Chapter 1 An overview of the petroleum geology of the Arctic · 27th IGC published a report on arctic geology (Gramberg et al. 1984). The last Arctic-wide, petroleum-focussed symposium

Chapter 1

An overview of the petroleum geology of the Arctic

ANTHONY M. SPENCER1, ASHTON F. EMBRY2, DONALD L. GAUTIER3,

ANTONINA V. STOUPAKOVA4 & KAI SØRENSEN5*1Statoil, Stavanger, Norway

2Geological Survey of Canada, Calgary, Alberta, Canada3United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California, USA

4Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia5Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Copenhagen, Denmark

*Corresponding author (e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected])

Abstract: Nine main petroleum provinces containing recoverable resources totalling 61 Bbbl liquidsþ 269 Bbbloe of gas are known inthe Arctic. The three best known major provinces are: West Siberia–South Kara, Arctic Alaska and Timan–Pechora. They have beensourced principally from, respectively, Upper Jurassic, Triassic and Devonian marine source rocks and their hydrocarbons are reservoiredprincipally in Cretaceous sandstones, Triassic sandstones and Palaeozoic carbonates. The remaining six provinces except for the UpperCretaceous–Palaeogene petroleum system in the Mackenzie Delta have predominantly Mesozoic sources and Jurassic reservoirs. Thereare discoveries in 15% of the total area of sedimentary basins (c. 8 � 106 km2), dry wells in 10% of the area, seismic but no wells in 50%and no seismic in 25%. The United States Geological Survey estimate yet-to-find resources to total 90 Bbbl liquidsþ 279 Bbbloe gas, withfour regions – South Kara Sea, Alaska, East Barents Sea, East Greenland – dominating. Russian estimates of South Kara Sea and EastBarents Sea are equally positive. The large potential reflects primarily the large undrilled areas, thick basins and widespread source rocks.

This book is mainly a product of the 33rd International GeologicalCongress (IGC) which took place in Norway, a country with strongArctic interests. As the Arctic becomes more accessible, interest inits potential resources is increasing, as is public concern for theenvironmental consequences of petroleum exploration and poss-ible production. Additional public awareness has been created bythe ongoing activities of Arctic coastal states as they respond tothe United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which hasbeen ratified by all Arctic nations except the United States. TheConvention stipulates conditions for granting coastal states sover-eign rights seaward of the Exclusive Economic Zone (see Marcus-sen & Macnab). Text references in bold type and lacking year ofpublication refer to papers appearing in the present volume.

An additional contributing element to this volume is the assess-ment of the petroleum potential of the 4.2% of the Earth’s surfacethat lies north of the Arctic Circle by the United States GeologicalSurvey (USGS). The initial results of this study, the Circum-ArcticResource Appraisal (CARA; Gautier et al. 2009), became avail-able at the International Geological Congress in Oslo in 2008. Anumber of papers from studies performed as a part of CARA(Charpentier & Gautier) are included in this volume, as are anumber of studies of the Russian Arctic, in particular its shelfareas (Grigorenko et al.; Kaminsky et al.; Kontorovich et al.).As a result, this book can present a relatively complete view ofArctic petroleum geology.

Previous compilations on Arctic geology

Symposia dedicated to charting the state of knowledge of Arcticgeology, especially from the point of view of petroleum, wereheld in North America at 10 year intervals from 1960 to 1981.The resulting volumes (Raasch 1961; Pitcher 1973; Embry &Balkwill 1982) contain a wealth of articles describing the landsand shelves bordering the Arctic Ocean and the oceanic areaitself. Review articles summarized the earlier history of geologicalthought (Eardley 1961) and the knowledge of mineral and pet-roleum resources (Meyerhoff & Meyerhoff 1973) and hydrocarbon

resources (Meyerhoff 1982). Two special volumes described theoceanic regions and the surrounding continental margins: Nairnet al. (1981) and Grantz et al. (1990), with the latter includingreviews of the history of investigation and of the resources. The27th IGC published a report on arctic geology (Gramberg et al.1984). The last Arctic-wide, petroleum-focussed symposiumvolume was from Norway (Vorren et al. 1993).

Russian geological studies and hydrocarbon resource assess-ments in the Arctic sedimentary basins are connected with thenames of N. A. Gedroyts, I. S. Gramberg, V. N. Saks, N. A.Bogdanov, Yu. N. Kulakov, R. M. Demenitskaya, M. L. Verba,Yu. N. Grigorenko, O. I. Suprunenko, V. L. Ivanov, Yu. E.Pogrebitsky, D. V. Lazurkin, L. I. Rovnin, D. S. Sorokov, V. E.Khain, B. V. Senin, E. V. Shipilov and A. N. Malishev (Seninet al. 1989; Bogdanov & Khain 1996; Rovnin 2004; Verba 2008;Grigorenko & Prishepa 2009). The most significant of these inputswere made by the scientific school of Academician I. S. Gramberg(Gramberg 1988; Gramberg et al. 1993, 2004; Gramberg &Pogrebitsky 1993; Salmanov et al. 1993; Gramberg & Suprunenko2000).

Geological knowledge of the Arctic is built upon studies in theislands and continents surrounding the Arctic Ocean, many ofwhich have spectacularly well exposed bedrock – vegetation-free,ice-scoured and exposed in mountains and fjord walls. Theseregions have recently been the subject of many, comprehensive,finely illustrated summaries of their geology. The following is alisting of some of these: Iceland – Sigmundsson et al. (2008);Greenland – Escher & Watt (1976), Henriksen et al. (2009),Henriksen (2008); Arctic Canada – Trettin (1991), Dixon(1996); Alaska – Plafker & Berg (1994), Miller et al. (2002);North Pacific realms – Nokleberg et al. (2001); Wrangel Island– Kos’ko et al. (1993); Franz Josef Land – Dibner (1998);Timan–Pechora – Nikonov et al. (2000); Svalbard – Harland(1997), Dallmann (1999); Norway – Spencer et al. (1984),Ramberg et al. (2008), Smelror et al. (2009).

Advancement of the geological knowledge of the Arctic calls forinternational cooperation. Examples of this are the production ofcomprehensive maps of the Arctic, notably by the Geological

From: Spencer, A. M., Embry, A. F., Gautier, D. L., Stoupakova, A. V. & Sørensen, K. (eds) Arctic Petroleum Geology. Geological Society, London, Memoirs,

35, 1–15. 0435-4052/11/$15.00 # The Geological Society of London 2011. DOI: 10.1144/M35.1

by guest on March 28, 2020http://mem.lyellcollection.org/Downloaded from

http://mem.lyellcollection.org/

Survey of Canada, which issued a 1:6 million geological map(Okulitch et al. 1989) and then a 1:5 million geological map(Harrison et al. 2008). Most recently, the USGS CARA workhas been based on another multi-institute compilation, the 1:6.7million map of sedimentary successions in the sedimentarybasins of the Arctic (Grantz et al. 2009; Grantz, Scott et al.).The new Arctic bathymetric map (Jakobsson et al. 2008) is thebasis for the map inside the front cover of this book. It isobvious from these maps that, despite difficult accessibility, theonshore geology of the Arctic is now well known, having beenfurthered by a century of work by government agencies and bythe fascination of the region to the exploratory mind, in whatmight be termed the ‘Nansen tradition’ (see Kristoffersen). Incontrast, only select parts of the Arctic marine realm are wellknown. Much of the Arctic remains beyond drilling or can bedrilled only at extreme cost, as demonstrated by thethree-icebreaker ACEX expedition to the Lomonosov Ridge inthe summer of 2006 (Moran et al. 2006), but there are now plansfor a dedicated Arctic Ocean drilling vessel (Thiede et al.).

How the book is organized

The memoir starts with several contributions having the Arctic inits entirety as their subject matter. These include the map ofGrantz, Scott et al. of Arctic sedimentary successions and theirtectonostratigraphic content, followed by two reconstructions:Lawver et al. of Palaeozoic palaeogeography and Golonka of

the palaeoenvironments of the present day Arctic land massesand their borders through Phanerozoic time. Two papers arebased on new Arctic maps of gravimetric and magnetic data result-ing from international collaborative efforts: Gaina et al. andSaltus et al. The latter discusses a topic which will be recurringin papers to follow: the tectonic interpretation of the AmerasiaBasin and its shelves which together with the areas covered bythe major polar ice sheets remain our planet’s ‘white spots’.Arctic resources that have already been found are dealt with byChew & Arbouille. The methods used in evaluating undiscoveredresources in CARA by the USGS are described by Charpentier &Gautier and the results are summarized by Gautier, Bird et al.Despite considerable uncertainty, there is a consensus that themajority of resources yet to be found (on an oil equivalent basis)occur within the Russian Exclusive Economic Zone. Thisbecomes evident from comparison of the USGS CARA assessmentwith that of the resource potential of the Russian Arctic describedby Kaminsky et al. and by Kontorovich et al. (see Table 1.1).

The remaining articles are grouped in relation to four geographi-cal regions (Fig. 1.1): Baltica, Siberia and its borders, Laurentia andthe Arctic Ocean Basin. The locations of the areas described in thesearticles are shown on the map inside the front cover of the book.

The Baltica-related contributions are concerned with theBarents Sea and the Timan–Pechora Basin. The latter’s economicsignificance derives from the Devonian ‘Domanik facies’, theoldest Phanerozoic petroleum system of the Arctic. The carbonatestrata containing both source rocks and reservoirs are described byBagrintseva et al. and by Klimenko et al. and the resource

Table 1.1. A comparison of the wildcat wells, discoveries, discovered resources and yet-to-find resource estimates for the regions of the Arctic

Region Area

(106 km6)

Wildcat

wells

Discoveries Total discovered recoverable

resources (3109 bbloe)

Estimates of mean,

unrisked, yet-to-find

recoverable resources of all

of the Assessment Units in

the region (3109 bbloe)

(Gautier et al.)

Estimates of most probable

yet-to-find recoverable

resources in the basins in

the region (3109 bbloe)

(Kontorovich et al.)

