Petroleum Potential of 

Wilderness Lands in 

Arizona 

By Robert T. Ryder 

PETROLEUM POTENTIAL OF WILDERNESS LANDS IN THE 

WESTERN UNITED STATES 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 902-C 

This chapter on the petroleum 

geology and resource potential of 

Wilderness Lands in Arizona is 

also provided as an accompanying 

pamphlet for Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map 1-1537 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Abstract ---------------------------------------- C1 

Introduction------------------------------------- 1 

Geologic framework------------------------------- 2 

Physiographic provinces ------------------------ 2 

Wilderness Lands ----------------------------- 2 

Tectonic provinces and tectonic history ------------ 2 

Colorado Plateau physiographic province ------- 2 

Basin and Range physiographic province-------- 8 

Transitional zone--------------------------- 13 

Petroleum geology-------------------------------- 13 

USGS petroleum province boundaries------------- 13 

Oil and gas fields ------------------------------ 13 

Page 

Thickness and origin of sedimentary rocks --------- C13 

Black Mesa basin--------------------------- 13 

Paleozoic hingeline area --------------------- 14 

Pedregosa basin---------------------------- 14 

Tertiary rift basins ------------------------- 14 

Potential source rocks, hydrocarbon shows, and 

thermal maturity---------------------------- 14 

Reservoirs and traps --------------------------- 15 

Summary statement --------------------------- 16 

Petroleum potential of Wilderness Lands-------------- 16 

Summary ------------------------------------ 20 

References cited---------------------------------- 20 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

Page 

FIGURE 1. Maps of Arizona showing distribution of Wilderness Lands, counties, and selected cities. A, Physiographic and 

tectonic provinces; B, Major outcrops of igneous and metamorphic rocks and lines of cross sections; C, Oil and 

gas field data ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ C3 

2. Geologic cross section A-A' through the Basin and Range and Colorado Plateau provinces of northwest Arizona- 6 

3. Geologic cross section B-B' through the Black Mesa and Holbrook basins of northeast Arizona--------------- 7 

4. Geologic cross section C-C' through the Pedregosa basin and superimposed Early Cretaceous rift basins of 

southeastArizona-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 

5. Geologic cross section D-D' through the Pedregosa basin and superimposed Early Cretaceous rift basins of 

southeast Arizona-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 

6. Geologic cross section E-E' through the Basin and Range province of southwest Arizona-------------------- 11 

7. Geologic cross section F -F' through the Basin and Range province of southwest Arizona -------------------- 12 

8. Map showing the qualitative estimates of petroleum potential for Wilderness Lands in Arizona -------------- 18 

III 

PETROLEUM POTENTIAL OF WILDERNESS LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES 

Petroleum Potential of Wilderness Lands in Arizona 

By Robert T. Ryder 

ABSTRACT 

On the basis of in-depth geologic framework and petroleum 

geology studies, the oil and gas potential of Wilderness Lands 

in Arizona is rated qualitatively on a scale from high to zero. 

A high rating is assigned to Wilderness Lands that are located 

near or along the projected trend of hydrocarbon production 

and have all the geologic attributes of the producing area. A 

medium rating is assigned to Wilderness Lands that have all 

the attributes, including shows, of an oil and gas producing 

area, but presently lack commercial production. In contrast, 

low, low to zero, and zero ratings are assigned, respectively, 

to Wilderness Lands that have few or no attributes of an oil 

and gas producing area. Usually a zero rating is reserved for 

regions having autochthonous igneous and metamorphic rocks 

at or near the surface. 

The Wilderness Lands in Arizona are grouped into 12 clusters, each containing one or more tracts that have the same or 

similar geologic characteristics and the same hydrocarbon potential. Of the 6,183,665 acres of Wilderness Lands in Arizona 

the potential acreage can be summarized as follows: high potential, none; medium potential, 192 thousand acres; low potential, 1,375.3 thousand acres; low to zero potential, 3,528.8 

thousand acres; and zero potential, 1,087.8 thousand acres. 

INTRODUCTION 

Arizona produces limited quantities of oil and 

gas from fields in the northeasternmost part of the 

State and has the potential for yielding modest undiscovered oil and gas resources (Dolton and 

others, 1981). Much of Arizona is still a frontier 

area in terms of oil and gas exploration; however, 

C1 

much of the State is unsuitable for oil and gas accumulations because basement rocks are situated 

at or near the surface. Future oil and gas discoveries in the sedimentary basins of Arizona will 

likely depend on imaginative, but geologically 

sound, interpretations of the complex structural, 

depositional, and magmatic history of the State 

and on the testing of these interpretations with 

reflection seismic profiles and deep drilling. To 

date, drilling outside the region of known production has been disappointing. The purpose of this 

investigation is to provide qualitative estimates, 

complete with written documentation, of the future oil and gas potential of the 6,183,665 acres of 

Wilderness Lands in Arizona. These estimates are 

based largely on data derived from current published literature. Future estimates may vary as 

new data and concepts become available. 

This report is divided into three parts. The first 

part, the geologic framework section, is intended 

to acquaint the reader with the complex physiographic and geologic provinces of Arizona and the 

complex tectonic and magmatic history that 

shaped the provinces and ultimately helped control the distribution of oil and gas. The second 

part, the petroleum geology section, consists of a 

general treatment of several key elements related 

to the generation and entrapment of oil and gas in 
Arizona. The third and final part, the petroleum 

potential of Wilderness Lands, contains the qualitative estimates of the oil and gas potential of the 

Wilderness Lands of Arizona. 

GEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK 

PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES 

Arizona is divided into two major physiographic 

provinces, the Colorado Plateau province in the 

northeast half of the State and the Basin and 

Range province in the southwest half of the State 

with a transitional zone between (fig. 1A). The Colorado Plateau province is characterized by a 

highly dissected landscape comprised of broad, 

high plateaus and mesas and intervening steepwalled canyons (Fenneman, 1931). The Basin and 

Range province is characterized by narrow, northwest-trending mountain ranges and adjoining basins. In the northwest corner of Arizona the 

mountain ranges change in orientation to north 

and north-northeast trends (fig. 1B). The northwest-trending, 50-60-mile-wide transitional zone, 

as here defined, is wider than the transitional zone 

defined by Wilson and Moore (1959). 

WILDERNESS LANDS 

The 6,183,665 acres of Wilderness Lands in 

Arizona are distributed over . the two physiographic provinces and the transitional zone (fig.1A). 

About 70 percent of the Wilderness Lands is located in the Basin and Range province with the 

remaining 30 percent about eqJJally divided between the Colorado Plateau province and the 

transitional zone. 

TECTONIC PROVINCES AND 

TECTONIC HISTORY 

The physiographic provinces, and to a large extent the hydrocarbon accumulations within them ' are controlled by the tectonic framework of the 

underlying rocks. The major tectonic features 

which shaped Arizona's physiographic provinces 

are identified and discussed in the following section. 

COLORADO PLATEAU PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCE 

The Colorado Plateau province represents a 

part of the North American craton which has been 

relatively stable since the Middle Proterozoic. 

C2 

EXPLANATION 

(For figures lA, 8, and C) 

~\;;;): Metamorphic and igneous rocks-Precambrian 

~ Metamorphic and intrusive igneous rocksMesozoic and Tertiary 

D Volcanic rocks-Quaternary, Tertiary, and Mesozoic 

Wilderness Lands 

~ ~ Oil, natural gas, and helium fields 

x Oil seep 

0 Drill hole 

1

0 Phillips Arizona State No. 1-A drill hole 

" Outcrop section 

F F' --. Line of geologic cross section-Dashed line and 

0 circle indicate a drill hole projected into line of 

section 

--Boundary between physiographic provinces 

- ·- Boundary between USGS petroleum provinces 

--Boundary between tectonic provinces 

........---.- Approximate leading edge of Cordilleran fold 

and thrust belt, Drewes (1979, 1980, 1981) 

Existing structural features are typified by broad 

areas of flat-lying to gently tilted strata bound by 

monoclines and (or) high-angle faults (figs. 2, 3). 

