Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal Project

Assessment of Undiscovered Petroleum Resources 

of the Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province

Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5147

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Cover. Northwestward view across the southern foothills of the Brooks 

Range along Akmagolik Creek, approximately 150 miles southwest of 

Prudhoe Bay. Exposed rocks are part of the Mississippian–Pennsylvanian 

Lisburne Group and include a thrust-fault ramp at left. This area is included 

in the Arctic Alaska fold-and-thrust belt assessment unit discussed in text. 

Photo includes two helicopters for scale, a blue-and-white one near the 

center and a red one at center-right at creek level.
Assessment of Undiscovered Petroleum 

Resources of the Arctic Alaska Petroleum 

Province

By David W. Houseknecht, Kenneth J. Bird, and Christopher P. Garrity

Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal Project

Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5147

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Houseknecht, D.W., Bird, K.J., and Garrity, C.P., 2012, Assessment of undiscovered petroleum resources of the Arctic 

Alaska Petroleum Province: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5147, 26 p.
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Geologic Setting and Stratigraphy..............................................................................................................1

Source-Rock Systems...................................................................................................................................5

Arctic Alaska Platform..................................................................................................................................9

Assessment Unit Description .............................................................................................................9

Geological Analysis of Assessment Unit Probability......................................................................9

Charge..........................................................................................................................................11

Rocks............................................................................................................................................11

Timing and Preservation...........................................................................................................12

Analogs Used for Assessment .........................................................................................................12

Assessment Inputs .............................................................................................................................12

Number of Accumulations .......................................................................................................12

Oil-to-Gas Mix.............................................................................................................................12

Accumulation Size Distribution ...............................................................................................12

Province Geologist’s Estimated Maximum Accumulation Size..........................................14

Ancillary Properties and Co-Product Ratios .........................................................................14

Results ..................................................................................................................................................14

Arctic Alaska Fold-and-Thrust Belt ..........................................................................................................14

Assessment Unit Description ...........................................................................................................14

Geological Analysis of Assessment Unit Probability....................................................................14

Charge..........................................................................................................................................15

Rocks............................................................................................................................................17

Timing and Preservation...........................................................................................................17

Analogs Used for Assessment .........................................................................................................18

Assessment Inputs .............................................................................................................................18

Number of Accumulations .......................................................................................................18

Oil-to-Gas Mix.............................................................................................................................18

Accumulation Size Distribution ...............................................................................................18

Province Geologist’s Estimated Maximum Accumulation Size..........................................18

Ancillary Properties and Co-Product Ratios .........................................................................18

Results ..................................................................................................................................................18

Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................19

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................20

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................20

Figures

1. Map of Arctic Alaska Province showing component assessments units ..........................2

2. Generalized cross section from the Brooks Range to the Alaska rift shoulder.................3

3. Generalized chronostratigraphy for the Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province......................4
iv

 4 Maps showing the three main oil-prone source-rock systems in the 

Tables

1. Summary of assessment unit probabilities and key input parameters

for numbers and sizes of undiscovered, conventional accumulations

for the Arctic Alaska platform assessment unit....................................................................11

2. Analog assessment units used to constrain input parameters for the

Arctic Alaska platform assessment unit.................................................................................13

3. Summary of results for risked, undiscovered, technically recoverable

petroleum resources for the Arctic Alaska Province, including results for

the platform assessment unit and the fold-and-thrust belt assessment unit...................15

4. Summary of assessment unit probabilities and key input parameters for

numbers and sizes of undiscovered, conventional accumulations for the

Arctic Alaska fold-and-thrust belt assessment unit.............................................................17

5. Analog assessment units used to constrain input parameters for the Arctic Alaska 

fold-and-thrust belt assessment unit ......................................................................................19

Conversion Factors

Multiply By To obtain

Length

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

meter (m) 1.094 yard (yd) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

kilometer (km) 0.5400 mile, nautical (nmi) 

Area

square kilometer (km2

) 247.1 acre

square kilometer (km2

) 0.3861 square mile (mi2)

Volume

barrel (bbl), (petroleum, 

1 barrel=42 gal)

0.1590 cubic meter (m3

) 

cubic foot (ft3

) 28.32 cubic decimeter (dm3) 

cubic foot (ft3

) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3) 
Assessment of Undiscovered Petroleum Resources

of the Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province

By David W. Houseknecht, Kenneth J. Bird, and Christopher P. Garrity

Abstract 

The Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province encompasses all 

lands and adjacent continental shelf areas north of the Brooks 

Range-Herald arch tectonic belts and south of the northern 

(outboard) margin of the Alaska rift shoulder. Even though 

only a small part is thoroughly explored, it is one of the most 

prolific petroleum provinces in North America, with total 

known resources (cumulative production plus proved reserves) 

of about 28 billion barrels of oil equivalent. 

For assessment purposes, the province is divided into a 

platform assessment unit, comprising the Alaska rift shoulder 

and its relatively undeformed flanks, and a fold-and-thrust belt 

assessment unit, comprising the deformed area north of the 

Brooks Range and Herald arch tectonic belts. Mean estimates 

of undiscovered, technically recoverable resources include 

nearly 28 billion barrels of oil and 122 trillion cubic feet of 

nonassociated gas in the platform assessment unit and 2 billion 

barrels of oil and 59 trillion cubic feet of nonassociated gas in 

the fold-and-thrust belt assessment unit.

Introduction 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 2008 completed 

an appraisal of undiscovered, technically recoverable, conventional oil and gas resources north of the Arctic Circle. Results 

of that Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal (CARA) include 

aggregate resource estimates for the entire Arctic region 

(Bird and others, 2008; Gautier and others, 2009, 2011a) and 

documentation of the geological framework and resource 

estimates for specific Arctic provinces (Bird and Houseknecht, 

2011; Gautier and others, 2011b; Houseknecht and Bird, 

2011; Klett and Pitman, 2011; Klett and others, 2011; Moore 

and Pitman, 2011; Moore and others, 2011; Schenk, 2011a, 

b; Sørensen and others, 2011). In addition, the procedures 

and methods used in conducting the Circum-Arctic Resource 

Appraisal have been documented by Charpentier and Gautier 

(2011). The purpose of this report is to provide a synthesis of 

the geology of the Arctic Alaska Province and to present input 

parameters and results of the resource assessment.

The Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province extends from the 

northern margin of the Brooks Range and Herald arch tectonic 

belts on the south and southwest to the northern margin of 

the Alaska rift shoulder (Houseknecht and Bird, 2011) on the 

north, and from the axis of the Chukchi platform on the northwest to the western margin of the Mackenzie delta on the east 

(fig. 1). The province is about 1,400 km long (west-east) and 

ranges in width (south-north) from about 500 km in the west 

to about 50 km in the east. The province includes the Alaska 

North Slope, the Alaska and Canada Brooks Range foothills, 

part of the Alaska and Canada Beaufort shelf, and most of the 

U.S. Chukchi shelf. The province is divided into two units, the 

platform and the fold-and-thrust belt, for assessment purposes.

Geologic Setting and Stratigraphy 

The most notable geologic features of the province are 

the Alaska rift shoulder, the Colville foreland basin, and the 

Brooks Range and Herald arch fold-thrust belts (figs. 1, 2). 

The Alaska rift shoulder formed during the Jurassic–Early 

Cretaceous opening of the Canada Basin (Grantz and 

May, 1982; Lawver and Scotese, 1990; Grantz and others, 

1990, 2011; Embry, 1990, 2000; Lane, 1997; Lawver and 

others, 2002, 2011; Houseknecht and Bird, 2011). The Arctic 

Alaska microplate (including Arctic Alaska and the Chukchi 

shelf) rifted from Arctic Canada, perhaps by counterclockwise 

rotational opening of the Canada Basin or alternative motions. 

The rift shoulder is defined by high-standing acoustic basement, whose upper surface generally dips southward beneath 

Arctic Alaska and the Chukchi shelf and steps northward over 

a short distance across normal faults to great depths beneath 

the Beaufort shelf (fig. 2). This abrupt northern boundary of 

the rift shoulder defines the Alaska (Beaufort) hinge (fig. 2). 

The current structural crest of the rift shoulder is commonly 

known as the Barrow arch (fig. 2) and is tens of kilometers 

south of the hinge. This structural geometry is the result of 

several geological processes, including thermal contraction 

and sedimentary loading of the northern margin of the rift 

shoulder, sediment loading of the southern flank of the rift 

shoulder by Colville basin strata, and perhaps flexural uplift 
2 Assessment of Undiscovered Petroleum Resources of the Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province

Canada

U.S.A.

Russia

U.S.A.

-100

-500

-1000

-2000

-100

-3000

-1000

-500

-200

-1000

-3000

-2000

Figure 1.

Province boundaryAssessment unit boundaryAdjacent CARA assessment units

EXPLANATION

MAPAREA

0 50 100 MILES

100 KILOMETERS 500 Median extent of permanent ice—Month of 

September (1976–2006)

Bathymetric contour

—Interval, in meters below 

sea level, is variable

Fig. 2

ALASKA

Arctic Circ el

Median limit ofpermanent ice1979-2006

Chukchi

Sea

Beaufort Sea

Hanna

trough

Chukchi

platform

North

Chukchi

basin

Herald arch

BROOKS RANGE

BROOKS

RANGE

FOLD-AND-THRUST BELT

PLATFORM

ARCTIC ALASKA PROVINCE

Hope

basin

Mackenzie

delta

CHUKCHI

BORDERLAND

CANADA BASIN

ALASKA

PASSIVE

MARGIN

CANNING-MACKENZIE

DEFORMED MARGIN

132°W 140°W 148°W 156°W 164°W 172°W

74°N72°N70°N68°N66°N

in red. Location of cross section in Map of Arctic Alaska Province (outlined in black) showing boundaries of the platform and fold-and-thrust belt assessment units 

ce Appraisal (CARA) assessment units.

 Figure 1.

fig. 2 is shown by thin black line. Blue lines, bathymetry in meters; green lines, boundaries of adjacent Circum-Arctic Resour
Geologic Setting and Stratigraphy 3

SOUTH

Brooks Range

Tertiary

and

Cretaceous

Jurassic–Neocomian

Permian–Triassic

Devonian

Mississippian

pre-Mississippian

(deformed)

Neoc.

Barrow

arch

Colville foredeep Dinkum

graben

Dinkum

plateau

Alaska

hinge

Colville foreland basin Alaska rift shoulder

LCU

NORTH

FEET METERS

0

2,000

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

FOLD-AND-THRUST BELT AU PLATFORM AU

Figure 2.

Mississippian (grabens locally present;

grabens may include Devonian)

0 25 50 MILES

0 25 50 KILOMETERS

0

5,000

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

Figure 2. Generalized cross section showing stratigraphic and structural relations from the Brooks Range to the northern margin 

of the Alaska rift shoulder, central North Slope of Alaska. Note that Alaska rift shoulder in this area includes the Dinkum graben and 

plateau. AU, assessment unit; LCU, Lower Cretaceous unconformity. Location of cross section is shown in fig. 1. Modified from Bird and 

Bader (1987).

of the Barrow arch by tectonic loading of the Arctic Alaska 

microplate by the Brooks Range. Acoustic basement of the 

Arctic Alaska microplate is thought to consist mostly of 

pre-Mississippian low-rank metamorphic rocks known as the 

Franklinian sequence (fig. 3), which was broadly deformed 

during the Ellesmerian orogeny (Late Devonian–Early Mississippian; Balkwill and others, 1983; Moore and others, 

1994; Dumoulin, 2001), although aeromagnetic and gravity 

data suggest a much more heterogeneous basement (see, for 

example, Saltus and others, 2006).

Franklinian basement in Arctic Alaska is overlain by Mississippian–Cretaceous strata (fig. 3) deposited before (Ellesmerian sequence) and during (Beaufortian sequence) rift opening of the Canada Basin. The older part of the Ellesmerian 

sequence, which in places may be as old as Devonian, locally 

includes thick graben-filling successions, and the younger part 

comprises passive-margin deposits (Bird, 2001; Sherwood 

and others, 2002; Bird and Houseknecht, 2011). The Beaufortian sequence and, in many areas, the Ellesmerian sequence 

are truncated progressively northward beneath the Lower 

Cretaceous unconformity (fig. 2, LCU), considered to represent the climax of rift-shoulder uplift, perhaps accentuated 

as a forebulge in response to tectonic loading, and Franklinian basement subcrops the LCU in areas of maximum uplift 

(fig. 4A, B). Overlying the LCU, Lower Cretaceous–Tertiary 

foreland basin strata (Brookian sequence) generally thicken 

southward into the foredeep of the Colville basin and thin 

northward by onlap against the rift shoulder (Bird and Molenaar, 1992; Houseknecht and others, 2009a, b). The thickest 

part of the foreland-basin succession grades in age from Early 

Cretaceous beneath the western Alaska North Slope (ANS) to 

Tertiary beneath the eastern ANS, and the Alaska rift shoulder 

was progressively overstepped and buried from west to east by 

foreland-basin depositional systems (Molenaar, 1983; Bird and 

Molenaar, 1992; Houseknecht and others, 2009a, b, 2012b).

