Mann, P., L. Gahagan, and M. B.

Gordon, 2003, Tectonic setting of

the world’s giant oil and gas fields, in M. T. Halbouty, ed., Giant
oil and gas fields of the decade 1990 – 1999, AAPG Memoir 78,
p. 15 – 105.

Chapter 2

Tectonic Setting of the World’s

Giant Oil and Gas Fields
Paul Mann
Institute for Geophysics, John A. & Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, U.S.A.

Lisa Gahagan
Institute for Geophysics, John A. & Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, U.S.A.

Mark B. Gordon
GX Technology, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.

ABSTRACT
The world’s 877 giant oil and gas fields are those with 500 million bbl of ultimately
recoverable oil or gas equivalent. Remarkably, almost all of these 877 giant fields, which
by some estimates account for 67% of the world’s petroleum reserves, cluster in 27
regions, or about 30%, of the earth’s land surface. In this paper, we present maps show-
ing the location of all 877 giants located on tectonic and sedimentary basin maps of these
27 key regions. We classify the tectonic setting of the giants in these regions using six
simplified classes of the tectonic setting for basins in these regions: (1) continental pas-
sive margins fronting major ocean basins (304 giants); (2) continental rifts and overlying
sag or ‘‘steer’s head’’ basins (271 giants); (3) collisional margins produced by terminal
collision between two continents (173 giants); (4) collisional margins produced by con-
tinental collision related to terrane accretion, arc collision, and/or shallow subduction
(71 giants); (5) strike-slip margins (50 giants); (6) subduction margins not affected by
major arc or continental collisions (8 giants). For giant fields with multiphase histories,
we attempt the difficult task of discriminating the single tectonic event/setting we
consider to have the most profound effect on hydrocarbon formation, migration, and
trapping. Our main classification criterion is the basin style dominating at the most typ-
ical stratigraphic and structural level of giant accumulations.
Continental passive margins fronting major ocean basins form the dominant tectonic
setting, which includes 35% of the world’s giant fields. Continental rifts and overlying
sag basins, especially failed rifts at the edges or interiors of continents, form the second
most common tectonic setting, which includes 31% of the world’s giant fields. Terminal
collision belts between two continents and associated foreland basins form the third
setting, with 20% of the world’s giant fields. Other setting classes — including foreland
basins at collision margins related to terrane accretion, arc collision, and/or shallow
subduction; basins in strike-slip margins; and basins in subduction margins — are

15
16 / Mann et al.

relatively insignificant, with 14% or less of the total basin population. Our tabulation
indicates the importance of extensional settings formed during the early and late stages
of oceanic opening for giant accumulations: The rift and passive categories combined
account for two-thirds, or 66%, of all 877 giants. Our result differs significantly from
previously published giant classifications in which collisional settings form the
dominant tectonic setting for oil giants.
We propose the following possibilities to explain the dominance of extensional rift
and passive margin settings over all other tectonic settings: (1) localization of high-
quality source rocks in lacustrine and restricted marine settings during the early rift
stage; (2) effectiveness of the sag or passive margin section above rifts to either act as
reservoirs for hydrocarbons generated in the rift section and/or to seal hydrocarbons
generated in the underlying rift section; (3) tectonic stability following early rifting
that allows hydrocarbon sources and reservoirs to remain undisturbed by subsequent
tectonic events acting on distant plate boundaries.
Trends in the discovery of giants in the period from 1990 to 2000 that we consider
likely to continue into the 21st century include (1) the discovery of fields in deep-water
basinal settings along passive margins such as Brazil, west Africa, and the Gulf of Mexico
associated with nodes of high-quality source-rock areas and stratigraphic traps located
using three-dimensional seismic reflection data, (2) continued discoveries of giants in
known areas, including expansion of the Persian Gulf hydrocarbon province to the
south into Yemen and the Arabian Peninsula and north into Iraq; expansion of the West
Siberian Basin in the Arctic offshore area; radial expansion of the Illizi Basin of Algeria,
(3) continued discoveries in Southeast Asia, where Cenozoic rift, passive margin, and
strike-slip environments all coexist around the South China Sea or in the largely
submerged Sunda continent, (4) along-strike expansion of elongate foreland trends in
the Rocky Mountains, northern South America, the southern Andes, the Ural–Timan-
Pechora and Barents Sea, and the North Slope, and (5) expansion of discoveries in the
Black Sea–Caspian region associated with closure and burial of northern Tethyal passive
margin or arc-related basins.
Despite the association of giant fields with Cenozoic or Mesozoic plate edges (es-
pecially failed rifts trending at high angles to continental margins), the possibility always
exists for further discovery of ‘‘lockbox-type’’ giants associated with now cratonic in-
terior, but previous Paleozoic or Precambrian plate edges, as exemplified by known
Paleozoic and Precambrian hydrocarbon giant clusters in the Permian Basin in the
United States, the Illizi Basin of Algeria, and the Siberian Platform.

INTRODUCTION
Definitions
A ‘‘giant’’ oil field is considered to be one for which
the estimate of ultimately recoverable hydrocarbons is
greater than 500 million bbl; a giant gas field contains
greater than 3 tcf of recoverable gas (Halbouty, 2001).
Reserves refers to this ultimately recoverable amount and
include the amount produced to date. Gas is converted
to oil at a ratio of 6000 ft3/bbl. Some fields, therefore,
are giants only because their combined amounts of oil
and gas equivalent total at least 500 million bbl and not
because either resource is that great by itself (Carmalt
and St. John, 1986).
Sources of Giant Oil and Gas Field Data
Our field list in Appendix A contains past and pres-
ent giants covering the time period 1868 – 2002. Our
locations of giant fields are derived with permission from
the IHS digital database for non –North American giant
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 17
fields identified prior to 1990. The locations of North
American giant fields (shown as crosses) identified prior
to 1990 were taken from Carmalt and St. John’s (1986)
published compilation.
Five Largest Oil and Gas Discoveries
of the 1990s
The locations of fields discovered from 1990 to 2002
were provided to us by M. K. Horn for this AAPG
Memoir. In Figure 1, we show the five largest oil (num-
bered green circles) and gas (numbered red circles) giant
discoveries of the 1990s, with ‘‘1’’ being the largest
discovery.
According to these combined compilations, there are
currently 877 giant oil fields found on all continents with
the exception of Antarctica (Figure 1). The 877 giant
fields of the world cluster in 27 regions with the most
dense occurrences in the Arabian Peninsula and the West
Siberian Basin of Russia.
Tectonic Base Map for Plotting Giant
Oil and Gas Fields
We show more detailed geologic maps modified
from the Exxon Tectonic Map of the World (1985)
for these 27 giant-rich areas in Figures 4–30. Individual
field names are listed in Appendix A and keyed by
number to the location of numbered field shown on the
map. We plot all 877 giant fields on the global map in
Figure 1 but omit detailed maps for a few areas of iso-
lated and less densely distributed giant fields in areas of
North America, South America, and Asia.
SIGNIFICANCE OF GIANT FIELDS
AND EXPLORATION TRENDS
IN THEIR DISCOVERY
Giant fields continue to be the focus of great inter-
est among explorationists for several reasons.
Giants Are a Major Contributor to
the World’s Reserves
Giant fields contain 67% or more of the world’s
proven reserves despite large variations in reserve esti-
mates (Klett and Schmoker, 2001). In other words, the
global sum of numerous ‘‘nongiant’’ fields of less than
500 million bbl of reserves found over the entire earth is
significantly less than the total reserves of the 877 giant
fields in the 27 regions we discuss in this paper. There-
fore, knowledge of the tectonic setting, geologic history,
and conditions for hydrocarbon formation for the 27
regions of giant fields shown in Figure 1 will contribute
greatly to our understanding of the origin and future
supply of the world’s hydrocarbons.
Giants are Unevenly Distributed
on the Earth’s Surface
Pettingill (2001) discusses the uneven distribution
of giants on the earth’s surface: Three quarters of all
giant reserves are derived from the Middle East, Latin
America, and Asia-Pacific, whereas members of the Orga-
nization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries account
for just over half of the combined oil and gas reserves of
giant fields. The Organisation for Economic Coopera-
tion and Development countries, which constitute major
centers of oil and gas consumption, account for only 15%
of combined giant oil and gas reserves.
Is the Rate of Discovery of Giants
Increasing or Decreasing?
The answer to this question is complex and con-
troversial. According to Carmalt and St. John (1986),
the discovery rate of giant fields has decreased globally
since the late 1960s, indicating that the Hubbert cycle
of oil resource phase is in a mature phase. Halbouty
(2001) compares giants known in 1970 with those known
in 2000 and points out that at least the discovery of giant
gas fields has continued to increase through this 30-yr
period of observation. Klett and Schmoker (2001) note
that there is an overall increase in the recoverable oil vol-
ume of well-known giant fields between 1981 and 1996.
Pettingill (2001) notes the increasing impact of deep-
water exploration of passive margins over the last decade
on giant oil reserves (i.e., major deep-water discoveries
of oil in Brazil and west Africa).
What Are Recent Trends in the Discovery
of Giants, and Are These Trends Helpful
in Predicting Where Future Giants Will
Be Discovered?
Halbouty (2001) lists 37 oil giants and 40 gas giants
discovered in the period from 1990 to 2000, including
a total of 15 deep-water giants. Deep-water discoveries
included one in Brazil, seven in Angola, two in the Gulf
of Mexico, and one each in Indonesia, Australia, Norway,
the Philippines, and Russia. We have indicated these
giant gas and oil discoveries on the maps in Figures 4– 30,
18 / Mann et al.

Figure 1. Global distri-

bution of 877 giant oil
fields plotted on stan-
dard Mercator projection
of Smith and Sandwell
(1997) topographic-
bathymetric map of the
world generated from
satellite gravity data (the
satellite’s low orbit pre-
vents generation of data
in the Arctic region).
Yellow boxes indicate
regions of concentrated
giant oil fields shown on
geologic maps in Figures
4 – 30. We have named
each of these regions ac-
cording to the Exxon Tec-
tonic Map of the World
(1985) and/or common
usage. Outlines of giant
fields are color-coded by
tectonic setting according
to the map key in the bot-
tom left corner. Sources
for the identification of
giant fields are also given
in the key, along with the
five largest oil and gas
giant fields discovered in
the 1990s. Six basin types
of giant fields on this map,
shown in greater detail on
regional geologic maps in
Figures 4 – 30, are based
on our interpretation of
the basin type most re-
sponsible for the forma-
tion of the giant fields in
that region.