First-order structural features include the Black 

Mesa basin, Defiance uplift, Echo Cliffs uplift, 

Four Corners platform, Kaibab uplift, 

Kaiparowits basin, and Zuni basin, all of probable 

Laramide age (Davis, 1978), the Holbrook basin of 

Pennsylvanian and Early Permian age (Barwin 

and others, 1971; Heylmun, 1981), and the 

Paradox basin of Pennsylvanian age (Peterson and 

Ohlen, 1963) (fig.1A). Thick evaporites of PermianPennsylvanian age and of Pennsylvanian age occupy, respectively, the central part of the Holbrook basin in Arizona and the Paradox basin in 

southeast Utah and southwest Colorado. Many of 

the first-order structural features have been controlled by an underlying basement-block mosaic 

which probably developed in the Precambrian and 

was reactivated by later episodes of crustal instability (Kelley, 1955; Lucchitta, 1974; Davis, 1978; 

Shoemaker and others, 1978). 
( 

.-

~ 

> 

j 

~ 

J 

I~ / ''Yuma 

l YUMA -.. .__BASIN 

-............ 

0 

---- ~ ......... 

50 

~ ..... 

32' 

100 

-~-

1 

I 

I 

I 

PARADOX BASIN OF 

PENNSYLVANIAN AGE 

110' \-

MONUMENT! - -, 

UPLIFT I FOUR 

I CORNERS 

PLATFORM 

I 

M I s A I 

I 

N I I 

1 B A S 

TRANSITIONAL 

ZONE 

SAN F~NCISCO {7 

VOLCANICQ 

I 

I 

COLORADp 

I 

I 

FIELD -

'-'Flagstaff 

BASIN AND RANGE ~ _ ~ 

TucsonQi ~ 

150 KILOMETERS 

FIGURE !A.-Physiographic and tectonic provinces. 

C3 

I --1 

I DEFIANCE I 

UPLIFT 

PLATEAU! PROVINCE 1 

I 

) 

I 

HOLBROOK BASIN 

lJ 

OF EARLY PE~MIAN AND 

PENNSY+ANIAN 

AG ~ 
6!> 

~~ 

0 50 

ffP ..... ~ ........... !> 

100MILES ~ ..... 

0 50 100 150 KILOMETERS 

11 0' ------,---- --- ~ 

I I I 

I I I 

I I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

l 

) 

I 

I 

tp 

~ 

I 

--1 

I 

D' 

FIGURE lB.- Major outcrops of igneous and metamorphic rocks and lines of cross sections. Distribution of igneous and metamorphic rocks is based on the geologic map of Arizona (Wilson and other, 1969). 

C4 
34' 

\ 

> 

j 

( 

.... 

0 

0 

50 

50 100 150 KILOMETERS 

FIGURE 1C.-Oil and gas data and USGS petroleum provinces (Dolton and others, 1981). Oil and gas fields are from Fassett 

(1978). 

C5 
A A' 

BASIN AND RANGE COLORADO PLATEAU 

PROVINCE PROVINCE 

VIRGIN MOUNTAIN 

FEET VIRGIN RIVER BASIN ANTICLINE GRAND WASH FAULT - FEET 

SEAL= j ---~ <C •< 2>•< -, -,-,_, , » ,_.-,,,-,,,,,.,.,"<·«<<.'C'<''''% -- :n~: LEVEL 

0 EXPLANATION 0') 

R 

~ 

Quaternary 

alluvium 

II 

Quaternary and Tertiary 

basalt 

0 

D 

Triassic Moenkopi 

Formation 

[J 

Paleozoic 

sedimentary rocks 

10 MILES 

[[] ' ' -

Precambrian 

crystalline rocks 

FIGURE 2.--Geologic cross section A-A' through the Basin and Range and Colorado Plateau provinces of northwest Arizona. Line of cross section is 

shown in figure lB. Cross section from Moore (1972). Not all place names used in this figure appear on figure 1. 
(i 

-:J 

8 

BASIN AND RANGE 

PROVINCE o A A 

HOLBROOK 

BASIN 0 

-I.J 

"l~ 

0 

BLACK MESA 

BASIN 

FEET 

8000 

6000 

4000 1·. ·. ·. ~ ..... ,_, ... -I 

2000 

SEA LEVEL 

2000 

, ..... 

I 

MOGOLLON RIM 

... 

• .!. , -

':; ,-,·-: -.,:- _,, :: ;._'-.. :.~';: -:J;: ::·,'->--,_--: ,~·' --_,-' .. ·. _; 1 j 

0 

BLACK MESA 

BASIN 

YALE POINT 

8' 

PARADOX 

BASIN 

0 

FEET 

8000 

u !_: :.~; :;~: ..;; ,' :H, ,: : .. _: -~ ~ .C ' • ~-C 0 '; , 0-~ <•:'; •:; '; _;: ·-·c'. ,: .: ~ -,.,,=,:· .' :-::•':·~':: ;',:: 'i ::: 

6000 

4000 

2000 

SEA LEVEL 

Fol 

~ 

Tertiary 

sedimentary and 

volcanic rocks 

~ 

1=.3 

Upper Cretaceous 

sedimentary 

rocks 

9 1p 2p 3,0 MILES 

EXPLANATION 

D 

Jurassic and 

Triassic 

sedimentary 

rocks 

A Outcrop 

section 

[] 

Paleozoic 

sedimentary 

rocks 

o Drill hole 

r:t:l 

~ Evaporites in 

Supai Formation 

(Permian) 

2000 

R 

~ Precambrian 

crystalline rocks 

FIGURE 3.--Geologic cross section B -B' through the Black Mesa and Holbrook basins of northeast Arizona. Line of cross section is shown in 

figure lB. Cross section from Brown and Lauth (1957). Not all place names used in this figure appear on figure 1. 
BASIN AND RANGE PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCE 

The Basin and Range province, with its complex 

history of crustal extension, plutonism and volcanism, is a far more mobile sector of the North 

American craton than the Colorado Plateau province. Major crustal instability of the craton in 

southern Arizona first appeared with the development of the Pedregosa basin, a late Paleozoic 

negative feature which trends northwestward 

from its depocenter in north-central Chihuahua 

Mexico, through south westernmost New Mexico' . ' mto southeasternmost Arizona (Greenwood and 

others, 1977) (fig.1A). The northwest extent of the 

Pedregosa basin is partially masked by complex 

structures and plutonism (figs. 4, 5). Over 3,000 

feet of Pennsylvanian and Early Permian marine 

carbonate rocks accumulated in the Arizona part 

of this basin (Ross, 1973). 

In Mesozoic time, the North American craton in 

southern Arizona was deformed by Jurassic, middle Cretaceous, and latest Cretaceous magmatic 

arcs (Hamilton, 1978; Coney, 1978; Dickinson, 

1981), a Jurassic left-lateral megashear (Silver 

an? Anderson, 1974), Early Cretaceous rifting 

(Bilodeau, 1982), and Laramide compression (Drewes, 1978; Davis, 1979). Many of the geologic complexities that resulted from these tectonic and 

magmatic events are illustrated in figures 4 and 5. 

Drewes (1978, 1980, 1981) believes that many of 

the thrust faults and folds in southeast Arizona 

represent a structural link between the Cordilleran fold and thrust belt of southern Nevada and 

southeast California and the Chihuahua fold and 

thru_st belt of northern Mexico. Hamilton (1978), 

Davis (1979), and Matthews (1982) disagree with 

such a linkage on the grounds that neither the 

stratigraphic facies. nor the structural features are 

present. The 7,000 to 7,500 feet of Paleozoic rocks 

(Peirce and others, 1970) and the 1,500 to 1,800 

feet of lower Mesozoic rocks (Stewart and others 

1972) deposited in north westernmost· Arizona ap~ pear to represent the only hingeline or nearhingeline deposits in the State. The leading edge 

of the Cordilleran fold and thrust belt as defined 

by Drewes (1978, 1980, 1981) is shown in figure 1A. 

The Early Cretaceous rifting resulted in westto northwest-trending fault-bounded basins filled 

with thick nonmarine and marine deposits 

(Bilodeau, 1978, 1982). These basins were 

C8 

superimposed on the Pedregosa basin and the adjacent terrane in southeast Arizona (fig.1A). Collectively known as the Bisbee Group, the nonmarine 

and marine deposits of the rift basins attained a 

thickness between 10,000 and 15,000 feet (Hayes, 

1970; Kottlowski, 1971; Greenwood and others 

1977). ' 

Crustal extension, volcanism, and nonmarine 

sedimentation dominated what is today the Basin 

and Range physiographic province of Arizona 

from latest Oligocene time to the Holocene 

(Hamilton, 1978; Dickinson, 1981). Coney (1978) 

recognizes a middle Tertiary and a late Tertiary 

phase of crustal extension. 