Although the Chukchi shelf is stratigraphically similar to 

the ANS, the Hanna trough—a Paleozoic failed rift filled by 

a thick succession of the Ellesmerian sequence—is a distinguishing feature (Sherwood and others, 2002; Thurston and 

Theiss, 1987). Ellesmerian strata in the Hanna trough thin 

eastward and grade into the passive-margin succession of 

the ANS and thin westward to an onlap pinchout against the 

Chukchi platform, an ancestral ridge of Franklinian basement whose axis lies near the U.S.-Russia maritime boundary 

(fig. 1). The Beaufortian sequence beneath the Chukchi shelf 

is similar to that of the ANS, except that it is punctuated by 

several unconformities (for example, Jurassic unconformity; 

fig. 3) that appear to be more significant than those to the 

east (Sherwood and others, 1998). The Brookian sequence 

beneath the Chukchi shelf comprises Lower Cretaceous 

(mostly Aptian–Albian) and Tertiary successions separated by 

a Paleocene unconformity (Sherwood and others, 1998). The 
4 Assessment of Undiscovered Petroleum Resources of the Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province

.

. .. . .

.. . ....

. .

.

.

.

. .

.

. . .

.

. .

. . .

. .. . .

.. . ....

. .

.

.

.

. .

.

. . .

.

. .

. .

ELLESMERIAN FRANK. BEAUFORTIAN BROOKIAN

360

Ma

50

100

144

208

245

286

320

2

JURASSIC CRETACEOUS CENOZOIC MISS

PENN

PERMTRIASSIC PRE-MISS

pebble shale unit

SW NE

Gubik Fm.

Kingak Shale

Shublik Fm.

Lisburne Group

basement

Sag River Sandstone

Torok Fm.

Canning Fm.

GRZ (gamma-ray zone)

Hue Shale

Endicott Group

Sadlerochit

Group

Seabee Fm.

Sagavanirktok Fm.

Canning Fm.

Prince Creek Fm.

Schrader Bluff Fm.

T

N

F

1

2

3a

3b

3cmain oil-prone source rocks

LCU

JU

Otuk Fm.B

Figure 3. Generalized chronostratigraphy for the Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province, based on the Alaska North Slope. 

Tectonostratigraphic sequence names shown in all caps at left. Oil-prone source-rock systems discussed in text are indicated at right: 

1, Triassic source-rock system, comprising the Shublik Formation and Triassic part of the Otuk Formation; 2, Jurassic source-rock 

system, comprising the lower Kingak Shale and Blankenship Member (B) of the Otuk Formation; and 3, Cretaceous–Paleogene sourcerock system, comprising (3a) the Lower Cretaceous pebble shale unit and gamma-ray zone (GRZ), (3b) the Upper Cretaceous Seabee 

Formation, and (3c) lower Paleogene organic-rich tongues of the Canning Formation. LCU, Lower Cretaceous unconformity; JU, Jurassic 

unconformity; F, Fortress Mountain Formation; N, Nanushuk Formation; T, Tuluvak Formation. Oblique labels (Otuk Formation and B, 

Blankenship Member) indicate units that crop out in the Brooks Range frontal thrust belt and that represent southern distal facies 

equivalents of formations present beneath the Alaska North Slope. Arctic Alaska stratigraphy modified from Lerand (1973), Bird (1985, 

2001), Hubbard and others (1987), and Mull and others (2003); ages from Gradstein and others (2004).

Lower Cretaceous succession displays a regional geometry 

suggesting influences of both a sag basin developed above the 

Hanna trough and a foreland basin related to the Herald arch 

and western Brooks Range. Lower Cretaceous strata grade 

eastward into foreland basin deposits of the ANS (Moore and 

others, 2002; Houseknecht and others, 2009a, b). The Tertiary 

succession, in contrast, is thickest in syndepositional grabens 

that open northward into the North Chukchi basin (fig. 1; 

Sherwood and others, 1998; Houseknecht and Bird, 2011). 

South of the rift shoulder, no apparent stratigraphic continuity 

exists between the Tertiary successions beneath the Chukchi 

shelf and the eastern ANS. Evidence suggests broad uplift of 

the western ANS during this time (Burns and others, 2007; 

Houseknecht and Bird, 2011; Houseknecht and others, 2011), 

segmenting the foreland into a Chukchi depocenter influenced 

by wrench tectonics and an eastern ANS depocenter influenced by contractional tectonics associated with the eastern 

Brooks Range.
Source-Rock Systems 5

Source-Rock Systems

Multiple petroleum systems have been identified in Arctic 

Alaska, and many oil accumulations appear to be mixtures of 

oil expelled from two or more source rocks (Magoon and others, 2003; Peters and others, 2008). The regional source-rock 

potential of Arctic Alaska is considered within a framework 

of three source-rock systems: Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous–Paleogene. The Triassic source-rock system includes 

the Shublik Formation and its southern distal equivalent, 

the Triassic part of the Otuk Formation, which crops out in 

the frontal thrust belt of the Brooks Range (Mull and others, 

1982; Kupecz, 1995; Masterson, 2001; Parrish and others, 

2001a, b; Peters and others, 2006). The Jurassic source-rock 

system includes the lower Kingak Shale and its southern 

distal equivalent, the Jurassic Blankenship Member of the 

Otuk Formation, which crops out in the frontal thrust belt of 

the Brooks Range (Seifert and others, 1980; Mull and others, 

1982; Masterson, 2001; Houseknecht and Bird, 2004; Peters 

and others, 2006). Although both the Shublik and Kingak 

source rocks may be present in grabens along the northern 

margin of the province, it is unlikely that either is present 

north of the hingeline because the Amerasia Basin was not yet 

open when those source rocks were deposited (Houseknecht 

and others, 2012b). The Cretaceous–Paleogene source-rock 

system includes the Hauterivian pebble shale unit, the Lower 

Cretaceous gamma-ray zone (GRZ) of the Hue Shale, the 

Upper Cretaceous (mostly Turonian) Seabee Formation, and 

Paleogene organic-rich beds in the Canning Formation (fig. 

3; Mull and others, 2003; Macquaker and Keller, 2005; Peters 

and others, 2006; Houseknecht and Bird, 2011; Houseknecht 

and others, 2012b).

The present character of these source-rock systems has 

been documented in the most heavily explored part of the 

Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province (see, for example, Claypool and Magoon, 1985; Creaney and Passey, 1993; Lillis 

and others, 1999; Magoon, 1994; Magoon and Bird, 1988; 

Magoon and Claypool, 1985; Magoon and others, 1987, 1999; 

Masterson, 2001; Threlkeld and others, 2000), and the original 

(prematuration) character has been inferred for the same area 

(Peters and others, 2006). However, the source-rock quality 

across much of the province remains poorly known because of 

limited data. Outcrop samples from the Brooks Range frontal 

thrust belt (Dow and Talukdar, 1995; Dow, 1998; Mull, 2000, 

2009) indicate that the Triassic and Jurassic source rocks originally were rich (higher total organic carbon content) and oilprone (higher hydrogen index values). In contrast, thrust-belt 

outcrop samples of the pebble shale and GRZ display highly 

variable character; they tend to be lean and gas-prone across 

much of the thrust belt but locally are rich and oil-prone (Dow 

and Talukdar, 1995; Dow, 1998; Mull, 2000, 2009).

Highly generalized maps depicting the original character 

of these three source-rock systems are shown in figure 4. The 

Triassic and Jurassic source-rock systems were deposited on a 

south-facing (present coordinates) passive continental margin 

and, when the character of outcrop samples from the Brooks 

Range frontal thrust belt are considered, they appear originally 

to have graded southward to facies that are richer (higher total 

organic carbon content) and more oil-prone (higher hydrogen 

index values) (fig. 4A, B; Dow and Talukdar, 1995; Kupecz, 

1995; Dow, 1998; Mull, 2000, 2009; Masterson, 2001; Parrish 

and others, 2001a, b; Peters and others, 2006). The Lower 

Cretaceous pebble shale unit and GRZ, deposited during and 

after the opening of the Canada Basin and the onset of Brooks 

Range tectonism and foreland basin development, appear 

originally to have been richer and more oil-prone towards the 

east and north (fig. 4C; Dow and Talukdar, 1995; Dow, 1998; 

Mull, 2000, 2009; Peters and others, 2006). However, organicrich and oil-prone source rocks also have been documented 

locally in outcrops of the pebble shale unit and GRZ along 

the western part of the Brooks Range frontal thrust belt (C.G. 

Mull, Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, written commun., 2009)1

, so exceptions to the generalized regional trends have been documented. Although not confirmed by drilling, the potential exists for rich and oil-prone 

Cretaceous and Paleogene source rocks in the Canada Basin, 

north of the Alaska rift shoulder (Houseknecht and Bird, 2011; 

Houseknecht and others, 2012b), and this potential is reflected 

in figure 4C.

In addition to the major source-rock systems discussed 

above, oil-prone source rocks are known to occur in the upper 

part of the upper Paleozoic Lisburne Group (fig. 3), and several Arctic Alaska oil accumulations are inferred to have been 

partly charged from Lisburne source rocks (Magoon and others, 2003; Dumoulin and others, 2008a, b, 2011). Moreover, 

gas-prone mudstones and local coals occur in strata ranging in 

age from Mississippian (Endicott Group) to Paleogene (Canning, Prince Creek, and Sagavanirktok Formations) (fig. 3).

Thermal maturity of these source rocks generally reflects 

the distribution and thickness of Cretaceous and younger 

foreland-basin and Beaufort passive-margin deposits (fig. 5). 

All source rocks in the foredeep are overmature with respect 

to the oil window, are mostly mature on the northern flank of 

the foreland basin, and are mostly early-mature to immature 

on the rift shoulder (figs. 5, 6). Modeling of burial history 

and hydrocarbon generation indicates that most oil generation 

occurred during the Early to middle Cretaceous in the western 

to central part of the province and during the Paleogene in the 

eastern part of the province; these maturation dates correspond 

to times when the thickest foreland basin successions were 

deposited (Houseknecht and others, 2012b). In the Canada 

Basin, maturation of all source rocks generally occurred during the Paleogene–Neogene, except in a depocenter immediately north of the Alaska rift shoulder along the northeast 

Chukchi margin where maturation of the oldest source rocks 

may have occurred during the Early Cretaceous (Houseknecht 

and others, 2012b).

1

 Notes regarding source-rock character of the Otuk Formation, the pebble 

shale unit, and the GRZ in outcrops of the Brooks Range frontal thrust belt, 

based on work conducted by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys.
6 Assessment of Undiscovered Petroleum Resources of the Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province
Geologic Setting and Stratigraphy 7

Figure 4 (at left). Maps showing the three main oil-prone source-rock systems in the Arctic Alaska Province, with colors depicting 

the inferred original distribution of predominantly oil-prone (green) and gas-prone (yellow) kerogen. Maps are highly generalized and 

based on published information (see text) and paleogeographic reconstructions (Parrish and others, 2001a, b; Houseknecht and Bird, 

2004, 2011). A. Triassic source-rock system, comprising the Shublik Formation across most of the map area and the Triassic part of the 

Otuk Formation in the southernmost part of the map area (frontal thrust belt of the Brooks Range). B. Jurassic source-rock system, 

comprising primarily the lower Kingak Shale across most of the map area and the Jurassic Blankenship Member of the Otuk Formation 

in the southernmost part of the map area (frontal thrust belt of the Brooks Range). The abrupt yellow-to-green boundary occurs at the 

shelf margin of the lower Kingak depositional sequence (Houseknecht and Bird, 2004). C. Cretaceous–Paleogene source-rock system, 

comprising primarily the pebble shale unit, gamma-ray zone (GRZ), and Seabee Formation south of the Alaska hinge and Cretaceous and 

Paleogene condensed mudstones north of the Alaska hinge (Houseknecht and Bird, 2011; Houseknecht and others, 2012b). Pink shading 

in A and B shows areas of greatest uplift of rift shoulder during Jurassic–Early Cretaceous; Triassic and Jurassic source rocks are 

absent by erosion in those areas. Note that Triassic and Jurassic source rocks are probably absent or buried to extreme depths north 

of the Alaska hinge. Presence of Cretaceous–Paleogene source rocks north of Alaska hinge is inferred on the basis of paleogeographic 

reconstructions (Houseknecht and Bird, 2011). AU, assessment unit; JU, Jurassic unconformity; LCU, Lower Cretaceous unconformity; 

TAPS, Trans Alaska Pipeline System; TST, Transgressive Systems Tract (Houseknecht and Bird, 2004).

Figure 5. 

0 50 MILES

0 50 KILOMETERS

0.5% VR

0.7% VR

1.0% VR

1.3% VR

2.6% VR

5.0% VR

EXPLANATION

6A

6B

CANADA

U.S.A.