along with Appendix A. Halbouty (2001) points out that a
greater number of giant fields are being discovered as a
result of their stratigraphic emplacement, as opposed to a
strictly structural-trap environment. This trend probably
reflects the increase in deep-water discoveries in deep-
water passive margin settings.
A detailed discussion of the reserve estimates of giant
fields, the Hubbert cycle, the impact of giant oil field
discoveries on the Hubbert cycle, and reserve growth
estimates for the world’s giant oil fields is provided
by Edwards (1997), McCabe (1998), and Klett and
Schmoker (this volume) and is beyond the scope of this
chapter.
OBJECTIVES OF THIS PAPER
AND PREVIOUS WORK
Objectives of the Paper
Our main objective is to classify the tectonic setting
of the 27 giant- and hydrocarbon-rich regions shown
together in Figure 1 and individually in Figures 4 – 30
and present our ideas on how the tectonics of these par-
ticular areas have resulted in these dense clusters of giants.
Are there certain types of basins more commonly asso-
ciated with giants than other types of basins? Can future
exploration for giants focus on these hydrocarbon-rich
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 19
Figure 1. (cont.).
basin types and exclude their ‘‘poor cousins’’? The
selection of giants shown in Figure 1 is based on reserve
estimates of conventional oil and gas deposits and does not
consider nonconventional hydrocarbons, including oil
shale and tar sand.
Benefits of Classification Approach
The main benefit of this or any classification exercise
is what has been called ‘‘exploration by analogy’’ (H.
Yarborough, in Burke, 1985). Explorationists (either con-
sciously or unconsciously) interpret the tectonic, sedi-
mentary, climatic, structural, and thermal conditions of
the unexplored area in terms of similarities to and con-
trasts with other basins they know in greater detail. Be-
cause most giant fields can be found in about 27 geo-
graphic and basinal clusters on the earth’s surface, we
propose that exploration by analogy is a useful and per-
haps necessary tool for discovering future areas of clus-
tered giants in similar basinal settings.
Basin Classification Used in This Paper
We classify the tectonic setting of these basins using
our own simplified basin classification scheme described
below. To provide an objective and uniform map of the
20 / Mann et al.
tectonic and basinal setting of giant oil fields, we have
superimposed the field locations taken from the various
databases onto scanned color images of the Exxon
Tectonic Map of the World (1985). This map has two
main advantages. First, there is a uniformity in the style of
compilation that facilitates comparison of basins in
geographically separate areas, and second, the map iden-
tifies basins by specific names, which we adopt and use in
the text of this paper. Whereas other alternative basin
names generally exist and are used by other authors, the
Exxon basin names greatly facilitate our descriptive task.
Previous Compilations and Basinal
Classifications of Giant Fields
Comprehensive tabulations of the names, locations,
sizes, and gas/oil ratios of giant fields have been pre-
viously compiled and updated by various groups and are
briefly summarized here.
Early Classifications
Halbouty (1970, 1980, 1990, 2001; Halbouty et al.,
1970) has long appreciated the significance of giant oil
and gas fields and has made periodic decadal assess-
ments of giant fields for the period of 1960–2000.
Moody (1975) compiled many characteristics of giant
fields, including their time of discovery, age, depth and
lithologies of reservoirs, trap types, unconformities, asso-
ciation with evaporites, and setting (shelf, deep basin,
mobile belt). Nehring (1978) compiled a list of giant oil
fields but did not consider discoveries after the end of
1975. Carmalt and St. John (1986) compiled a compre-
hensive list of 509 giant fields current through 1983.
Klemme Basin Classification
Carmalt and St. John (1986) classified the tectonic
setting of giant fields using the basin classification of
Klemme (1971, 1974), and we plot their results as a
histogram in Figure 2a. According to Klemme, whose
classification is widely cited in petroleum literature from
the 1970s and 1980s, basins are divided into five major
categories according to their tectonic history. Category 1
is continental interior basins. Category 2 includes ‘‘mul-
ticycle’’ basins on continental crust that are further sub-
divided into composite margin basins, accreted margin
basins, and collision zone basins. Category 3 includes
various rifted margin basins, divided into cratonic and
accreted rift basins, rifted convergent margin basins, and
rifted passive margin basins. Category 4 includes deltas.
Category 5 includes fore-arc basins. Collision zones and
accreted margins are the interpreted setting for more than
half of the 509 basins included in the survey, with rifted
margins accounting for only about 15% of the giant fields.
Bally and Snelson Basin Classification
Bally and Snelson (1980) divide basins according to
three main tectonic categories. The categories depend
heavily on the degree to which a basin is associated with
a ‘‘megasuture,’’ or major convergent plate boundary.
Category 1 basins are formed on rigid lithosphere with
no spatial or genetic relation to megasutures. Examples
include rifts, oceanic abyssal plains, and ‘‘Atlantic-type’’
passive margins. Category 2 basins, termed ‘‘perisutural,’’
are formed on rigid lithosphere in association with a
megasuture. Examples include deep-sea trenches, fore-
deeps, and ‘‘Chinese-type’’ basins. Category 3 basins,
termed ‘‘episutural,’’ are part of a megasuture or major
plate boundary. Examples include fore-arc basins, back-
arc basins, and ‘‘basin-and-range’’ basins.
Bally (1982) restricts the use of the term basin to
only those regions that have subsided, that contain sed-
imentary rocks in excess of 1 km, and, most important,
that are still preserved in more or less coherent form. His
definition deliberately excludes former basins whose sed-
imentary content is now incorporated and deformed in
folded belts and whose basement cover relations are un-
certain without detailed study.
St. John (1984) added a fourth and fifth category to
the Bally and Snelson (1980) classification. The fourth
category is folded belts, and the fifth is plateau basalts.
Some parallels can be drawn between classifications: For
example, the collision zone and convergent margin cat-
egories of Klemme (1971, 1974) may correspond, re-
spectively, to the thrust belt and A-type foredeep of
Bally and Snelson (1980) that were used by Carmalt and
St. John (1986).
Kingston Basin Classification
Kingston et al. (1983) subdivided the world’s basin
using three parameters: basin-forming tectonics, deposi-
tional sequences, and basin-modifying tectonics. Eight
single tectonic-cycle or simple basin types included in-
terior sag, margin sag, interior fracture, wrench, trench,
trench associated, oceanic sag, and oceanic wrench. To
account for complex basins with many different sed-
imentary cycles and tectonic events, these authors mod-
ified the eight simple basin types with letter and number
symbols so that the specific geologic history of the basin
could be written as a formula. Events modifying the
eight types of simple basins include episodic wrenches,
Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 21

Figure 2. Previous sorting of giant fields by

basin type. (a) Histogram showing classifi-
cation of 509 giant fields by Carmalt and St.
John (1986), using basin classification pro-
posed by Klemme (1971). Klemme (1971)
divides basins into the eight main categories
shown, based on his interpretation of their
tectonic history. (b) Histogram showing clas-
sification of 509 giant fields by Carmalt and
St. John (1986), using basin classification
proposed by Bally and Snelson (1980). Bally
and Snelson (1980) divide basins into nine
categories shown, based largely on the de-
gree that the basin is associated with a
‘‘megasuture’’ or major convergent plate
boundary. (c) Histogram showing classifica-
tion of 877 giant fields by basin classification
proposed in this paper. We use a simple
scheme of six commonly used basinal
settings to classify the 877 giant fields (see
text for discussion and comparison of cate-
gories from various classification schemes).

basin-adjacent fold belts, and completely folded

basins. No attempt was made by this group to
attempt to globally classify specific hydrocar-
bon fields by basin type. This classification
system is more complex but in practice more
useful because it considers the entire history of
the basin instead of assuming that the present-
day configuration of the basin was representa-
tive of its complete history.

Perrodin Basin Classification

Perrodin (1983) provided an overview of

the tectonic setting and distribution of hydro-
carbons on a global scale. He adopted a simple
basin classification with four types: (1) rifts in
cratonic areas; (2) ‘‘stable area basins’’ in con-
tinental regions; (3) passive margin basins; (4)
orogenic belt basins subdivided into two groups,
intermontane basins and foreland basins.