The middle Tertiary phase resulted in the belt 

of metamorphic-core complexes described by 

Davis and Coney (1979), rhyolitic to andesitic volcanism generally ranging between 20 to 40 m.y. 

ago (Elston, 1976) with a peak between 20 and 26 

m.y. ago (Damon and Bikerman, 1964; Damon and 

Mauger, 1966; Eberly and Stanley, 1978), and 

coarse-grained nonmarine sedimentary rocks derived from adjacent highlands. The interbedded 

volcanic rocks, arkosic conglomerate and 

sandstone, and local lake beds formed during the 

middle Tertiary phase of crustal extension are assigned by Eberly and Stanley (1978) to unit I 

(figs. 6, 7). The combined thickness of unit I may 

be as much as 8,000 feet in the Gila trough (fig. 7), 

but elsewhere in southern Arizona the rocks of 

unit I are generally less than 3,000 feet thick (figs. 

6, 7). 

The late Tertiary phase of crustal extensionbeginning between 12 and 13 m.y. ago (Eberly 

and Stanley, 1978) and 15 m.y. ago (Coney 1978· 

Dickinson, 1981) and ending about 10 m.~. ag~ (Eberly and Stanley, 1978)-resulted in the characteristic block faulting of the Basin and Range 

physiographic province. Thick sequences of generally nonmarine sedimentary rocks defined by Eberly and Stanley (1978) as unit II (figs. 6, 7) and 

scattered basaltic volcanism also accompanied the 

late Tertiary phase of crustal extension. The 

thickness of unit II is greater than unit I in most 

localities, particularly in five basins between 

Phoenix and Tucson where unit II commonly exceeds 7,500 feet in thickness (figs. 6, 7). Several of 

these basins also contain thick evaporite deposits 

(Eaton and others, 1972; Peirce, 1974; Eberly and 

Stanley, 1978) (figs. 6, 7). 
0 

~ 

c 

FEET 

10,000 

SEA LEVEL 

10,000 

SANTA RITA MOUNTAINS 

-~ 

~J-{;:~ ·.:·:1~~:-m-4!,1;:;1;;-;~--=-~- =--~==J ~ ~ c:: 0 

I '• ··:.~ ·=.~--:; :-::.~~:~·~·,:_:::: ~ ~ 

DRAGON MOUNTAINS SULPHUR SPRINGS 

VALLEY 

--------- -- - - :·. :-·:: .. _· -~·:- :-.'.; <·:::.:;··-"--~-'::'-'·:·.'-'·=.;.....:....:.....-'-< 

-g ~ ~ .••••••• •. • • 1~~-~~~~~~-~-~·~~~~~~~-~·--·-- C' . .§ iiJ ~---~;: .';:;.,: ;_·, :__-.c- FEET c E ,rc;., .... · .... · • ·'o "" ., • · 10 000 8 .g : "; ~ :~ -~:-,:._-_:-,_- -:.'. '. '· ; ' '·' ', ::c -:' ·.·. ' I - '. .. 

SULPHUR SPRINGS 

VALLEY 

CHIRICAHUA MOUNTAINS 

,' // SAN SIMON VALLEY 

)ll;~:/':-:-~·:.J:;· ~:.:: ~-:·,_..: 

c:: E 0 0 U.t: 

. . " 0 • - 0 SEA LEVEL 

[3 0 [] v [ill -

~ Quaternary Cretaceous and Cretaceous Cretaceous 

and Tertiary Tertiary sedimentary and 

sedimentary volcanic rocks rocks Tertiary 

rocks intrusive 

rocks 

0 

EXPLANATION 

GJ ' ~ Jurassic Triassic 

intrusive sedimentary 

rocks and volcanic 

rocks 

10 

~ 

~ 

Triassic 

intrusive 

rocks 

20 MILES 

[§] 

Paleozoic 

sedimentary 

rocks 

10,000 

[] .. 

Precambrian 

basement 

rocks 

FIGURE 4.-Geologic cross section C-C' through the Pedregosa basin and superimposed Early Cretaceous rift basins of southeast Arizona. 

Line of cross section is shown in figure lB. Cross section from Drewes (1980). Place names used in this figure do not appear on figure 1. 

~ 
0 

0 '"""' 

D 

FEET 

10,000 

HUACHUCA MOUNTAINS 

SEA 

LEVEL 

10,000 

[;] 0 

Quaternary and 

Tertiary 

sedimentary 

rocks 

----~- .... 

Q v [ill] ' 

Tertiary and Cretaceous 

Cretaceous volcanic and 

volcanic rocks sedimentary 

rocks 

SAN PEDRO VALLEY 

EXPLANATION 

[ill - ~ . Cretaceous Cretaceous and 

sedimentary Tertiary 

rocks intrusive rocks 

C2J ' 

Jurassic 

intrusive 

rocks 

~ Jurassic and 

Triassic 

sedimentary 

and 

volcanic 

rocks 

0 10 20 MILES 

SAN SIMONSAN BERNARDINO 

VALLEY 

[±ill 

Paleozoic 

sedimentary 

rocks 

D' 

FEET 

10,000 

SEA 

LEVEL 

10,000 

D . 

~ 

Precambrian 

basement 

rocks 

FIGURE 5.--Geologic cross section D-D' through the Pedregosa basin and superimposed Early Cretaceous rift basins of southeast Arizona. 

Line of cross section is shown in figure lB. Cross section from Drewes (1980). Place names used in this figure do not appear on figure 1. 

~ 
E 

0 

FEET 

SEA 

LEVEL 

(1 

I-< 

I-< 5000 

10.000 

PHOENIX 

BASIN 

0 0 00 0 

CHA,NDLER 

BASIN 

00 

L_JO MILES 

PICACHO 

BASIN 

RED ROCK 

BASIN 

o PICACHO o o 

NEWMAN PEAK, PEAK CERRO 

TUCSON 

BASIN 

0 

E' 

0 0 

• / PRIETO ""'=""" 

~:'fill r===il n 

EXPLANATION 

FEET 

SEA 

LEVEL 

5000 

10,000 

0 Unit 11 II! Volcanic 

rocks 0 Pre-Cenozoic 

rocks 

~ Unit I tJ Evaporites o Drill hole 

FIGURE 6.--Geologic cross section E - E' through the Basin and Range province of southwest Arizona. Line of cross section is shown 

in figure lB. Cross section from Eberly and Stanley (1978). Not all place names used in this figure appear on figure 1. 
Q 

,._. 

~ 

FEET 

SEA LEVEL 

5000 

10,000 

15,000 

F 

0 

YUMA 

BASIN 

00 00 GILA 

TROUGH 

0 

0 10 MILES 0 Unit II 

l?iil Unit I 

PHOENIX 

BASIN 

F' 

CAMEL BACK 

MOUNTAINS 

0 0 0 

FEET 

SEA LEVEL 

5000 

10.000 

15,000 

EXPLANATION 

[§] Volcanic 

rocks ~ Evaporites 

0 Pre-Cenozoic rocks 

o Drill hole 

FIGURE 7.--Geologic cross section F -F' through the Basin and Range province of southwest Arizona. Line of cross section is shown 

in figure lB. Cross section from Eberly and Stanley (1978). Not all place names used in this figure appear on figure 1. 
TRANSITIONAL ZONE 

The transitional zone between the Colorado 

Plateau and the Basin and Range physiographic 

provinces, the central Arizona transition zone of 

Lucchitta (1978), has been the site of extensive 

volcanism (San Francisco and Datil-Mogollon volcanic fields; fig. 1A, B), orogeny, deep erosion, and 

mineralization (Lucchitta, 1978). From southeast 

to northwest along this zone the present day 

basin-and-range structure changes in trend from 

northwest to north-northeast. Lucchitta (1978) 

suggests that this zone may mark a former plate 

boundary which could extend as far to the northwest as the southern terminus of the Cascade 

Range in northern California. 

PETROLEUM GEOLOGY 

USGS PETROLEUM PROVINCE 

BOUNDARIES 

The State of Arizona is subdivided into two provinces established by the U.S. Geological Survey 

for which quantitative oil and gas resource estimates have been prepared (Dolton and others, 

1981). The northern Arizona petroleum province 

approximates the Colorado Plateau physiographic 

province and the transitional zone, whereas the 

southern Arizona-southwestern New Mexico petroleum province nearly coincides with the Basin 

and Range physiographic province (fig. 1A, C). The 

match between the petroleum provinces and the 

physiographic provinces is imperfect because the 

USGS petroleum provinces follow county lines to 

simplify the tabulation of oil and gas resource 

data. 