North

Chukchi

basin

ALASKA

PASSIVE

MARGIN

BROOKS RANGE

BROOKS RANGE

CHUKCHI

BORDERLAND

CANADA BASIN

Herald 

arch

170°W 166°W 162°W 158°W 154°W 150°W 146°W 142°W 138°W

74°N

73°N

72°N

71°N

70°N

69°N

Figure 5. Map of thermal maturity at the base of the Brookian sequence across the Arctic Alaska Province and the southern Canada 

Basin. This map is derived from thermal history modeling and honors empirical vitrinite reflectance data from 97 exploration wells in the 

Arctic Alaska Province. Crosses are exploration wells and pseudowells used for modeling. Petroleum systems plots for circled wells 

with labels are shown in fig. 6. Maturity values greater than 3 percent vitrinite reflectance (VR) are approximate because those values 

exceed the validity range of kinetics used for calculation. Location of the Alaska hinge is shown by the heavy blue line. Most empirical 

data from the compilation of Johnsson and others (1993); vitrinite reflectance calculated by using kinetics of Burnham and Sweeney 

(1989). Modified from Houseknecht and others (2012b).
8 Assessment of Undiscovered Petroleum Resources of the Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province

Shublik

GRZ

Reservoir

Seal

Overburden

Trap formation

Source

0

Age, in millions of years

350 300 200 100

0

1.0

TransformationRatio (fraction)

Src. Res. Seal

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

2,000

4,000

0

0

Depth subsurface, in feet

350 300 200 100

B

West Kuparuk 3-11-11

TD basement

Endicott

Lisburne

Sadlerochit

Kingak

pebble shale

Canning

Prince Creek -

Schrader Bluff

Paleogene

 part of

 Sagavanirktok

 and Canning

Plio-Pleistocene

Shublik on threshold of generation

Early mature (0.5-0.7% VR)

Mid mature (0.7-1.0% VR)

Late mature (1.0-1.3% VR)

Main gas (1.3-2.6% VR)

EXPLANATION

Brookian

Beaufortian

Ellesmerian

Franklinian

Stratigraphy

Reservoir

Seal

Overburden

Trap formation

Source

0

Age, in millions of years

350 300 200 100

0

1.0

TransformationRatio (fraction)

Src. Res. Seal

Early mature (0.5-0.7% VR)

Mid mature (0.7-1.0% VR)

Late mature (1.0-1.3% VR)

Main gas (1.3-2.6% VR)

30,000

35,000

10,000

20,000

0

0

Depth subsurface, in feet

350 300 200 100

A 

Awuna 1 

EXPLANATION

basement

Lisburne

Sadlerochit

Shublik

Kingak

PSU-GRZ

Torok

Shublik, lower Kingak, PSU-GRZ

TD

Brookian

Beaufortian

Ellesmerian

Franklinian

Stratigraphy
Arctic Alaska Platform 9

Figure 6 (at left). Petroleum systems plots for two wells in the Arctic Alaska Province. A. Husky Awuna 1, representative of burial 

and thermal maturation history in the fold-and-thrust belt assessment unit. Stratigraphy below total depth of well (TD in stratigraphic 

column) was estimated from seismic data. Timing of indicated trap formation reflects Paleogene deformation and does not include 

development of stratigraphic traps and pre-Paleogene structural traps. Note rapid and nearly simultaneous oil generation in all three 

main source-rock systems, as expressed by plot of time versus transformation ratio. B. Mobil West Kuparuk 3-11-11, representative of 

burial and thermal maturation history in the platform assessment unit. Well penetrated entire stratigraphic section and reached total 

depth (TD) in Franklinian basement. Timing of indicated trap formation reflects development of the Lower Cretaceous unconformity 

truncation trap (main trap at Prudhoe Bay) and does not include other stratigraphic and structural trap development. Note that none 

of the main oil-prone source rocks has generated oil at this location, as indicated by the plot of time versus transformation ratio. In 

the stratigraphic column of both plots, only major stratigraphic units are named, whereas burial history plots include more detailed 

subdivision of strata. Well locations are shown in figs. 5, 7, and 8. GRZ, gamma-ray zone; PSU, pebble shale unit.

Throughout the history of hydrocarbon generation, the 

Alaska rift shoulder remained a structurally high focus for 

migration of hydrocarbons generated both in the Arctic Alaska 

Province and in the southern Canada Basin. Most discovered 

oil accumulations (including the giant Prudhoe Bay field) and 

many discovered gas accumulations occur along the rift shoulder and its flanks.

Arctic Alaska Platform

The Arctic Alaska platform assessment unit (AU) (USGS 

assessment code 50010201) contains numerous discovered 

accumulations that have been produced (Houseknecht and 

Bird, 2006; Alaska Division of Oil and Gas, 2007). This level 

of exploration places the platform AU into uncertainty category 1 on the scale used by the USGS for the Circum-Arctic 

Resource Appraisal. That scale of uncertainty places each AU 

into one of five categories based on data density and degree 

of exploration, as follows: 1, producing fields; 2, discovered 

accumulations; 3, exploration wells; 4, seismic data; and 5, no 

seismic data (Charpentier and Gautier, 2011).

Assessment Unit Description

The Arctic Alaska platform AU extends from the northern 

limit of the Brooks Range foothills fold-and-thrust belt on the 

south to the northern margin of the Alaska rift shoulder on 

the north and from the axis of the Chukchi platform (near the 

U.S.-Russia maritime boundary) on the west to a wedge-out 

on the east where the Brooks Range tectonic front has overridden the rift shoulder (fig. 7; Dietrich and lane, 1992). The AU 

encompasses an area of 193,000 km2

.

The AU includes the Alaska rift shoulder (whose crest 

is the Barrow arch) and the Arctic-Chukchi platform, including much of the Chukchi shelf. The tectonic history of the 

AU includes a late Paleozoic through early Mesozoic phase 

characterized by a south-facing passive continental margin 

transected in the west by a Devonian(?)–Mississippian failed 

rift (fig. 1, Hanna trough), an episode of extension and rifting 

(mostly along the northern margin of the AU) in the Jurassic 

through early Cretaceous, and development of a foreland basin 

during the Cretaceous and Tertiary related to tectonism along 

the Chukotka and Brooks Range belts (Moore and others, 

1994; Houseknecht and Bird, 2011). Petroleum prospective 

strata are mostly Mississippian and younger, although postulated lower Paleozoic strata in the Northeast Chukchi basin 

(Sherwood and others, 1998) also are included.

The AU contains several oil-prone source-rock systems 

that have been demonstrated to have charged discovered oil 

and gas accumulations (Masterson, 2001; Magoon and others, 

2003; Peters and others, 2006, 2008). The main oil source 

rocks include the Triassic Shublik Formation, Jurassic lower 

Kingak Shale, and Lower Cretaceous pebble shale unit and 

GRZ (fig. 3). Additional oil-prone source rocks are locally 

present in upper Paleozoic and perhaps in Paleogene strata. 

Gas-prone source rocks are present in several formations spanning upper Paleozoic through Paleogene strata.

More than 2 dozen accumulations have been discovered 

in the AU, including at least 15 oil and 2 gas accumulations 

larger than 50 million barrels of oil equivalent (MMBOE) plus 

numerous smaller oil and gas accumulations (Jamison and others, 1980; Carman and Hardwick, 1983; Melvin and Knight, 

1984; Hohler and Bischoff, 1986; Masterson and Paris, 1987; 

Werner, 1987; Wicks and others, 1991; Masterson and Eggert, 

1992; Jameson, 1994; Gingrich and others, 2001; Craig and 

Sherwood, 2004; Houseknecht and Bird, 2006; Hudson and 

others, 2006). Through 2005, about 15 billion barrels of oil 

(BBO) have been produced with reserves of 6.7 BBO and 35 

trillion cubic feet of gas (TCFG).

Geological Analysis of Assessment Unit 

Probability

Although this AU is the most intensely explored in Arctic 

Alaska, most exploration has been concentrated in a relatively 

small part of the AU, onshore and nearshore along the trend of 

the rift shoulder (fig. 7). Considering the history of discovery 

in this AU and the vast area that is lightly explored, the probability that the Arctic Alaska platform AU contains at least one 

undiscovered accumulation of at least 50 MMBOE is considered to be 100 percent (table 1). At the time of this assessment, 

the AU contained 10 producing fields, including the largest 

conventional oil field in North America (Prudhoe Bay), and 

several additional discoveries larger than 50 MMBOE.
10 Assessment of Undiscovered Petroleum Resources of the Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province

-200

-500

-1500

-1000

-100

-500

-2000

-3800

-3500

Figure 7.

Assessment unit

Median extent of permanent ice—Month of 

September (1976–2006)

Exploration well

Location of petroleum systems plots (fig. 6)

Bathymetric contour—Interval, in meters, is 

variable. Datum is sea level

Approximate oil/gas (green/red)—Proportion 

based on limited information

Accumulation of known size (scale below) showing 

oil/gas (green/red)—Proportion based on 

production and reserves data

0 25 50 MILES

250 50 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

16,384–32,768 MMBOE

8,192–16,384 MMBOE

4,096–8,192 MMBOE

2,048–4,096 MMBOE

1,024–2,048 MMBOE

512–1,024 MMBOE

256–512 MMBOE

128–256 MMBOE

64–128 MMBOE

<64 MMBOE

MAP

AREA

175°W 170°W 165°W 160°W 155°W 150°W 145°W

68°N

70°N

72°N

74°N

ARCTIC ALASKA

PLATFORM AU

ALASKA

6A

6B

Figure 7. Map of Arctic Alaska platform assessment unit showing locations of exploration wells and known accumulations of oil and 

gas. Known accumulation bubbles are scaled to show estimated total known resource (produced plus reserves) and are divided to 

show proportion of liquid (crude oil plus condensate) and gas. Reserves data are from Houseknecht and Bird (2006) and Alaska Division 

of Oil and Gas (2007).
Arctic Alaska Platform 11

Table 1. Summary of assessment unit probabilities and key input parameters for numbers and sizes of undiscovered, 

conventional accumulations for the Arctic Alaska platform assessment unit.

Assessment-Unit Probabilities: (Adequacy for at least one undiscovered field of minimum size)

 Attribute Probability of occurrence (0–1.0)

1. CHARGE: Adequate petroleum charge: 1.0

2. ROCKS: Adequate reservoirs, traps, and seals: 1.0

3. TIMING OF GEOLOGIC EVENTS: Favorable timing: 1.0

Assessment-Unit GEOLOGIC Probability (Product of 1, 2, and 3): 1.0

UNDISCOVERED ACCUMULATIONS

Number of Undiscovered Accumulations: How many undiscovered accumulations exist

that are at least the minimum size? (uncertainty of fixed but unknown values)

Total Accumulations: minimum (>0) 25 median 150 maximum 300

Oil/Gas Mix: minimum (>0 0.3 mode 0.6 maximum 0.8

X # of oil accumulations / # of total accumulations

# of oil accumulations / # of gas accumulations

# of gas accumulations / # of oil accumulations

Oil Accumulations: minimum (>0) 8 median 85 maximum 240

Gas Accumulations: minimum (>0) 5 median 60 maximum 200

Sizes of Undiscovered Accumulations: What are the sizes (grown) of the above accumulations?

 (variations in the sizes of undiscovered accumulations)

Oil in Oil Accumulations (mmbo): minimum 50 median 150 maximum 8,000

Gas in Gas Accumulations (bcfg): minimum 300 median 900 maximum 50,000

Charge

Demonstrated source rocks that occur within this AU, as 

well as in the fold-and-thrust belt AU to the south, include the 

Triassic Shublik Formation, Jurassic lower Kingak Shale, and 

Lower Cretaceous pebble shale unit and GRZ. Mixing of oil 

from these source rocks is common in this AU (Magoon and 

others, 2003; Peters and others, 2008). Regional seismic, well, 

and outcrop data and burial history modeling indicate that 

petroleum generation was controlled by burial related to filling 

of the Colville foreland basin, which began in the southwest 

in the Early Cretaceous (about 120–110 Ma) and progressed 

eastward to the middle Paleogene (about 45 Ma). As foreland 

basin fill prograded northward across the subsiding rift shoulder, petroleum generation occurred north of the rift shoulder, 

where a thick prism of Brookian sediment was deposited 

(fig. 5). Generally, regional migration pathways likely followed stratigraphic bedding and unconformities updip toward 

the Barrow arch, but local pathways are postulated to be 

controlled by faults in the entire stratigraphic section and 

by clinoforms in the Beaufortian and Brookian sequences. 

Moreover, Paleogene uplift in the northwestern part of the AU 

and regional tilting of the Barrow arch, probably induced by 

tectonic loading by the Brooks Range in the east, resulted in 

spilling and remigration in several areas (Jones and Spears, 

1976; Wallace and Hanks, 1990; O’Sullivan and others, 1993; 

Masterson, 2001; Potter and others, 2004; Houseknecht and 

others, 2011).

Rocks

The dominant reservoir lithology in this AU is sandstone, 

although upper Paleozoic carbonate reservoirs (Lisburne 
12 Assessment of Undiscovered Petroleum Resources of the Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province

Group) are locally important. Nearly every sandstone unit is 

known to contain hydrocarbons somewhere in the AU. The 

greatest volumes of known petroleum resources (cumulative 

production plus reserves) are reservoired in fluvial-deltaic 

sandstone of the Ivishak and Kekiktuk Formations (Triassic 

and Mississippian, respectively; Melvin and Knight, 1984; 

Shanmugam and Higgins, 1988; Crowder, 1990), the shallow marine sandstone of the Kuparuk Formation and stratigraphically equivalent units (Early Cretaceous; Carman and 

Hardwick, 1983; Masterson and Paris, 1987; Werner, 1987; 

Masterson and Eggert, 1992), and the Upper Jurassic part of 

the Kingak Shale (Houseknecht and Bird, 2004). The largest 

known accumulations (Prudhoe Bay, Kuparuk, Point Thomson, Burger) occur in combination structural-stratigraphic 

traps related to rifting, but an increasing number of accumulations are known to occur in purely stratigraphic traps 

in both deep marine facies (Meltwater, Tarn, Nanuq) and 

shallow marine facies (Alpine, Fiord, Rendezvous, Moose’s 

Tooth, Tabasco) (Gingrich and others, 2001; Houseknecht and 

Schenk, 2007). Seals are provided by marine shale.

Timing and Preservation

Oil generation began in the southern and western parts of 

the Arctic Alaska Province in the Early Cretaceous (fig. 6A) 

and progressed eastward and northward through the Tertiary 

(Houseknecht and others, 2012b). Onshore, generation probably ended during the late Eocene (about 45 Ma) but may still 

be ongoing offshore in the eastern part of the AU where sedimentation continues on the shelf of the Beaufort Sea (Houseknecht and others, 2012b).

