 2002. Uplift and Local Tectonic Subsidence in the
Evolution of Intramontane Basins: the Example of the Sulmona Basin (Central
Apennines, Italy).
Morsilli, M., Hairabian, A., Borgomano, J., Nardon, S., Adams, E., Gartner, G.B., 2017.
The Apulia carbonate platform—gargano promontory, Italy (upper jurassic–eocene).
AAPG (Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol.) Bull. 101 (4), 523–531.
Morsilli, M., Rusciadelli, G.I., Bosellini, A.L., 2002. Large-scale gravity-driven structures:
control on margin architecture and related deposits of a Cretaceous Carbonate
Platform (Montagna della Maiella, Central Apennines, Italy). Bollettino Società
Geologica Italiana, Volume Speciale (1), 619–628.
Mutti, M., Bernoulli, D., 2003. Early marine lithification and hardground development
on a Miocene ramp (Maiella, Italy): key surfaces to track changes in trophic
resources in nontropical carbonate settings. J. Sediment. Res. 73 (2), 296–308.
Nicolai, C., Gambini, R., 2007. Structural architecture of the Adria platform-and-basin
system. In: Patacca, E., Sartori, R., Scandone, P. (Eds.), (1990) - Tyrrhenian Basin
and Apennines. Kinematic Relations since Late Tortonian Times. Memorie Della
Società Geologica Italiana, vol. 45, pp. 425–451.
Pace, P., Scisciani, V., Calamita, F., Butler, R.W., Iacopini, D., Esestime, P., Hodgson, N.,
2015. Inversion structures in a foreland domain: seismic examples from the Italian
Adriatic Sea. Interpretation 3 (4), SAA161–SAA176.
Patacca, E., Scandone, P., 2007. Geology of the southern Apennines. Boll. Soc. Geol. Ital.
7, 75–119.
Patacca, E., Scandone, P., Crescenti, U., 2004. The Plio-Pleistocene thrust belt-foredeep
system in the southern Apennines and Sicily (Italy). Geol. Ital. 32, 93–129.
Patacca, E., Scandone, P., Di Luzio, E., Cavinato, G.P., Parotto, M., 2008. Structural
architecture of the central Apennines: interpretation of the CROP 11 seismic profile
from the Adriatic coast to the orographic divide. Tectonics 27 (3).
Pepper, A.S., Corvi, P.J., 1995. Simple kinetic models of petroleum formation. Part I: oil
and gas generation from kerogen. Mar. Petrol. Geol. 12 (3), 291–319.
A. D’Ambrosio et al.
Pfiffner, O.A., 2017. Thick-skinned and thin-skinned tectonics: a global perspective.
Geosciences 7 (3), 71.
Porreca, M., Minelli, G., Ercoli, M., Brobia, A., Mancinelli, P., Cruciani, F., Cannata, A.,
2018. Seismic reflection profiles and subsurface geology of the area interested by the
2016–2017 earthquake sequence (Central Italy). Tectonics 37 (4), 1116–1137.
Ronchi, P., Di Giulio, A., Ceriani, A., Scotti, P., 2010. Contrasting fluid events giving rise
to apparently similar diagenetic products; late-stage dolomite cements from the
Southern Alps and central Apennines, Italy. Geological Society, London, Special
Publications 329 (1), 397–413.
Rusciadelli, G., 2005. The Maiella Escarpment (Abulia platform, Italy): geology and
modeling of an Upper Cretaceous scalloped erosional platform margin. Boll. Soc.
Geol. Ital. 124 (3), 661–673.
Rusciadelli, G., Ricci, C., 2008. New geological constraints for the extension of the
northern Apulia platform margin west of the Maiella Mt.(Central Apennines, Italy).
Boll. Soc. Geol. Ital. 127 (3), 375–387.
Santantonio, M., Scrocca, D., Lipparini, L., 2013. The ombina-rospo plateau (apulian
platform): evolution of a carbonate platform and its margins during the jurassic and
cretaceous. Mar. Petrol. Geol. 42, 4–29.
Scisciani, V., Montefalcone, R., 2006. Coexistence of thin- and thick-skinned tectonics: an
example from the Central Apennines, Italy. Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 114 (3), 33e53.
Scisciani, V., Tavarnelli, E., Calamita, F., 2002. The interaction of extensional and
contractional deformations in the outer zones of the Central Apennines, Italy.
J. Struct. Geol. 24 (10), 1647–1658.
Sclater, J.G., Christie, P.A., 1980. Continental stretching: an explanation of the post-mid-
Cretaceous subsidence of the central North Sea basin. J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth
85 (B7), 3711–3739.
Scrocca, D., Brandano, M., Petracchini, L., Lipparini, L., 2013. Analysis of an exhumed oil
accumulation: the oligo-miocene carbonate ramp deposits of the Maiella Mountain
20
Marine and Petroleum Geology 127 (2021) 104948
(Central Italy). AAPG Newsletter (4q 2013). Schlumberger Petrel software: 8, 2–4.
https://www.software.slb.com/products/petrel.
Scrocca, D., 2010. Southern Apennines: structural setting and tectonic evolution.
J. Virtual Explor. 36, 13.
Scrocca, D., Carminati, E., Doglioni, C., Marcantoni, D., 2007. Slab retreat and active
shortening along the central-northern Apennines. In: Thrust Belts and Foreland
Basins. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 471–487.
Tozer, R.S.J., Butler, R.W.H., Corrado, S., 2002. Comparing thin-and thick-skinned thrust
tectonic models of the Central Apennines, Italy. EGU Stephan Mueller Special
Publication Series 1, 181–194.
Trippetta, F., Geremia, D., 2019. The seismic signature of heavy oil on carbonate
reservoir through laboratory experiments and AVA modelling. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng.
177, 849–860.
Trippetta, F., Ruggieri, R., Brandano, M., Giorgetti, C., 2020. Petrophysical properties of
heavy oil-bearing carbonate rocks and their implications on petroleum system
evolution: insights from the Majella Massif. Mar. Petrol. Geol. 111, 350–362.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2019.08.035.
Trumpy, E., Manzella, A., 2017. Geothopica and the interactive analysis and
visualization of the updated Italian National Geothermal Database. Int. J. Appl.
Earth Obs. Geoinf. 54, 28–37.
Vecsei, A., Sanders, D.G.K., Bernoulli, D., Eberli, G.P., Pignatti, J.S., 1998. Cretaceous to
Miocene sequence stratigraphy and evolution of the Maiella carbonate platform
margin, Italy. Mesozoic and Cenozoic sequence stratigraphy of European basins.
SEPM, Special Publication 60, 53–74.
ViDEPI Project, 2012. Visibility of petroleum exploration data in Italy. MISE, Ministero
dello sviluppo economico DGRME, Società Geologica Italiana, and Assomineraria.
http://unmig.sviluppoeconomico.gov.it/videpi/videpi.asp.
Zappaterra, E., 1994. Source-rock distribution model of the periadriatic region. AAPG
(Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol.) Bull. 78 (3), 333–354. March 1994.