Helwig Basin Classification

Helwig (1985) reviewed previous classifica-

tion schemes and concluded that classifying
basins on the basis of their tectonic setting was
‘‘fraught with conceptual pitfalls, burdened with
semantics, and crippled by the variety and com-
plexity of basins.’’ Instead, he proposed that
the ideal classification should be based on two
22 / Mann et al.
fundamental modes of lithospheric deformation that pro-
duce two distinctive basin types: (1) extensional thinning
of the lithosphere that produces symmetrical, concave-
upward, normal-faulted rift basins with a lower faulted
rift and an upper sag basin; and (2) flexure of the litho-
sphere driven by convergent tectonics and resulting in
loading and downwarping of the lithosphere to form
asymmetrical, wedge-shaped, thrust-faulted basins.
Other Global Basin Compilation Efforts
St. John (1984) produced a map showing sedi-
mentary provinces of the world that distinguished
hydrocarbon-productive from nonproductive basins.
Carmalt and St. John (1986) classified the tectonic
setting of 509 giant fields using the basin classification
of Bally and Snelson (1980), and we plot their results as
a histogram in Figure 2b. ‘‘A-type foredeeps,’’ or fore-
land basins developed on continental crust and associ-
ated with continent-continent collisions, account for 41%
of giant fields, whereas cratonic basins removed from
active margins account for 22% of giant fields. Both the
Klemme (1971) and Bally and Snelson (1980) classifica-
tions produce a similar result: Almost half of all giant
fields occur in collision-related settings (Figure 2).
As part of its global exploration effort, British Pe-
troleum (1992) produced a map showing world total oil
and gas reserves shown schematically as color-coded
concentrations of points on the map but not related in
detail to particular basins. Ivanhoe and Leckie (1993)
compiled sizes of all oil fields globally through the early
1990s. One general conclusion is, ‘‘Acorns are found
near oak trees and oil fields are found in very unevenly
distributed oil provinces.’’ More than half of the world’s
nations produce no oil, and giant fields are generally
found first in any technical stage of exploration.
In a textbook format, Busby and Ingersoll (1995)
review the literature of various basin classifications
and review extensive case histories of basins in different
tectonic settings.
Haeberle (2001) classified 362 United States giant
fields according to their basin type. Basin types used and
percentages of giants examined included craton interior
(2% of total reserves), craton margin ‘‘plains’’ basins (29%
of reserves), craton margin ‘‘mountain’’ basins (5% of
reserves), plate margin basins (34% of reserves), rift basins
(22% of reserves), and delta basins (7% of reserves).
Pettingill (2001) classified basin types of giants dis-
covered in the 1990s. He assumed that the present-day
basinal configuration was representative of the basinal
history as a whole and found that 53% of the oil and gas
resources of giant fields occur in fold belts, forelands, and
foredeeps. The majority of giants found during this period
were gas, with the exception of giants discovered in passive
margin settings (west Africa, Gulf of Mexico, and Brazil).
REVISED BASIN CLASSIFICATION
USED IN THIS PAPER
Our revised basin classification applied to 877 giants
in Figure 2c is based on six widely used basin types that
include the following. (Appendix B lists all 877 fields
according to our tectonic classification.)
Continental Rifts and Overlying Sag or
‘‘Steer’s-Head’’ Basins (Color Code Blue)
Rifts are defined by Burke (p. 33, 1985) as sediment-
filled elongate depressions overlying places where the
lithosphere has ruptured in extension. Rifts can occur
in a variety of tectonic environments wherever the lith-
osphere has been put into extension. The most common
rift environment occurs during the continental rupture
associated with the opening of Atlantic-type margins.
Generally smaller, less-extensive rifts than the continental-
rupture type are found trending at high angles to zones of
continental collision, as in the case of the India-Eurasia
collision (Yin, 2000) and in strike-slip zones (Christie-
Blick and Biddle, 1985).
There are two ideas for the early formation of rifts.
Falvey (1974) proposed that rifts form as crestal normal
faults above a rising arch, and therefore, the initiation
of arching must precede basin formation. Harding (1984)
notes that this mechanism may apply to the Sirte rift
of Libya, but other rifts, including the Gulf of Suez,
exhibit a broad subsidence phase prior to the onset of
rifting. This early subsidence history is critical for estab-
lishing and preserving reservoirs in the prerift section as
observed in the Gulf of Suez.
Once rifts form, they tend to evolve in very similar
ways, irrespective of the tectonic environment in which
they originate. Rift history generally has two main phases:
a period of fault-bounded subsidence, producing a nar-
row, elongate rift, followed by a period of thermal sub-
sidence over a much larger area, producing an overlying
sag basin (Sclater and Christie, 1980; Harding, 1984).
Two-phase subsidence is even observed in larger pull-
aparts formed in strike-slip zones because the basic pro-
cess of lithospheric thinning is the same (Mann et al.,
1983).
Rifts and the overlying generally unfaulted marine
sag basin are key for the localization and formation of
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 23
source rocks in poorly circulated marine straits and lakes
during the early stages of continental rifting (e.g., Late
Jurassic –Early Cretaceous source rocks of the Gulf of
Mexico and Jurassic source rocks of west Africa). Such
rifts are either aborted to form isolated intracontinental
rifts surrounded by continental areas such as the North
Sea or West Siberian Basin or are extended to form pas-
sive margins flanking major ocean basins such as along
the west coast of Africa (Burke, 1977). These rifts typ-
ically become deeply buried beneath point-sourced del-
tas such as the Niger of west Africa and/or sheetlike car-
bonate, evaporitic, and/or clastic passive margin sections.
The task of distinguishing rift settings from passive
margin settings is a difficult one, given the close affinity
between the formation of the fault-controlled lower rift
(or ‘‘steer’s head’’ in profile) and the overlying sag basin
(or ‘‘steer’s horns’’). For example, Klemme (1994) notes
that most Upper Jurassic source rocks that commonly
source giant fields worldwide occur stratigraphically
close to the interface between the rift and overlying sag.
He notes that Late Jurassic sources for the West Sibe-
rian Basin and northwest Australia are at the base of the
sag, sources for the North Sea are in the rift immediately
beneath the sag, and sources for the Persian Gulf are
located at some stratigraphic distance above the sag. Of
the 877 giants in our study, we assign 271 (30.9%) of
them to this class.
Morley (1999) subdivided hydrocarbon-bearing
rifts into seven categories, each of which represents a
specific combination of basin fill and geometry. Varie-
ties include simple, nonmarine rifts; marine rifts; and
both types, with and without overlying sag basins. He
concluded that the distribution of reserves is skewed
heavily (about 88%) toward rifts that have an overlying
sag basin. Factors favoring this association may include
the regional seal and/or reservoir rocks provided by sag-
basin strata. Another important factor is that in many
rift-sag associations, the additional burial of synrift shale
beneath the sag basin causes the shale to reach thermal
maturity and generate hydrocarbons. Thick, overlying
passive margins fronting major ocean basins can reduce
hydrocarbon prospectivity by causing excessive burial of
synrift shale and tilting of the synrift succession that
destroys trapping geometries.
Rift inversion is common and can exhibit from slight
reactivation of normal faults and preservation of the
basic basinal structure (Macgregor, 1995) to moderate
inversion, where the normal faults are exposed as surface
structures (Underhill and Paterson, 1998) or subsurface
anticlinal features (so-called Sunda-style anticlines of
Letouzey et al., 1990 and Lowell, 1995), to complete
inversion, where the basin is turned inside out, and the
interior rift, including redbeds, evaporites, and volcanic
rocks, is exposed as a topographic mountain range (Mann
and Burke, 1990; Lugo and Mann, 1995; Lowell, 1995).
Continental Passive Margins Fronting Major
Ocean Basins (Color Code Light Blue)
This category is reserved for those giants which are
clearly confined to the nonrift-controlled passive mar-
gin section. It is difficult to completely rule out the
importance of rifts and rift-localized steer’s head basins
in passive margin tectonic settings because passive mar-
gins are a consequence of rifting, and the level of pre-
passive margin rifting can become so deeply buried
in passive margin settings as to be difficult to resolve
seismically and to test by drilling. For example, most
workers, such as Peterson and Clarke (1991), have in-
terpreted the West Siberian Basin as a rifted area over-
lain by a thick, extensive sag basin. A. Bally (2002, per-
sonal communication) notes that existing seismic re-
flection data, including that interpreted by Vyssotski
(2000), fail to document the extent of the buried rifts
beneath the basin. Such questions may be resolved as
deeper-penetration seismic data and results from deeper
wells become publicly available.
We have opted to include those passive margins now
in collisional settings as passive margins, particularly
in cases in which most of the hydrocarbon-producing
areas are removed from the deformed area, migration
precedes folding, and/or migration is thought to occur
in a vertical direction (e.g., Persian Gulf; Pierce, 1993).
Other authors, such as Bally and Snelson (1980), have
placed such margins in the foreland basin class be-
cause of their position at the updip end of the foredeep
and the inferred long-distance horizontal migration of
hydrocarbons as a result of collisional deformation and
tilting of the passive margin sequence. Of the 877 giants
in our study, we assign 304 (34.66%) of them to this
class.
Strike-Slip Margins (Color Code Green)
Strike-slip basins are relatively few and small in areal
extent in comparison to more common and areally ex-
tensive rift, passive margin, and collisional basin types.
In general, strike-slip margins form during the advanced
stages of continental or arc collision as occurring in
Anatolia and the Caucasus (Reilinger et al., 1997; Mann,
1997), the southern margin of the Caribbean in Vene-
zuela, or during a ridge subduction event along a sub-
duction boundary as occurred along the California mar-
gin (Atwater, 1970).
24 / Mann et al.
Despite their generally small areal extent relative to
foreland and rift basins, strike-slip basins can contain
extremely thick sedimentary sequences, including ex-
cellent source rocks such as lacustrine and restricted
marine rocks deposited during the early basinal history.
The inherent complexity of strike-slip boundaries with
lateral offsets and structural overprinting probably
makes it difficult to maintain and preserve traps large
enough to ensure a giant field. Structural styles along
strike-slip faults as seen on maps and seismic data are
complex (Harding, 1985) and can lead to confusion with
other, unrelated structural styles, including inverted
normal faults (Harding, 1990). The establishment of
both profile and map criteria is essential for correct in-
terpretations of strike-slip faults.
California is a remarkable example of a giant for-
mation in a strike-slip zone with an ideal combination of
prestrike-slip rift structures (May et al., 1993), wide-
spread Monterey Formation marine source rocks, and
overprinting by largely transpressional strike-slip tec-
tonics (Peters et al., 1994). Other transpressional strike-
slip zones with similar structures but less rich and ex-
tensive source rocks are relatively poor in hydrocarbons
(e.g., New Zealand, northern Caribbean, Levant). Of
the 877 giants in our study, we assign 50 basins (5.70%)
to this class.
Continent-Continent Collision Margins
(Color Code Red)
These margins produce deep but short-lived basins in
interior areas, and broad, wedge-shaped foreland or
‘‘foredeep’’ basins in more external parts of the de-
formed belt where most giants are found. Bally (1989)
shows an idealized cross section that summarizes the
main structural and stratigraphic characteristics of fore-
land basins.
A popular model in the late 1980s was the ‘‘squee-
gee’’ model for expulsion of oil from source rocks
shortened and buried in the more interior parts of the
deformed belt (Oliver, 1986). Data supporting vertical
rather than horizontal migration from specific regions
such as the Persian Gulf (Pierce, 1993) indicate that
the squeegee model may not be universally applicable
to all convergent basinal settings. Ziegler and Roure
(1996) cite Alpine foreland examples of both long-
distance, updip migration and vertical migration in sedi-
mentary sections overridden and loaded by large thrust
sheets. Macgregor (1996a) discusses the ‘‘poor preser-
vation potential’’ of foreland basins caused by ruptur-
ing of reservoirs in the deformed zone at one edge of
the foreland basin and caused by updip leakage of oil
and formation of tar sand deposits as observed in west-
ern Canada and the East Venezuela Basin.
Based on their interpretation of the Map of World
Total Oil and Gas Reserves (British Petroleum, 1992),
Macedo and Marshak (1999) propose that there is a
spatial correlation between the location of foreland basin
oil fields and fold-thrust belt salients, or places where
the fold-thrust belt protrudes or is convex to the fore-
land. Specific salient examples associated with oil fields
include Alberta; Wyoming, in the western United States;
Santa Cruz, in the Andes; Verkhoyansk; northern Carpa-
thian; Taiwan; Zagros; and the Apennines. In all these
examples, these authors propose that the greatest con-
centration of oil and gas fields is opposite the apex of the
salient. On our compilation maps, giants fields are only
obviously associated with specific salients in the case of
Alberta and the Andes south of the Santa Cruz area.
Macedo and Marshak (1999) speculate that possible
explanations for the spatial association include (1) the
thicker basinal sedimentary rocks present at salients,
which are more likely to yield greater volumes of source
and reservoir rocks; (2) the thicker basinal rocks that
also produce more fold culminations, which are likely to
act as structural traps; and (3) slight along-strike ex-
tension at apex areas that could result in increased frac-
turing that could provide the vertical permeability to
permit migration of oil and gas in association with ba-
sinal brines. In contrast to the above concepts, explo-
rationists in foreland areas such as the Persian Gulf
have noted that horizontal migration is small, conver-
gent deformation effects are minimal, and most migra-
tion is vertical above deep-seated source rocks in the rift
or passive margin section (e.g., Pierce, 1993). Of the
877 giants in our study, we assign 173 (19.73%) of them
to this class.
Continental Collisions Related to Terrane
Accretion, Arc Collision, and/or Shallow
Subduction (Color Code Pink)
This collisional class was created for foreland settings
in nonterminal collisional settings such as the Rocky
Mountains and Andes. The style of foreland basins in
nonterminal collisional settings is identical to those formed
in collision-collision margins, although the former tend
to have much longer depositional histories instead of
being formed by a single, short-lived pulse of continent-
continent collision.
Foreland basins in this category can sometimes be
more narrow and contain thinner stratigraphic fill than
in continent-continent collisional settings because island
arcs lack the size, crustal thickness, and deformation
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 25
effect of two converging continents. For example, many
of the circum-Caribbean forelands are narrow as a result
of the oblique collision of the Caribbean arc and other
exotic terranes with the North and South American
continents (Lugo and Mann, 1995; Pindell et al., 1998).
Important structural traps in foreland basins formed by
normal faults related to flexure and downbending of con-
tinental crust beneath foreland basins (Harding and Tumi-
nas, 1989; Bradley and Kidd, 1991). Of the 877 giants in
our study, we assign 71 (8.10%) of them to this class.
Subduction Margins (Color Code Purple)
Subduction margins control the structure, stratig-
raphy, and thermal histories of fore-arc, intrarc, and arc
basins. The two most notable examples of giants on
subduction margins include Sunda and the western-
most margin of South America.
Subduction-related margins are the least productive
tectonic environment for giant fields because of low-
porosity, clay-rich sediments common in arc environ-
ments. However, subduction margins in tropical areas,
such as those in Southeast Asia, can contain carbonate
and reef-carbonate traps developed on local structural
highs above more arc-influenced strata. Subduction mar-
gin can also contain rich source rocks related to upwell-
ing in adjacent subduction-related trenches (Suess et al.,
1987; Erlich et al., 1996), or can contain continentally
derived reservoir rocks eroded from adjacent continental
areas such as the Sunda continent. However, combina-
tions of favorable sources, reservoirs, and structures are
rare in subduction zones, and according to our study,
only an insignificant number of giants (8 out of 877, or
0.91%) fall into the subduction class.
PROBLEMS OF COMPLEX
BASINAL HISTORY FOR
BASIN CLASSIFICATION
Different Approaches for Classification
All giant fields occur in basins which have experi-
enced several structural and stratigraphic phases related
to changing plate tectonic boundary conditions. There
are two approaches to take in basin classification: One
can assume, like Pettingill (2001), that the present-day
basin style is representative of past basinal types, in-
cluding those possibly responsible for the formation of
the giant fields. A second and more difficult approach
is to infer the basin style most responsible for one or
more of the complex factors forming the giants, in-
cluding (1) formation of source rocks, (2) formation
of reservoir rocks, and (3) creation of structural and
stratigraphic traps. These source-reservoir-trap events
linked to hydrocarbon production and storage could
have occurred in completely different tectonic settings.
For example, the source may have formed during a rift
phase, the reservoir may have been deposited during a
passive margin phase, and the structural trap may have
formed during the collision of a continent or island arc
with the passive margin.
For the purpose of our classification shown in Fig-
ures 1 and 2c and on the maps in Figures 4 – 30, we
have followed the second approach, with emphasis on
identifying the basin-forming tectonic and stratigraphic
phase responsible for the deposition of the source rock
and/or structural trap. Our objective is similar to the
‘‘critical moment’’ of hydrocarbon generation defined
by Magoon and Dow (p. 11, 1994) as ‘‘the point in
time selected by the investigator that best depicts the
generation-migration-accumulation of most hydrocar-
bons in a petroleum system.’’
For elongate giant fields reflecting fold-and-thrust
structures, we make an exception to this rule and assume
that at least the structural traps of these giants are pro-
duced by shortening at collisional margins (e.g., Arabian
Peninsula).
Problems Inherent in Basin Classifications
As pointed out by Bally and Snelson (1980), basin
classifications are fraught with problems and can be
oversimplified, misinterpreted, and easily abused. The
basin classification scheme we present below is no dif-
ferent. Problem areas in our classification include the
following topics.
Key Information for an Accurate
Description/Classification
Some areas tax our collective knowledge largely
because we are unable to find up-to-date or relevant
literature needed to classify the basins described below
or because there is no clear consensus in the published
literature on the basin class most closely associated with
the giant accumulations. For this reason, we view this
paper as a first iteration and welcome comments and
suggestions from those familiar with the geology of the
27 regions of giants described below.
Future work largely in the form of improved seismic
reflection and deep drilling may change the interpreta-
tion of the underlying structural controls on deep basins.
This is particularly relevant to the question of whether
26 / Mann et al.