Oil Gas

Norwegian Sea 0.1 38 12 0.7 0.7 6

Barents Sea 1.4 4; 5; 2; 34; 54 50; 200

West (Norway) 0.4 80 25 0.5 1.5

East (Russia) 1.0 13 5 0.2 22.5

Svalbard 0.1 15 – – – –

Timan–Pechora 0.2 646 142 12.4 3.6 5; 3; 1 15

West Siberia and South Kara

Sea

0.7 426 92 22.0 226.3 10; 126 100

North Kara Sea 0.3 – – – – 9 20

Yenisey–Khatanga 0.4 28 16 0.1 3.4 24; 1

Lena–Anabar 0.2 13 4 Negl negl 5

Laptev Sea 0.8 – – – – 15; 9; 3 20

East Siberian Sea 0.3 – – – – 1; 4 5; 35

North Chukchi 0.2 – – – – 5

Siberian Passive Margin 0.2 – – – – 5

Arctic Alaska 0.5 317 61 23.1 6.8 14; 59; 4

Mackenzie Delta 0.1 196 59 1.4 1.8 13

Eagle PlainþNorthern

Interior Platform

0.2 114 8 Negl 0.1

Sverdrup Basin 0.3 108 20 0.5 2.5 1; 5

Canada Passive Margin 0.5 – – – – 9

North Greenland 0.1 – – – – 4; 5

West Greenland and Baffin

Bay

0.7 12 – – – 11; 22; 14; 14; 6

East Greenland 0.5 – – – – 21; 19; 4; 6; 2

Totals 7.8 2006 444 60.9 269.2

Sources for the information in Table 1.1: wells and discoveries from Chew & Arbouille (table 1); discovered resources from IHS (courtesy of K. Chew); yet-to-find

estimates from Gautier, Bird et al. (table 1) and Kontorovich et al. (table 2; converted to recoverable values using assumed recovery factors of 35% for oil and 70%

for gas). The probabilities associated with each of the estimates by Gautier, Bird et al. are shown on Figure 1.7. Note that each of the three data sources employs

different geographical areas for regions that they discuss. The wells, discoveries and discovered resources are north of 668N, but some of the yet-to-find estimates are for

areas that extend somewhat south of the Arctic Circle. Negl, negligible.

A. M. SPENCER ET AL.2



potential of the Timan–Pechora Basin is covered by Schenk.Regional, deep reflection, seismic lines covering the easternBarents Sea, the Kara Sea and the intervening Novaya Zemlyafold belt are described by Ivanova et al. and these regions arealso assessed geologically by Stoupakova et al. A contributionby Werner et al. similarly deals with the crustal structure acrossthe Arctic parts of both Baltica and West Siberia. The petroleumsystems of the Barents Sea region are comprehensively describedby Henriksen, Ryseth et al. Potential Triassic reservoir succes-sions in the NW of the Barents Sea are discussed by Høy &Lundschien who present good quality seismic sections illustratingthe increasing uplift of these strata towards the Svalbard–FranzJosef Land. Uplift in the Barents Sea is also the subject ofanother paper by Henriksen, Bjørnseth et al. Exploration hasinspired substantial optimism about petroleum potential of theeastern Barents Sea as indicated in the contributions by Kontoro-vich et al. and Khlebnikov et al. A summary of the USGS assess-ment of undiscovered resources in the east of the Barents Sea ispresented by Klett & Pitman.

Arctic Siberia covers large areas in which knowledge of the sub-surface geology is meagre: no offshore exploratory wells havebeen drilled between the Laptev Sea and Wrangel Island andseismic data are sparse, as noted by Kaminsky et al. The geologi-cal character of the islands in this region are therefore of particularimportance, as illustrated in the paper by Drachev, who uses thegeology of Wrangel Island and the New Siberian Islands, togetherwith that of the adjacent mainland areas, to paint a picture of theoffshore geology and likely petroleum systems in this little-knownregion. Supplementary views concerning this part of Russia are tobe found in Stoupokava et al. and in Grigorenko et al. The pet-roleum potential of the Laptev Sea region, with its impressive,active rift system, is the subject of the contribution by Kirilova-Pokrovskaya et al. while the chapter by Klett et al. presents theUSGS appraisal of the arctic parts of the onshore north and east

borders of the Siberian craton. Ivanova et al. deal with the geologi-cal structure of the southern Kara Sea and northern end of the WestSiberia Basin, an area with a huge perceived potential. The lack ofdata over large areas of Arctic Siberia leaves substantial gaps inunderstanding the regional tectonics of the eastern Arctic. Paperson this subject and wider problems of interpreting the tectonicsof the Arctic Ocean region are authored by Pease andLebedeva-Ivanova et al.

A section of Laurentia-related papers begins with contributionsby Creaney & Sullivan, who deal with the Phanerozoic evolutionin relation to petroleum, and Colpron & Nelson, who describe thePalaeozoic evolution of Laurentia. Kumar et al. present new deepseismic lines from the Chukchi Sea and Bird & Houseknechtdeal with the most thoroughly studied sector of Arctic petroleumgeology: Northern Alaska. These are followed by two chapterson the Beaufort passive margin by Houseknecht & Bird andHelwig et al. – with the latter paper including new deep seismiclines. The Sverdrup Basin is the subject of papers by Embry, byOmma et al. by Chen & Osadetz and by Dewing & Obermajer.Harrison et al. describe the Baffin fan which constitutes the thirdlargest Cenozoic delta of the Arctic after the MacKenzie Delta,which built into the southeastern part of the Canada Basin, andthe Lena Delta, which built into the Eurasia Basin. The petroleumpotential of the entire region between Canada and Greenlandhas been assessed by Schenk as part of the CARA work and thepetroleum exploration history of Greenland is described byChristiansen. The final Laurentian papers cover the most in-accessible parts of offshore Greenland: the NE Greenland shelfis discussed by Gautier, Stemmerik et al. and the Lincoln Seaby Sørensen et al.

The last group of papers addresses the Arctic Ocean basin.Historical views of the scientific exploration of the Arctic Oceanare presented by Kristoffersen and by Thiede et al., Marcussen& Macnab review current work by coastal states to extend their

Fig. 1.1. The four-fold grouping of the tectonic provinces of the Arctic: continental cores, sedimentary basins, oceanic realms and the North Pacific rim. The numerical

values in the legend boxes are the areas of the provinces in 106 km2. Based on Figure 1.2.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 3



Fig. 1.2. A simplified map of the tectonic provinces of the Arctic. Compiled mostly following Grantz et al. (2009) and Harrison et al. (2008). The outline of the oceanic

crust in the Canada Basin follows Alvey et al. (2008, fig. 6b). Sedimentary thicknesses in Siberia are from Petrov et al. (2008) and Milanovsky (2007).




Fig. 1.2. Continued.




offshore boundaries. Moore et al. assess the petroleum geologyand resource potential of the Lomonosov Ridge, a sliver of conti-nental crust that was split from Baltica and Siberia by the Cenozoicseafloor spreading that led to the formation of the Eurasia Basin.Moore & Pitman contemplate the petroleum potential of theAmundsen Basin itself. The last paper of the book, like the first,has Arthur Grantz, whose scientific endeavours in the Arcticspan more than four decades, as the first author. It is concernedwith the evolution of the Amerasia Basin. This basin and its bor-dering shelves remain the main challenge to our understandingof Arctic tectonics and geology.

Structure of the Arctic

The structure of the Arctic may be portrayed, as shown inFigures 1.1 and 1.2, in terms of four elements:

† North Pacific accretionary terrane collage and its successorbasins;

† oceanic basins and sedimentary prisms prograding onto thesebasins;

† long-lived sedimentary basins established on Phanerozoicsutures;

† continental cores with mainly neoProterozoic and LowerPalaeozoic platform cover and their sutured margins.

A main theme of Arctic geology is the assembly and disassemblyof the Pangea supercontinent through Caledonian–Hercynian–Uralian suturing events and subsequent rifting and seafloorspreading in the Arctic and Atlantic beginning about 200 Ma(Fig. 1.3). One might term this the Atlantic theme of Arcticgeology. A second theme is the long-lasting tectonic activity,going back at least to the late Palaeozoic, in the areas borderingthe northern Pacific rim, which have brought about the accretionto present day northeastern Siberia and northwestern NorthAmerica of a multitude of terranes with interleaved sedimentaryand magmatic rocks. Nokleberg et al. (2001) described this as a‘collage of accreted terranes’; their complexity is illustrated byColpron & Nelson. While accretion is mainly a destructiveprocess in relation to petroleum geology, the processes involvedin the dismembering of Pangea are mainly constructive in relationto the formation of hydrocarbon deposits. In other words, from apetroleum geology point of view, the main dividing lines in thestructure of the Arctic are not the present day plate boundariesbut the distinction between the North Pacific accretionarycollage (NPAC) and the rifted parts of the North American andEurasian plates.

The Caledonian, Ellesmerian and Uralian orogenies suturedthe Laurentian, Baltic and Siberian shields in Silurian throughlate Palaeozoic time but the three shields persist as the cratoniccores of the Arctic continents to the present day. Basins borderingthese continental cores are, in general, prospective for hydro-carbons.

By contrast, in the NPAC region, compressional tectonics led tothe formation of later orogenic belts: thus the Brooks Ranges inAlaska and the Verkhoyansk Fold Belt in NE Siberia formed dueto accretion of Chukotka and the Kolyma–Omolon superterranein Jurassic–Early Cretaceous times (Lawver et al. & Golonka).Young sedimentary basins occur in the NPAC region but are con-sidered relatively unprospective (Haimila et al. 1990). The uncer-tainty (Fig. 1.1) about the position of the boundary of the NPACregion between the Laptev Sea and Wrangel Island is a keyreason for uncertainty about the petroleum potential of the EastSiberian offshore.