OIL AND GAS FIELDS 

Oil and gas production in Arizona is restricted 

to a few fields discovered between 1954 and 1971 

along the western margin of the Four Corners 

platform and the southwestern margin of the 

Paradox basin (fig.1C). The fields are small, having 

ultimate recoveries of less than 1 million barrels of 

oil and 10,000 million cubic feet of gas, except for 

the Dineh-bi-Keyah field (fig.1C)where the ultimate recovery has been estimated at 20 million 

barrels of oil (Molenaar, 1972). Helium was produced from one well in the Paradox basin 

(Spencer, 1978) and from two fields along the 

southern margin of the Black Mesa basin (Allen, 

1978) (fig. 1C). 

Algal-plate mounds in the Pennsylvanian 

Paradox Formation form the reservoirs for the 

small oil and gas fields in Arizona. At Dineh-biKeyah the reservoir is a Tertiary igneous sill 

which has intruded Pennsylvanian rocks (McKenny 

and Masters, 1968; Danie, 1978). Oil and gas reservoirs of lesser importance are the Devonian 

McCracken Sandstone Member (of Knight and 

Cooper, 1955) of the Elbert Formation, the Devonian Aneth Formation (of Knight and Cooper, 

1955), and the Mississippian Leadville Limestone. 

The Pennsylvanian oil and gas accumulations, including Dineh-bi-Keyah, have been trapped by an 

updip reduction of porosity and permeability associated with a nose or flank of an anticlinal structure. Oil and gas accumulations in the lower 

Paleozoic reservoirs and helium accumulations in 

the Permian Coconino Sandstone (Allen, 1978) are 

trapped along the crests of anticlinal structures. 

THICKNESS AND ORIGIN OF 

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS 

The combined thickness of Paleozoic, Mesozoic, 

and Tertiary sedimentary rocks exceeds 8, 000 feet 

in (1) parts of the Black Mesa basin, (2) north westernmost Arizona near the Paleozoic hingeline in 

southern Nevada, (3) the Pedregosa basin and the 

superimposed rift basins of Early Cretaceous age, 

and (4) at least six Tertiary basins in the Basin 

and Range province. 

BLACK MESA BASIN 

Approximately 3,500 to 4,000 feet of Paleozoic 

rocks are present in the Black Mesa basin, of 

which over half are Permian in age (Brown and 

Lauth, 1957; Barwin and others, 1971; Peirce, 

1976) (fig. 3). Cambrian through Mississippian 

rocks are as much as 1, 600 feet thick in the basin 

and consist of shelf carbonate rocks, shallow 

marine sandstone, and local dark marine shale 

(Lessentine, 1965). Pennsylvanian rocks thin from 

about 1,000 feet in the northeast part of the Black 

Mesa basin to zero along the west side of the basin 

(Lessentine, 1965). The lithology of the Pennsylvanian rocks also changes markedly from northeast to southwest from basinal carbonate rocks 

and black shale to shelf carbonate rocks to nonmarine beds of sandstone and red shale (Lessentine, 1965). Triassic and Jurassic rocks in the 

Black Mesa basin are nonmarine and attain a combined thickness of approximately 3,000 feet 

C13 
(Brown and Lauth, 1957; Barwin and others, 

1971). Up to 1,500 feet of Cretaceous rocks are 

present in the Black Mesa basin, owing largely to 

the deposition of offshore marine shale, nearshore 

marine sandstone, paludal shale, sandstone and 

coal, and alluvial-plain sandstone and shale at or 

near a northeastward prograding shoreline (Repenning and Page, 1956; O'Sullivan and others, 

1972; Molenaar, 1983). Tertiary rocks in the basin 

are negligible. 

PALEOZOIC HINGELINE AREA 

Paleozoic and lower Mesozoic rocks deposited in 

northwesternmost Arizona, near the Paleozoic 

hingeline between miogeoclinal and cratonic strata 

in southern Nevada (Hamilton, 1978), have a combined thickness of 8,500 to 9,300 feet (Peirce and 

others, 1970; Stewart and others, 1972). These 

rocks are buried beneath Tertiary sedimentary 

rocks and Quaternary sediments which are at 

least 1,000 feet thick in the Virgin River basin 

(Moore, 1972) (fig. 2). 

PEDREGOSA BASIN 

At least 15,000 feet of sedimentary rocks are 

present in the Pedregosa basin and the overprinted Lower Cretaceous rift basins (Greenwood 

and others, 1977). Approximately one-third of 

these strata are represented by Pennsylvanian 

and Permian shelf carbonate rocks and basinal 

black shale and carbonate rocks, the remainder 

being Lower Cretaceous, with a thick alluvial-fan 

conglomerate at the base followed by shallow 

marine limestone, shale, and sandstone (Hayes, 

1970). Cambrian through Mississippian rocks with 

a maximum combined thickness of up to 3,000 feet 

(Kottlowski, 1971; Greenwood and others, 1977) 

and Tertiary sedimentary and volcanic rocks locally up to 5,000 feet thick (Thompson and others, 

1978) further contribute to the already thick 

sedimentary section in southeast Arizona. Because 

of the complex history of uplift, erosion, and 

plutonism, the Pennsylvanian, Permian, and 

Lower Cretaceous rocks are not uniformly distributed throughout the area (figs. 4, 5). N onetheless, the overall thickness of this depocenter is impressive. 

TERTIARY RIFT BASINS 

Five rift basins of Tertiary age in the vicinity of 

Tucson and Phoenix (Chandler, Phoenix, Picacho, 

Red Rock, and Tucson) are filled with at least 

8,000 feet of Tertiary sedimentary rocks and 

Quaternary sediments (Eberly and Stanley, 1978; 

Scarborough and Peirce, 1978 )(figs.lA, 6). Up to 

several thousand feet of Paleozoic rocks are probably present in some of these Tertiary rift basins 

(Greenwood and others, 1977). The pre-rift 

Paleozoic rocks consist of predominantly shelf carbonate rocks with secondary shallow marine 

sandstone and black marine shale. The Gila trough 

and Yuma basin in southwest Arizona (Eberly and 

Stanley, 1978) (fig. 7) and the Red Lake basin in 

northwest Arizona (Scarborough and Peirce, 1978) 

also contain 8,000 feet or more of Tertiary 

sedimentary rocks and Quaternary sediments. The 

Tertiary sedimentary rocks in all of these basins 

are nonmarine except in the Yuma basin where 

approximately 3,800 feet of marine rocks of an unnamed late Miocene unit and the Miocene and 

Pliocene Bouse Formation were encountered by 

drilling (Mattick and others, 1973; Eberly and 

Stanley, 1978). 

POTENTIAL SOURCE ROCKS, 

HYDROCARBON SHOWS, AND 

THERMAL MATURITY 

Except for Pennsylvanian black shales in the 

Paradox basin-Four Corners platform area (Lessentine, 1965; Barwin and others, 1971) and Devonian black shales in the Paradox basin and northeast part of the Black Mesa basin (Parker and 

Roberts, 1963), good oil and gas source rocks in 

the Paleozoic section appear to be sparse in the 

Colorado Plateau province of Arizona. Paleozoic 

source rocks of secondary importance in the Colorado Plateau province and transitional zone may 

include dolomite beds in the Devonian Martin Formation of central Arizona, interbedded limestone 

and shale of the Permian-Pennsylvanian Naco 

Limestone in the Holbrook basin, and possibly interbedded dolomite and evaporite rocks of the 

thick Permian-Pennsylvanian Supai Formation in 

the Holbrook basin (Barwin and others, 1971; 

Heylmun, 1981). A fetid dolomite unit in the Martin Formation may be responsible for the lower 

Paleozoic oil shows reported in the subsurface 

southwest of Flagstaff, as well as for oil seeps in 

Devonian rocks in the north-central part of the 

transitional zone (Scurlock, 1971) (fig.1C); however, this unit cannot be a major source rock in 

the Colorado Plateau province because it extends 

C14 
only a few miles north of the Colorado Plateautransitional zone boundary before pinching out 

(Teichert, 1965). Minor oil and gas shows in 

Paleozoic and lower Mesozoic rocks of the blockfaulted plateaus in northwestern Arizona (Giardina, 1979) probably resulted from the long-range 

migration of hydrocarbons from organic-rich 

Paleozoic rocks west of the hingeline. Coals in the 

Upper Cretaceous Mesaverde Group and black 

shales in the Upper Cretaceous Mancos Shale of 

the Black Mesa basin have good source rock potential, but they are thermally immature. 