between end-member basin types.

Again, our approach is that giants
are controlled by dominant basin
types that are recognizable and
classifiable.

TECTONIC SETTING
OF GIANT OIL
FIELDS USING
REVISED
CLASSIFICATION
In the following sections, we
provide a brief tectonic history of
the 27 regions shown in Figures
4–30, using references which pro-
vide key information on the main
tectonic phases, source rock, reser-
voir, and trap of the giant field that
we used to classify the basin. (See
Figure 3 for the legend of the 27
geologic maps.)

TECTONIC SETTING
OF SIX GIANT
FIELDS OF THE
NORTH SLOPE OF
ALASKA AND
MACKENZIE DELTA
OF CANADA
Figure 3. Legend for the 27 regional geologic maps of regions with more densely
clustered giants than in other parts of the globe. These maps and their legend Deformation that shaped rocks
are derived from the Exxon Tectonic Map of the World (1985). Note that colors of the North Slope and Brooks
on these maps refer to the age of deformation instead of the age of the rock Range began during the Middle
units. Devonian to Early Mississippian
Ellesmerian orogeny. This event
rifts underlie large cratonic basins such as those in North was followed by Early Cretaceous (128 Ma) rifting, which
Africa or the West Siberian Basin. led to the formation of oceanic crust in the Canada Basin
and to the formation of a rifted, passive margin along the
Differences Between Basins and Transition States North Slope (Hubbard et al., 1987) (Figure 4). Early
Are basins different enough to eschew classification Cretaceous–Holocene sedimentation has been controlled
into any one category? Our view is that there are a very by mainly clastic, passive margin sedimentation, including
limited number of fundamental basin types and that superposition of the Mackenzie Delta with sources in
these types are distinct from one another. the Brooks Range to the south (Kirschner et al., 1983).
However, a related problem is that basins can Sources, reservoirs, and structural and stratigraphic traps
change form as the degree of inversion progresses (see occur in the passive margin section, including Triassic
Macgregor, 1995). Transitional states from one type of and Early Cretaceous clastic as well as Mississippian and
basin could exist and confound any simplified classifi- Pennsylvanian clastic and carbonate reservoirs (Carman
cation scheme. Kingston et al. (1983) recognized this and and Hardwick, 1983; Hubbard et al., 1987). Continued
attempted to add categories for transitional states Cretaceous and Cenozoic thrusting along the thrust front
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 27

Figure 4. Six giant fields of the North Slope (Colville Basin) of Alaska and Mackenzie Delta of Canada (see Appendix
A for field names keyed to numbers shown). The map is a standard Mercator projection, with original scale of
1:10,000,000. Giant fields are shown as numbered, colored crosses or stars on this and all other regional geologic
maps (see key to Figure 1 for detailed explanation). Numbers correspond to the list of giant fields. Refer to legend of
Exxon Tectonic Map of the World (1985) for details of color-coding of age of deformation. Light to moderate
blue represents offshore areas. Light to moderate brown indicates basinal areas with total thickness of Cambrian
and younger sedimentary rocks in basins with thickness isopachs in kilometers. Basin names are indicated in
capital letters (Colville Basin, Mackenzie Delta, Anderson Plains in bottom right; Beaufort Sea [Canada Basin]
is offshore). We classified basin type most responsible for giants as those formed on a passive margin fronting a major
ocean basin (Canada Basin). Brooks Range orogenic belt is color-coded by age of deformation: purple (PCP) = upper
Precambrian (800 m.y.) to Middle Cambrian deformation; purple (P2) = Middle Devonian to Mississippian; green
(M2) = Upper Jurassic to Upper Cretaceous (Coniacian).

of the Brooks Range may be related to accretion of par-
tially subducted or accreted terranes along the south-
ern Pacific margin of Alaska (Bruns, 1983; Bird, 1996).
These Mesozoic and younger deformational events have
led some authors, such as Bird and Molenaar (1992) and
A. Bally (2001, personal communication), to interpret
the North Slope as a foreland basin. However, we choose
to classify the tectonic setting of giant fields in the North
Slope –Mackenzie Delta region as a continental passive
margin fronting a major ocean basin. In our view, struc-
tures and stratigraphy controlling giant fields are related
more to the Cretaceous passive margin history following
the opening of the Canada Basin than to the Mesozoic–
Cenozoic convergent reactivation of the Paleozoic trends
south of the North Slope passive margin.
Macgregor (1996a) has proposed that the Alaskan
North Slope oil system is an example of a low-pres-
ervation oil system in which the majority of the original
entrapped light oil has been destroyed or converted to
gas or heavy oil. Paleogene tilting of an originally much
larger oil field at Prudhoe Bay has fed lateral and vertical
remigration pathways into shallower traps where biodeg-
radation has occurred. As a result of these movements
into shallower zones, as much as 50% of the trapped
light oil that existed prior to the Paleogene has been
destroyed or lost to the surface.
Continued Tertiary convergence in both Alaska and
the Mackenzie Delta area, as described by Tsang (1990)
and by Dietrich and Lane (1992), acts to uplift re-
maining fields in passive margin sections to the sur-
face. According to Macgregor (1996a), the North Slope
is in a moderately advanced state of a progressive and
destructive cycle controlled by continued convergence,
which would eventually lead to the complete destruc-
tion of the oil province.
TECTONIC SETTING OF FIVE
GIANT FIELDS IN THE
CANADIAN ARCTIC ISLANDS
Five giant fields of the Canadian Arctic Islands occur
in the triangular-shaped Sverdrup Basin of northern
28 / Mann et al.

et al. (1989), we interpret this sub-

sidence phase as a rift-related sub-
sidence that resulted in a sag over-
lying rift or steer’s head profile in
cross section (Figure 5).
The Paleogene Eurekan orogeny
refers to inversion of the Carbonif-
erous to Cretaceous Sverdrup Basin
and underlying Ellesmerian faults.
The resultant orogeny produced a
nonmetamorphic fold-thrust belt
in which the remobilization of rift-
related evaporites featured prom-
inently (see Texaco Canada Re-
sources, 1983; Fox, 1983). De Paor
et al. (1989) point out several un-
usual features of the Eurekan orog-
eny, including its shape, the lack of
a topographically uplifted or eroded
core of a mountain range, and the
lack of a distinct foreland basin (Fig-
ure 5). They propose that shortening
was a result of ‘‘near-pole orogeny’’
related to the propagation of Atlan-
Figure 5. Five giant fields in the Canadian Arctic Islands (see Appendix A tic spreading into the Labrador Sea
for field names keyed to numbers shown). Basins are indicated in capital let- and Baffin Bay. The creation of new
ters: Sverdrup, Victoria, Melville, and Canada Basin are offshore. We clas- oceanic crust in Baffin Bay and the
sified basin type most responsible for giants as those formed as continental Labrador Sea was matched by the co-
rifts with overlying sag basins formed during the opening of the Canada Basin.
eval shortening of crust in the Sver-
Ellesmere orogenic belt is color-coded by age of deformation: purple (P2) =
drup Basin located north of the pole
Middle Devonian to Mississippian.
of rotation between the two plates
at the propagating tip of the spread-
ing ridge. There is a match between
Canada (Figure 5). The Sverdrup Basin is about 1000 km the Paleogene age of ridge propagation and the Eurekan
long and 300 km wide, and contains as much as 12 km of deformation.
upper Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and early Tertiary strata. Giant fields are concentrated on the crests of Paleo-
The unusual regional structure of the area has been gene anticlines produced during the Eurekan orogeny.
shaped by two superimposed orogenies separated in These folds are commonly cored by evaporites. Important
time by a major rift and passive margin subsidence event source rocks are Lower Jurassic shale deposited in an
(De Paor et al., 1989). Proterozoic to Paleozoic strata outer shelf setting (Leith et al., 1992). Reservoirs include
resting or rifted against Precambrian rocks of the Lau- uppermost Triassic– Lower Jurassic sandstone.
rentian shield were folded and faulted during the mid-
dle Paleozoic Ellesmerian orogeny that also affected
the North Slope area of Alaska and Canada farther to TECTONIC SETTING OF 17
the west (Figure 4). After this convergent event, Car- GIANT FIELDS IN SOUTHERN
boniferous to Early Permian rifting and evaporite sedi- CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES
mentation in fault blocks formed the Sverdrup Basin.
Fault-bounded rifting was followed by a prolonged pe- This region formed as a Jurassic–Tertiary fore-arc
riod of rift-related thermal subsidence and occasional basin above a subduction zone prior to the inception of
basaltic volcanism, which kept pace with subsidence and the San Andreas fault in the middle Tertiary. The San
in some cases extended beyond the former basin mar- Joaquin Basin preserves its synclinal fore-arc structure
gins. Following Stephenson et al. (1987) and De Paor between the outer arc high of coastal California and the
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 29

plankton (Wright, 1991; Peters et al.,

1994). Traps include lowside (foot-
wall) closures produced by reverse-
slip and convergent strike-slip faults
and vary widely in size and hydro-
carbon reserves (Harding and Tumi-
nas, 1988). For these reasons, we
classify the tectonic setting of Cali-
fornia giants as strike-slip.