Ocean-floor formation is well dated as spanning most of theCenozoic in the North Atlantic and the Eurasian part of theArctic Ocean. In the Amerasian part of the Arctic, rifting as a pre-cursor to ocean-floor spreading is inferred to have occurred duringthe earliest Jurassic, followed by ocean-floor spreading in the

mid-Early Cretaceous (Grantz, Hart & Childers). Borderingthe oceanic basins are progradational sedimentary wedges,which overlie long-lived basins on their continental side andoceanic crust on the other and thus represent a transition zonebetween the prospective shelf and the less prospective oceanicbasin. Three thick Cenozoic deltas – from the Lena and Mackenzierivers and in northern Baffin Bay – are in this zone. Other basinsin the zone can be glimpsed from the thickness contours onFigure 1.2 – north of Alaska and Siberia and west of the BarentsSea: these are the passive margin basins of Grantz et al. (2009).

Stratigraphy and geological history of the

sedimentary basins

The continental blocks projecting north of today’s Arctic Circletravelled far during the Phanerozoic under the names of Laurentia,Baltica and Siberia, as detailed by Lawver et al. and Golonka(Fig. 1.3). At the start of Phanerozoic time all lay south of theequator and all travelled northward throughout the Phanerozoic.The suturing of these initially independent blocks led first tothe merging of Laurentia and Baltica during Silurian continent–continent collision in the Caledonian Orogeny, lasting into theDevonian. The Ellesmerian Orogeny is currently interpreted toreflect terrane collision on northern Laurentia from Late Silurianto earliest Carboniferous (Lawver et al.; Colpron & Nelson),although the origin and nature of the colliding terranes is still

A Arctic Alaska

C Chukotka

T Tajmyr

Ocean crust

Sutured margin

Accreted/accreting terrane

Marine shelf and slope sedimentation

Baltica

Siberia

Laurentia

Petroliferous basin with this age source

North Pole

Plate boundary

Thrust faulting

?? ???? ?? ??

Late Devonian Middle Triassic

A A

A A T

T

CC

C

C

30° N

0° N

60° N

60° N

50° N

Middle Palaeogene Late Jurassic

Fig. 1.3. Maps of palaeogeography of the Arctic based on Golonka’s maps for

the Late Devonian, the Middle Triassic, the Late Jurassic and the Middle

Palaeogene, representing the times of deposition of some of the major Arctic

source rocks, and inspired by the work of Ulmishek & Klemme (1990). Jan

Golonka kindly supplied extended versions of some of the maps appearing in

Golonka.




speculative. During the Permian Siberia and Kazakhstan collidedwith Baltica, completing the assembly of Pangea. An outpouringof vast volumes of basalt (the Tunguska flood basalts) took placenear the Permian to Triassic boundary, covering the northernSiberian shield (Tunguska flood basalts) and areas now beneathadjacent basins (Nikishin et al. 2002).

Large sedimentary basins, of prime significance to petroleumexploration, developed on these intercontinental sutures throughextension and collapse of the former orogenic highlands that haddeveloped within the sutures. Thus, economic basement beneaththese basins is of Caledonian, Ellesmerian and Uralian ‘ages’.Simplified stratigraphies of the basins, where drilled, appear inFigures 1.4 and 1.5. From these sedimentary columns, a first con-clusion must be their general similarity. The Upper Palaeozoicsuccessions consist of intermixed carbonates and siliciclasticswith sporadic occurrences of evaporites. In contrast, the Mesozoicand Cenozoic successions consist almost entirely of siliciclastics,which locally include intervals of coal-bearing strata. Althoughnot shown on Figures 1.4 and 1.5, the Lower Palaeozoic succes-sions in Laurentia, Baltica and Siberia (Golonka) are also quitesimilar. We consider this similarity surprising, since the Phanero-zoic is a time span long enough for a continental block to travelwidely over the surface of the globe. Three blocks might thereforebe expected to exhibit both internally varying lithologies andstrong differences among them. Neither is realized. All threedisplay stratigraphic developments, namely warm water carbon-ates overlain by clastics deposited in temperate climates thatreflect simple travel paths from tropical to polar latitudes. The con-tribution of Golonka contains a remarkable set of facies maps thatdetail this depositional history for the Arctic continents throughPhanerozoic time.

The transition from carbonate to clastic deposition, caused bythe Phanerozoic drift of Laurentia, Baltica and Siberia awayfrom equatorial to high latitudes, occurred during the Permian.Passage through intermediate latitudes is witnessed by the depo-sition of thick and widespread evaporites on the margins of bothLaurentia and Baltica during the Carboniferous and Permian.Deposition of warm-water carbonates with stacked organic build-ups in Late Carboniferous–Early Permian was replaced by moreextensive siliciclastic sedimentation in both shallow- and deep-marine depositional environments on extensive marine rampsduring the Mid and Late Permian and Triassic. This effect was pro-nounced in the areas surrounding the Uralian suture, which becamea major source of siliciclastics to northern Siberia and Baltica.Conditions shifted towards a cold temperate climate during theMid–Late Permian as a result of which sponges dominatedthe shallow water biota, leading to widespread chert deposition(Beauchamp & Baud 2002).

The end of the Permian was characterized by widespread upliftfollowed by tectonic collapse which was responsible for a massiveoutpouring of flood basalts in northern Siberia and a rapid, marinetransgression beyond the former limits of the sedimentary basins inthis area (Metcalfe & Isozaki 2009). These catastrophic events andrelated environmental effects led to the major P–T (Permian–Triassic) faunal extinction events and ushered in a Mesozoicworld with new tectonic, depositional and climatic environments.Siliciclastic deposition was established in sedimentary basinsthroughout the Arctic at the start of the Triassic and continuedthroughout the Mesozoic and Cenozoic, providing rich sourcesof hydrocarbons (Fig. 1.3), as well as thick sandstone reservoirsto hold them.

Triassic geological evolution in the Arctic was strongly influ-enced by tectonic events in the adjacent fold belts. From LatePermian to Early Triassic time, the final phase of the UralianOrogeny provided a vast supply of sediments which are as muchas 5–7 km thick in the extensional basins and consist of nonmar-ine, near-shore and shallow marine environments. An EarlyTriassic rift episode is recorded in many parts of the Arctic andNorth-Atlantic regions and sediment supply in the Arctic was

high during this time. Following another episode of uplift and col-lapse at the close of the Early Triassic, siliciclastic sediment inputwas significantly reduced and the Middle Triassic is characterizedby the widespread development of phosphatic, organic-rich shalesfrom the Alaskan basins on the west to the Barents Sea area in theeast (Leith et al. 1993). Siliciclastic sedimentation increased inmany areas in the Late Triassic and the organic-rich faciesbecame much more limited in geographic extent (mainly westernSverdrup and northern Alaska).

The extensional basins established during Late Palaeozoic andthe Triassic continued to receive variable amounts of siliciclasticsthroughout the Jurassic and alternating sandstone-dominated andshale-siltstone sequences characterize the stratigraphy in allbasins across the Arctic. Organic-rich facies were restricted totimes and areas of low sediment input and occur mainly inAlaska and Siberia. Major transgressions occurred during theearly Toarcian, early Bajocian, early Oxfordian and early Titho-nian and shale units of these ages are present in all Arctic basins(Embry) and are often organic-rich and petroleum source rocks.Also during the Jurassic, as the continental blocks migratedfurther north, a distinct boreal fauna developed which had littlein common with the contemporary Tethyan fauna.

One of the more notable tectonic developments of the Jurassicwas the initiation and subsequent development of the AmerasiaRift Basin between what is now northern Alaska and Chukotka(Arctic Alaska plate) and the Canadian Arctic Archipelago(Lawver et al.). Little is known about these rift basins becausethey now lie beneath the thick continental terrace wedges on theshelves and slopes of the Amerasia ocean basin. Current data indi-cate that rifting began possibly as early as Sinemurian and no laterthan latest Aalenian, and continued until the start of seafloorspreading during the Hauterivian (Embry & Dixon 1994; Mickeyet al. 2002).

During the Cretaceous siliciclastic sediment delivery to theArctic basins intensified and was highest during the Early Cretac-eous. New basins were formed in both extensional and compres-sional regimes. Foreland basins developed in front of risingorogenic mountain ranges in the North Pacific accretionaryregion (e.g. the Colville Trough in front of the Brooks Range ofnorthern Alaska) and rift and ocean basins formed and/or contin-ued to develop in the Amerasia region as well as in Baffin Baybetween Canada and Greenland. Significant transgressions whichfollowed widespread uplift events occurred in the early Valangi-nian, early Barremian, late Aptian and in earliest Late Cretaceous.Early Cretaceous deltaic deposits dominate most of the Amerasiabasins and alternations of sand-rich delta plain and delta frontdeposits and shale-dominant prodelta and shelf strata arewidespread.

The second phase of seafloor spreading in the Amerasia Basin,which followed the creation of continent–ocean transitionalcrust during the Jurassic and Early Cretaceous, was the intrusionof a northerly trending belt of mid-ocean ridge basalts (MORB)into the central part of the Amerasia Basin in mid-Early Cretaceous(Hauterivian and Barremian) time (Grantz et al.). Intrusion of theMORB was followed by a huge outpouring of basalt related to theAlpha Plume and resulted in the formation of the 30 km thickAlpha and Mendeleyev ridges of the Amerasia Basin, as well aswidespread diabase dyke and sill emplacement in adjacent conti-nental areas (eastern Sverdrup Basin and northern Barents Sea,Buchan & Ernst 2006).

A brief interval of widespread uplift occurred at the Early toLate Cretaceous juncture and, following this tectonic episode,sediment supply was greatly reduced to both the extensional andforeland basins that surround the Arctic Basin. By Turoniantime the sea covered most of the Arctic and bituminous mudswere deposited in starved basins from Alaska to Siberia(Golonka). Sedimentation rates gradually recovered and mostbasins were receiving deltaic to basinal siliciclastics from Santo-nian through Maastrichtian time. Widespread uplift and associated




prominent regression brought the Mesozoic era to a close through-out the Arctic.