There was potential for loss of trapped hydrocarbons 

during the Paleogene, when the Barrow arch tilted downward 

to the east, apparently as the result of tectonic loading by 

the northward advance of the northeast Brooks Range. This 

regional tilting caused spilling of oil from the giant Prudhoe 

Bay accumulation and remigration of that oil to shallower 

traps (Jones and Spears, 1976; Masterson, 2001). Some of 

those traps are so shallow that the oil has been biodegraded, 

resulting in multibillion-barrel accumulations of heavy oil in 

the Prudhoe Bay-Kuparuk area. Also during the Paleogene, 

the western part of the Alaska rift shoulder was uplifted 

(Houseknecht and others, 2011), likely resulting in both oil 

displacement from traps by gas expansion and regional updip 

migration of dry gas from the foredeep. It is unknown whether 

tilting of the Barrow arch and uplift of the western part of the 

rift shoulder share a common geologic cause.

Analogs Used for Assessment

Assessment input was influenced strongly by the geology, 

sizes, and numbers of discovered accumulations in the AU 

and by the assessments of undiscovered resources conducted 

by the USGS and U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service (MMS), which were largely based on the 

mapping of favorable trap geometries from reflection seismic 

data (ANWR Assessment Team, 1999; Bird and others, 2005; 

Minerals Management Service, 2006; Houseknecht and others, 

2010). In those assessments a total of 69 plays were identified 

and assessed within the area considered in the Arctic Alaska 

platform AU. From those assessments, the mean value of 

undiscovered resources and number and sizes of undiscovered 

pools larger than 50 MMBOE were tabulated and used as a 

consideration for completing the assessment input. Because 

of the unique tectonic history of the Arctic Alaska platform 

AU (rift shoulder and foreland basin overlap in time and 

space), analogs were difficult to identify in the USGS World 

Analog Database (Charpentier and others, 2008). A search of 

extensional structural setting plus continental crustal system, culled to remove AUs with compressional, thrust-fault, 

wrench-fault, and salt-related structures, provided additional 

guidance for constraining possible numbers and sizes of accumulations. The resulting analog set (table 2) contains 34 AUs 

in which the predominant trap system is basement-involved 

block structures.

Assessment Inputs

Number of Accumulations

Considering that this AU is one of the most prolific oil 

Provinces in North America, that only a small part of the 

AU has been explored, and that numerous potential traps 

have been identified in seismic data, values of 25, 150, and 

300 were selected for the minimum, median, and maximum 

number of undiscovered accumulations of at least 50 MMBOE 

(table 1). These inputs equate to densities that are within the 

distribution of the analog set.

Oil-to-Gas Mix

The minimum, median, and maximum values for the 

oil-to-gas ratio were set at 0.3, 0.6, and 0.8 (table 1) based on 

the ratio of oil-to-gas accumulations in the discovered population (larger than 50 MMBOE) and the spatial distribution 

of oil- versus gas-prone source rocks and thermal maturity 

across the AU.

Accumulation Size Distribution

The median and maximum oil accumulation sizes were 

set at 150 and 8,000 MMBO, respectively (table 1). The 

median value was based on the sizes of discovered accumulations in the AU and the sizes of potential traps identified in 

seismic data. The maximum value was set to approximately 

half the size of the Prudhoe Bay accumulation. These input 

values are within the analog distributions, although they fall in 

the upper parts of those distributions. Median and maximum 

input values of 0.9 and 50 TCF (table 1) were set for gas accumulation sizes based mostly on the range of sizes of potential 
Arctic Alaska Platform 13

Table 2. Analog assessment units used to constrain input parameters for the Arctic Alaska platform assessment unit. Analog data 

from Charpentier and others (2008). 

[AU, assessment unit; TPS, total petroleum system]

AU Code AU name TPS name Province name

10080101 Northwest Izhma-Pechora Depression Domanik-Paleozoic Timan-Pechora Basin

10090102 Devonian Synrift Dnieper-Donets Paleozoic Dnieper-Donets Basin

20040101 Ma'Rib-Al Jawf/Shabwah/Masila Madbi Amran/Qishn Ma'Rib-Al Jawf/Masila 

Basin

20230101 Horst/Graben-Related Oil and Gas Paleozoic Qusaiba/Akkas/Abba/

Mudawwara

Widyan Basin-Interior 

Platform

20230201 Platform Horst/Graben-Related Oil Jurassic Gotnia/Barsarin/Sargelu/Najmah Widyan Basin-Interior 

Platform

20430101 Southeast Sirte Clastics Sirte-Zelten Sirte Basin

20430102 Central Sirte Carbonates Sirte-Zelten Sirte Basin

20430104 Southeast Sirte Hypothetical Sirte-Zelten Sirte Basin

31270101 Tertiary Lacustrine Shahejie-Shahejie/Guantao/Wumishan Bohaiwan Basin

31270102 Pre-Tertiary Buried Hills Shahejie-Shahejie/Guantao/Wumishan Bohaiwan Basin

31440102 Anticlinal Qingshankou-Putaohua/Shaertu Songliao Basin

31440201 Structural Traps Jurassic Coal-Denglouku/Nongan Songliao Basin

38220102 Mergui Bampo-Cenozoic North Sumatra Basin

38240101 Sunda/Asri Banuwati-Oligocene/Miocene Northwest Java Basin

38240201 Ardjuna Jatibarang/Talang Akar-Oligocene/Miocene Northwest Java Basin

39100101 Barnett Milligans-Carboniferous/Permian Bonaparte Gulf Basin

39100202 Vulcan Graben Keyling/Hyland Bay-Permian Bonaparte Gulf Basin

39130101 Late Jurassic/Early Cretaceous-Mesozoic Late Jurassic/Early Cretaceous-Mesozoic Browse Basin

40170101 Halten Terrace-Trondelag Platform Upper Jurassic Spekk Vestford-Helgeland

40170102 Mid-Norway Continental Margin Upper Jurassic Spekk Vestford-Helgeland

40250101 Viking Graben Kimmeridgian Shales North Sea Graben

40250102 Moray Firth Kimmeridgian Shales North Sea Graben

40480101 Greater Hungarian Plain Basins Greater Hungarian Plain Neogene Pannonian Basin

40480201 Zala-Drava-Sava Basins Zala-Drava-Sava Mesozoic/Neogene Pannonian Basin

40480301 Danube Basin Danube Neogene Pannonian Basin

40480401 Transcarpathian Basin Transcarpathian Neogene Pannonian Basin

40600201 Thermal Triassic Meride/Riva di Solto Po Basin

60550103 Dorsal de Neuquen Structure Neuquen Composite Neuquen Basin

60580101 San Jorge Extensional Structures D-129 San Jorge Basin

60600101 North Falklands Basin Neocomian Lacustrine Falklands Plateau

60600201 South Falklands Basin Lower Cretaceous Falklands Plateau

60630101 Malvinas Extensional Structures Lower Cretaceous Marine Malvinas Basin

60980202 Orinoco Delta and Offshore Upper Cretaceous/Tertiary East Venezuela Basin

80430101 Eocene-Miocene Bombay Shelf Eocene-Miocene Composite Bombay
14 Assessment of Undiscovered Petroleum Resources of the Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province

traps identified on seismic data. The only known gas accumulations in this AU whose sizes are well constrained are those 

associated with large oil accumulations (for example, Prudhoe 

Bay), and the sizes of nonassociated gas accumulations are 

poorly known (Houseknecht and Bird, 2006).

Province Geologist’s Estimated Maximum 

Accumulation Size

Maximum accumulation sizes of 1 to 2 BBO and 12 

to 15 TCFG were selected based on the size distribution of 

discovered accumulations and the largest accumulation sizes 

assessed by MMS and USGS using a large seismic database 

to constrain trap sizes. These maximum sizes, which did not 

enter directly into the volumetric calculations, were used to 

judge the reasonableness of the results of statistical analysis.

Ancillary Properties and Co-Product Ratios

Data from discovered pools in this AU and from geochemistry of source rocks were used to establish input values 

for these parameters.

Results

Probabilistic estimates of volumes of undiscovered, 

technically recoverable hydrocarbons for the Arctic Alaska 

platform AU are summarized in table 3. These results include 

mean estimates of nearly 28 BBO, more than 37 TCF associated gas, and more than 120 TCF nonassociated gas.

Arctic Alaska Fold-and-Thrust Belt

The fold-and-thrust belt AU (USGS assessment code 

50010202) has been lightly explored but includes oil and gas 

discoveries larger than the minimum considered in the CARA. 

This level of exploration places the Arctic Alaska fold-andthrust belt into uncertainty category 2 on the scale used by the 

USGS for the Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal (Charpentier 

and Gautier, 2011).

Assessment Unit Description

The Arctic Alaska fold-and-thrust belt AU extends from 

the northern margin of the Brooks Range and Herald arch on 

the south to the northern limit of significant detachment folding that marks the boundary with the Arctic Alaska platform 

AU (fig. 8). The eastern quarter of the AU, where the Brooks 

Range tectonic front has overridden the Alaska rift shoulder, 

is bounded on the north by growth-faulted and contractionally 

deformed Tertiary strata deposited north of the rift shoulder 

(part of the Canning-Mackenzie deformed margin AU of the 

Amerasia Basin Province; Houseknecht and others, 2012a). 

The AU encompasses an area of 156,000 km2.

As defined, the AU includes the southern parts of the 

Chukchi shelf, Hanna trough, and Colville foreland basin, plus 

the entire frontal thrust belt of the Brooks Range in northeastern Alaska and northwestern Canada (fig. 8). This AU is 

characterized by detachment folds and thrust faults related to 

Brooks Range tectonism. The detachment level generally steps 

down the stratigraphic section southward toward the Brooks 

Range, from Cretaceous–Tertiary foreland basin strata in the 

north, through upper Mesozoic–Lower Cretaceous rift-related 

strata, and into lower Mesozoic–upper Paleozoic passive 

margin strata in the south (Moore and others, 1994, 2004; 

Potter and others, 2004). Petroleum prospective strata span the 

stratigraphic section from upper Paleozoic through Tertiary.

The AU contains several oil-prone source-rock systems 

that have been shown to have charged discovered oil and gas 

accumulations (Magoon and others, 2003; Peters and others, 

2008). The main oil-prone source rocks include the Triassic Shublik Formation, the Jurassic lower Kingak Shale, and 

the Lower Cretaceous pebble shale unit and GRZ (fig. 3). 

The Triassic–Lower Jurassic Otuk Formation—the distal 

stratigraphic equivalent of the Shublik Formation and lower 

Kingak Shale—is an important component of the source-rock 

system in the southern part of the AU where it is present on 

thrust sheets. Source-rock facies gradational between the 

Shublik Formation and lower Kingak Shale on the north and 

the Otuk Formation in the south may be present in autochthonous positions deeply buried beneath the disturbed belt of the 

frontal Brooks Range. Locally, the Otuk Formation in outcrop 

occurs at levels of thermal maturity that are in the oil window 

(Dow and Talukdar, 1995; Dow, 1998; Mull, 2000, written 

commun., 2009). Additional oil-prone source rocks are locally 

present in upper Paleozoic strata, most notably the Kuna 

Formation of the Lisburne Group. Gas-prone source rocks 

are present in several formations spanning upper Paleozoic 

through Tertiary strata.

Several gas accumulations and one oil accumulation have 

been discovered in the AU (Houseknecht and Bird, 2006). 

Only the Gubik gas accumulation (about 600 BCF) and the 

Umiat oil accumulation (about 70 MMBO) are larger than the 

minimum size considered in this assessment. However, most 

of the discovered gas accumulations are too poorly characterized to determine their size. No commercial production has 

occurred in this AU, although about 40,000 barrels of oil was 

produced for local consumption and testing at Umiat prior to 

1953 (Molenaar, 1982).

Geological Analysis of Assessment Unit 

Probability

The likelihood that the Arctic Alaska fold-and-thrust belt 

AU contains at least one undiscovered accumulation of at least 

50 MMBOE is considered to be 100 percent (table 4) based on 

the occurrence of two discoveries greater than the minimum 
Arctic Alaska Fold-and-Thrust Belt 15

Table 3. Summary of results for risked, undiscovered, technically recoverable petroleum resources for the Arctic Alaska Province, 

including results for the platform assessment unit and the fold-and-thrust belt assessment unit.

[F95 represents a 95-percent chance of at least the amount tabulated; other fractiles are defined similarly. Std. dev., standard deviation]

Assessment unit name Assessment unit probability

Platform 1.000

Fold- and-thrust belt 1.000

Assessment unit name F95 F50 F5 Mean Std. dev.