Conodont Alteration Index (CAl) values indicate that Paleozoic rocks in the Colorado Plateau 

province and transitional zone have a favorable 

thermal history for the generation of oil and gas 

(B. R. Wardlaw and A. G. Harris, unpub. data). 

The oil and gas fields and shows found in the 

Paleozoic rocks of northeastern Arizona were 

probably locally derived and were only generated 

after the Paleozoic source beds were buried beneath several thousand feet of Upper Cretaceous 

rocks. Oil and gas which presumably migrated 

eastward from near the hingeline into northwestern Arizona were probably generated in Late 

Jurassic to Early Cretaceous time. 

Black shales and limestone of the PermianPennsylvanian Horquilla Limestone and the Devonian Percha Shale of the Pedregosa basin appear 

to be the best oil and gas source rocks in the Basin 

and Range province of Arizona (Kottlowski, 1971; 

Greenwood and others, 1977; Ross, 1973; 

Thompson and others, 1978). The dark basinal 

facies of the Horquilla Limestone is limited to 

the southeasternmost part of the Pedregosa basin 

whereas the Percha Shale extends over much of 

southeast Arizona (Greenwood and others, 1977). 

Thick black shales in the Apache Canyon Formation of the Lower Cretaceous Bisbee Group also 

may be good oil and gas source rocks (Heylmun, 

1979). 

Hydrocarbons were probably generated from 

the above-mentioned units during or slightly after 

the Early Cretaceous rifting phase and readily account for the modest number of shows and seeps 

in the Pedregosa basin (Thompson and others, 

1978) and adjacent Tertiary rift basins (Heylmun, 

1978, 1979). Some of the hydrocarbon shows in 

southeastern Arizona basins, however, may have 

been derived from lower Tertiary lacustrine rocks 

such as in the Pantano Formation (Heylmun, 

1978). Subsurface oil shows in Tertiary strata 

C15 

(unit I of Eberly and Stanley, 1978) in the Gila 

trough (Petroleum Information Well History Control System (WHCS) file) also may have been derived from lacustrine rocks. 

On the basis of CAl values, Paleozoic rocks in 

the vicinity of the Pedrogosa basin have had a 

thermal history favorable for the generation and 

entrapment of gas and possibly some oil (B. R. 

Wardlaw and A. G. Harris, unpub. data). Elsewhere in the Basin and Range province of 

Arizona, the Paleozoic rocks have been elevated to 

extremely high temperatures, particularly in the 

vicinity of metamorphic-core complexes (B. P. 

Wardlaw and A. G. Harris, unpub. data). The degree to which the lower and middle Tertiary 

sedimentary rocks of unit I (Eberly and Stanley, 

1978) have been affected by this thermal event is 

unknown. 

RESERVOIRS AND TRAPS 

Paleozoic carbonate units provide the best oil 

and gas reservoirs in the Colorado Plateau province and transitional zone. Good reservoir rocks 

which are in proximity to possible source rock 

units include the Mississippian Red wall Limestone, Pennsylvanian shelf carbonate rocks, dolomite of the Devonian Martin and Elbert Formations, and Fort Apache Member of the PermianPennsylvanian Supai Formation (Brown and 

Lauth, 1957; Lessentine, 1965; Barwin and others, 

1971). 

Shelf-margin dolomite of the Horquilla Limestone (Pennsylvanian-Permian), Epitaph Dolomite 

(Permian), and Concha Limestone (Permian) appears to be the best reservoir unit in the Pedregosa basin (Greenwood and others, 1977; 

Thompson, 1980). Reservoirs of secondary importance in the vicinity of the Pedregosa basin include local rudistid reefs in the Mural Limestone 

(Lower Cretaceous), marine sandstones in the 

Cintura Formation (Lower Cretaceous), the El 

Paso Limestone (Ordovician), and the Montoya 

Dolomite (Ordovician) (Thompson and others,1978). 

A wide variety of structures is available for hydrocarbon traps in Arizona. However, commonly 

it is difficult to determine the timing of trap development with respect to major phases of hydrocarbon generation, migration, and redistribution. 

This problem is particularly acute in the Basin and 

Range province. Stratigraphic traps are also available, and in some cases may be less susceptible to 
flushing by freshwater and leakage than complex 

structures. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT 

Although most of Arizona is considered to be a 

frontier area in terms of oil and gas exploration, 

the probability of discovering major hydrocarbon 

resources here is low. Pennsylvanian and older 

rocks will probably yield commercial hydrocarbons 

in the already productive Paradox basin and Four 

Corners platform and in the presently unproductive Holbrook basin, Black Mesa basin, and blockfaulted plateaus of northeast Arizona; however, 

the local extent of rich source rocks severely 

limits the future potential of these provinces. Oil 

and gas, which may have migrated from west of 

the hingeline into northwest Arizona, were probably largely flushed by freshwater introduced after 

the uplift and erosional dissection of the region in 

late Tertiary time. 

The Pedregosa basin and the superimposed 

Early Cretaceous rift basins-with good source 

rocks, good reservoirs, and local hydrocarbon 

shows and seeps-appear to hold the most promise for significantly increasing the oil and gas reserves of Arizona. Unfortunately, most of the oil 

and gas in this area probably were generated during or shortly after a thick section of sedimentary 

rocks was deposited in the Lower Cretaceous rift 

basins; thus oil and gas accumulations were subject to migration or destruction by the Laramide, 

middle Tertiary, and late Tertiary tectonic and 

magmatic episodes that followed. Much of the oil 

and gas escaped during its probable redistribution 

from primary traps to secondary and Tertiary 

traps. The best exploration opportunities in the 

Pedregosa basin are in the Tertiary rift basins 

where hydrocarbons that may have been trapped 

in Paleozoic and Lower Cretaceous rocks are least 

affected by later tectonism and flushing by freshwater. Known centers of plutonism and volcanism 

should be avoided for petroleum exploration. Tertiary strata near the flanks of Tertiary rift basins 

may also have trapped hydrocarbons that either 

migrated from older traps or were generated from 

adjacent lacustrine source rocks. 

Other parts of the Basin and Range province of 

Arizona, such as the Gila trough, Yuma basin, and 

several basins near Tucson and Phoenix, may also 

yield commercial oil and gas. Strata in units I and 

II of Eberly and Stanley (1978) are the most likely 

exploration targets. 

A recent drill hole (Phillips Arizona State No. 

A-1, fig.1C), northwest of Tucson, tested what was 

believed to be a thick section of Mesozoic and 

Paleozoic sedimentary rocks beneath an allochthonous cover of Precambrian crystalline 

rocks (Hansen and others, 1980). This test and the 

overthrust-hingeline play received much attention 

in the petroleum industry (Keith, 1979; Hansen 

and others, 1980). The Phillips Arizona State No. 

A-1 drilled into crystalline rocks of a metamorphic 

core complex and remained in them to a total 

depth of 18,013 feet. Distinct seismic reflectors 

thought by Hansen and others (1980) to represent 

unmetamorphosed sedimentary rocks were caused 

instead by well-developed zones of brecciation and 

compositional banding in metamorphic rocks (Reif 

and Robinson, 1981). Despite the failure of the 

well being productive, the drilling of the Phillips 

Arizona State No. A-1 exemplifies the type of action that will need to be taken if commercial hydrocarbons are to be found in the Basin and 

Range province of Arizona. 

The question of whether or not the Cordilleran 

fold and thrust belt extends across Arizona and 

adjacent New Mexico is still unresolved. However, the results of the Phillips Arizona State No. 

A-1 drill hole strongly suggest that if the thrust 

belt does extend across Arizona it is not expressed 

as a major allochthon of crystalline rocks that 

overlie a thick, previously unknown and unexplored section of Paleozoic and Mesozoic 

sedimentary rocks. Therefore, this unanswered 

question concerning the presence or absence of 

the thrust belt probably does not significantly affect the overall assessment of the oil and gas potential of southwest Arizona. 