The Cenozoic saw a new tectonic regime over most of theArctic. Rifting and subsequent seafloor spreading took place inthe North Atlantic and extended into the Arctic, where it createdboth the Eurasian and Baffin Bay basins. Sedimentation ratesbecame high and large volumes of siliciclastic sediments werefunnelled into these Cenozoic extensional basins and also intothe Amerasia Basin. Exceptional thicknesses, perhaps exceeding15 km, are associated with the Mackenzie and Lena Deltas andthicknesses up to 10 km are common along the margins of mostof the oceanic basins (Grantz, Scott et al.). Compression anddeformation continued in the north-vergent North Pacific accre-tionary collage region. Mountainous uplift and associated forelandbasins developed in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago (EurekanOrogeny) and in the western Barents Sea (West Spitsbergen)areas in the Palaeogene due to compression and transpressionrelated to seafloor spreading in nearby areas (Fig. 1.2). Theseareas became uplifted by a kilometre or more in latest Palaeogeneto early Neogene time as compression continued (Henriksen,Bjørnseth et al.).

Major transgressions occurred in early Paleocene, early Eocene,late Eocene, earliest Oligocene, late Oligocene and earliestPliocene in the Beaufort–Mackenzie Basin in the SE corner ofthe Canada Basin (Dixon 1996). Most of these events followedepisodes of tectonic uplift and in some cases folding and faultingand they probably reflect tectonic extension and collapse of thebasin floors. The climate remained warm during much of thePaleocene and Eocene but started to cool in Oligocene times andcontinued to deteriorate throughout the Neogene, leading to the

alternating glacial/inter-glacial conditions which now character-ize the Arctic.

Petroleum geology

Exploration

The first exploratory drilling in the Arctic was government-sponsored and carried out for strategic reasons – on the southshore of the Laptev Sea in the 1930s and in northern Alaska in1944 (Chew & Arbouille). The first significant petroleumdiscoveries in onshore Arctic basins were made in the decadefrom 1960 to 1970: in the Eagle Plain, Sverdrup Basin and Mack-enzie Delta regions of Canada, in West Siberia, in Timan–Pechoraand in Arctic Alaska. The finds in West Siberia and Timan–Pechora extended existing prolific provinces northwards, but inAlaska the 1968 discovery of the supergiant Prudhoe Bay fieldopened a major new petroleum province.

Offshore drilling started later: in the Beaufort Sea in 1973, WestGreenland in 1976, the Barents Sea in 1980, the Pechora Sea in1982 and the Kara Sea in 1987. Discoveries in the Beaufort,Pechora and Kara seas extended proven petroleum provinces tothe north. In the Barents Sea new petroleum provinces were dis-covered: in the Norwegian sector, in the SW, in 1981 and in theRussian sector, where the super-giant Shtokman gas field wasfound in 1988. As a result of this exploration, there are now ninemain petroleum provinces containing a total of 444 discoveriesin the Arctic with total discovered recoverable resources of61 Bbbl of liquids and 269 Bbbloe of gas. Four provinces

Fig. 1.4. Stratigraphy of the well-known basins of the western Arctic. Principal sources: (a) Sherwood et al. (2002); (b) Moore et al. (1994) and Magoon et al. (2003); (c)

Norris & Hughes (1997) and Dixon (1982); (d) papers in Trettin (1991); (e) Stemmerik & Hakansson (1991) and Hakansson et al. (1991); (f) Birkelund & Perch-Nielsen

(1976); (g) Gregersen et al. (2007). For locations see Figure 1.2. The arrows on the left of some columns link source rocks to reservoirs to indicate proposed

petroleum systems.




dominate the resource picture: West Siberia – South Kara(22 Bbbl þ 226 Bbbloe), arctic Alaska (23 Bbblþ 7 Bbbloe),Barents Sea East (0.2 Bbblþ 23 Bbbloe), and Timan–Pechora(12 Bbblþ 4 Bbbloe) (Table 1.1).

Source rocks

Although a wide variety of potential source rocks, ranging in agefrom Proterozoic to Cenozoic, have been identified in the Arctic,most of the petroleum discovered to date – the proven petroleumsystems – is derived from a few narrowly defined stratigraphicintervals in the Devonian, Triassic and, especially, Jurassic.

On the Siberian craton, south of the Arctic Circle, giant oil fieldshave been sourced from Proterozoic strata. Chemometric analysisof biomarker and isotopic data (Peters et al. 2007) suggests that atleast four genetic families of oils are present; Upper Ripheansource rocks, particularly those of the Iremken Formationaccount for most of the known oil (Ulmishek 2001), includingaccumulations on the Baykit High.

Organic-rich, marine rocks of Devonian age were deposited onthe east margin of Baltica and the west margin of Laurentia, wherethey have sourced important oil-prone basins in front of the westside of the Urals and in western Canada. Oils in the Timan–Pechora Basin were probably sourced from the Late Devonian toEarly Carboniferous marine Domanik Formation (Ulmishek1982). In northern Laurentia the Ellesmerian orogeny has prob-ably destroyed most Devonian sources. Lacustrine shales withhigh TOC occur in Devonian strata onshore in northeasternGreenland (Christiansen et al. 1990) and the Upper Carboniferousstrata in central East Greenland and the Sverdrup Basincontains organic-rich lacustrine shales (Christiansen et al. 1990;

Piasecki et al. 1990). In eastern North Greenland, the UpperCarboniferous and Permian succession is fully marine with theolder units consisting of carbonates and evaporites (Stemmerik2000). During the later Permian, however, marine shales accumu-lated widely in East Greenland (Surlyk et al. 1986; Christiansenet al. 1993) and may serve as source rocks in the adjacent basinsoffshore. Late Permian marine black shales occur in severalwells in the western Barents Sea (Henriksen, Ryseth et al.).

Triassic source rocks are the most widespread in the Arctic.Middle and Late Triassic (Anisian–Carnian) marine shales withgood to excellent source potential and proven productivity occuralong the northern rim of Laurussia from Alaska to the BarentsSea (Leith et al. 1993). They were deposited at intermediatelatitudes within a huge back-arc embayment (Fig. 1.3), locatedbetween the landmasses of North America and Eurasia. The Trias-sic Shublik formation has generated most of the discovered oil innorthern Alaska (Peters et al. 2006), including most of the oil inthe geochemically mixed, supergiant, Prudhoe Bay Field, thelargest oil field north of the Arctic Circle. In the Sverdrup Basin,most if not all of the known petroleum accumulations are believedto be sourced from Middle to Late Triassic strata (Schei PointGroup), with lesser sources in rocks of Early and Late Jurassicage (Brooks et al. 1992). In the Barents Sea region, theTOC-rich, phosphatic, Middle Triassic Botneheia Formationcrops out on Spitsbergen and is believed to have sourced at leastsome oils in the Norwegian sector of the Barents Sea. In theRussian sector, equivalent rocks have been buried to greatdepths, which may explain the gas-prone quality of most discov-ered hydrocarbons in that area, outstanding among which is thesupergiant Shtokman gas field.

Upper Jurassic source rocks were deposited at higher latitudesthan the Triassic source rocks and in shallow basins far removed

Fig. 1.5. Stratigraphy of the well known basins of the eastern Arctic. Principal sources: (h) Nøttvedt et al. (1993); (i) Henriksen et al.; (j) Gramberg (1988); (k) Timonin

(1998), Schenk; (l) Gurari et al. (2005), Skorobogatov et al. (2003); (m) Pogrebitskiy (1971). For locations see Figure 1.2, and for explanations of symbols and

patterns see Figure 1.4. The arrows on the left of some columns link source rocks to reservoirs to indicate proposed petroleum systems.




from the North America/Eurasia embayment (Fig. 1.3). Upper Jur-assic marine shales are the principal source rocks for most of theoil and much gas in the main West Siberian Basin (Kontorovichet al. 1997). Seven oil families have been identified in these depos-its on the basis of geochemical signatures. More than 80% of theidentified oil was sourced from the Bazhenov Formation, anorganic-rich, siliceous and calcareous shale of Volgian to Berria-sian age, but the Middle Jurassic Tyumen Formation also contrib-uted (Kontorovich et al. 1991; Peters et al. 1993, 1994; Petrov1994). Upper Jurassic strata may also have been the source forhydrocarbons in other Siberian Basins, including the Yenisey–Khatanga Basin and as far east as the Laptev Sea. Significantoil and gas volumes in northern Alaska, including part of themixed petroleum deposits in the Prudhoe Bay Field were derivedfrom Upper Jurassic marine strata of the Kingak Shale (Peterset al. 2006).

Marine shales of Upper Jurassic age are also thought to havesourced most of the known petroleum in the Norwegian Sea.TOC-rich Upper Jurassic strata are also present throughoutmuch of the Barents Shelf, although they are only mature inrestricted areas. These beds sourced some of the oil and gas inthe Hammerfest Basin. Source rocks occuring in Upper Jurassicmarine shales in the Kimmeridge-clay equivalent HareelvFormation of northeastern Greenland, are postulated to extendoffshore and could provide a world-class source interval on thecontinental shelf.

Cretaceous and Cenozoic marine shales are known to havesourced petroleum systems in northern Alaska (Peters et al.2006) and source rocks of Palaeogene and Cretaceous ages gener-ated the oil and gas accumulations in the Mackenzie Delta. Marinestrata of Cretaceous age are postulated to be important, but as yetuntested, source rocks in the Alaskan Chukchi Sea. In Baffin Bay,Davis Strait and West Greenland, several potential petroleumsource rocks, including Palaeogene, Lower and Upper Cretaceousand Ordovician, have been suggested from geochemical data andgeological evidence. Oil seeps described from onshore westGreenland provide evidence that a petroleum system is or wasactive in that area (Christiansen & Pulvertaft 1994; Christiansenet al. 1996; Bojesen-Koefoed et al. 1999; Gregersen & Bidstrup2008). An oil seep offshore of Scott Inlet on Baffin Island(Balkwill et al. 1990) has been interpreted as most likely havinga marine shale source (Fowler et al. 2005) and the oil is interpretedto have been sourced from shales similar to the TOC-rich UpperCretaceous Kanguk Formation exposed on Ellesmere Island. Inthe western Barents Sea, Barremian organic-rich shales havebeen drilled (Henriksen, Ryseth et al.).

Finally we should mention the Azolla event. Drilling near theNorth Pole on the Lomonosov Ridge near the North Pole hasdemonstrated the existence of an organic-rich interval (Moranet al. 2006) within the Eocene section. The interval was createdby freshwater algal blooms during the warmest part of thePalaeogene, at a time when occasional isolation of the ArcticOcean is likely to have occurred before the tectonic opening ofthe Fram Strait.