Oil, in millions of barrels (MMBO)

Platform 13,866.70 26,207.02 47,425.71 27,851.06 10,450.85

Fold-and-thrust belt 587.64 1,761.86 4,814.48 2,109.89 1,402.14

Associated/Dissolved Gas, in billions of cubic feet (BCFG)

Platform 17,176.27 34,742.05 68,535.20 37,692.85 16,215.51

Fold-and-thrust belt 640.54 2,255.62 7,047.29 2,846.06 2,190.90

Natural Gas Liquids, in millions of barrels (MMBNGL)

Platform 454.91 928.94 1,856.99 1,011.71 447.97

Fold-and-thrust belt 16.51 59.86 191.90 76.42 60.64

Nonassociated Gas, in billions of cubic feet (BCFG)

Platform 53,122.97 112,562.12 222,711.73 121,860.59 53,452.97

Fold-and-thrust belt 24,272.55 52,465.41 115,798.60 58,998.09 29,620.91

Liquids, in millions of barrels (MMBL)

Platform 1,391.94 2,993.27 5,989.52 3,245.45 1,449.80

Fold-and-thrust belt 640.60 1,395.64 3,107.19 1,571.39 795.92

Largest Oil, in millions of barrels (MMBO)

Platform 1,264.08 2,904.98 6,603.05 3,280.92 1,619.33

Fold-and-thrust belt 150.55 384.26 1,138.93 476.29 318.23

Largest Nonassociated Gas, in billions of cubic feet (BCFG)

Platform 6,136.18 15,403.31 38,866.11 17,864.13 9,928.09

Fold-and-thrust belt 2,475.42 5,194.98 11,160.75 5,763.17 2,617.91

size, the large number of prospects that are evident in seismic 

data and surface geologic map patterns, and the underexplored 

status of the AU. Many untested prospects involve anticlines, 

including relatively simple detachment anticlines and more 

complex thrust-faulted anticlines (see, for example, Oldow 

and others, 1987; Bird, 1988; Moore and others, 2004; Potter and others, 2004). Stratigraphic traps and combination 

structural-stratigraphic traps also are likely to occur (see, for 

example, Houseknecht and Schenk, 2007).

Charge

Demonstrated source rocks that occur within this AU 

include the Mississippian Kuna Formation in the upper part of 

the Lisburne Group, the Triassic Shublik Formation, the Jurassic lower Kingak Shale, the Triassic–Jurassic Otuk Formation, 

and the Lower Cretaceous pebble shale unit and GRZ (fig. 3). 

Regional seismic, well, and outcrop data and burial history 

modeling indicate that petroleum generation was controlled by 

sedimentary and tectonic burial. Initial hydrocarbon generation induced by sedimentation in the western Colville foredeep 

began about 120–110 Ma (fig. 6A) and progressed eastward 

and northward until about 90 Ma, with relatively modest 

additional generation occurring during the Late Cretaceous 

and Paleogene as the result of additional sedimentary burial 

and, near the mountain front, tectonic burial (Houseknecht and 

others, 2012b). This timing reflects the progressive filling of 

the foredeep and the broader foreland basin from southwest to 

northeast (Bird and Molenaar, 1992; Houseknecht and others, 

2009a, b; Houseknecht and Bird, 2011). Migration pathways 

in this AU likely were controlled by stratal geometry (for 

example, clinoforms), unconformities, and faults. Geochemical evidence from oil-stained rocks in outcrop in this AU indicates widespread mixing of oil from two or more source rocks. 

In addition, gas generation in the foredeep during Tertiary 

structural burial and gas expansion related to Tertiary uplift 

likely caused remigration of some accumulated oil. Gas also 

may have been generated from thermal cracking of oil accumulations and from bitumen that did not migrate from source 

rocks during oil generation. Consideration of kerogen composition in the three major source-rock systems (fig. 4) and thermal maturity (figs. 5, 6A) indicates that the AU is significantly 

gas-prone, although the potential for oil is demonstrated by the 

discovered Umiat accumulation, which is thought to have been 

sourced from the GRZ (Magoon and others, 2003).
16 Assessment of Undiscovered Petroleum Resources of the Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province

-200

-200

-2000

-500

-1500

-2000

-2000

-1000

-2500

-1000

-100

-1000

-500

-1500

-500

-3000

-500

-2000

-3800

-1000

-3500

-2000

6A

6B

Figure 8.

Assessment unit

Median extent of permanent ice—Month of 

September (1976–2006)

Exploration well

Location of petroleum systems plots (fig. 6)

Bathymetric contour—Interval, in meters, is 

variable. Datum is sea level

Approximate oil/gas (green/red)—Proportion 

based on limited information

Accumulation of known size (scale below) showing 

oil/gas (green/red)—Proportion based on 

production and reserves data

0 50 100 MILES

0 50 100 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

16,384–32,768 MMBOE

8,192–16,384 MMBOE

4,096–8,192 MMBOE

2,048–4,096 MMBOE

1,024–2,048 MMBOE

512–1,024 MMBOE

256–512 MMBOE

128–256 MMBOE

64–128 MMBOE

<64 MMBOE

MAP

AREA

66°N

68°N

70°N

72°N

74°N

76°N

180° 175°W 170°W 165°W 160°W 155°W 150°W 145°W 140°W 135°W 130°W

CANADA

U.S.A.

ARCTIC ALASKA

FOLD AND THRUST BELT RUSSIA

U.S.A.

ALASKA

Figure 8. Map of Arctic Alaska fold-and-thrust belt assessment unit showing locations of exploration wells and known accumulations 

of oil and gas. Known accumulation bubbles are scaled to show estimated total known resource (produced plus reserves) and are 

divided to show proportion of liquid (crude oil plus condensate) and gas. Reserves data for Alaska are from Houseknecht and Bird (2006) 

and Alaska Division of Oil and Gas (2007) and for Canada are from Osadetz and others (2005), except for a new discovery reported by 

Johnston (2007).
Arctic Alaska Fold-and-Thrust Belt 17

Table 4. Summary of assessment unit probabilities and key input parameters for numbers and sizes of 

undiscovered, conventional accumulations for the Arctic Alaska fold-and-thrust belt assessment unit.

Assessment-Unit Probabilities: (Adequacy for at least one undiscovered field of minimum size)

 Attribute Probability of occurrence (0–1.0)

1. CHARGE: Adequate petroleum charge: 1.0

2. ROCKS: Adequate reservoirs, traps, and seals: 1.0

3. TIMING OF GEOLOGIC EVENTS: Favorable timing: 1.0

Assessment-Unit GEOLOGIC Probability (Product of 1, 2, and 3): 1.0

UNDISCOVERED ACCUMULATIONS

Number of Undiscovered Accumulations: How many undiscovered accumulations exist

that are at least the minimum size? (uncertainty of fixed but unknown values)

Total Accumulations: minimum (>0) 10 median 60 maximum 250

Oil/Gas Mix: minimum (>0 0.1 mode 0.2 maximum 0.3

X # of oil accumulations / # of total accumulations

# of oil accumulations / # of gas accumulations

# of gas accumulations / # of oil accumulations

Oil Accumulations: minimum (>0) 1 median 12 maximum 75

Gas Accumulations: minimum (>0) 7 median 50 maximum 225

Sizes of Undiscovered Accumulations: What are the sizes (grown) of the above accumulations?

 (variations in the sizes of undiscovered accumulations)

Oil in Oil Accumulations (mmbo): minimum 50 median 100 maximum 2,000

Gas in Gas Accumulations (bcfg): minimum 300 median 700 maximum 14,000

Rocks

The dominant reservoirs in this AU are sandstone, 

although late Paleozoic carbonate reservoirs (Lisburne Group) 

also are viable, especially in thrust sheets close to the Brooks 

Range (Hanks and others, 1997). Oil and gas shows are 

common in this AU. The best known reservoir potential has 

been documented in Cretaceous and Tertiary fluvial-deltaic 

(topset) sandstone (Fortress Mountain, Nanushuk, Tuluvak, 

Schrader Bluff, and Sagavanirktok Formations) and coeval 

slope and basin-floor turbidite sandstone (Torok, Seabee, and 

Canning Formations; fig. 3). The largest known accumulations 

(Umiat oil accumulation and Gubik gas accumulation) occur 

in sandstone reservoirs of topset seismic facies in detachmentanticline traps. Stratigraphic traps in both deep marine and 

shallow marine sandstone are likely (see, for example, Molenaar, 1988; Houseknecht and Schenk, 2007). There also is 

significant potential for low-permeability sandstone reservoirs, 

especially in association with overpressured gas accumulations 

(Nelson and others, 2006). Seals are provided by marine shale 

and mudstone.

Timing and Preservation

Oil generation began in the southern and western parts 

of the AU in the Early Cretaceous and progressed eastward 

and northward (Houseknecht and others, 2012b). Onshore, 

generation probably ended in late Eocene (about 45 Ma) but 

may be ongoing offshore in the eastern part of the AU where 

sedimentation and contractional deformation continue. An 

important consideration regarding charge in this AU is the 

inference that the fold-and-thrust belt formed as the result of 

two major phases of contractional deformation—one during the Early Cretaceous and the second during the Tertiary 
18 Assessment of Undiscovered Petroleum Resources of the Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province

(Moore and others, 2004). Hydrocarbon generation modeling 

(Houseknecht and others, 2012b) suggests that—except for the 

eastern offshore part of the AU—most oil generation, primary 

migration, and initial accumulation in traps occurred during 

the Cretaceous, either contemporaneous with or immediately 

after the first major phase of deformation. Thus, the second 

phase of deformation occurred after oil accumulation in traps 

across much of the AU. The subsequent phase of deformation in the Tertiary may have disrupted traps and caused seal 

failure that may have resulted in remigration, and perhaps 

leakage to the surface, of oil and gas. In fact, it is likely that 

the Umiat oil accumulation, which is trapped in a structure 

that formed during the Paleogene (O’Sullivan, 1999) in an 

area where oil was generated during the early Cretaceous 

(Houseknecht and others, 2012b), is the result of remigration 

of oil from an older stratigraphic or combination trap (perhaps 

similar to that described by Houseknecht and Schenk, 2007) 

that failed during Paleogene deformation. In addition, gas 

generation during structural burial in the Colville foredeep and 

gas expansion related to uplift of parts of the fold-and-thrust 

belt during Paleogene deformation likely caused remigration of hydrocarbons that accumulated during generation and 

primary migration.

Analogs Used for Assessment

Assessment input was influenced by the geology, sizes, 

and numbers of discovered accumulations in the AU and by 

the assessments of undiscovered resources conducted by the 

USGS and MMS, which were largely based on the mapping 

of favorable trap geometries from 2-D seismic data. In those 

assessments, a total of 23 plays were identified and assessed 

within the area considered in the Arctic Alaska fold-and-thrust 

belt AU. From those assessments, the mean value of undiscovered resources and number and sizes of undiscovered pools 

larger than 50 MMBOE were tabulated and used as a consideration for completing the assessment input.

The USGS World Analog Database was used to help 

constrain assessment input parameters, especially the density 

of accumulations larger than 50 MMBOE and the median 

and maximum sizes of accumulations. A search of compressional structural setting, plus continental crustal system, 

plus foreland architecture returned 43 potential analogs. 

These were culled to remove 16 AUs with transtensional and 

transpressional trap systems, extensional grabens and other 

structures related to normal faults, and salt-induced structures. 

The remaining 27 AUs (table 5) were considered as a population that may provide reasonable constraints on assessment 

input parameters.

Assessment Inputs

Number of Accumulations

Previous MMS and USGS assessments estimated 58 

accumulations of at least 50 MMBOE at the mean, which 

yields a density of 0.31 accumulations per 1,000 km2. With 

a focus on the previous assessments, a minimum of 10 to a 

maximum of 250 accumulations and a median value of 60 was 

used (table 4).

Oil-to-Gas Mix

The minimum, median, and maximum values for the 

oil-to-gas ratio were set at 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 (table 4) based on 

the ratio of oil/gas accumulations in the discovered population, 

empirical and modeled thermal maturity considerations, and 

the distribution of oil- versus gas-prone source rocks.

Accumulation Size Distribution

The median and maximum gas accumulation sizes were 

set at 700 and 14,000 BCF (table 4), based on the sizes of 

seismically mapped structural closures and known reservoir 

parameters. Inputs for oil accumulations sizes were scaled 

downward (median, 100 MMBO; maximum; 2,000 MMBO; 

table 4) relative to gas because of the poor timing for charging 

structural traps with oil and the overall gas-prone nature of the 

AU, primarily due to high levels of thermal maturity.

Province Geologist’s Estimated Maximum 

Accumulation Size

Maximum accumulation sizes of 5 TCFG and 400–500 

MMBO were selected considering the sizes of seismically 

mapped structural closures, regional reservoir character, and 

sizes of discovered accumulations. These maximum sizes, 

which did not enter directly into the volumetric calculations, 

were used to judge the reasonableness of the results of statistical analysis.

Ancillary Properties and Co-Product Ratios

Data from discovered pools in this AU and from geochemistry of source rocks were used to establish input values 

for these parameters.

Results

Probabilistic estimates of volumes of undiscovered, technically recoverable hydrocarbons for the Arctic Alaska foldand-thrust belt AU are summarized in table 3. These results 

include mean estimates of 2 BBO, nearly 3 TCF associated 

gas, and 59 TCF nonassociated gas.
Summary and Conclusions 19

Table 5. Analog assessment units used to constrain input parameters for the Arctic Alaska fold-and-thrust belt assessment unit. 

Analog data from Charpentier and others (2008). 