PETROLEUM POTENTIAL OF 

WILDERNESS LANDS 

On the basis of the geologic framework and petroleum geology outlined in the previous sections, 

the hydrocarbon potential of the Wilderness 

Lands in Arizona is rated qualitatively on a scale 

from high to zero. No Wilderness Lands in 

Arizona are rated as having a high potential because a high rating is reserved for land that is located near hydrocarbon production and has all the 

geologic ·attributes of the producing area. A 

medium rating is assigned to Wilderness Lands 

that have all the attributes, including shows, of a 

future petroleum producing area, but presently 

C16 
lack commercial production. In contrast, low and 

zero ratings are assigned, respectively, to Wilderness Lands that have few or no attributes of a future petroleum producing area. Usually a zero rating is reserved for regions characterized by autochthonous igneous and metamorphic rocks. 

For ease of discussion, the Wilderness Lands in 

Arizona are grouped into 12 clusters (fig. 8), each 

containing one or more tracts that have the same 

or similar geologic characteristics and the same 

hydrocarbon potential. 

Cluster 1 

Cluster 1 contains a single tract of Wilderness 

Land located along the Vermilion Cliffs in northwest Arizona near the Arizona-Utah border (figs. 

1, 8). Rocks of the Jurassic-Triassic Glen Canyon 

Group are exposed throughout the tract (Wilson 

and others, 1969). The hydrocarbon potential of 

the cluster is rated medium because of the proximity of the cluster to the now-abandoned Virgin 

oil field in southwest Utah (Bahr, 1963; Giardina, 

1979). Furthermore, several oil shows are reported from holes drilled less than 20 miles south 

of the tract. Good source rocks are absent from 

the area and thus the reported oil must have migrated into the area from the west, probably from 

at least as far west as the Paleozoic hingeline. The 

reservoir unit in the now-abandoned Virgin oil 

field was the Triassic Timpoweap Limestone 

Member of the Moenkopi Formation (Bahr, 1963). 

The shows south of cluster 1 are located in the 

Permian Kaibab Limestone, Mississippian Redwall Limestone, and the Timpoweap Member. 

Broad anticlines and facies-change stratigraphic 

traps are the most likely variety of traps in the 

tract. The hydrocarbon potential of cluster 1 is not 

considered to be high because the available reservoir rocks are susceptible to flushing by freshwater. 

Cluster 2 

Cluster 2 is in northwest Arizona along the 

Grand Wash fault (Wilson and others, 1969) (figs. 

1, 2, 8), and except for a greater concentration of 

Tertiary faults has the same characteristics as 

cluster 1. This greater concentration of Tertiary 

faults-which facilitate the leakage and flushing of 

earlier-trapped hydrocarbons-makes cluster 2 

slightly less desirable for hydrocarbon exploration 

than cluster 1. The hydrocarbon potential of cluster 2 is rated medium. 

Cluster 3 

Cluster 3 is located in northeast Arizona near 

the southern part of the Black Mesa basin and the 

adjacent Holbrook basin (figs. 1A, 8). Rocks of the 

Triassic Chinle Formation crop out across the 

tracts of this cluster (Wilson and others, 1969). 

The hydrocarbon potential of this cluster is rated 

medium because of several oil and gas shows reported from nearby wells and because of the potentially favorable source and reservoir characteristics of the Permian-Pennsylvanian Naco Limestone and part of the Permian-Pennsylvanian Supai 

Formation. 

Cluster 4 

Cluster 4 contains a single tract of Wilderness 

Land on the northeast flank of the Safford basin in 

southeast Arizona {figs. 1A, 8). The Safford basin 

locally contains at least 7, 000 feet of Tertiary 

sedimentary rocks and Quaternary sediments 

(Scarborough and Peirce, 1978; Oppenheimer and 

Sumner, 1981). The hydrocarbon potential of this 

cluster is rated medium on the strength of the oil 

shows reported from several shallow wells drilled 

within the boundaries of the wilderness tract (Petroleum Information WHCS file). All the oil shows 

are in Tertiary sedimentary rocks. Very little is 

known about the organic richness and reservoir 

quality of the underlying Paleozoic rocks. 

Cluster 5 

Cluster 5 consists of 26 tracts of Wilderness 

Lands spread across the Colorado Plateau province (figs. 1A, 8). The hydrocarbon potential of 

cluster 5 is rated low. 

Those tracts in the northwest part of cluster 5 

have a geologic framework similar to clusters 1 

and 2, but the degree of late Tertiary and 

Holocene erosional dissection is much greater in 

cluster 5 than in clusters 1 and 2. Thus, the tracts 

in the northwest part of cluster 5 are more susceptible to flushing by freshwater than are clusters 1 and 2. A few oil shows have been reported 

from wells drilled in the northwest part of cluster 

5. 

South and southwest of Flagstaff, the tracts in 

cluster 5 have lower Paleozoic rocks at the surface. Subsurface oil shows and several oil seeps 

have been reported from these rocks (Scurlock, 

1971; fig. 1C). The hydrocarbon potential of this 

part of cluster 5 is considered low because of the 

extensive erosion and exposure of the rocks with 

C17 
N 

t 

EXPLANATION 

• Medium Low 

Low to zero LJ Zero 

Q::J 

';) 

~ ~ 

'$ 

12 

~ 

1(1 

5 

~ 

~ 6 

<{? p 

0 

D Q ~ 

I? 

~ 

0 50 100 MILES 

FIGURE 8.-Map showing the qualitative estimates of petroleum potential for Wilderness Lands in Arizona. The heavy lines 

and associated numbers define clusters of Wilderness Lands that have the same or similar geologic characteristics and 

the same hydrocarbon potential. 

C18 
reservoir potential to freshwater flushing. 

Moreover, these oil shows probably were generated from the fetid dolomite unit in the Martin 

Formation, a unit having only local geographic extent. 

The small isolated tract at the extreme southeast end of cluster 5 has volcanic rocks at the surface. Lower Paleozoic rocks with the same characteristics as the lower Paleozoic rocks in the 

Flagstaff area probably underlie the volcanic 

rocks. 

Cluster 6 

Cluster 6 is represented by tracts in the transitional zone and in the Basin and Range province 

of southeast Arizona (figs.1A, 8). Thick Tertiary 

volcanic rocks crop out here and probably cover a 

thin section of Paleozoic rocks. The hydrocarbon 

potential of cluster 6 is rated low to zero because 

any hydrocarbons originally trapped in the 

Paleozoic rocks probably escaped during ensuing 

phases of rifting and volcanism. In the easternmost tracts of cluster 6 the rocks of the DatilMogollon volcanic field may be underlain by Tertiary plutons (Elston and others, 1976). 

Cluster 7 

Cluster 7 is in the Basin and Range province of 

northwest Arizona (figs. lA, 8). The hydrocarbon 

potential of cluster 7 is rated low to zero because 

extensive exposures of Precambrian gneiss, granite, and schist and Tertiary volcanic rocks extend 

across most of the wilderness tracts of this cluster. Commercial hydrocarbons, if found at all in 

these tracts, would be located in those parts of the 

tracts that overlap the flanks of Tertiary basins. 

Cluster 8 

Cluster 8 is in the southeasternmost part of the 

Basin and Range province where thick sedimentary deposits of the Pedregosa basin and the 

Early Cretaceous rift basins are present (figs.1A, 

8). The source rocks, reservoir rocks, and thermal 

history are at least locally favorable for the generation and entrapment of hydrocarbons. According 

to B. R. Wardlaw and A. G. Harris (unpub. data), 

the thermal history of the region favors gas over 

have been cut by several generations of faults and 

plutons, many of which appear to postdate the 

major phase of oil and gas generation and migration. The location of the tracts in cluster 8 along 

structurally high fault blocks further contributes 

to the leakage and flushing of previously trapped 

hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbon potential of cluster 8 is rated low. 

Cluster 9 

Cluster 9 is in the Basin and Range province of 

southwest Arizona (figs.1A, 8). Because the tracts 

in cluster 9 overlie Tertiary basins, they have a 

greater hydrocarbon potential than the tracts in 

adjacent clusters 7 and 11. The southernmost 

tract in cluster 9 adjoins the Gila trough, where 

lower to middle Tertiary sedimentary rocks, possibly up to 6,000 feet thick, are present. Minor oil 

shows have been reported from holes drilled in the 

Gila trough (Petroleum Information WHCS file). 

The hydrocarbon potential of cluster 9 is ranked 

low because the organic richness, reservoir quality, and thermal history of the rocks are probably 

unfavorable to the generation and entrapment of 

significant volumes of hydrocarbons. 