Discovered petroleum systems

Nine main petroleum provinces are now known in the Arctic:the West Siberia–South Kara, Arctic Alaska, the East BarentsSea, Timan–Pechora, Yenisey–Khatanga, the Mackenzie Delta,Sverdrup Basin, the West Barents Sea and the NorwegianSea (Table 1.1). Together these contain 432 discoveries with reco-verable resources totalling 61 Bbbl liquidsþ 269 Bbbloe gas. Fourof these provinces dominate: West Siberia–South Kara, ArcticAlaska, East Barents Sea and Timan–Pechora. The followingparagraphs summarize the petroleum systems, reservoirs andplays of these nine provinces. According to Magoon & Dow(1994), petroleum systems should be linked to and named from

their source rock. In the Arctic, however, source rocks occur inabundance, being present in almost all systems from the Protero-zoic to the Palaeogene, which often creates uncertainty in deter-mining the petroleum system responsible for specific oil andgas deposits.

A Proterozoic petroleum system has resulted in giant oil and gasfinds in the Tunguska region of east Siberia (Klett et al.), but theselie about 1000 km south of the Arctic Circle. Major bitumen belts,however, probably from the same source rocks, also occur north ofthe Arctic Circle. These lie in Proterozoic and Palaeozoic rocks onthe margins of the Anabar Shield (Meyerhoff & Meyer 1987;Fig. 2).

The oldest petroleum system with conventional fields in theArctic, both in terms of the age of the sources and the timing ofgeneration, is in the Timan–Pechora province. There, 16 Bbbloeresources – principally oil – occur in 142 finds that include ninegiant fields (.0.5 Bbbloe). Reservoirs are Silurian to Permianshallow marine carbonates, sometimes reefal, and often fractured(Bagrintseva et al.) and Devonian and Permian sandstones. Thefields occur in belts of gentle anticlines and commonly consistof multiple, stacked hydrocarbon pools at depths ranging from 1to 4 km. The principal source is in Late Devonian strata butother source rocks range from the Ordovician to the Permian.Maturity was achieved by Carboniferous time (Klimenko et al.,Fig. 13.12). The anticlinal traps formed in the Permo-Triassic inresponse to Uralian orogeny to the east. The stacked hydrocarbonpools indicate kilometre-scale vertical migration, allowing themixing of hydrocarbons from different sources.

Arctic Alaska with resources of 30 Bbbloe is the mostprolific province sourced from Triassic rocks, but it also hadimportant source rocks of Jurassic and Cretaceous age (Bird &Houseknecht, Fig. 34.4). The resources occur in 61 discoveries;the largest is the supergiant Prudhoe Bay oil field (16 Bbbloe)but there are also seven other giant fields. The principal reservoirsare sandstones in the Triassic (200 m thick in the Prudhoe BayField) and the Lower Cretaceous. The fields occur in truncatedanticlines with gently sloping limbs on the Barrow Arch atdepths from 1 to 3 km. The arch is part of the Beaufort RiftShoulder, formed in Jurassic to early Cretaceous times in responseto the opening of the Canada Basin. Maturity of the Mesozoicsources was achieved in the foreland trough of the Brooks Rangeorogen as a result of sedimentary loading in Cretaceous to Palaeo-gene times. Long-distance northward migration of as much as200 km filled the traps on the Barrow Arch and allowed themixing of oils from the different sources.

The Sverdup Basin in the Canadian Arctic archipelago contains20 discoveries concentrated in the western part of the basin, withresources totalling 3 Bbbloe, predominantly gas. The sandstonereservoirs range from the Lower Triassic to the Cretaceous withthe most important being Upper Triassic to Lower Jurassic(Embry). Some fields have stacked pools (e.g. Hecla, withdepths that range from 500 to 1000 m and Whitefish with depthsthat range from 900 to 2000 m). The fields occur in anticlineswith gently dipping limbs which were present by Eocene times.Maximum burial was in Paleocene times, after which there hasbeen kilometre scale uplift. Middle to Upper Triassic strata arecommonly considered the main source rock, but an analysis byDewing & Obermajer suggests they are not gas-mature in thearea of the gas fields, implying a deeper source rock.

In the East Barents Sea five discoveries have total resources of23 Bbbloe, almost all gas. There is one supergiant field (Shtokma-novskoye, 21 Bbbloe) and two giant fields. The sandstone reser-voirs are mainly Upper to Middle Jurassic, but gas also occurs inTriassic reservoirs. The traps are gentle domes with a field areaof 1200 km2 at Shtokmanovskoye, where the approximately50 m-thick Middle Jurassic main reservoir contains a gas columnof approximately 150 m at a depth of 2100 m. This field is in thecentre of the basin where the total sedimentary column is 15 kmthick. Presumed Triassic marine source rocks have achieved gas




maturity over wide areas and are the most likely sourcing candi-date. Neogene uplift in the east Barents Sea amounted to0.5–1 km (Henriksen, Bjørnseth et al., Fig. 17.10). In the WestBarents Sea, the Goliat Field has some oil in a Triassic sandstonereservoir that is considered to have been sourced from Triassicmarine strata (Ohm et al. 2008) and a Triassic-sourced petroleumsystem may be widespread there also (Henriksen, Ryseth et al.Fig. 10.30).

In the West Barents Sea the total discovered resources amount to2 Bbbloe, mostly as gas in the Hammerfest Basin, probablysourced from both Upper Jurassic and Middle Triassic marineshales. The largest gas field in the basin, Snøhvit (0.7 Bbbloe), isreservoired in Lower–Middle Jurassic sandstones at a depth of2300 m, but porosities are low (12–18%). The trap is a late Juras-sic fault block and oil staining extends for 100 m below the thin oilleg. The widespread Neogene uplift of the western Barents Searegion, amounting to 1–2 km has had an important effect uponthe petroleum geology (Henriksen et al.) by giving low reservoirporosities at shallow depths, terminating generation from sourcerocks and leading to the re-distribution of hydrocarbons, as evi-denced by the numerous residual oil columns encountered.

The Norwegian Sea north of 668N contains 12 discoveries withresources totalling 1.4 Bbbloe. The one giant field – the Norneoilfield (0.7 Bbbloe) – is reservoired in Lower and MiddleJurassic sandstones in a Late Jurassic fault trap at 2500 m depthand was sourced from the Upper Jurassic marine shale. Thisshale is the predominant source rock for this mid-Norwegianpetroleum province. To the west and NW scattered gas finds inCretaceous reservoirs occur in a region where the Upper Jurassicsource is so deep that either re-migration or a shallower sourcerock is implied.

In West Siberia and the South Kara Sea, north of 668N, ninesupergiant fields, 31 giants and 52 other discoveries contain totalresources of almost 250 Bbbloe, 90% of which is gas. Sourcing

of these vast amounts of gas remains a matter of dispute (Fjellangeret al. 2010). Contributions from different sources are likely:especially from coaly Cretaceous strata and coaly Lower–Middle Jurassic strata; possibly from Upper Jurassic marineshales; and some gas may be of biogenic origin. The traps are anti-clines with gently dipping limbs and huge extent. The largest field(Urengoy, 68 Bbbloe) extends over 2400 km2. Also, the fieldscontain many stacked pools from depths of 1000 to 4000 m, insandstone reservoirs ranging from Turonian to Lower Jurassic.The most important reservoirs are thick fluvial–deltaic sandstonesof the Albian–Cenomanian Pokur Formation. The combination ofmultiple sources with multiple, thick reservoirs and anticlines withextensive, gentle closures created the most prolific hydrocarbonprovince in the Arctic (Table 1.1).

The youngest proven petroleum system in the Arctic occursin the Mackenzie Delta. In the south, onshore, hydrocarbonsoccur in Cretaceous and Jurassic sandstones that were sourcedfrom Jurassic strata (Parsons Lake Field). Off-shore, to the northmost fields are reservoired in Upper Cretaceous or Palaeogenesandstones and their hydrocarbons were sourced in Upper Cretac-eous or Palaeogene rocks. The total discovered resources in the59 discoveries amount to 3.2 Bbbloe, a little more than half ofwhich is gas. There are no giant fields in the Mackenzie Delta.The largest is the Taglu gas field with resources of 0.4 Bbbloe.Fields have stacked pools and occur in closures associated withgrowth faults.

Future petroleum provinces

The area of the Arctic north of the Polar Circle totalsc. 21 � 106 km2 and sedimentary basins underlie almost 40% ofthis area (Fig. 1.1). Of the total area of sedimentary basins(c. 8 � 106 km2) there are discoveries in 15%, dry wells in 10%,

160180

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

64

70

80

70

64

80

Arctic Circle

Seismic grids,no wellsSparse seismic lines

0.7

2.2

0.4

0.8

3.3

0.4

0.4

25%

25%

50%

No seismic

Wells, no discoveries

Few discoveries

Many discoveries

Oil & gas fields

Cumulative area, 106 km2

0 1000 km

Fig. 1.6. An outline of the intensity of petroleum exploration in the Arctic.




seismic coverage but no wells in 50% and no seismic data in 25%(Fig. 1.6). Much of the Arctic is unexplored.

The USGS CARA project (Gautier, Bird et al.) estimated thatfor the Arctic as a whole the yet-to-find resources (mean, risked,recoverable) in the 48 (of 69) evaluated assessment units (AU)will total 90 Bbbl oilþ 279 Bbbloe gas. Eleven regions, contain-ing 30 AUs, have large mean, risked resources (Bbbloe): WestSiberia–South Kara, 136; Arctic Alaska, 73; East Barents Sea,c. 61; East Greenland, c. 34; Yenisei–Khatanga, 25; WestGreenland, c. 25; Laptev Sea, c. 15; Mackenzie Delta, 13;Timan–Pechora, c. 8; West Barents Sea, c. 8; and the NorwegianSea, 6 (Fig. 1.7). Note that eight of these 11 regions are provenhydrocarbon provinces; the three ‘new’ provinces are East andWest Greenland and the Laptev Sea. The remaining 18 evaluatedAUs are almost all ‘new’ provinces and all of them have meanrisked yet-to-find resources smaller than 5 Bbbloe. The leastunderstood of the 48 evaluated AU’s in the Arctic are the six pro-graded continental margin wedges that lie west and north of theBarents Sea and north of Siberia, Alaska and Canada.