[AU, assessment unit; TPS, total petroleum system]

AU Code AU name TPS name Province name

10080103 Foredeep Basins Domanik-Paleozoic Timan-Pechora Basin

10150201 Permian Reefs/Thrust Folds Belsk Basin Volga-Ural Region

11090101 Foldbelt-Foothills Terek-Caspian Middle Caspian Basin

11090102 Terek-Sunzha Subsalt Jurassic Terek-Caspian Middle Caspian Basin

11540103 Murgab Depression Suprasalt Amu-Darya Jurassic-Cretaceous Amu-Darya Basin

11540104 Murgab Depression Subsalt Amu-Darya Jurassic-Cretaceous Amu-Darya Basin

20190101 Cretaceous Reservoirs in Northwest Desert 

Anticlines

Cretaceous Thamama/Wasia Rub Al Khali Basin

20190103 Mesozoic/Tertiary Foredeep Fold and Thrust Cretaceous Thamama/Wasia Rub Al Khali Basin

20190201 Jurassic Reservoirs in Northwest Desert 

Anticlines

Jurassic Hanifa/Diyab-Arab Rub Al Khali Basin

20190302 Paleozoic Reservoirs Silurian Qusaiba Rub Al Khali Basin

20300101 Cretaceous Reservoirs Zagros-Mesopotamian Cretaceous-Tertiary Zagros Fold Belt

20300102 Tertiary Reservoirs Zagros-Mesopotamian Cretaceous-Tertiary Zagros Fold Belt

20300201 Northern Qatar Arch Extension Paleozoic-Permian/Triassic Zagros Fold Belt

20580501 Tanezzuft-Benoud Structural/Stratigraphic Tanezzuft-Benoud Grand Erg/Ahnet Basin

31150201 Jurassic/Tertiary Fluvial and Lacustrine 

Sandstone

Jurassic Coal-Jurassic/Tertiary Junggar Basin

31420101 Southeastern Fold Belt Maokou/Longtang-Jialingjiang/Maokou/

Huanglong

Sichuan Basin

31420102 Northwestern Depression/Foldbelt Maokou/Longtang-Jialingjiang/Maokou/

Huanglong

Sichuan Basin

31420201 Jurassic Lacustrine Daanzhai-Daanzhai/Lianggaoshan Sichuan Basin

31420402 Lower Paleozoic of Southeastern Fold Belt Cambrian/Silurian Marine Shale-Dengying/

Lower Paleozoic

Sichuan Basin

31540102 Kuche (Northern) Foldbelt Ordovician/Jurassic-Phanerozoic Tarim Basin

31540103 Southwest Foldbelt Ordovician/Jurassic-Phanerozoic Tarim Basin

40470201 Deformed Belt Mesozoic/Paleogene Composite North Carpathian Basin

40600101 Neogene Flysch Gas Porto Garibaldi Po Basin

52430201 Leduc Gas Duvernay-Leduc Alberta Basin

52430301 Exshaw-Rundle Gas Exshaw-Rundle Alberta Basin

52430302 Exshaw-Rundle Oil and Gas Exshaw-Rundle Alberta Basin

52430401 Combined Triassic/Jurassic Gas Combined Triassic/Jurassic Alberta Basin

Summary and Conclusions 

The Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province is part of a displaced continental fragment, the Arctic Alaska microplate, 

which rifted from the Canada Arctic margin during opening of 

the Canada Basin. Petroleum prospective rocks in the province, mostly Mississippian and younger, record a sequential 

geologic evolution through passive margin, rift, and foreland basin tectonic stages. Significant petroleum source and 

reservoir rocks were formed during each tectonic stage, but it 

was the foreland basin stage that provided sufficient burial for 

widespread hydrocarbon generation.

Three major source-rock systems (Triassic, Jurassic, and 

Cretaceous–Paleogene) contribute to the overall richness of 

the province, although details of regional source-rock quality remain poorly known because of limited data. Relative 

to levels of thermal maturity appropriate for the generation 

and preservation of oil, these source rocks grade northward 

from overmature in the Colville foredeep to early mature 

to immature on the rift shoulder. Burial history and hydro-
20 Assessment of Undiscovered Petroleum Resources of the Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province

carbon generation modeling indicates that peak oil generation occurred mostly during the Cretaceous in the foredeep. 

Thermal maturity abruptly grades northward from immature to 

mature, and even overmature, along the northernmost margin 

of the province where strata thicken into the Amerasia Basin 

Petroleum Province. Although it is unlikely that the Triassic 

and Jurassic source rocks are present beyond the hingeline 

because the Amerasia Basin was not yet open at the time of 

deposition, oil generated in younger source rocks may have 

migrated southward into the Arctic Alaska Province during 

Cretaceous through Paleogene generation.

The majority of known petroleum resources in the province occur in combination structural-stratigraphic traps formed 

as a consequence of rifting and located along the rift shoulder. 

Most exploration activity in the province has been focused on 

either combination or structural traps, although oil discoveries during the past 20 years have increased the emphasis on 

stratigraphic traps.

The Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province was divided into 

two AUs for appraisal of undiscovered petroleum resources 

in conventional accumulations. The platform AU includes the 

Alaska rift shoulder and its relatively undeformed flanks, and 

the fold-and-thrust belt AU includes the deformed areas north 

of the Brooks Range and Herald arch tectonic belts.

The Arctic Alaska platform AU includes at least 15 oil 

and 2 gas accumulations larger than 50 MMBOE, including 

the largest oil field in North America at Prudhoe Bay. Considering that a relatively small proportion of the AU has been 

explored, the potential for discovery of additional accumulations is considered high. Mean estimates for undiscovered, 

technically recoverable resources in conventional accumulations include nearly 28 BBO, more than 37 TCF of associated 

gas, and more than 120 TCF of nonassociated gas.

The Arctic Alaska fold-and-thrust belt AU is lightly 

explored and includes multiple oil and gas discoveries, 

including at least one oil and one gas accumulation that 

exceed the 50-MMBOE threshold for the CARA. Exploration in this AU has been limited by the absence of a market 

for natural gas and the perception that it is a gas-prone region. 

The potential for discovery of additional accumulations is 

considered high. Mean estimates for undiscovered, technically recoverable resources in conventional accumulations 

include 2 BBO, nearly 3 TCF of associated gas, and 59 TCF 

of nonassociated gas.

Acknowledgments

This report was improved as the result of constructive 

reviews by Kirk Sherwood (U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management), Margaret Keller, and 

Jim Coleman.

References Cited

Alaska Division of Oil and Gas, 2007, Alaska oil and gas 

report, July 2007: Accessed December 5, 2011, at http://

dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Publications/AnnualReports.htm.

ANWR Assessment Team, 1999, The oil and gas resource 

potential of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 area, 

Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98–34, 

accessed December 5, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1998/

ofr-98-0034/.

Balkwill, H.R., Cook, D.G., Detterman, R.L., Embry, A.F., 

Hakansson, E., Miall, A.D., Poulton, T.P. and Young, F.G., 

1983, Arctic North America and northern Greenland, in

Moullade, M., and Nairn, A.E.M., eds., The Phanerozoic 

geology of the world II; the Mesozoic, B: Elsevier, Amsterdam, p. 1–31.

Bird, K.J., 1985, The framework geology of the North Slope 

of Alaska as related to oil-source rock correlations, in

Magoon, L.B., and Claypool, G.E., eds., Alaska North Slope 

oil/rock correlation study: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Studies in Geology 20, p. 3–29.

Bird, K.J., 1988, Structure-contour and isopach maps of the 

National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, in Gryc, G., ed., 

Geology and exploration of the National Petroleum Reserve 

in Alaska, 1974 to 1982: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1399, p. 355–377.

Bird, K.J., 2001, Alaska—A twenty-first-century petroleum 

province, in Downey, M.W., Threet, J.C., and Morgan, 

W.A., eds., Petroleum provinces of the twenty-first century: 

American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 74, 

p. 137–165.

Bird, K.J., and Bader, J.W., 1987, Regional geologic setting 

and history of petroleum exploration, in Bird, K.J., and 

Magoon, L.B., eds., Petroleum geology of the northern part 

of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, northeastern Alaska: 

U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1778, p. 17–25.

Bird, K.J., Charpentier, R.R., Gautier, D.L., Houseknecht, 

D.W., Klett, T.R., Pitman, J.K., Moore, T.E., Schenk, C.J., 

Tennyson, M.E., and Wandrey, C.R., 2008, Circum-Arctic 

Resource Appraisal—Estimates of undiscovered oil and 

gas north of the Arctic Circle: U.S. Geological Survey Fact 

Sheet 2008–3049, 4 p., accessed December 5, 2011, at

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3049/.

Bird, K.J., and Houseknecht, D.W., 2011, Geology and petroleum potential of Arctic Alaska, in Spencer, A.M., Embry, 

A.F., Gautier, D.L., Stoupakova, A.V., and Sørensen, K., 

eds., Arctic petroleum geology: Geological Society of London Memoir 35, p. 485–499.
References Cited 21

Bird, K.J., Houseknecht, D.W., Attanasi, E.D., Moore, T.E., 

Nelson, P.H., Potter, C.J., Schenk, C.J., Schuenemeyer, J.H., 

Verma, M.K., Saltus, R.W., Phillips, J.D., Charpentier, R.R., 

Cook, T.A., Klett, T.R., and Pollastro, R.M., 2005, Oil and 

gas assessment of central North Slope, Alaska, 2005: U.S. 

Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2005–3043, 2 p., accessed 

December 5, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3043/.

Bird, K.J., and Molenaar, C.M., 1992, The North Slope foreland basin, Alaska, in Macqueen R.W., and Leckie, D.A., 

eds., Foreland basins and foldbelts: American Association 

of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 55, p. 363–393.

Burnham, A.K., and Sweeney, J.J., 1989, A chemical kinetic 

model of vitrinite maturation and reflectance: Geochimica et 

Cosmochimica Acta, v. 53, p. 2649–2657.

Burns, W.M., Hayba, D.O., Rowan, E.L., and Houseknecht, 

D.W., 2007, Estimating the amount of eroded section in 

a partially exhumed basin using geophysical logs—An 

example from the Alaska North Slope: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1732–D, 18 p., accessed December 

5, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1732/pp1732d/.

Carman, G.J., and Hardwick, Peter, 1983, Geology and 

regional setting of Kuparuk oil field, Alaska: American 

Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 67, p. 

1014–1031.

Charpentier, R.R., and Gautier, D.L., 2011, U.S. Geological 

Survey Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal (CARA)—Introduction and summary of organization and methods, in Spencer, A.M., Embry, A.F., Gautier, D.L., Stoupakova, A.V., 

and Sørensen, K., eds., Arctic petroleum geology: Geological Society of London Memoir 35, p. 145–150.

Charpentier, R.R., Klett, T.R., and Attanasi, E.D., 2008, 

Database for assessment unit-scale analogs (exclusive of the 

United States): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2007–1404, 61 p., accessed December 5, 2011, at http://

pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1404/.

Claypool, G.E., and Magoon, L.B., 1985, Comparison of 

oil-source rock correlation data for Alaskan North Slope—

Techniques, results, and conclusions, in Magoon, L.B., and 

Claypool, G.E., eds., Alaska North Slope oil/rock correlation study: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 

Studies in Geology 20, p. 49–81.

Craig, J.D., and Sherwood, K.W., 2004, Economic study of 

the Burger gas discovery, Chukchi shelf, northwest Alaska: 

Minerals Management Service, 71 p., accessed December 

5, 2011, at http://www.mms.gov/alaska/re/BurgerResources/

Economic%20Study%20of%20the%20Burger%20Gas%20

Discovery.pdf.

Creaney, Stephen, and Passey, Q.R., 1993, Recurring patterns 

of total organic carbon and source rock quality within a 

sequence stratigraphic framework: American Association of 

Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 77, p. 386–401.

Crowder, R.K., 1990, Permian and Triassic sedimentation in 

the northeastern Brooks Range, Alaska—Deposition of the 

Sadlerochit Group: American Association of Petroleum 

Geologists Bulletin, v. 74, p. 1351–1370.

Dietrich, J.R., and Lane, L.S., 1992, Geology and structural 

evolution of the Demarcation subbasin and Herschel high, 

Beaufort-Mackenzie basin, Arctic Canada: Bulletin of 

Canadian Petroleum Geology, v. 40, p. 188–197.

Dow, W.G., 1998, Organic geochemistry of Cretaceous, 

Jurassic, and Triassic shales from the northwestern DeLong 

Mountains, western Brooks Range, Alaska, 1994–1997: 

Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys 

Public Data File 98–35, 181 p., accessed December 5, 2011, 

at http://www.dggs.dnr.state.ak.us/webpubs/dggs/pdf/text/

pdf1998_035.PDF.

Dow, W.G., and Talukdar, S.C., 1995, Geochemical analysis of 

outcrop samples, northwestern De Long Mountains, Brooks 

Range, Alaska: Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys Public Data File 95–29, 43 p., accessed December 5, 2011, at http://www.dggs.dnr.state.ak.us/webpubs/

dggs/pdf/text/pdf1995_029.PDF.

Dumoulin, J.A., 2001, Lithologies of the basement complex (Devonian and older) in the National Petroleum 

Reserve—Alaska, in Houseknecht, D.W., ed., NPRA Core 

Workshop—Petroleum Plays and Systems in the National 

Petroleum Reserve—Alaska: SEPM Core Workshop 

21, p. 201–214.

Dumoulin, J.A., Burruss, R.C., and Lillis, P.G., 2008a, Lisburne petroleum system, in Kelley, K.D., ed., Regional fluid 

flow and basin modeling in northern Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1319, p. 36–40, accessed December 5, 

2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1319/.

Dumoulin, J.A., Slack, J.F., Whalen, M.T., and Harris, A.G., 

2011, Depositional setting and geochemistry of phosphorites and metalliferous black shales in the CarboniferousPermian Lisburne Group, northern Alaska, in Dumoulin, 

J.A., and Galloway, J.P., eds., Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska, 2008–2009: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 1776–C, 64 p., accessed December 5, 

2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1776/c/.
22 Assessment of Undiscovered Petroleum Resources of the Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province

Dumoulin, J.A., Whalen, M.T., and Harris, A.G., 2008b, 

Lithofacies, age, and sequence stratigraphy of the Carboniferous Lisburne Group in the Skimo Creek area, central 

Brooks Range, in Haeussler, P. J., and Galloway, J.P., eds., 

Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska, 2006: 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1739–B, 64 p., 

accessed December 5, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/

pp1739/b/.