Cluster 10 

Cluster 10 is represented by tracts in the transitional zone and in the Basin and Range province 

of southeast Arizona (figs.1A, 8). The hydrocarbon 

potential of cluster 10 is rated low to zero. The 

two northern tracts in this cluster have extensive 

exposures of Tertiary volcanic rocks that probably 

conceal a thin section of Paleozoic rocks. Any hydrocarbons that were originally trapped in these 

tracts probably would have escaped in postgeneration and postmigration episodes of rifting and volcanism. 

The southernmost tract in cluster 10 is in the 

Pedregosa basin and the Early Cretaceous rift basins where a thick section of sedimentary rocks is 

preserved (figs.1A, 8). However, the tract is complexly faulted, contains several outcrops of Precambrian crystalline rocks, and is intruded by 

Tertiary plutons. 

Cluster 11 

oil. Cluster 11 is comprised of 34 tracts of WilderHydrocarbons generated in strata within cluster ness Lands in the Basin and Range province of 

8 would have been highly prone to leakage and southwest Arizona (figs.1A, 8). The hydrocarbon 

thermal destruction because the adjacent rocks potential of cluster 11 is rated low to zero. The 

C19 
numerous horst blocks located in cluster 11 are 

composed of Mesozoic and Precambrian gneiss, 

schist, and granite, Cretaceous and Tertiary granite, Tertiary volcanic rocks, and local Mesozoic 

sedimentary rocks (Wilson and others, 1969). Grabens and half grabens between the horst blocks 

are filled with Tertiary sedimentary rocks and 

Quaternary sediments generally no greater than 

about 5,000 feet thick (Oppenheimer and Sumner, 

1981). These shallow basins are the only part of 

cluster 11 where commercial hydrocarbons could 

be found. Oil shows have been reported from one 

shallow well drilled near the middle part of cluster 

11 (Petroleum Information WHCS file). 

Cluster 12 

Cluster 12 consists of a broad, northwestoriented zone of wilderness tracts in the transitional zone and the Basin and Range province of 

Arizona (figs.1A, 8). This cluster of tracts has zero 

potential. Outcrops of Precambrian, Mesozoic, and 

Tertiary granite are widely distributed throughout cluster 12. Some sedimentary rocks are present in the southeast part of cluster 12, but they 

have been pervasively intruded by Mesozoic and 

Tertiary granites. Commercial hydrocarbons could 

be found in cluster 12 only if the extensive crystalline rocks at the surface were allochthonous. Such 

a notion is unlikely in view of the granitic and 

gneissic rocks encountered by the recent 18,013-

foot Phillips Arizona State No. A-1 drilled near 

Tucson (Reif and Robinson, 1981) (fig. 1C). 

SUMMARY 

Of the 6,183,665 acres of Wilderness Lands in 

Arizona the potential acreage can be summarized 

as follows: high potential, none; medium potential, 

192 thousand acres; low potential, 1,375.3 

thousand acres; low to zero potential, 3,528.8 

thousand acres; and zero potential, 1,087.8 

thousand acres. The petroleum potential by 

acreage of all Wilderness Land categories in the 

Western United States is shown in this circular by 

B. M. Miller in table 1, chapter P. 

REFERENCES CITED 

Allen, W. E., 1978, Navajo Springs and Pinta Dome, in Fassett, J. E., ed., Oil and gas fields of the Four Corners 

area, Four Corners Geological Society, p. 80--89. 

Bahr, C. W., 1963, Virgin oil field, Washington County, Utah, 

in Intermountain Association of Petroleum Geologists 

Guidebook to the geology of southwestern Utah: Salt Lake 

City, Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey, p. 169-

171. 

Barwin, J. R., King, R. W., and Hassenfratz, C. A., 1971, Future oil and gas potential of northeast Arizona, in Cram, 

I. A., ed., Future petroleum provinces of the United 

States-their geology and potential, American Association 

of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 15, v. 1, p 449--469. 

Bilodeau, W. L., 1978, The Glance conglomerate, a Lower Cretaceous syntectonic deposit in southeastern Arizona, in 

New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook, 29th Field 

Conference, Land of Cochise, p. 209-214. 

--1982, Tectonic models for Early Cretaceous rifting in 

southeasternArizona: Geology, v. 10, no. 9, p. 466--470. 

Brown, S. C., and Lauth, R. E., 1957, Oil and gas potentialities of northern Arizona: Geology of southwestern San 

Juan basin, 2nd Field Conference, Four Corners Geological Society Guidebook, p. 77-84. 

Coney, P. J., 1978, The plate tectonic setting of southeastern 

Arizona, in New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook, 

29th Field Conference, Land of Cochise, p. 285--290. 

Damon, P. E., and Bikerman, Michael, 1964, Potassium-argon 

dating of post-Laramide plutonic and volcanic rocks within 

the Basin and Range province of southeastern Arizona and 

adjacent areas: Arizona Geological Society Digest, v. 7, p. 

63--78. 

Damon, P. E., and Mauger, R. L., 1966, Epeirogeny and 

orogeny viewed from the Basin and the Range province: 

Society of Mining Engineers AIME Transactions, v. 235, 

p. 99-112. 

Danie, T. C., 1978, Dineh-bi-Keyah, in Fassett, J. E., ed., Oil 

and gas fields of the Four Corners area, Four Corners 

Geological Society, p. 73-76. 

Davis, G. H., 1978, Monocline fold pattern of the Co!orado 

Plateau, in Matthews, Vincent III, ed., Laramide folding 

associated with basement block faulting in the western 

United States, Geological Society of America Memoir 151, 

p. 215--233. 

--1979, Laramide folding and faulting in southeastern 

Arizona: American Journal of Science, v. 279, no. 5, p. 

543-569. 

Davis, G. H., and Coney, P. J., 1979, Geologic development of 

the Cordilleran metamorphic core complexes: Geology, v. 

7, no. 3, p. 120-124. 

Dickinson, W. R., 1981, Plate tectonic evolution of the southern Cordillera, in Dickinson, W. R., and Payne, W. D., 

eds., Relations of tectonics to ore deposits in the southern 

Cordillera: Arizona Geological Society Digest, v. XIV, p. 

113-135. 

Dolton, G. L., Carlson, K. H., Charpentier, R. R., Coury, A. 

B., Crovelli, R. A., Frezon, S. E., Khan, A. S., Lister, J. 

H., McMullin, R. H., Pike, R. S., Powers, R. B., Scott, 

E. W., and Varnes, K. L., 1981, Estimates of undiscovered recoverable conventional resources of oil and gas in 

the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 860, 87 

p. 

Drewes, Harald, 1978, The Cordilleran orogenic belt between 

Nevada and Chihuahua: Geological Society of America 

Bulletin, v. 89, no. 5, p. 641-657. 

C20 
--1980, Tectonic map of southeast Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I1109. 

--1981, Tectonics of southeastern Arizona: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 1144, 100 p. 

Eaton, G. P., Peterson, D. L., and Schumann, H. H., 1972, 

Geophysical, geohydrological, and geochemical reconnaissance of the Luke salt body, central Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 753, 28 p. 

Eberly, L. D., and Stanley, T. B., Jr., 1978, Cenozoic stratigraphy and geologic history of southwestern Arizona: 

Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 89, no. 6, p. 

921-940. 

Elston, W. E., 1976, Tectonic significance of mid-Tertiary volcanism in the Basin and Range province: a critical review 

with special reference to New Mexico, in Elston, W. E., 

and Northrop, S. A., eds., Cenozoic volcanism in southwestern New Mexico: New Mexico Geological Society Special Publication 5, p. 93-102. 

Elston, W. E., Rhodes, R. C., Coney, P. J., and Deal, E. G., 

1976, Progress report on the Mogollon Plateau volcanic 

field southwestern New Mexico, No. 3---surface expression of a pluton, in Elston, W. E. and Northrop, S. A., 

eds., Cenozoic volcanism in southwestern New Mexico: 

New Mexico Geological Society Special Publication 5, p. 3-

28. 

Fassett, J. E., ed., 1978, Oil and gas fields of the Four Corners 

area: Four Corners Geological Society, 727 p. 

Fenneman, N. M., 1931, Physiography of western United 

States: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York and 

London, 534 p. 

Giardina, Salvatore, Jr., 1979, Geologic review of northwestern Arizona for petroleum exploration investigations: 

Arizona Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Publication 

4, 72 p. 