The estimates by Kontorovich et al. are similar in ranking theyet-to-find resources of the South Kara Sea and East Barents Seahigh, but they are more optimistic about the offshore regionsnorth of Siberia than the USGS CARA estimates (Fig. 1.7).

The thick and complete sedimentary columns present in manybasins in the Arctic, plus widespread presence of Palaeozoic andmultiple Mesozoic source rocks suggest that numerous petroleumsystems remain undiscovered. Figure 1.8 attempts to portray this instratigraphic form. Proven Triassic- and Jurassic-sourced pet-roleum systems are the most prolific, but several areas may have

new potential. Undiscovered Cretaceous and Cenozoic petroleumsystems could be present in many areas.

State of knowledge

When in 2004 the three-icebreaker expedition ACEX set out todrill the Lomonosov Ridge near the North Pole, it had a strongscientific rationale, as expressed in the mission proposal(Backman et al. 2002) abstract:

The ridge was rifted from the Kara/Barents shelves during early Palaeogenetime and subsequently subsided to its present water depth. Since that timesediments of biogenic origin, eolian and ice-rafted origin have accumulatedon the ridge crest. In our primary target area between 878N and 888N thesesediments are about 450 m thick, indicating an average rate of sedimentationof c. 10 m/m.y. throughout the course of the Cenozoic.

Disappointingly, for reasons yet to be understood, the sequenceturned out to lack sediments of Middle Eocene to Early Mioceneage representing a lacuna of c. 25 Ma, thus illustrating lucidlywhat is the main challenge to the bringing forward understandingof the petroleum geology of the Arctic, namely insufficient strati-graphic information.

Further adventure into the Arctic along the track pioneered bythe ACEX expedition (Moran et al. 2006) might be realizationof the vision of Thiede et al. of a dedicated Arctic drillship andinnovative geophysical exploration techniques, as described forexample by Kristoffersen. Exploration by energy companiesbeyond the shore and near-shore Arctic environment is not likelyto expand our basic knowledge of Arctic geology at an appreciable

50

5

35

200100

20

20

15

Arctic CircleArctic Circle

3

248

2

3

3

30

23

16

1.4

10 / 1

54 / 0,5

34 / 1

9 / 0,5

5 / 14 / 0,36

5 / 1

24 / 1

126 / 1

2 / 0,49

5 / 0,25

9 / 0,54

5 / 0,22

59 / 1

14 / 0,28

5 / 0,42 15 / 0,54

14 / 1

5 / 0,24

9 / 0,43

6 / 1

4 / 0,29

2 / 0,14

14 / 0,3

6 / 0,5

3 / 0,4

11 / 0,25

1 / 1

13 / 1 1 / 0,22

22 / 0,5

4 / 0,54

3 / 0,54

3 / 0,43

6 / 0,26

1 / 0,5

2 / 0,4

5 / 0,22

4 / 0,5

21 / 0,65

5 / 0,46

4 / 0,49

1 / 0,5

2 / 0,29

19 / 0,72

1 / 1

0 1000 km

Total discoveredrecoverable resourcesin petroleum province(Bbbloe)

Oil & Gas Fields 16

DISCOVERED RESOURCES YET-TO-FIND RESOURCES

Kontorovich et al. 2011

Unrisked recoverable resources in basin (Bbbloe)

20126 / 0.50

Gautier, Bird et al. 2011Mean unrisked recoverableresources in assement unit (Bbbloe)/Estimated probability

180

00

180

Fig. 1.7. Discovered and yet-to-find petroleum resources of the Arctic (sources in Table 1.1). The left map shows the Assessment Units of Gautier, Bird et al. (yellow

regions outlined in red). The right map shows the regions assessed by Kontorovich et al. Bbbloe, billion barrels oil equivalent.




rate because much of the data thus obtained may not be sharedwith the scientific community. Energy companies and the Arcticnations should therefore consider joining efforts with the scientificcommunity in exploring the Arctic and extending basic dataacquisition into areas of which we presently know very little. Asdemonstrated by the ACEX expedition, seismic acquisitioncannot stand alone: stratigraphic information is needed to ground-truth seismic data.

This introduction benefited from reviews by A. Grantz, G. Ulmishek, K. Chew,

E. Henriksen, G. B. Larssen, E. Johannessen, E. Bjerkebæk and C. Cooper. The

drawings were prepared by A. Hanssen, N. Ringset and E. Tjetland in Statoil

and by E. Melskens, H. K. Petersen and W. Weng in GEUS. Spencer wishes to

thank Statoil for permission to publish. Sørensen publishes with permission by

the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS). Embry publishes

with permission by the Geological Survey of Canada. We all thank our host insti-

tutions for their support of this work.

References

Alvey, A., Gaina, C., Kuznir, N. J. & Torsvik, T. H. 2008. Integratedcrustal thickness mapping and plate reconstruction for the highArctic. Earth & Planetary Science Letters, 274, 310–321.

Backman, J., Bogdanov, N. et al. 2002. Paleoceanographic and Tec-tonic Evolution of the Central Arctic Ocean. An iSAS/IODP Propo-sal. http://www.eso.ecord.org/expeditions/302.

Balkwill, H. R., McMillan, N. J., MacLean, B., Williams, G. L. &Srivastava, S. P. 1990. Geology of the Labrador Shelf, Baffin Bay,and Davis Strait. In: Keen, M. J. & Williams, G. L. (eds) Geologyof the Continental Margins of Eastern Canada. Geology of Canada.Geological Survey of Canada, Alberta, 2, 293–348.

Beauchamp, B. & Baud, A. 2002. Growth and demise of Permianbiogenic chert along northwest Pangea: evidence for end-Permiancollapse of thermohaline circulation. Palaeogeography, Palaeo-climatology, Palaeoecology, 184, 37–63.

Birkelund, T. & Perch-Nielsen, K. 1976. Late Paleozoic–Mesozoicevolution of central East Greenland. In: Escher, A. & Watt, W. S.(eds) Geology of Greenland. Geological Survey of Greenland,Copenhagen, 305–339.

Bogdanov, N. A. & Khain, V. E. (eds) 1996. Tectonic Map of the BarentsSea and Northern Part of European Russia. Institute of Lithosphere

of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Scale 1:2.5 mio; 2 sheets.Moscow.

Bojesen-Koefoed, J. A., Christiansen, F. G., Nytoft, H. P. & Peder-

sen, A. K. 1999. Oil seepage onshore West Greenland: evidence ofmultiple source rocks and oil mixing. In: Fleet, A. J. & Boldy,S. A. R. (eds) Petroleum Geology of Northwest Europe: Proceedingsof the 5’th Conference. Geological Society, London, 305–314.

Brooks, P. W., Embry, A. F., Goodarzi, F. & Stewart, R. 1992.Organic geochemistry and biological marker geochemistry of ScheiPoint Group (Triassic) and recovered oils from the Sverdrup Basin(Arctic Islands, Canada). Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology,40, 173–187.

Buchan, K. & Ernst, R. 2006. Giant dyke swarms and the reconstructionof the Canadian Arctic islands, Greenland, Svalbard and Franz JosefLand. In: Hanski, E., Mertanen, S., Ramo, T. & Vuollo, J. (eds)Dyke Swarms – Time Markers of Crustal Evolution. Taylor &Francis, London, 27–42.

Christiansen, F. G. & Pulvertaft, T. C. R. 1994. Petroleum-geologicalactivities in 1993: oil source rocks the dominant theme of the season’sfield programme. Rapport Grønlands Geologiske Undersøgelse, 160,52–56.

Christiansen, F. G., Olsen, H., Piasecki, S. & Stemmerik, L. 1990.Organic geochemistry of Late Palaeozoic lacustrine shales in EastGreenland. Organic Geochemistry, 16, 287–294.

Christiansen, F. G., Piasecki, S., Stemmerik, L. & Telnæs, N. 1993.Depositional environment and organic geochemistry of the UpperPermian Ravnefjeld Formation source rock in East Greenland.American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 77,1519–1537.

Christiansen, F. G., Bojesen-Kofoed, J. et al. 1996. The Marraat oildiscovery on Nuussuaq, West Greenland: evidence for a latestCretaceous – earliest Tertiary oil source rock in the Labrador Sea–Melville Bay region. Bulletin Canadian Society of PetroleumGeology, 44, 39–54.

Dallmann, W. K. (ed.) 1999. Lithostratigraphic Lexicon of Svalbard.Norsk Polarinstitutt, Tromsø.

Dibner, V. D. 1998. Geology of Franz Josef Land. Norsk Polarinstitutt,146, 190.

Dixon, J. 1982. Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous subsurface Stratigraphyof the Mackenzie Delta–Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula, N.W.T. GeologicalSurvey of Canada, Alberta, Bulletins, 349.

Dixon, J. (ed.) 1996. Geological Atlas of the Beaufort–MacKenzie Area.Geological Survey of Canada, Alberta, Miscellaneous Reports, 59.

Cen

ozoi

cC

reta

ceou

sJu

rass

icT

riass

icP

alae

ozoi

c

Petroleum Systems

Stratigraphy

Proven: minor(<10 Bbbloe discovered)

Some evidence?

Proven: major(>10 Bbbloe discovered)

? Possible

Known

N. Chu

kchi

Bas

in

US Chu

kchi

Sea

Alask

a Nor

th S

lope

Mac

kenz

ie D

elta

Sver

drup

Bas

inN. B

affin

Bay

W. G

reen

land

NE G

reen

land

Mid

Nor

way

SW B

aren

ts S

eaSE

Bar

ents

Sea

Tim

an -

Pech

ora

S. K

ara

Sea

Yeni

sei -

Khata

nga

N. Kar

a Se

a

Lapt

ev S

eaE.