Embry, A.F., 1990, Geological and geophysical evidence in 

support of the hypothesis of anticlockwise rotation of northern Alaska: Marine Geology, v. 93, p. 317–329.

Embry, A.F., 2000, Counterclockwise rotation of the Arctic 

Alaska plate—Best available model or untenable hypothesis for the opening of the Amerasia basin: Polarforschung, 

v. 68, p. 247–255.

Gautier, D.L., Bird, K.J., Charpentier, R.R., Grantz, A., 

Houseknecht, D.W., Klett, T.R., Moore, T.E., Pitman, J.K., 

Schenk, C.J., Schuenemeyer, J.H., Sørensen, K., Tennyson, M.E., Valin, Z.C., and Wandrey, C.J., 2009, Assessment of undiscovered oil and gas in the Arctic: Science, 

v. 324, p. 1175–1179.

Gautier, D.L., Bird, K.J., Charpentier, R.R., Grantz, A., 

Houseknecht, D.W., Klett, T.R., Moore, T.E., Pitman, J.K., 

Schenk, C.J., Schuenemeyer, J.H., Sørensen, K., Tennyson, 

M.E., Valin, Z.C., and Wandrey, C.J., 2011a, Oil and gas 

resource potential north of the Arctic Circle, in Spencer, 

A.M., Embry, A.F., Gautier, D.L., Stoupakova, A.V., and 

Sørensen, K., eds., Arctic petroleum geology: Geological 

Society of London Memoir 35, p. 151–161.

Gautier, D.L., Stemmerik, L., Christiansen, F.G., Sørensen, 

K., Bidstrup, T., Bojesen-Koefoed, J.A., Bird, K.J., Charpentier, R.R., Houseknecht, D.W., Klett, T.R., Schenk, 

C.J., and Tennyson, M.E., 2011b, Assessment of northeast 

Greenland—Prototype for development of Circum-Arctic 

Resource Appraisal methodology, in Spencer, A.M., Embry, 

A.F., Gautier, D.L., Stoupakova, A.V., and Sørensen, K., 

eds., Arctic petroleum geology: Geological Society of London Memoir 35, p. 663–672.

Gingrich, Dean, Knock, Doug, and Masters, Ron, 

2001, Geophysical interpretation methods applied at 

Alpine oil field, North Slope, Alaska: Leading Edge, 

v. 20, no. 7, p. 730–738.

Gradstein, F.M., Ogg, J.G., Smith, A.G., Bleeker, W., and 

Lourens, L.J., 2004, A new geologic time scale, with 

special reference to Precambrian and Neogene: Episodes, v. 27, p. 83–100.

Grantz, Arthur, Hart, P.E., and Childers, V.A., 2011, Geology and tectonic development of the Amerasia and Canada 

basins, Arctic Ocean, in Spencer, A.M., Embry, A.F., 

Gautier, D.L., Stoupakova, A.V., and Sørensen, K., eds., 

Arctic petroleum geology: Geological Society of London 

Memoir 35, p. 771–799.

Grantz, Arthur, and May, S.D., 1982, Rifting history and 

structural development of the continental margin north of 

Alaska, in Watkins, J.S., and Drake, C.L., eds., Studies in 

continental margin geology: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 34, p. 77–100.

Grantz, Arthur, and May, S.D., 1988, Regional geology and 

petroleum potential of the United States Chukchi shelf north 

of Point Hope, in Gryc, George, ed., Geology and exploration of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, 1974 to 

1982: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1399, 

p. 209–230.

Grantz, Arthur, May, S.D., and Hart, P.E., 1990, Geology of 

the Arctic continental margin of Alaska, in Grantz, Arthur, 

Johnson, G.L., and Sweeney, J.F., eds., The Arctic Ocean 

region: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, 

The Geology of North America, v. L, p. 257–288.

Hanks, C.L., Lorenz, John, Teufel, Lawrence, and Krumhardt, 

A.P., 1997, Lithologic and structural controls on natural 

fracture distribution and behavior within the Lisburne 

Group, northeastern Brooks Range and North Slope subsurface, Alaska: American Association of Petroleum Geologists 

Bulletin, v. 81, p. 1700–1720.

Hohler, J.J., and Bischoff, W.E., 1986, Alaska—Potential 

for giant fields, in Halbouty, M.T., ed., Future petroleum 

provinces of the world: American Association of Petroleum 

Geologists Memoir 40, p. 131–142.

Houseknecht, D.W., and Bird, K.J., 2004, Sequence stratigraphy of the Kingak Shale (Jurassic–Lower Cretaceous), 

National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 88, p. 279–302.

Houseknecht, D.W., and Bird, K.J., 2006, Oil and gas 

resources of the Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 1732–A, 11 p., 

accessed December 5, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/

pp1732/pp1732a/.

Houseknecht, D.W., and Bird, K.J., 2011, Geology and petroleum potential of the rifted margins of the Canada basin, 

in Spencer, A.M., Embry, A.F., Gautier, D.L., Stoupakova, 

A.V., and Sørensen, K., eds., Arctic petroleum geology: 

Geological Society of London Memoir 35, p. 509–526.

Houseknecht, D.W., Bird, K.J., and Garrity, C.P., 2012a, 

Assessment of undiscovered petroleum resources of the 

Amerasia Basin petroleum province: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5146, 36 p.
References Cited 23

Houseknecht, D.W., Bird, K.J., and O’Sullivan, P., 2011, 

Constraining the age and magnitude of uplift in the northern 

National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA)—Apatite fission-track analysis of samples from three wells, in 

Dumoulin, J.A., and Dusel-Bacon, C., eds., Studies by the 

U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska, 2010: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 1784–A, 21 p., 1 pl., accessed 

December 5, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1784/a/.

Houseknecht, D.W., Bird, K.J., and Schenk, C.J., 2009a, Seismic analysis of clinoform depositional sequences and shelfmargin trajectories in Cretaceous (Albian) strata, Alaska 

North Slope: Basin Research, v. 21, p. 644–654.

Houseknecht, D.W., Burns, W.M., and Bird, K.J., 2012b, 

Thermal maturation history of Arctic Alaska and southern Canada basin, in Harris, N.B., and Peters, K.E., eds., 

Thermal history analysis of sedimentary basins—methods 

and case histories: Society for Sedimentary Geology Special 

Publication 103, p. 199–219.

Houseknecht, D.W., LePain, D.L., Decker, P.L., and Schenk, 

C.J., 2009b, Lower Cretaceous clinoforms in Arctic 

Alaska—Core workshop: American Association of Petroleum Geologists and Alaska Geological Society, Core Workshop Notes from 2009 AAPG Annual Meeting, Denver, 

Colo., 91 p.

Houseknecht, D.W., Bird, K.J., Schuenemeyer, J.H., Attanasi, E.D., Garrity, C.P., Schenk, C.J., Charpentier, R.R., 

Pollastro, R.M., Cook, T.A., and Klett, T.R., 2010, 2010 

updated assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources 

of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA): U.S. 

Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2010–3102, 4 p., accessed 

December 5, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3102/.

Houseknecht, D.W., and Schenk, C.J., 2007, Outcrops of 

turbidite channel facies in the Torok Formation—Reservoir 

analogs for the Alaska North Slope, in Nilsen, Tor, Shew, 

R.D., Steffens, G.S., and Studlick, J.R.J., eds., An atlas 

of deepwater outcrops—Models and analogs: American 

Association of Petroleum Geologists, Studies in Geology 

56, p. 373–377.

Hubbard, R.J., Edrich, S.P., and Rattey, R.P., 1987, Geologic 

evolution and hydrocarbon habitat of the “Arctic Alaska 

microplate”: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 4, p. 2–34.

Hudson, T.L., Nelson, P.H., Bird, K.J., and Huckabay, Allen, 

2006, Exploration history (1964–2000) of the Colville high, 

North Slope, Alaska: Alaska Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Publication 136, 31 p.

Jameson, Jeremy, 1994, Models of porosity formation and 

their impact on reservoir description, Lisburne field, 

Prudhoe Bay, Alaska: American Association of Petroleum 

Geologists Bulletin, v. 78, p. 1651–1678.

Jamison, H.C., Brockett, L.D., and MacIntosh, R.A., 1980, 

Prudhoe Bay—A 10-year perspective, in Halbouty, M.T., 

ed., Giant oil and gas fields of the decade 1968–1978: 

American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 30, 

p. 289–314.

Johnsson, M.J., Howell, D.G., and Bird, K.J., 1993, Thermal 

maturity patterns in Alaska—Implications for tectonic evolution and hydrocarbon potential: American Association of 

Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 77, p. 1874–1903.

Johnston, Dennis, 2007, Prospectivity and hydrocarbon 

potential of the Mackenzie delta-Beaufort Sea petroleum 

province—A northern Gulf of Mexico waiting for its 

time [abs.]: Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists, 

Gussow Conference abstract and online video, accessed 

December 5, 2011, at http://www.cspg.org/conventions/

abstracts/2007abstracts_gussow.htm.

Jones, H.P., and Speers, R.G., 1976, Permo-Triassic reservoirs 

of Prudhoe Bay field, North Slope, Alaska, in Braunstein, 

Jules, ed., North American oil and gas fields: American 

Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 24, p. 23–50.

Klett, T.R., and Pitman, J.K., 2011, Geology and petroleum 

potential of the East Barents Sea basins and Admiralty arch, 

in Spencer, A.M., Embry, A.F., Gautier, D.L., Stoupakova, 

A.V., and Sørensen, K., eds., Arctic petroleum geology: 

Geological Society of London Memoir 35, p. 295–310.

Klett, T.R., Wandrey, C.J., and Pitman, J.K., 2011, Geology 

and petroleum potential of the north and east margins of 

the Siberian craton, in Spencer, A.M., Embry, A.F., Gautier, 

D.L., Stoupakova, A.V., and Sørensen, K., eds., Arctic 

petroleum geology: Geological Society of London Memoir 

35, p. 413–431.

Kupecz, J.A., 1995, Depositional setting, sequence stratigraphy, diagenesis, and reservoir potential of a mixedlithology, upwelling deposit—The Upper Triassic Shublik 

Formation, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska: American Association of 

Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 79, p. 1301–1319.

Lane, L.S., 1997, Canada basin, Arctic Ocean—Evidence 

against a rotational origin: Tectonics, v. 16, p. 363–387.

Lawver, L.A., and Scotese, C.R., 1990, A review of tectonic 

models for the evolution of the Canada basin, in Grantz, 

Arthur, Johnson, G.L., and Sweeney, J.F., eds., The Arctic Ocean region: Boulder, Colo., Geological Society of 

America, The Geology of North America, v. L, p. 593–618.

Lawver, L.A., Grantz, A., and Gahagan, L.M., 2002, Plate 

kinematic evolution of the present Arctic region since the 

Ordovician, in Miller, E.L., Grantz, A., and Klemperer, S.L., 

eds., Tectonic evolution of the Bering shelf–Chukchi Sea–

Arctic margin and adjacent landmasses: Geological Society 

of America Special Paper 360, p. 333–358.
24 Assessment of Undiscovered Petroleum Resources of the Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province

Lawver, L.A., Gahagan, L.M., and Norton, I., 2011, Palaeogeographic and tectonic evolution of the Arctic region during the Palaeozoic, in Spencer, A.M., Embry, A.F., Gautier, 

D.L., Stoupakova, A.V., and Sørensen, K., eds., Arctic 

petroleum geology: Geological Society of London Memoir 

35, p. 61–77.

Lerand, Monti, 1973, Beaufort Sea, in McCrossan, R.G., ed., 

The future petroleum provinces of Canada—Their geology 

and potential: Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists 

Memoir 1, p. 315–386.

Lillis, P.G., Lewan, M.D., Warden, Augusta, Monk, S.M., 

and King, J.D., 1999, Identification and characterization of oil types and their source rocks, in U.S. Geological Survey, ANWR Assessment Team, The oil and gas 

resource potential of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 

1002 area, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 98–34, 101 p., accessed December 5, 2011, at 

http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/OF98-34/OA.pdf.

Macquaker, J.H.S., and Keller, M.A., 2005, Mudstone sedimentation at high latitudes—Ice as a transport medium 

for mud and supplier of nutrients: Journal of Sedimentary 

Research, v. 75, p. 696–709.

Magoon, L.B., 1994, The geology of known oil and gas 

resources by petroleum system—Onshore Alaska, in 

Plafker, George, and Berg, H.C., eds., The geology of 

Alaska: Geological Society of America, The Geology of 

North America, v. G-1, p. 905–936.

Magoon, L.B., and Bird, K.J., 1988, Evaluation of petroleum 

source rocks in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, 

using organic-carbon content, hydrocarbon content, visual 

kerogen, and vitrinite reflectance, in Gryc, George, ed., 

Geology and exploration of the National Petroleum Reserve 

in Alaska, 1974 to 1982: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1399, p. 381–450.

Magoon, L.B., Bird, K.J., Burruss, R.C., Hayba, D., Houseknecht, D.W., Keller, M.A., Lillis, P.G., and Rowan, 

E.L., 1999, Evaluation of hydrocarbon charge and 

timing using the petroleum system, in U.S. Geological Survey, ANWR Assessment Team, The oil and gas 

resource potential of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 

1002 area, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 98–34, 66 p., accessed December 5, 2011, at 

http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/OF98-34/PS.pdf.