TECTONIC SETTING
OF 16 GIANT
FIELDS OF THE
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
FORELAND,
UNITED STATES
The Rocky Mountain foreland
extends from the Brooks Range in
Alaska to Mexico. It was formed as
the result of the eastward thrusting
Figure 6. Seventeen giant fields of southern California, United States (see
of a westward-thickening wedge of
Appendix A for field names keyed to numbers shown). Basins are indicated
mostly shallow-water, platform-
in capital letters: Sacramento, San Joaquin, Bodega to left, Santa Cruz to left,
deposited sedimentary rocks of Pre-
Outer Santa Cruz, Santa Maria, Ventura, Borderlands, Ensenada. We clas-
sified basin type most responsible for giants as right-lateral strike-slip be- cambrian through Jurassic age dur-
tween the North America and Pacific-Farallon Plates. Age of orogenic belts ing the Early Cretaceous through Eo-
in area of giant fields: green (M2) = Upper Jurassic to Upper Cretaceous cene (Figure 7) (Oldow et al., 1989).
(Coniacian); green (MT) = Upper Cretaceous (Santonian) to Oligocene. Seismic reflection profiles give clear
evidence that the foreland fold belt is
extensively underlain by a basement
homocline dipping gently toward the
volcanic arc of the Sierra Nevada Mountains (Figure 6). interior of the orogen. Mesozoic and early Cenozoic defor-
Fore-arc structure is less prominent in the now strike- mation is related to terrane accretion, arc collision, and/
slip –disrupted areas of coastal and southern California. or shallow subduction along the Pacific margin of the
Giants are concentrated in the ‘‘big bend,’’ or left- Pacific Plate (Dickinson et al., 1988; Bird, 1998). De-
stepping restraining bend, along the right-lateral San formation is dominantly convergent and best expressed
Andreas fault (Figure 6). in the foreland area, but more interior areas of the de-
Sources are Tertiary in age, and traps are mainly formed zone also display elements of right- and left-
folds and faults related to late Tertiary strike-slip fault- lateral strike-slip motion whose magnitude on individual
ing and shortening at the restraining bend of the fault in blocks and terranes is controversial (Fermor and Moffat,
the Transverse Ranges. Basins in southern California in- 1992). Minimum shortening estimates for the Rocky
clude thrust-bound ‘‘push-down’’ or ‘‘ramp basins’’ such Mountains of southern Canada and the northern United
as the Ventura (Cobbold et al., 1993; Nino et al., 1998; States, based on balanced cross sections, range from 100
Mann et al., 1999); complexly faulted, elongate basins to 200 km (Oldow et al., 1989). Major tectonic events
such as the Los Angeles (Wright, 1991); and more since the Cretaceous included the Sevier orogeny that
traditional pull-apart (May et al., 1993) and fault wedge lasted from about 119 to 50 Ma and the Laramide
strike-slip basins (Christie-Blick and Biddle, 1985). orogeny from about 75 to 35 Ma (Dickinson et al., 1988).
Source rocks include Eocene and Miocene units, includ- Large-scale Tertiary extension of the basin-and-range
ing the well-known Miocene Monterey diatomaceous province began about 49 Ma, continued into the late Neo-
shale with oil-prone kerogen derived from marine gene, and obscured the earlier convergent structures.
30 / Mann et al.

Figure 7. Sixteen giant fields of the

Rocky Mountain foreland, United States
(see Appendix A for field names keyed
to numbers shown). Basins are indicated
in capital letters: Alberta, Crazy Mountains,
Power River, Big Horn, Wind River, Lara-
mie, Green River, Washakie, Piceance,
Uinta, Paradox, San Juan, Black Mesa at
bottom, Rio Grande at bottom. We clas-
sified basin type most responsible for
giants as continental collision related to
terrane accretion, arc collision, and/or shal-
low subduction at the Pacific margin of
North America. Age of orogenic belts in
area of giant fields: green (M2) = Upper
Jurassic to middle Cretaceous (Conia-
cian); green (MT) = Upper Cretaceous
(Santonian) to Oligocene.

Laramide basement uplifts of the south-

ern Rocky Mountains disrupt the asymmet-
rical Cretaceous foredeep observed in the
northern areas and segment it into several
dominantly fluviolacustrine basins, which all
acquired their form during the latest Creta-
ceous to Eocene (Dickinson et al., 1988).
Late Cretaceous – early Paleocene Laramide
structures have a strong east-west align-
ment, whereas late Paleocene–late Eocene
structures have a strong east-west alignment
(Gries, 1990). For these reasons, we classify
the setting for these giants as a continental
collision related to terrane accretion, arc col-
lision, and/or shallow subduction.
In the northern Rocky Mountains fore-
land, hydrocarbon sources include prefore-
land basin Devonian and Carboniferous shale
in the deepest buried part of the foreland
wedge adjacent to the fold-thrust belt (Crea-
ney and Allan, 1992). These rocks reached
the oil and gas window during the early Late
Cretaceous–early Tertiary Laramide orogeny
and migrated updip to the northeast, driven
by their own buoyancy and entrained by
the flow of formation waters in the same
direction (Bachu, 1997). Updip traps in-
clude reef complexes of the former pas-
sive margin. Because large volumes of hy-
drocarbons bypassed major traps and were
lost by updip migration, biodegraded, or
converted to tar sand deposits, Macgregor
(1996a) cites the Alberta foreland of the
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 31
Rocky Mountains as a ‘‘low-preservation potential pe-
troleum system.’’
In the southern Rocky Mountains, Gries et al. (1992)
conclude that maturation of Paleozoic and Mesozoic
rocks in more compartmentalized basins occurred dur-
ing the Laramide orogeny, when these basins were in-
undated by Eocene sediments shed from adjacent base-
ment uplifts. In some cases, Eocene lacustrine source
rocks were buried deeply enough to enter the oil window.
Traps include folds associated with deformation of the
basin edges.
TECTONIC SETTING OF 29 GIANT
FIELDS OF THE PERMIAN AND
ANADARKO BASINS, TEXAS AND
OKLAHOMA, UNITED STATES
This Paleozoic passive margin of North America
experienced a regional shortening and subsidence event
during the Pennsylvanian – Permian collision of North
America, northern South America, and Africa. This de-
formation event produced the Ouachita-Marathon orog-
eny and a series of Pennsylvanian foreland basins, uplifts,
and adjacent basins focused in the present-day area of
Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado, and Kansas
(Figure 8). Uplifted blocks and basins landward of the
elongate foreland basin (Meckel et al., 1992) formed as a
result of the reactivation of preexisting Precambrian and
Paleozoic structural grains in the crust that were largely
inherited from a previous phase of Precambrian rifting.
The irregular, precollisional shape of the passive margin
of North America contributed to the width and com-
plexity of the collisional zone that included strike-slip
faulting along favorably oriented zones of basement
reactivation. Kluth and Coney (1981) propose that the
convergence of the South American Plate on the south-
western projection of the passive margin of North Amer-
ica (including the transcontinental arch) acted to push a
large area of the North American craton to the northeast
and explains ‘‘Ancestral Rockies’’ deformation as distant
as Colorado and Utah. Harding (1985) and Budnik
(1986) reviewed evidence for late Paleozoic left-lateral
strike-slip deformation in a broad zone that included the
Fort Worth, Ardmore, Anadarko, and Palo Duro Basins
of Texas and the Central Colorado and Paradox Basins
to the northwest in Colorado and Utah. This regional
intraplate deformation related to continent-continent col-
lision is in some respects similar to the deformation of
Asia in response to the Cenozoic collision with India
(Tapponier et al., 1986).
Deformation in the Anadarko region reactivated an
older Precambrian to Paleozoic rift feature at a high
angle to the convergence direction and produced both
thrust and strike-slip faulting (Figure 8). Deformation in
the Permian Basin produced a complex pattern of uplifts
and rapidly subsiding basins (Horak, 1985; Katz et al.,
1994) that infilled with evaporites. Deformation spread
from east to southwest and accompanied the closure be-
tween the plates. For this reason, we classify the tectonic
setting of this area as a continent-continent collisional
margin.
Giant basins are concentrated in the Anadarko and
Permian Basins of Texas (Figure 8). The Permian Basin
is remarkable as one of the most significant cases of
preservation of large light oil volumes over a long period
of geologic time (Macgregor, 1996a). Most of the oil
fields in the Permian Basin are thought to have filled in
the Late Permian–Early Jurassic (Horak, 1985). Sources
and reservoirs were mainly deep-water Paleozoic rocks
deposited in basinal areas (Katz et al., 1994). Mac-
gregor (1996a) concludes that the preservation of light
Figure 8. Twenty-nine giant fields of the Permian and
Ancestral Rockies Basins, Texas and Oklahoma, United
States (see Appendix A for field names keyed to num-
bers shown). Basins are indicated in capital letters:
Raton, Dalhart, Anadarko, Palo Duro, Permian, Dela-
ware, Midland, Ardmore, Fort Worth, East Texas Salt
at right, Interior at bottom. We classified basin type
most responsible for giants as related to the Paleozoic
continent-continent collision between North America
and South America. Age of orogenic belts in area
of giant fields: blue (PM) = Pennsylvanian to Lower
Triassic.
32 / Mann et al.

oil over such a long period of time

can be attributed to its stable intra-
cratonic setting with no major peri-
ods of subsequent deformation and
the presence of a thick evaporitic seal
of Permian evaporites that prevented
the influx of meteoric waters and the
formation of fault connections from
oil pools to the surface.

TECTONIC SETTING
OF 61 GIANT FIELDS
OF THE GULF OF
MEXICO, UNITED
STATES, AND
MEXICO
The Gulf of Mexico formed by
Middle Jurassic rifting between
North America, Mexico, the Yuca-
tán Peninsula, and northern South
America (Marton and Buffler,
1994; Pindell et al., 1998). Rifting
and counterclockwise rotation of
the Yucatán Peninsula opened the
Gulf of Mexico and resulted in car-
bonate and clastic passive margins
flanking a small area of oceanic crust
in the deep, central part of the basin
(Winker and Buffler, 1988; Marton
and Buffler, 1999) (Figure 9). Struc-
tures on the passive margins include
salt domes produced by remobiliza-
tion of Jurassic salt from sediment
loading, salt-withdrawal basins, and
growth faults. For this reason, we
classify the setting for giants in this
area as a passive margin fronting a
major ocean basin. Source rocks in-
clude Late Jurassic and Cretaceous
shales (Watkins and Buffler, 1996).
Figure 9. Sixty-one giant fields of the Gulf of Mexico, United States and Jurassic evaporites provide effective
Mexico (see Appendix A for field names keyed to numbers shown). Basins seals for deeper offshore hydrocar-
are indicated in capital letters: Fort Worth, Louisiana Salt, Black Warrior in
bons related to the earlier rift history
top right, Mississippi in top right, Mesozoic, Gulf Coast, East Texas Salt,
and are now being tested by deep-
Sigsbee Deep, Tampico, Veracruz, Salinas, Peten, Chiapas, Campeche. We
classified basin type most responsible for giants as passive margin basins water drilling. Sources also include
fronting a major ocean basin (Gulf of Mexico/Sigsbee Deep). Age of oro- Neogene marine shales.
genic belts in area of giant fields: purple (P1) = Upper Cambrian to Lower In the Campeche area of south-
Devonian; blue (PM) = Pennsylvanian to Lower Triassic; green (MT) = Upper eastern Mexico, a similar style of
Cretaceous (Santonian) to Oligocene. Jurassic – Early Cretaceous normal
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 33

in reservoirs ranging in age from Kim-

meridgian to Pleistocene (Guzmán-
Vega and Mello, 1999). The pres-
ence of multiple, vertically stacked
petroleum reservoirs containing the
same genetic type of oil indicates a
Tithonian vertically drained petro-
leum system.