Sib

eria

n Se

a

?

??

??

??

??

?

?

? ?

?

??

Fig. 1.8. A stratigraphic diagram to illustrate the

proven and possible petroleum systems of selected

regions of the Arctic. Solid columns (yellow,

green) show the known or likely extent of the

stratigraphic columns. Black question marks

indicate that occurrence of strata of those ages is

possible. The stratigraphic intervals coloured dark

green (in five intervals) or light green (in 10

intervals) are known to have sourced proven

petroleum systems. Green question marks (six

intervals) indicate possible source rock ages for

known discoveries. Many of the yellow intervals

could contain source rocks which, if mature, could

have given rise to petroleum systems that have not

yet been discovered, especially in those regions

where there are no exploration wells (North Baffin

Bay, NE Greenland, North Kara Sea, Laptev

Sea, East Siberian Sea, North Chukchi Basin) or

only few exploration wells (US Chukchi Sea, West

Greenland, East Barents Sea). In these undrilled, or

little drilled, regions there is thus the potential for

Palaeozoic petroleum systems in five regions; for

Triassic petroleum systems in three regions; for

Jurassic petroleum systems in six regions; for

Cretaceous petroleum systems in nine regions; and

for Cenozoic petroleum systems in seven regions.



http://www.eso.ecord.org/expeditions/302

http://www.eso.ecord.org/expeditions/302


Eardley, A. J. 1961. History of geologic thought on the origin of theArctic basin. In: Raasch, G. O. (ed.) Geology of the Arctic. Univer-sity of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1, 607–621.

Embry, A. F. & Balkwill, H. R. 1982. Arctic geology and geophysics.In: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on ArcticGeology. Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists, Alberta,Memoirs, 8.

Embry, A. F. & Dixon, J. 1994. The age of the Amerasia Basin. In: Thur-

ston, D. K. & Fujita, K. (eds) 1992 Proceedings, InternationalConference on Arctic Margins. United States Mineral ManagementService Report no. 94-0040, 289–295.

Escher, A. & Watt, W. S. (eds) 1976. Geology of Greenland. GrønlandsGeologiske Undersøgelse, Copenhagen.

Fjellanger, E., Kontorovich, A. E., Barboza, S. A., Burshtein, L. M.,Hardy, M. J. & Livshits, V. R. 2010. Charging the giant gas fields ofthe NW Siberia basin. In: Vining, B. A. & Pickering, S. C. (eds)Petroleum Geology: from Mature Basins to New Frontiers –Proceedings of the 7th Petroleum Geology Conference. GeologicalSociety, London, 659–668.

Fowler, M., Stasiuk, L. & Avery, M. 2005. Potential petroleum systemsin the Labrador Sea and Baffin shelf areas, offshore northeasternCanada. (abs.) In: Organic Geochemistry: Challenges for the 21stCentury. Seville, Spain, 22nd International Meeting on Organic Geo-chemistry, European Association of Organic Geochemists, 463–464.

Gautier, D., Bird, K. J. et al. 2009. Assessment of Undiscovered Oiland Gas in the Arctic. Science, 324, 1175–1179.

Gramberg, I. S. (ed.) 1988. Barents Shelf Plate. VNIIOkeangeologiya.Leningrad, Nedra.

Gramberg, I. S. & Pogrebitsky, Yu. E. 1993. Geodynamic system, deepstructure and evolution of the Arctic Ocean. In: Gramberg, I. S. (ed.)Evolution of the Geological Process in the Earth. Nauka, Moscow.146–157 (in Russian).

Gramberg, I. S. & Suprunenko, O. I. 2000. Arctic shelf – the future ofthe oil and gas industry of Russia. In: Arctic is on the Threshold of theThird Millennium. Potential Resources and Ecological Challenges.Nauka, Saint Petersburg, 133–144 (in Russian).

Gramberg, I. S., Karasik, A. M., Krasilshchikov, A. A., Pogrebitsky,Yu. E., Sorokov, D. S. & Yashin, D. S. (eds) 1984. Arctic Geology.27th International Geological Congress, Colloquim 04, Reports, 4.Nauka, Moscow.

Gramberg, I. S., Sorokov, D. S. & Suprunenko, O. I. 1993. Oil and gasresources of the Russian shelf. Exploration and Protection of theDepth, 10. 8 (in Russian).

Gramberg, I. S., Ivanov, V. L. & Pogrebitskiy, Ju. E. (eds) 2004.Geology and Mineral Deposits of Russia. Book 5. Arctic Seas.VSEGEI, St Petersburg (in Russian).

Grantz, A., Johnson, L. & Sweeney, J. F. (eds) 1990. The Arctic OceanRegion. The Geology of North America, L. Geological Society ofAmerica, Boulder, CO.

Grantz, A., Scott, R. A., Drachev, S. S. & Moore, T. E. 2009. MapsShowing the Sedimentary Successions of the Arctic Region (588–648to 908N) that may be Prospective for Hydrocarbons. AmericanAssociation of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK, GIS-UDRIL Open-File Spatial Library. World Wide Web Address: http://gisudril.aapg.org/gisdemo/.

Gregersen, U. & Bidstrup, T. 2008. Structures and hydrocarbon pro-spectivity in the northern Davis Strait area, offshore West Greenland.Petroleum Geoscience, 14, 151–166.

Gregersen, U., Bidstrup, T., Bojesen-Koefoed, J. A., Christiansen,F. G., Dalhoff, F. & Sønderholm, M. 2007. Petroleum systemsand structures offshore central West Greenland: implications forhydrocarbon prospectivity. Geological Survey of Denmark andGreenland Bulletin, 13, 25–28.

Grigorenko, Yu. N. & Prishepa, O. M. (eds) 2009. Hydrocarbon Poten-tial of the North-Western and Eastern regions of Russia. Nedra, SaintPetersburg, 271 (in Russian).

Gurari, F. G., Devyatov, V. P. & Demin, V. I. (eds) 2005. GeologicalStructure and Oil and Gas Potential of the Lower–Middle Jurassicin the West Siberia. Novosibirsk, Nauka (in Russian).

Haimila, N. E., Kirschner, C. E., Nassichuk, W. W., Ulmishek, G. &Procter, R. M. 1990. Sedimentary basins and their petroleumresource potential of the Arctic Ocean region. In: Grantz, A.,

Johnson, L. & Sweeney, J. F. (eds) 1990. The Arctic OceanRegion. The Geology of North America, L. Geological Society ofAmerica, Boulder, CO, 503–538.

Hakansson, E., Heinberg, C. & Stemmerik, L. 1991. Mesozoic andCenozoic history of the Wandel Sea Basin area, North Greenland.In: Peel, J. S. & Sønderholm, M. (eds) Sedimentary Basins ofNorth Greenland. Grønlands geologiske Undersøgelse, Bulletins,160, 153–164.

Harland, W. B. 1997. The Geology of Svalbard. Geological Society,London, Memoirs, 17.

Harrison, J. C., St-Onge, M. R. et al. 2008. Geological Map of theArctic. 1:5 million. Geological Survey of Canada, Alberta, OpenFile 5816.

Henriksen, N. 2008. Geological history of Greenland. Four Billion Yearsof Earth Evolution. Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland,Copenhagen.

Henriksen, N., Higgins, A. K., Kalsbeek, F. & Pulvertaft, T. C. R.2009. Greenland from Archaen to Quaternary. Descriptive Textto the Geological Map of Greenland. 1:2.5 million, 2nd edn.Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Copenhagen,Bulletins, 18.

Jakobsson, M., Macnab, R. et al. 2008. An improved bathymetricportrayal of the Arctic Ocean: Implications for ocean modeling andgeological, geophysical and oceanographic analyses. GeophysicalResearch Letters, 35, L07602. doi: 10.1029/2008GL033520.

Kontorovich, A. E., Moskvin, V. I. et al. 1997. Main oil sourceformations of the West Siberian basin. Petroleum Geoscience, 3,343–358.

Kontorovich, A. E., Peters, K. E. et al. 1991. Hydrocarbon bio-markers in oils of the Middle Ob region. Geologiya i Geofizika, 32,3–34.

Kos’ko, M. K., Cecile, M. P., Harrison, J. C., Ganelin, V. G., Khan-

doshko, N. V. & Lopatin, B. G. 1993. Geology of Wrangel Island,between Chukchi and East Siberian Seas, Northeastern Russia.Geological Survey of Canada, Alberta, Bulletins, 461.

Leith, T. L., Weiss, H. M. et al. 1993. Mesozoic hydrocarbonsource-rocks of the Arctic region. In: Vorren, T. O., Bergsager,E. et al. (eds) Arctic Geology and Petroleum Potential. Elsevier,Amsterdam, Norwegian Petroleum Society, Special Publications, 2,1–25.

Magoon, L. B. & Dow, W. G. 1994. The petroleum system. In: Magoon,L. B. & Dow, W. G. (eds) The Petroleum System – from Source toTrap. Memoirs of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,60, 3–24.

Magoon, L. B., Lillis, P. G., Bird, K. J., Lampe, C. & Peters, K. E.2003. Alaskan North Slope Petroleum Systems. US GeologicalSurvey, Reston, VA, Open-File Report 03-324.

Metcalfe, I. & Isozaki, Y. 2009. Current perspectives on the Permian–Triassic boundary and end-Permian. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences,36, 407–412.

Meyerhoff, A. A. 1982. Hydrocarbon resources in Arctic and Subarcticregions. In: Embry, A. F. & Balkwill, H. R. (eds) Arctic Geologyand Geophysics. Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists,Alberta, Memoirs, 8, 451–552.

Meyerhoff, A. A. & Meyer, R. F. 1987. Geology of heavy crude oil andnatural bitumen in the USSR, Mongolia and China. In: Meyer, R. F.(ed.) Exploration for Heavy Crude Oil and Natural Bitumen. AAPGStudies in Geology. American Association of Petroleum Geologists,Tulsa, OK, 25, 31–101.

Meyerhoff, H. A. & Meyerhoff, A. A. 1973. Arctic geopolitics. In:Pitcher, M. G. (ed.) Arctic geology. American Association ofPetroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK, Memoirs, 19, 646–670.