Greenwood, Eugene, Kottlowski, F. E., and Thompson, Sam 

III, 1977, Petroleum potential and stratigraphy of Pedregosa basin: comparison with Permian and Orogrande basins: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 61, no. 9, p. 1448-1469. 

Hamilton, Warren, 1978, Mesozoic tectonics of the western 

United States, in Howell, D. G., and McDougall, K. A., 

eds., Mesozoic paleogeography of the western United 

States, Pacific Coast Paleogeography Symposium 2, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Pacific 

Section, p. 33-70. 

Hansen, A. R., Moulton, Floyd, and Owing, B. F., 1980, UtahArizona overthrust-hingeline belt: Oil and Gas Journal, v. 

78, no. 47, p. 188, 191-192, 195-196, 198-199. 

Hayes, P. T., 1970, Cretaceous paleogeography of southeastern Arizona and adjacent areas: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 658-B, 41 p. 

Heylmun, E. B., 1978, Southeastern Arizona: Oil and gas possibilities: Oil and Gas Journal, v. 76, no. 28, p. 176-177. 

--1979, The Sonoita basin of Arizona: Oil and Gas Journal, 

v. 77, no. 20, p. 1~182. 

--1981, Geology of promising Holbrook basin: Oil and Gas 

Journal, v. 79, no. 1, p. 117-118, 123. 

Keith, S. B., 1979, The great southwestern Arizona overthrust 

oil and gas play: Fieldnotes from the State of Arizona, 

Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology, v. 9, 

no. 1, p. 10-14. 

Kelley, V. C., 1955, Monoclines of the Colorado Plateau: 

Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 66, p. 789-804. 

Knight, R. L., and Cooper, J. C., 1955, Suggested changes in 

Devonian terminology of the Four Corners area, in Four 

Corners Geological Society Guidebook, 1st Field Conference, p. 56--58. 

Kottlowski, F. E., 1971, Petroleum potential of southwest 

New Mexico and south Arizona, in Cram, I. A., ed., Future petroleum provinces of the United States-their geology and potential, American Assocation of Petroleum 

Geologists Memoir 15, v. 1, p. 431-448. 

Lessentine, R. H., 1965, Kaiparowits and Black Mesa basins: 

stratigraphic synthesis: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 49, no. 11, p. 1997-2019. 

Lucchitta, Ivo, 1974, Structural evolution of northwest Arizona 

and its relation to adjacent Basin and Range province 

structures, in Karlstrom, T. N. V. and others, eds., Geology of Northern Arizona, part !-regional studies: 

Flagstaff, Northern Arizona University Bookstore, p. 

336-354. 

--1978, The central Arizona transition zone: a Precambrian plate boundary? (abs): Geological Society of America 

abstracts with programs, v. 10, no. 3, p. 114. 

Matthews, Vincent III, 1982, Just the opposite?, in Letters to 

editor: Oil and Gas Journal, v. 80, no. 21, p. 12. 

Mattick, R. E., Olmsted, F. H., and Zohdy, A. A. R., 1973, 

Geophysical studies in the Yuma area, Arizona and 

California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 726-

D, 36p. 

McKenny, J. W., and Masters, J. A., 1968, Dineh-bi-Keyah 

field, Arizona: American Association of Petroleum 

Geologists Bulletin, v. 52, no. 10, p. 2045-2057. 

Molenaar, C. M., 1972, Petroleum and natural gas, The 

Paradox basin, in Geologic Atlas of the Rocky Mountain 

Region, Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, 

Denver, Colorado, p. 282-284. 

--1983, Major depositional cycles and regional correlations 

of Upper Cretaceous rocks, southern Colorado Plateau and 

adjacent areas, in Reynolds, M. W., and Dolly, E. D., 

eds., Mesozoic paleogeography of the west-central United 

States; Rocky Mountain Paleogeography Symposium 2, 

Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, 

Rocky Mountain Section, p. 201-224. 

Moore, R. T., 1972, Geology of the Virgin and Beaverdam 

Mountains, Arizona: Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology Bulletin 186, 65 p. 

Oppenheimer, J. M., and Sumner, J. S., 1981, Gravity modeling of the Basin and Range province, Arizona: Arizona 

Geological Society Digest, v. XIII, p. 111-115. 

O'Sullivan, R. B., Repenning, C. A., Beaumont, E. C., and 

Page, H. G., 1972, Stratigraphy of the Cretaceous rocks 

and the Tertiary Ojo Alamo sandstone, Navajo and Hopi 

Indian reservations Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 521-E, 69 p. 

Parker, J. W., and Roberts, J. W., 1963, Devonian and Mississippian stratigraphy of the central part of the Colorado 

Plateau, in Bass, R. 0., ed., Shelf carbonates of the 

Paradox basin, Four Corners Geological Society Symposium, p. 31-60. 

Peirce, H. W., 1974, Thick evaporites in the Basin and Range 

province, Arizona: Northern Ohio Geological Society Symposium on Salt, 4th, v. 1, p. 47-55. 

C21 
--1976, Elements of Paleozoic tectonics in Arizona: 

Arizona Geological Society Digest, v. X, p. 37-57. 

Peirce, H. W., Keith, S. B., and Wilt, J. C., 1970, Coal, oil, 

natural gas, helium, and uranium in Arizona: Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology Bulletin 182, 289 

p. 

Peterson, J. A., and Ohlen, H. P., 1963, Pennsylvanian shelf 

carbonates, Paradox basin, in Bass, R. 0., ed., Shelf carbonates of the Paradox basin, F-our Corners Geological Society Symposium, p. 65-79. 

Reif, D. M., and Robinson, J.P., 1981, Geophysical, geochemical, and petrographic data and regional correlation from 

the Arizona State A-1 well, Pinal County, Arizona: 

Arizona Geological Society Digest, v. XIII, p. 99-109. 

Repenning, C. A., and Page, H. G., 1956, Late Cretaceous 

stratigraphy of Black Mesa, Navajo and Hopi Indian reservations, Arizona: American Association of Petroleum 

Geologists Bulletin, v. 40, no. 2, p. 255-294. 

Ross, C. A., 1973, Pennsylvanian and Early Permian depositional history, southeastern Arizona: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 57, no. 5, p. 887-

912. 

Scarborough, R. B., and Peirce, H. W., 1978, Late Cenozoic 

basins of Arizona, in New Mexico Geological Society 

Guidebook, 29th Field Conference, Land of Cochise, p. 

253-259. 

Scurlock, J. R., 1971, Geologic structure map of northern 

Arizona: Arizona Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. 

Shoemaker, E. M., Squires, R. L., and Abrams, M. J., 1978, 

Bright Angel and Mesa Butte fault systems of northern 

Arizona, in Smith, R. B., and Eaton, G. P., eds., Cenozoic 

tectonics and regional geophysics of the western CordillI .,.. 

era: Geological Society of America Memoir 152, p. 341-

368. 

Silver, L. T., and Anderson, T. H., 1974, Possible left-lateral 

early to middle Mesozoic disruption of the southwestern 

North American craton margin (abs.): Geological Society 

of America abstracts with programs, v. 6, no. 7, p. 955-

956. 

Spencer, C. W., 1978, Tohache Wash Area, in Fassett, J. K, 

ed., Oil and gas fields of the Four Corners area, Four Corners Geological Society, p. 92-93. 

Stewart, J. H., Poole, F. G., and Wilson, R. F., 1972, Stratigraphy and origin of the Triassic Moenkopi Formation and 

related strata in the Colorado Plateau region: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 691, 195 p. 

Teichert, Curt, 1965, Devonian rocks and paleogeography of 

central Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 464, 181 p. 

Thompson, Sam III, 1980, Pedregosa basin's main exploration 

target is Pennsylvanian dolostone: Oil and Gas Journal, v. 

78, no. 42, p. 202,207,210,215. 

Thompson, Sam III, Tovar R., J. C., and Conley, J. N., 1978, 

Oil and gas exploration wells in the Pedregosa basin, in 

New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook, 29th Field 

Conference, Land of Cochise, p. 331-342. 

Wilson, E. D., and Moore, R. T., 1959, Structure of Basin and 

Range province in Arizona, in Heindl, L. A., ed., Southern Arizona Guidebook II for 55th Annual Geological Society of America Cordilleran Section Meeting, Arizona 

Geological Society, p. 89-105. 

Wilson, E. D., Moore, R. T., and Cooper, J. R., 1969, Geologic 

map of Arizona: Arizona Bureau of Mines and U.S. 

Geological Survey, scale 1:500,000. 

C22