TECTONIC SETTING
OF 39 GIANT FIELDS
OF NORTHERN
SOUTH AMERICA
Northern South America experi-
enced Late Jurassic – Early Creta-
ceous rifting from southern North
America and the Yucatán Block
followed by prolonged Cretaceous
subsidence in a passive margin set-
ting (Bartok, 1993; Pindell et al.,
1998; Mann, 1999) (Figure 10). The
passive margin phase was inter-
rupted by progressive west-to-east
Figure 10. Thirty-nine giant fields of northern South America (see Ap- collision of the Caribbean Arc with
pendix A for field names keyed to numbers shown). Basins are indicated in the passive margin in the Late Cre-
capital letters: Colombia, Guajira at top, Los Roques at top, Tobago at top taceous in Colombia (Cooper et al.,
right, Falcon, Gulf of Venezuela, Eastern Venezuela, Maracaibo, Barinas,
1995), in the Paleocene in the Mara-
Middle Magdalena, Lower Magdalena, Cauca, Panama Gulf, Limon – Boca
caibo Basin region (Lugo and Mann,
del Toro, Chiriqui, Choco, Llanos, Tumaco, Jipi-Japa, Progresso, Gulf of
Guayacil, Talara, Maranon, Acre, Upper Amazon, Santiago, northwest Peru, 1995), and in the Neogene in the area
Sechura, Salaverry, Huallaga, Ucayali. We classified basin type most respon- of eastern Venezuela and Trinidad
sible for giants as continental collision related to terrane accretion, arc (Erlich and Barrett, 1992; Pindell
collision, and/or shallow subduction along the Pacific and Caribbean mar- et al., 1998; Babb and Mann, 1999;
gins of South America. Age of orogenic belts in area of giant fields: purple Di Croce et al., 1999). Continued
(PCP) = upper Precambrian to Middle Cambrian; purple (P1) = Upper shallow subduction of thick Carib-
Cambrian to Lower Devonian; blue (PM) = Pennsylvanian to Lower bean oceanic plateau crust along with
Triassic; green (M1) = Middle Triassic to Middle Jurassic; M2 = Upper late Neogene collision of the Panama
Jurassic to Upper Cretaceous; green (MT) = Upper Cretaceous to Oligocene; arc with the Pacific margin of north-
yellow (T) = Miocene to Holocene. western South America produced
Neogene ‘‘Laramide-style’’ Andean
faults and Late Jurassic rift-related source rocks is ob- uplifts and deformation (van der Hilst and Mann, 1994;
served, including detachment at the level of Middle Taboada et al., 2000; Trencamp et al., 2002). Oblique
Jurassic salt (Aquino et al., this volume) (Figure 9). collision was partitioned into a margin-perpendicular
Unlike the northern Gulf of Mexico, early Miocene – convergent component, expressed as a narrow but thick
Pliocene folding and thrusting affected the Campeche foreland basin extending the length of northern South
passive margin of the Gulf of Mexico as a result of America, and a margin-parallel strike-slip component,
Caribbean –North America Plate strike-slip displace- expressed as regional right-lateral strike-slip fault systems
ments (Garcia-Molina, 1994; Guzmán-Speziale, 2000). (Passalacqua et al., 1995; Ave Lallemant, 1997; Babb
Geochemical studies indicate that Tithonian-related oils and Mann, 1999) (Figure 10). Recent GPS-based geo-
are present both offshore and onshore and are present detic results show that the dominant sense of diffuse
34 / Mann et al.
plate boundary zone motion is margin-parallel both in
northwestern South America (Trencamp et al., 2002)
and in northern South America in Venezuela and Tri-
nidad (Weber et al., 2000; Perez et al., 2001).
Giants are concentrated in three foreland basin areas:
the Eastern Venezuelan Basin (Erlich and Barrett, 1992;
Di Croce et al., 1999), the Maracaibo Basin of western
Venezuela (Lugo and Mann, 1995; Castillo, 2001), and the
Llanos Basin of Colombia (McCullough, 1990; Cooper
et al., 1995) (Figure 10). Source rocks in all areas include
Late Cretaceous black shales deposited during sea level
highstands (Talukdar and Marcano, 1994; Buitrago,
1994). Traps vary from normal on inverted fault traps
on the flexed continental plate (Harding and Tuminas,
1989), deeply buried thrusts and folds in the foreland
basin itself, to younger structures and stratigraphic traps
above the deformed belt that have received remigrated
hydrocarbons from breached reservoirs derived from
folded and thrust rocks below.
Reservoirs include fractured carbonates and sand-
stones that both predate and accompany the foreland
basin history (Erlich and Barrett, 1992). Older basinal
areas, which were affected by semicontinuous plate-
edge deformation since their formation in a foreland
setting (e.g., Maracaibo Basin), have experienced rup-
ture of older traps and remigration of oil into younger
reservoirs and/or surface seeps (Talukdar and Marcano,
1994; Castillo, 2001). We classify these three areas of
giants in northern South America as a continental colli-
sion setting related to terrane accretion, arc collision,
and/or shallow subduction.
Two other less-extensive areas of giants occur north
of Trinidad in northeastern South America and along
the Pacific margin of Colombia (Figure 10). We classify
the former area as strike-slip (Robertson and Burke,
1988) and the latter area as a subduction-related fore-
arc setting (Daly, 1989).
TECTONIC SETTING OF EIGHT
GIANT FIELDS OF THE
SOUTHERN ANDES
A series of semicontinuous foreland basins extends
north-south through South America, parallel to the trench
system at the Pacific margin of South America (Figure 11).
Pindell and Tabbutt (1995) and Urien et al. (1995) sum-
marize the main tectonic events and controls on the
foreland basin system that include the following: (1) Late
Permian –Triassic formation of restricted nonmarine to
marine rifts produced by subduction rollback in an ex-
tensional back-arc setting; these rifts experienced Mid-
dle Jurassic– Early Cretaceous thermal subsidence; these
rift and sag basins contain important accumulations of
source rocks; (2) middle Cretaceous conversion of ex-
tensional arcs with back-arc rifting to convergent arcs
with the present-day pattern of parallel foreland basins
is linked to the early Aptian onset of opening in the
equatorial Atlantic, which markedly accelerated South
America’s westward movement across the mantle; (3) the
middle Cretaceous also marked the maximum extent of
marine transgression across the South American craton;
this transgression, combined with rapid accumulation of
pelagic sediments caused by upwelling-enhanced pro-
ductivity, led to formation of world-class source rocks,
including the La Luna Formation of northern South
America; asymmetric foredeep subsidence related to
middle Cretaceous and later deformation allowed pres-
ervation of source rocks in foreland areas; (4) by the
Late Cretaceous, falling sea level, continued convergent
deformation, and infilling of available accommodation
space led to removal of the sea from cratonic areas and
mainly nonmarine regressive deposits in foreland areas;
Upper Cretaceous – Paleocene limestone and shale acted
as locally important source rocks deposited during this
basin phase; (5) continued Cenozoic deformation, ter-
rane accretion, and shallow subduction of young and
buoyant oceanic crust at the subduction zone bordering
the Pacific Ocean led to several phases of inversion of
preexisting Mesozoic and older basins, along with the
formation of much of the present-day fold-thrust belt
bounding the Andes and visible in Figure 11 (Tankard
et al., 1995; Uliana et al., 1995).
As in other regions of basin inversion, the inversion
process did not advance as a wave from the orogenic
front (‘‘bulldozer mode’’) but instead occurred as more
or less synchronous reactivation of preexisting Paleozoic–
Cenozoic faults distributed across a foreland area as wide
as 300 km. In this region, field size is largely depen-
dent on the timing of inversion relative to local matura-
tion histories and the onset of the regional hydrocarbon
charge (Uliana et al., 1995). Shaped primarily by shallow
subduction and terrane accretion, we classify the tectonic
setting of this area as continental collisions related to ter-
rane accretion, arc collision, and/or shallow subduction.
TECTONIC SETTING OF NINE
GIANT FIELDS OF BRAZIL
Giants occur in a restricted area of the Campos Basin,
which formed by Early Cretaceous rifting from its
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 35
conjugate margin in west Africa (Figure 12). Tectonic
events in the rifting process included intense volcanic
activity, which produced 122-Ma basalt covering most
of the basin floor, and rifting with basins filled by al-
luvial, lacustrine, and carbonate rocks. One hypothesis
is that Aptian salt basins formed after the continents
separated, so that salt basins along the margins of South
America and Africa were separated from the start of con-
Figure 11. Eight giant fields of
Andes of southern South America
(see Appendix A for field names
keyed to numbers shown). Basins
are indicated in capital letters:
Ucayali at top, Madre de Dios,
Pisco, Beni, Arequipa, Mooueg-
ja, Pirin, Altiplano Puna, Santa
Cruz, Robore, Tarija, Oran, Tres
Cruces, Atacama, Fiambala, Pi-
panaco, Cuyo, Metan, Alhuam-
pa, Chaco, Aravco-Lebu, Linares,
Neuquen, Leboulaye, Macachin.
We classified basin type most re-
sponsible for giants as continental
collision related to terrane accre-
tion, arc collision, and/or shallow
subduction along the Pacific mar-
gin of South America. Age of oro-
genic belts in area of giant fields:
purple (PCP) = upper Precam-
brian to Middle Cambrian; pur-
ple (P1) = Upper Cambrian to
Lower Devonian; blue (PM) =
Pennsylvanian to Lower Triassic;
green (M1) = Middle Triassic to
Middle Jurassic; green (M2) =
Upper Jurassic to Upper Cre-
taceous; green (MT) = Upper
Cretaceous to Oligocene; yellow
(T) = Miocene to Holocene.
tinental rifting (Nurnberg and
Mueller, 1991). Another hypoth-
esis is that the now conjugate Apt-
ian salt basins are assumed to have
once formed a single giant salt ba-
sin that was later split by the con-
tinental breakup (Jackson et al.,
2000). The resolution of this de-
bate is significant for determining
the exact extent of Early Creta-
ceous lacustrine black shale source
rocks known to act as sources for
giants in both Africa and Brazil
(Mello et al., 1994).
The end of the rifting phase was marked by the for-
mation of a regional Cretaceous unconformity and the
initiation of passive margin sedimentation. In most areas
of the rifted margins of Brazil and Africa, Aptian salt
overlies the breakup unconformity and indicates that
the salt is postrift and part of the passive margin section
(Jackson et al., 2000). In the Campos Basin, reservoirs
are deep-water turbidite sandstone of Oligocene age that
36 / Mann et al.

Figure 12. Ten giant fields of 200

Brazil (see Appendix A for field
names keyed to numbers shown). 203
Basins are indicated in capital
letters: Sao Francisco, Reconca-
vo, South Bahia, Espirito Santo,
Campos, Santos, Florionopolis.
We classified basin type most
responsible for giants as passive
margin basins fronting a major
ocean basin (South Atlantic). Age
of orogenic belts in area of giant
fields: purple (PCP) = upper Pre-
cambrian to Middle Cambrian.
Number 2 in green circle indi-
cates site of the second-largest oil
giant discovery (Roncador) of the
1990s.