Magoon, L.B., and Claypool, G.E., eds., 1985, Alaska North 

Slope oil/source rock correlation study: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Studies in Geology 20, 685 p.

Magoon, L.B., Lillis, P.G., Bird, K.J., Lampe, C., and Peters, 

K.E., 2003, Alaskan North Slope petroleum systems: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 03–324, 3 sheets, 

accessed December 5, 2011, at http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/

open-file/of03-324/.

Magoon, L.B., Woodward, P.V., Banet, A.C., Jr., Griscom, 

S.B., and Daws, T.A., 1987, Thermal maturity, richness, and 

type of organic matter of source-rock units, in Bird, K.J., 

and Magoon, L.B., eds., Petroleum geology of the northern 

part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, northeastern 

Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1778, p. 127–179.

Masterson, W.D., IV, 2001, Petroleum filling history of central 

Alaskan North Slope fields: University of Texas at Dallas, 

unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 222 p.

Masterson, W.D., and Eggert, J.T., 1992, Kuparuk River field, 

North Slope, Alaska, in Beaumont, E.A., and Foster, N.H., 

eds., Stratigraphic traps III: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Treatise of Petroleum Geology, Atlas of Oil 

and Gas Fields, p. 257–284.

Masterson,W.D., and Paris, C.E., 1987, Depositional history 

and reservoir description of the Kuparuk River Formation, 

North Slope, Alaska, in Tailleur, Irvin, and Weimer, Paul, 

eds., Alaskan North Slope geology: Pacific Section SEPM 

and Alaska Geological Society, p. 95–107.

Melvin, John, and Knight, A.S., 1984, Lithofacies, diagenesis 

and porosity of the Ivishak Formation, Prudhoe Bay area, 

Alaska, in McDonald, D.A., and Surdam, R.C., eds., Clastic 

diagenesis: American Association of Petroleum Geologists 

Memoir 37, p. 347–365.

Minerals Management Service, 2006, Undiscovered oil and 

gas resources, Alaska Federal offshore as of 2006: Accessed 

December 5, 2011, at http://www.mms.gov/alaska/re/

reports/2006Asmt/index.HTM.

Molenaar, C.M., 1982, Umiat field, an oil accumulation in a 

thrust-faulted anticline, North Slope of Alaska, in Powers, 

R.B., ed., Geologic studies of the Cordilleran thrust belt: 

Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, p. 537–548.

Molenaar, C.M., 1983, Depositional relations of Cretaceous and Lower Tertiary rocks, northeastern Alaska: 

American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 

v. 67, p. 1066–1080.

Molenaar, C.M., 1988, Depositional history and seismic 

stratigraphy of Lower Cretaceous rocks in the National 

Petroleum Reserve in Alaska and adjacent areas, in Gryc, 

George, ed., Geology and exploration of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, 1974 to 1982: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 1399, p. 593–620.

Moore, T.E., Dumitru, T.A., Adams, K.E., Witebsky, S.N., 

and Harris, A.G., 2002, Origin of the Lisburne Hills-Herald 

Arch structural belt—Stratigraphic, structural, and fissiontrack evidence from the Cape Lisburne area, northwestern 

Alaska, in Miller, E.L., Grantz, Arthur, and Klemperer, S.L., 

eds., Tectonic evolution of the Bering Shelf–Chukchi Sea–

Arctic Margin and adjacent landmasses: Geological Society 

of America Special Paper 360, p. 77–109.
References Cited 25

Moore, T.E., Grantz, A., Pitman, J.K., and Brown, P.J., 2011, 

A first look at the petroleum geology of the Lomonosov 

Ridge microcontinent, Arctic Ocean, in Spencer, A.M., 

Embry, A.F., Gautier, D.L., Stoupakova, A.V., and Sørensen, 

K., eds., Arctic Petroleum Geology: Geological Society of 

London Memoir 35, p. 751–769.

Moore, T.E., and Pitman, J.K., 2011, Geology and petroleum 

potential of the Eurasia Basin, in Spencer, A.M., Embry, 

A.F., Gautier, D.L., Stoupakova, A.V., and Sørensen, K., 

eds., Arctic petroleum geology: Geological Society of London Memoir 35, p. 731–750.

Moore, T.E., Potter, C.J., O’Sullivan, P.B., Shelton, K.L., and 

Underwood, M.B., 2004, Two stages of deformation and 

fluid migration in the west-central Brooks Range fold and 

thrust belt, northern Alaska, in Swennen, Rudy, Roure, 

François, and Granath, J.W., eds., Deformation, fluid flow, 

and reservoir appraisal in foreland fold and thrust belts: 

American Association of Petroleum Geologists Hedberg 

Series, no. 1, p. 157–186.

Moore, T.E., Wallace, W.K., Bird, K.J., Karl, S.M., Mull, 

C.G., and Dillon, J.T., 1994, Geology of northern Alaska, 

in Plafker, George, and Berg, H.C., eds., The geology of 

Alaska: Boulder, Colo., Geological Society of America, The 

Geology of North America, v. G-1, p. 49–140.

Mull, C.G., 2000, Summary report on the geology and hydrocarbon potential of the foothills of the northwestern DeLong 

Mountains, western Brooks Range, Alaska: Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, Preliminary 

Interpretive Report 2000–9, 12 p., accessed December 5, 

2011, at http://www.dggs.dnr.state.ak.us/webpubs/dggs/pir/

text/pir2000_009.PDF.

Mull, C.G., Houseknecht, D.W., and Bird, K.J., 2003, Revised 

Cretaceous and Tertiary stratigraphic nomenclature in the 

east-central Colville basin, northern Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1673, 51 p., accessed December 5, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1673/p1673.pdf.

Mull, C.G., Tailleur, I.L., Mayfield, C.F., Ellersieck, Inyo, and 

Curtis, S.M., 1982, New upper Paleozoic and lower Mesozoic stratigraphic units, central and western Brooks Range, 

Alaska: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 66, p. 348–362.

Nelson, P.H., Bird, K.J., Houseknecht, D.W., Potter, C.J., 

and Moore, T.E., 2006, Potential tight gas resources in a 

frontier province—Jurassic through Tertiary strata beneath 

the Brooks Range foothills, Arctic Alaska: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2006–1172, 2 sheets, accessed 

December 5, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1172/.

Oldow, J.S., Seidensticker, C.M., Phelps, J.C., Julian, F.E., 

Gottschalk, R.R., Boler, K.W., Handschy, J.W., and Avé 

Lallemant, H.G., 1987, Balanced cross sections through 

the central Brooks Range and North Slope, Arctic Alaska: 

American Association of Petroleum Geologists Publication, 

19 p., 8 pl., scale 1:200,000.

Osadetz, K.G., Dixon, James, Dietrich, J.R., Snowdon, L.R., 

Dallimore, S.R., and Majorowicz, J.A., 2005, A review of 

Mackenzie Delta-Beaufort Sea petroleum province conventional and non-conventional (gas hydrate) petroleum 

reserves and undiscovered resources—A contribution to 

the resource assessment of the proposed Mackenzie DeltaBeaufort Sea marine protected areas: Geological Survey of 

Canada, Open File 4828, 31 p. plus figures and appendixes.

O’Sullivan, P.B., 1999, Thermochronology, denudation and 

variations in paleosurface temperature—A case study from 

the North Slope foreland basin, Alaska: Basin Research, 

v. 11, p. 191–204.

O’Sullivan, P.B., Green, P.F., Bergman, S.C., Decker, J., 

Duddy, I.R., Gleadow, A.J.W., and Turner, D.L., 1993, 

Multiple phases of Tertiary uplift and erosion in the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, revealed by apatite fission track analysis: American Association of Petroleum 

Geologists Bulletin, v. 77, p. 359–385.

Parrish, J.T., Droser, M.L., and Bottjer, D.J., 2001a, A Triassic 

upwelling zone—The Shublik Formation, Arctic Alaska: 

Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 71, p. 272–285.

Parrish, J.T., Whalen, M.T., and Hulm, E.J., 2001b, Shublik 

Formation lithofacies, environments, and sequence stratigraphy, Arctic Alaska, U.S.A., in Houseknecht, D.W., ed., 

NPRA Core Workshop—Petroleum Plays and Systems 

in the National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska: SEPM Core 

Workshop 21, p. 89–110. 

Peters, K.E., Magoon, L.B., Bird, K.J., Valin, Z.C., and Keller, 

M.A., 2006, North Slope Alaska—Source-rock distribution, 

richness, thermal maturity and petroleum charge: American 

Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 90, no. 2, 

p. 261–292.

Peters, K.E., Ramos, L.S., Zumberge, J.E., Valin, Z.C., and 

Bird, K.J., 2008, De-convoluting mixed crude oil in Prudhoe Bay field, North Slope, Alaska: Organic Geochemistry, 

v. 39, p. 623–645.

Potter, C.J., Grow, J.A., Perry, W.J., Moore, T.E., O’Sullivan, 

P.B., Phillips, J.D., and Saltus, R.W., 2004, Tertiary thrust 

systems and fluid flow beneath the Beaufort coastal plain 

(1002 area), Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 

U.S.A., in Swennen, Rudy, Roure, François, and Granath, 

J.W., eds., Deformation, fluid flow, and reservoir appraisal 

in foreland fold and thrust belts: American Association of 

Petroleum Geologists Hedberg Series, no. 1, p. 187–214.
26 Assessment of Undiscovered Petroleum Resources of the Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province

Saltus, R.W., Potter, C.J., and Phillips, J.D., 2006, Crustal 

insights from gravity and aeromagnetic analysis—Central 

North Slope, Alaska: American Association of Petroleum 

Geologists Bulletin, v. 90, no.10, p.1495–1517.

Schenk, C.J., 2011a, Geology and petroleum potential of the 

Timan-Pechora Basin province, Russia, in Spencer, A.M., 

Embry, A.F., Gautier, D.L., Stoupakova, A.V., and Sørensen, 

K., eds., Arctic petroleum geology: Geological Society of 

London Memoir 35, p. 283–294.

Schenk, C.J., 2011b, Geology and petroleum potential of the 

West Greenland-East Canada province, in Spencer, A.M., 

Embry, A.F., Gautier, D.L., Stoupakova, A.V., and Sørensen, 

K., eds., Arctic petroleum geology: Geological Society of 

London Memoir 35, p. 627–645.

Seifert, W.K., Moldowan, J.M., and Jones, R.W., 1980, Application of biological marker chemistry to petroleum exploration: Proceedings of the 10th World Petroleum Congress, 

Bucharest, p. 425–440.

Shanmugam, Ganapathy, and Higgins, J.B., 1988, Porosity 

enhancement from chert dissolution beneath Neocomian 

unconformity—Ivishak Formation, North Slope, Alaska: 

American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 

v. 72, no. 5, p. 523–535.

Sherwood, K.W., Craig, J.D., Lothamer, R.T., Johnson, P.P., 

and Zerwick, S.A., 1998, Chukchi shelf assessment province, in Sherwood, K.W., ed., Undiscovered oil and gas 

resources, Alaska Federal offshore: Minerals Management 

Service, OCS Monograph MMS 98–0054, p. 115–196.

Sherwood, K.W., Johnson, P.P., Craig, J.D., Zerwick, S.A., 

Lothamer, R.T., Thurston, D.K., and Hurlbert, S.B., 2002, 

Structure and stratigraphy of the Hanna trough, U.S. 

Chukchi shelf, Alaska, in Miller, E.L., Grantz, Arthur, and 

Klemperer, S.L., eds., Tectonic evolution of the Bering 

shelf–Chukchi Sea–Arctic margin and adjacent landmasses: 

Geological Society of America Special Paper 360, p. 39–66.

Sørensen, K., Gautier, D., Pitman, J., Jackson, H.R., and DahlJensen, T., 2011, Geology and petroleum potential of the 

Lincoln Sea Basin, offshore north Greenland, in Spencer, 

A.M., Embry, A.F., Gautier, D.L., Stoupakova, A.V., and 

Sørensen, K., eds., Arctic petroleum geology: Geological 

Society of London Memoir 35, p. 673–684.

Threlkeld, C.N., Obuch, R.C., and Gunther, G.L., 2000, 

Organic geochemistry data of Alaska: U.S. Geological 

Survey Digital Data Series DDS–59, accessed December 5, 

2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-059/.

Thurston, D.K., and Theiss, L.A., 1987, Geologic report for 

the Chukchi Sea planning area, Alaska; regional geology, 

petroleum geology, and environmental geology: Anchorage, 

Alaska, Minerals Management Service OCS Report MMS 

87–0046, 193 p.

Wallace, W.K., and Hanks, C.L., 1990, Structural provinces 

of the northeastern Brooks Range, Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge, Alaska: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 74, p. 1100–1118.

Werner, M.R., 1987, West Sak and Ugnu sands—Low-gravity 

oil zones of the Kuparuk River area, Alaskan North Slope, 

in Tailleur, Irvin, and Weimer, Paul, eds., Alaskan North 

Slope geology: Pacific Section SEPM and Alaska Geological Society, v. 1, p. 109–118.

Wicks, J.L., Buckingham, M.L., and Dupree, J.H., 1991, 

Endicott field-U.S.A., North Slope basin, Alaska, in Foster, 

N.H., and Beaumont, E.A., eds., Structural traps V: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Treatise of Petroleum Geology, Atlas of Oil and Gas Fields, p. 1–25.
Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5147

Houseknecht and others—Assessment of Undiscovered Petroleum Resources of the Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province—