Mickey, M. B., Byrnes, A. P. & Haga, H. 2002. Biostratigraphic evi-dence for the pre-rift position of the North Slope, Alaska, andArctic Islands, Canada and Sinemurian incipient rifting of theCanada Basin. In: Miller, E. L., Grantz, A. & Klemperer, S. L.(eds) Tectonic Evolution of the Bering–Chukchi–Arctic Marginand Adjacent Landmasses. Geological Society of America,Boulder, CO, Special Papers, 360, 67–76.

Milanovsky, E. E. (ed.) 2007. Tectonic Map, Russia and SurroundingTerritories and Seas. 1:4 million. Cartographia, Moscow (inRussian).



http://gisudril.aapg.org/gisdemo/




Miller, E. L., Grantz, A. & Klemperer, S. L. (eds) 2002. TectonicEvolution of the Bering Shelf–Chukchi Sea–Arctic Margin and Adja-cent Land Masses. Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO,Special Papers, 360.

Moore, T. E., Wallace, W. K., Bird, K. J., Karl, S. M., Mull, C. G. &Dillon, J. T. 1994. Geology of Northern Alaska. In: Plafker, G. &Berg, H. C. (eds) The Geology of Alaska. Geology of North America,G-1. Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, 49–140.

Moran, K., Blackman, J. et al. 2006. The Cenozoic paleo environmentof the Arctic Ocean. Nature, 441, 624–628.

Nairn, A. E. M., Churkin, M., Jr. & Stehli, F. G. (eds) 1981. The ArcticOcean. The Ocean Basins and Margins, 5. Plenum Press, New York.

Nikishin, A. M., Ziegler, P. A., Abbott, D., Brunet, M.-F. &Cloetingh, S. 2002. Permo-Triassic intraplate magmatism andrifting in Eurasia: Implications for mantle plumes and mantledynamics. Tectonophysics, 351, 3–39.

Nikonov, N. I., Bogatzki, V. I. et al. 2000. The Timan–Pechora Sedi-mentary Basin. Atlas of Geological (Lithofacies, Structural andPalaeogeographical) Maps. Timan–Pechora Scientific ResearchCentre, Ukhta (in Russian).

Nokleberg, W. J., Parfenov, L. M. et al. 2001. Phanerozoic TectonicEvolution of the Circum-North Pacific. US Geological Survey,Reston, VA, Professional Papers, 1626.

Norris, D. K. & Hughes, O. L. 1997. Mineral and Hydrocarbon Potential.In: Norris, D. K. (ed.) Geology and Mineral and HydrocarbonPotential of Northern Yukon Territory and Northwestern District ofMackenzie. Geological Survey of Canada, Alberta, Bulletins, 422,369–396.

Nøttvedt, A., Livbjerg, F., Midbøe, P. S. & Rasmussen, E. 1993.Hydrocarbon potential of the Central Spitsbergen Basin. In:Vorren, T. O., Bergsager, E. et al. (eds) Arctic Geology and Pet-roleum Potential. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Norwegian PetroleumSociety Special Publications, 2, 333–361.

Ohm, S. E., Karlsen, D. E. & Austin, T. J. F. 2008. Geochemicallydriven exploration models in uplifted areas: examples from the Nor-wegian Barents Sea. American Association of Petroleum GeologistsBulletin, 92, 1191–1223.

Okulitch, A. V., Lopatin, B. G. & Jackson, H. R. 1989. CircumpolarGeological Map of the Arctic. 1:6 million. Geological Survey ofCanada, Ottawa, Map 1765A.

Peters, K. E., Kontorovich, A. E. et al. 1993. Geochemistry of selectedoils and rocks from the central portion of the West Siberian basin,Russia. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 77,863–887.

Peters, K. E., Kontorovich, A. E., Huiozinga, B. J., Moldowan, J. M.& Lee, C. Y. 1994. Multiple oil families in the West Siberian basin.American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 78,893–909.

Peters, K. E., Magoon, L. B., Bird, K. J., Valin, Z. C. & Keller, M. A.2006. North Slope, Alaska: source rock distribution, richness, thermalmaturity, and petroleum charge. American Association of PetroleumGeologists Bulletin, 90, 261–292.

Peters, K. E., Ramos, L. S., Zumberge, J. E., Scotese, C. R. & Gautier,D. L. 2007. Circum-Arctic Petroleum Systems identified usingdecision-tree chemometrics. American Association of PetroleumGeologists Bulletin, 91, 877–913.

Petrov, Al. A. 1994. Biomarkers and geochemical conditions of oilgeneration in Russia. Geologiya Nefti I Gaza, 6, 13–18.

Petrov, O. V., Morozov, A. F., Strelnikov, S. I., Ivanov, V. L.,Kaminsky, V. D. & Pogrebitsky, Yu. E. (eds) 2008. GeologicalMap of Russia and Adjoining Water Covered Areas. 1:2.5 million.All-Russia Geological Research Insitute, St Petersburg.

Piasecki, S., Christiansen, F. G. & Stemmerik, L. 1990. Depositionalhistory and organic geochemistry of Carboniferous lacustrine depos-its in East Greenland. Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, 38,273–287.

Pitcher, M. G. (ed.) 1973. Arctic geology. Proceedings of the SecondInternational Symposium on Arctic Geology. American Associationof Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK, Memoirs, 19.

Plafker, G. & Berg, H. C. (eds) 1994. The Geology of Alaska. Geology ofNorth America, G. Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO.

Pogrebitskiy, Yu. E. 1971. Paleotectonic Analysis of the Taimir FoldBelt. Nedra, Leningrad (in Russian).

Raasch, G. O. (ed.) 1961. Geology of the Arctic. University of TorontoPress, Toronto.

Ramberg, I. B., Bryhni, I., Nøttvedt, A. & Rangnes, K. (eds) 2008.The Making of a Land. Geology of Norway. Norsk Geologisk Foren-ing, Trondheim.

Rovnin, L. I. 2004. Prospective areas of search for the large and unique oiland gas fields offshore Western Arctic. In: Priority Areas in theSearch for Large and Unique oil and Gas Fields. Geoinformmark,Moscow, 25–36 (in Russian).

Salmanov, F. K., Gramberg, I. S. & Kleshev, K. A. 1993. Hydrocarbonpotential of the Arctic Basins – future of the world energy.Mineral resource of Russia. Economy and Management, 6, 10 (inRussian).

Senin, B. V., Shipilov, E. V. & Junov, A. J. 1989. Tectonics ofthe Arctic Zone Passing from Continent to Ocean. MurmanskPublishing House, Murmansk (in Russian).

Sherwood, K. W., Johnson, P. P. et al. 2002. Structure and stratigraphyof the Hanna Trough, U.S. Chukchi Shelf, Alaska. In: Miller, E. L.,Grantz, A. & Klemperer, S. L. (eds) Tectonic Evolution of theBering Shelf–Chukchi Sea–Arctic Margin and Adjacent LandMasses. Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, SpecialPapers, 360, 39–66.

Sigmundsson, F., Sımonarson, L. A., Sigmundsson, O. & Ingolfsson,O. (eds) 2008. The dynamic geology of Iceland. Jokull. The IcelandicJournal of Earth Sciences. 58, 421.

Skorobogatov, V. A., Stroganov, L. V. & Kopeev, V. D. 2003.Geological Structure and Gas–oil Potential of the Yamal. Nedra,Moscow (in Russian).

Smelror, M., Petrov, O. V., Larssen, G. B. & Werner, S. (eds) 2009.Atlas. Geological History of the Barents Sea. Geological Survey ofNorway, Trondheim.

Spencer, A. M., Holter, E. et al. (eds) 1984. PetroleumGeology of the North European Margin. Graham & Trotman,London.

Stemmerik, L. 2000. Late Palaeozoic evolution of the North Atlanticmargin of Pangea. Paleogeography, Paleoclimatology, Paleoecol-ogy, 161, 95–126.

Stemmerik, L. & Hakansson, E. 1991. Carboniferous and Permianhistory of the Wandel Sea Basin, North Greenland. In: Peel, J. S.& Sønderholm, M. (eds) Sedimentary Basins of North Greenland.Grønlands geologiske Undersøgelse, Bulletins, Københaun, 160,141–151.

Surlyk, F., Hurst, J. M. et al. 1986. The Permian of the western marginof the Greenland Sea – a future exploration target. In: Halbouty,M. T. (ed.) Future Petroleum Provinces of the World. AmericanAssociation of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK, Memoirs, 40,629–659.

Timonin, N. N. 1998. Pechora Plate: History of GeologicalDevelopment in Phanerozoic. RAS Urals Branch, Yekaterinburg (inRussian).

Trettin, H. P. (ed.) 1991. Geology of the Innuitian Orogen and arcticplatform of Canada and Greenland. Geology of Canada, 3 (also Geo-logical Society of America: The Geology of North America, E).Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa.

Ulmishek, G. 1982. Petroleum geology and resource assessment of theTiman–Pechora Basin, U.S.S.R., and the adjacent Barents-northernKara shelf. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, ANL/EES-TM-199.

Ulmishek, G. F. 2001. Petroleum geology and resources of the BaykitHigh Province, East Siberia, Russia. United States GeologicalSurvey Bulletin 2201-F, 18.

Ulmishek, G. F. & Klemme, H. D. 1990. Depositional Controls, Distri-bution, and Effectiveness of World’s Petroleum Source Rocks. USGeological Survey, Reston, VA, Bulletins, 1931.

Verba, M. L. 2008. Comparative Geodynamics of Eurasian Basin. Nauka,St Petersburg (in Russian).

Vorren, T. O., Bergsager, E. et al. (eds) 1993. Arctic Geology andPetroleum Potential. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Norwegian PetroleumSociety Special Publications, 2.




Map. The Arctic Ocean and surrounding land masses.

by guest on March 28, 2020

http://mem

.lyellcollection.org/D

ownloaded from


Documents

Chapter 1 An overview of the petroleum geology of the Arctic · 27th IGC published a report on arctic geology (Gramberg et al. 1984). The last Arctic-wide, petroleum-focussed symposium