was deposited in the passive mar-

gin (Mello et al., 1994) (Figure
12). These turbidites reflect distal
sedimentation associated with pa-
leocanyon systems that connect the
deep-water area to sand-rich shelf
regions. Listric normal faults and
salt diapirism provide important
structural traps as well as control-
ling patterns of Oliogocene turbi-
dite deposition and were formed
as the result of downslope sliding
on the Aptian salt layer (Petrobras,
1983).
We classify this setting as a pas-
sive margin fronting a major ocean
basin. The Barracuda and Roncador
giant oil fields in the Campos Basin
represent two of the largest discoveries of the 1990s and sive margin section of west Africa, including the coun-
contain reserves of almost 4 billion BOE accumulated in tries of Angola, Cabinda, Gabon, and the Democratic
Late Cretaceous siliciclastic turbidites in the Roncador Republic of Congo, and giants of the Niger Delta of Ni-
field and mostly Oligocene and Eocene reservoirs in the geria and Cameroon (Figure 13). Despite the differences
Barracuda field (Rangel et al., this volume). Both fields in both areas discussed below, we classify all these giants as
are located in deep and ultradeep waters extending from forming on a continental passive margin fronting a major
600 to 2100 m (Figure 12). ocean basin.
The rift history of west Africa consisted of a Berria-
sian to late Barremian – early Aptian period of continen-
tal separation between west Africa and Brazil, which
TECTONIC SETTING OF 41 GIANT encompassed a deforming zone as wide as 200 – 500 km
FIELDS OF WEST AFRICA (Karner et al., 1997; Cramez and Jackson, 2000). Ac-
cording to Karner et al. (1997), west African rifting pro-
Giants occur along the rifted margin formed by the gressed in several phases that become more focused with
opening of the South Atlantic Ocean (Figure 13). Two time as extension migrated to the west. Each rift phase
general regions of giants are present: giants in the pas- produced deep, anoxic lacustrine sections that are the
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 37
source rocks for giants in the overlying passive margin
section. After the cessation of rifting, Aptian salt was de-
posited as a result of marine incursions into a broad and
probably subsea-level depression (Burke, 1975). Karner
et al. (1997) envision the salt as localized into distinct
topographic basins, whereas Jackson et al. (2000) pro-
pose that the salt formed a more continuous blanket
above the level of continental rifting.
Early rifting in the Niger Delta area suggests a three-
armed rift ‘‘star’’ where two arms form a normal di-
vergent boundary between Africa and South America,
and the third ‘‘failed’’ arm was manifested as the mid-
dle Cretaceous Benue rift and oceanic embayment into
equatorial Africa (Burke, 1977) (Figure 13). The Benue
Figure 13. Forty-one giant fields
of west Africa (see Appendix A
for field names keyed to numbers
shown). Basins are indicated in
capital letters: Bida, Benue, Doba
at top right, Niger Delta, Gabon,
Cabinda, Cuanza, Mocamedes.
We classified basin type most re-
sponsible for giants as passive mar-
gin basins fronting a major ocean
basin (South Atlantic). Age of oro-
genic belts in area of giant fields:
purple (PCP) = upper Precambrian
to Middle Cambrian.
rift contains a basal fill of Early Cre-
taceous alluvial fan, braided river,
and lacustrine deposits overlain by
transgressive marine deposits of mid-
dle Albian age (Reijers et al., 1997).
Folding and inversion of the Benue
rift occurred in the Santonian –early
Campanian as a result of intraplate
deformation of the African Plate,
probably as a response to South At-
lantic opening.
Rifting of the west African mar-
gin was followed by an Albian to
Holocene passive margin phase dom-
inated by landward-derived, prograd-
ing clastic-carbonate platforms de-
formed locally by underlying salt de-
posits (Bandouy and Legorjus, 1991;
Karner et al., 1997; Cramez and Jack-
son, 2000). Reservoirs for giants are
largely contained in Oligocene to
Miocene turbiditic sandstone, which
were deposited in a postrift, passive margin setting. The
Neogene structural style is dominated by thin-skinned
extension on Aptian evaporites, remobilization and dia-
pirism of evaporites and shale, and thin-skinned thrust-
ing occurring in the ultradeep-water areas (Anderson
et al., 2000; Valle et al., 2001). In offshore Angola, Valle
et al. (2001) use the term raft tectonics to describe the
downslope motion of rigid blocks of strata along listric
normal faults that sole out in a ductile detachment
horizon of Aptian salt. The gaps between rigid blocks
are filled by synkinematic strata and are useful for re-
constructing the history of gravity sliding. Valle et al.
(2001) propose that gravity-driven raft tectonics is not
steady state since the Aptian but instead has occurred
38 / Mann et al.

in ‘‘high strain rate intervals’’ lasting for as long as
20 Ma.
The Niger Delta is the site of a dense concentration
of giant fields (Figure 13) and ranks among the world’s
most prolific hydrocarbon-producing deltas, including
the Mackenzie (Figure 4), the Mississippi (Figure 9), the
Orinoco (Figure 10), and the Mahakam (Figure 27). The
Niger Delta and the adjacent Cross River delta are super-
imposed on a passive margin tectonic setting similar to
that described above for areas to the south in Angola,
Cabinda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Rei-
jers et al. (1997) divide the stratigraphy of the Niger
Delta basin region into a Cretaceous succession of mainly
marine sandstone presently cropping out on land and a
much thicker, overlying Tertiary section underlying the
recent Niger Delta. Unlike the west African margin to
the south, salt is not known in the Niger Delta’s strati-
graphic framework. The modern-day slope of the delta,
however, exhibits a variety of shale structures and dia-
pirism that are analogous to salt-related structures (Cohen
and McClay, 1996).
TECTONIC SETTING OF 38 GIANT
FIELDS OF NORTH AFRICA
North African giants can be subdivided into two
basins of differing age and tectonic histories: the Paleo-
zoic Illizi Basin in the eastern Saharan desert of Algeria
and the Cenozoic Sirte rift of Libya to the east (Figure 14).
According to Macgregor (1996b), these basins contain re-
serves in the range of 30–35 BBOE, placing them among
the world’s largest producing areas. The two basinal areas
contain 85% of the oil and 80% of the gas discovered in
North Africa.

Figure 14. Thirty-eight giant fields of North Africa (see Appendix A for field names keyed to numbers shown). Basins
are indicated in capital letters: South Balearic–Algerian (top left), Ionian, North Cretan (top right), Pelagian, Sahara,
Ghadames, Cyrenaica, Sirte, Murzuk, Illizi. We classified basin type most responsible for giants as continental rifts
with overlying sag basins formed during the opening of the Mediterranean (Tethys). Age of orogenic belts in area of
giant fields: green (MT) = Upper Cretaceous to Oligocene; yellow (T) = Miocene to Holocene.
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 39
The Phanerozoic tectonic history of the eastern Sa-
haran area is marked by Cambrian–Ordovician rifting.
According to Macgregor (1996b), most of the Paleo-
zoic basins of northwest Africa such as the Illizi and
Murzuk (Figure 14) originated as sag basins overlying
Cambrian – Ordovician rifts. The lower rift section is not
well defined on the generalized structural cross sections
across the Paleozoic basins by van de Weerd and Ware
(1994) and by Boote et al. (1998). Based on the data
available, we classify these giants as continental rifts with
overlying steer’s-head basins.
This early extensional period was terminated by col-
lision between Africa and Europe during the late Carbon-
iferous Hercynian orogeny. Deformation was recorded
by a major unconformity separating folded Cambrian –
Ordovician rocks from not-folded Permian–Triassic clas-
tic sedimentary and volcanic rocks. Convergent defor-
mation decreases from northwest to southeast from the
Atlas Mountains of Algeria and does not seem to extend
significantly to the east into Libya.
A second period of extension began in the early
Mesozoic with the breakup of Pangea. This rift event
produced a series of rifts along what was to become the
eastern margin of the Atlantic Ocean and the southern
margin of the Tethys Ocean. Seafloor spreading ini-
tiated in the Middle and Late Jurassic in the Atlantic
and western Mediterranean and in the Early Cretaceous
in the eastern Mediterranean and produced a trend of
Mesozoic rift basins with overlying passive margins
along the northern margin of the African continent
(Figure 14).
In the area of Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, a thick, north-
south–trending succession of Triassic to Early Cretaceous
sediments was deposited in a vast interior sag basin, the
‘‘Triassic basin.’’ Middle to Late Cretaceous sediments
extended more widely across the Sahara platform (Boote
et al., 1998). As in the Benue trough area of equatorial
west Africa (Figure 13), rifting and oceanic spreading led
to reactivation of older faults extending into north Africa
and produced regional-scale inversions of older basins
(Macgregor, 1996b). After rifting, the area subsided
from pre-Late Triassic to the end of the Cretaceous in
response to rifting and received a thick section of evap-
oritic and clastic sedimentary rocks. Convergent effects
associated with the Cenozoic closure between Africa
and Europe are largely confined to inversion of the Atlas
rift to form the Atlas Mountains of Algeria and its
foredeep and to mild inversion of passive margin basins
along the north coast of Africa.
The Illizi Basin contains a significant number of giants,
most with a significant gas component. The large gas
fraction is probably the result of deep burial of Paleozoic
source rocks and their present position in the gas win-
dow. The higher percentage of oil in areas most distant
from the main basin depocenter indicates that much of
the original oil charge may have been flushed by gas
(Macgregor, 1996b; Boote et al., 1998). Reservoirs range
in age from Ordovician to Carboniferous and are charged
by multiple source-rock systems in the Silurian and De-
vonian (Macgregor, 1998). There are numerous stacked
reservoirs, with the predominant one being from the Late
Silurian –Early Devonian. Structural traps are generally
formed as a result of Hercynian convergence and include
fault blocks or inversion structures. Stratigraphic traps are
also present. Unlike other areas of Algeria, the Liassic salt
seal does not extend over the area of giants in the Illizi
Basin, where seals are instead provided by intraforma-
tional Paleozoic shale.
The Sirte Basin of Libya is a rift basin with a complex
extensional history that began in the Late Cretaceous
and extended into the Tertiary (Lewis, 1990; Selley, 1997)
(Figure 14). Brennan (1992) and Selley (1997) state that
the Sirte Basin occupies the crest of a collapsed north-
south –trending positive feature, the Tibetsi-Sirte Arch
(Figure 14). This arch was a positive feature throughout
much of Paleozoic and Mesozoic and separated the Mur-
zuk and Kufra embayments. Thus, the floor of the Sirte
Basin is a major unconformity, above which is a thick
sequence of Late Cretaceous to Holocene sediments.
Gumati and Nairn (1991) show that the subsidence
of the Sirte rift began in the Cenomanian, accelerated
through the Paleocene, and then slowed. This sub-
sidence history is consistent with fault-controlled clastic
sedimentation in the Late Cretaceous – Paleogene inter-
val, followed by uniform stratigraphy, implying little
motion on bounding faults (Selley, 1997). Marine in-
cursion from the north began in the Late Cretaceous,
first into rifts and later transgressing onto topographi-
cally higher areas (Brennan, 1992). Widespread sub-
mergence followed the Cretaceous transgression and
resulted in the deposition of thick sections of lower
Paleocene shale across the western Sirte Basin and es-
pecially in structural lows in the floor of the basin.
Source rocks include Late Cretaceous and Paleocene
shale, and structural traps at the southern edge of the
basin include anticlines sealed by Paleocene shale (Bren-
nan, 1992). Reservoirs include Late Cretaceous to Pa-
leocene bioclastic and siliciclastic rocks. Although the
general trend of faults defining the Sirte Basin is north-
west to southeast, the eastern Sirte Basin is marked by
the presence of east-west fault trends which contribute
to important structural traps of giant fields in that area
(Lewis, 1990) (Figure 14). Traps include an angular uncon-
formity at the base of the graben fill, and fault-bounded
40 / Mann et al.
blocks in the graben fill and locally extending into the
overlying sag basin (Harding, 1984).
TECTONIC SETTING OF 202
GIANT FIELDS OF THE ARABIAN
PENINSULA AND PERSIAN GULF
The Arabian Peninsula and Persian Gulf contain
two-thirds of the world’s proven reserves of oil and one-
third of the reserves of gas (Beydoun et al., 1992) and
more giant fields by far than any of the other 27 regions
of giants in the world (Figure 15; Appendix A). Giants
are concentrated in a large foreland basin formed during
the late Cenozoic collision of the Arabian Peninsula with
Eurasia and in undeformed areas southwest of the basin
(Figure 15). Downward flexure of the Arabian Peninsula
beneath the Zagros Mountains of Iran and Iraq to form
the foreland basin was caused by the northeastward
consumption of the Tethys Ocean at the Zagros suture
zone and eventual Cretaceous – Holocene convergence
and collision of the Arabian Plate against the Eurasian
Plate (Hempton, 1987; Hessami et al., 2001). This pro-
tracted convergent event has created the Persian Gulf
and Mesopotamian lowlands as a modern topographic
foreland basin and the formation of the Zagros Moun-
tains with the culminations of fold-thrust deformation in
Miocene and Pliocene. The sedimentary fill of the foreland
basin comprises the post-Zagros fold-thrust sedimentary
succession of mainly upper Eocene to Holocene units and
reflects the timing and duration of the main collisional
event (Beydoun et al., 1992; Hessami et al., 2001).
Other than minor folding, large areas of the fore-
land appear to have been relatively undisturbed by the
latest phase of Pliocene –Holocene (?) phase of Zagros-
related convergent deformation that resulted in broad
folds that form the giant, elongate fields proximal to the
Zagros belt in Iran, Iraq, and beneath the Persian Gulf
(Hessami et al., 2001) (Figure 15). This post-Eocene
belt of northwest-trending folds and thrust faults and
structurally controlled elongate giant fields contrasts
with the dominant north-south pattern of faults, folds,
diapirs, and elongate giant fields developed during both
the precollisional Late Proterozoic to Eocene passive
margin phase and the Eocene and younger collisional
phase (Alsharhan, 1993; Qatar General Petroleum,
1991; Brennan, 1992) (Figure 15). Studies of sources
and reservoirs for many of the giants in the undeformed
passive margin area have shown that all of these oil (and
presumably gas) reserves have been sourced from strat-
igraphic levels predating the late Eocene onset of col-
lision and foreland basin subsidence (Beydoun et al.,
1992). Jackson and Fitch (1981) used earthquakes in
the Zagros collision zone to show that the whole width
of the deforming belt is shortening by thrust reacti-
vation or inversion of distributed normal faults in-
herited from the late Precambrian – Cambrian rifting
event that created the passive margin.
We classify the tectonic setting of those elongate
giants closely controlled by folds and thrusts in the
Zagros Mountain and foreland basin as a continent-
continent collisional margin. We subdivide giants to the
southwest and not affected by collision into two groups:
rift-controlled on the eastern Arabian Peninsula and
Persian Gulf and passive margin on the western Arabian
Peninsula and Persian Gulf.
On the eastern Arabian Peninsula, late Precambrian
to Mesozoic strata are controlled by rift structures formed
as a result of the breakup of Pangea. Late Precambrian to
Lower Cambrian rifting parallel to preexisting Protero-
zoic fault trends resulted a series of northwest- and
west-trending rifts in the border areas of the craton on
the eastern Arabian Peninsula (Greenwood et al., 1980;
Beydoun et al., 1992; 1993; King et al., this volume)
(Figure 15). Rifts included localized late Precambrian
and Cambrian salt deposition and carbonate and clastic
deposition with stratal thicknesses of rift-related sections
up to several kilometers. Late Precambrian–Cambrian
evaporites manifest themselves as piercement domes
throughout the Persian Gulf region and much of south-
western Iran (Figure 15), and they have also provided
the detachment level for the late Neogene fold-thrust
belt (Kent, 1979; Stocklin, 1986). According to Beydoun
et al. (1992), the subsurface extent of the rift-related
carbonate-clastic-evaporite section of this interval is pres-
ently only conjectural. Reservoirs in this eastern area
of known rifts in Oman generally occur in overlying
Barremian–Aptian sandstone deposited in a more exten-
sive sag basin above the level of rifting (Beydoun et al.,
1993).
This eastern area of known rifts and the area to the
west, where rifts are not reported but in our view are
probable at depth, formed a passive margin setting along
the southern margin of Tethys from the late Precam-
brian to the initiation of the Zagros collision in the Eo-
cene (Hempton, 1987). The passive margin was immense
and included the present-day area of the Arabian Pe-
ninsula along with then contiguous areas of India, Af-
ghanistan, Iran, and Turkey that made up the very long
and wide stable shelf of the northern margin of Gond-
wana facing north toward Tethys Ocean (Sengor, 1984).
Much of the passive margin was covered by shallow
epeiric seas that were as wide as 3000 km and that trans-
gressed and regressed across the margin during eustatic
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 41
sea level changes (Beydoun et al., 1992). The setting was
principally in temperate latitudes of the southern hemi-
sphere, with occasional incursions into tropical regions.
The passive margin remained remarkably stable through-
out much of its history, with only slow but steady, proba-
bly thermally driven, subsidence in response to initial
late Precambrian– Cambrian rifting that allowed wide-
spread sheetlike deposition of shallow marine sedi-
ments. The scale of the shelf prevented efficient water
agitation and flushing from the ocean so that even shal-
low basins repeatedly became stratified, anoxic, and ideal
for long-lived source-rock generation that has resulted in
at least a dozen good source-rock formations of sig-
nificant thickness and wide extent (Beydoun et al., 1992).
The source rocks are all marine sapropels and occupy
Figure 15. Two hundred two giant
fields of the Persian Gulf (see Ap-
pendix A for field names keyed to
numbers shown). Basins are indi-
cated in capital letters: Arabian,
South Caspian (top), Kopet-Dag
foreland (top right). We infer three
basin types most responsible for
giants in this region: continent-
continent collision for elongate
fields in red along the Zagros
Mountain front; passive margin
basins in green fronting a major
ocean basin (Tethys) in the Per-
sian Gulf area; continental rifts
with overlying sag basins on the
eastern Arabian Peninsula. Age
of orogenic belts in area of giant
fields: purple (PCP) = upper Pre-
cambrian to Middle Cambrian;
green (M2) = Upper Jurassic to
Upper Cretaceous; green (MT) =
Upper Cretaceous to Oligocene;
yellow (T) = Miocene to Holocene.
Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in green
circles indicate sites of largest oil
giant discoveries of the 1990s (see
Appendix C). Numbers 1 and 2 in
red circles indicate sites of largest
gas giant discoveries of the 1990s
(see Appendix C).
separate levels, from Proterozoic to Tertiary. With the onset
of maturity, the extensive passive margin setting allowed
large areas of hydrocarbons to drain into large but typ-
ically gentle closures to ensure large trap volumes.
Traps were formed in the passive margin setting mainly
as a result of reactivation of northwest and north-south rift-
related features in the eastern Arabian Peninsula, slow salt
pillowing, differential sedimentation, and compaction. Tec-
tonic traps became increasingly important from the Eo-
cene to the present during the Zagros collision, although
relative to most fold-thrust belts, the zone of fold-thrust
deformation in the foreland is narrow. This is probably
because the mountain belt is accommodating shortening
by distributing the shortening on many normal faults
across its width instead of concentrating shortening on a
42 / Mann et al.
single detachment propagating into the foreland (Jack-
son and Fitch, 1981) (Figure 15). Reservoir rocks of
Early to middle Cretaceous age were continental clastics
derived from the Arabian shield that interfingered to the
east with marine clastics and carbonates. Source rocks
in this basin phase include the Cambrian to Permian
units, with the main reservoir in the Permian. A second
period of hydrocarbon formation occurred from Triassic
through Tertiary, with Middle Jurassic source rocks and
Upper Jurassic reservoirs. Migration in giant fields of
the Arabian Peninsula removed from the Zagros defor-
mation was not directed southwestward, as predicted by
the squeegee model of oil expulsion in foreland basins
(Oliver, 1986), but instead directly upward from under-
lying source rocks (Pierce, 1993). Structures related to early
collisional effects formed in Eocene and younger time
and formed structural traps only in the area adjacent to
the Zagros fold belt (Figure 15).
For this reason, we classify the setting of giants in the
western area of the Arabian Peninsula and Persian Gulf
as a passive margin. As in the eastern rift area distin-
guished in Figure 15, late Precambrian – Cambrian rifts
possibly underlie this western area also, but confirming
their presence at depth will require the release of deep-
penetration seismic data and information from deep wells.
Macgregor (1996a) attributes the remarkable preservation
of Late Cretaceous and older oil to its location beneath
multiple evaporite seals and the tectonic quiesence in a
passive margin setting that has become affected by
collisional processes only in Pliocene–Holocene. As one
progresses into the Zagros fold-thrust belt or along strike
into Iraq and Turkey, one finds smaller amounts of Mid-
dle East reserves, because fault breaks across evaporite
seals have allowed both oil and gas leakage (Figure 15).
TECTONIC SETTING OF NINE
GIANT FIELDS OF WESTERN
INDIA AND PAKISTAN
Several giant fields are concentrated in the area of the
failed Cambay, Narmada, Kutch, and Bombay rifts on the
western margin of India (Figure 16). The western edge of
the continental Indian subcontinent has undergone both
passive margin rifting as it separated from Seychelles con-
tinental block in the Indian Ocean in the Late Cretaceous–
early Tertiary and continental collision with India begin-
ning about 45 Ma (Lee and Lawver, 1995) (Figure 16).
The rift trends are roughly orthogonal to one another,
with the more east-west – trending Narmada and Kutch
rifts in more favorable orientations for inversion as a re-
sult of the India collision (see Figure 8 of Lowell, 1995;
Soulsby et al., 1997). The Cambay Basin is a complex
Tertiary rift with about 7 km of sedimentary rocks. These
rocks overlie the Deccan Trap (volcanic) basement. Early
Paleocene rift alluvial fan deposits were transgressed
by Paleocene – Eocene marine shale which serves as the
source rock (Biswas et al., 1994; Banerjee et al., 2000).
The shale is overlain by a regressive Eocene sandstone
that forms the main reservoir unit.
Several giants are found in the Indus foreland basin
of Pakistan, adjacent to the large salient Sulaiman fold-
thrust belt (Figure 16). The Sulaiman thrust salient is a
broad (300-km) fold-thrust belt actively accommodat-
ing shortening related to the collision between India and
Asia (Jadoon et al., 1994). Plate convergence is highly
transpressional because of left-lateral shearing at this
western edge of the Indian collision. Exposed rocks in the
fold-thrust belt include a 7-km-thick section of Triassic
to Paleogene platform section formed as a passive mar-
gin on the northern edge of India and a narrow foreland
basin section of Oligocene to Holocene coarse clastic
rocks deposited in the Indus foreland basin. Seismic
reflection data reveal a thin-skinned structure with a
north-dipping thrust fault underlying the fold-thrust
belt (Jadoon et al., 1994).
Macedo and Marshak (1999) note that the large sa-
lient in the Sulaiman fold-thrust belt coincides and was
guided to the south by the depocenter of a thick, pre-
thrusting sedimentary wedge mapped on the Tectonic
Map of Pakistan by Kazmi and Riaz (1982) but not as
apparent from isopachs on the Exxon Tectonic Map of
the World (1985), shown in Figure 16. In the interpre-
tation of Macedo and Marshak (1999), large hydrocar-
bon deposits are predicted to occupy basin-controlled
salients in Pakistan because the volume of basinal source
and reservoir rocks are greater and because structural
closures are concentrated at the tip of the salient.
According to Jadoon et al. (1994), the exposed plat-
form rocks and adjacent Indus foreland basin clastic rocks
are considered to be gas prone, with gas presently pro-
duced from Eocene, Paleocene, and Cretaceous strata.
Gas condensate and oil seeps are also present.
TECTONIC SETTING OF 49 GIANT
FIELDS OF THE NORTH SEA
Two clusters of giants are found in the North Sea re-
gion (Figure 17). In the North Sea proper, giants are found
near the axis of the North Sea Central Graben, a failed rift
that propagated southward into continental crust of the
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 43
Eurasian continent during the Permian through Jurassic
(Ziegler, 1988) (Figure 17). To the north, giants occur
along the Møre and Helgeland Basins of the Norwegian
passive margin formed by younger diffuse rifting related
to the early opening of the North Atlantic Ocean in the
period from Triassic to Late Cretaceous (Skogseid, 1994;
Gabrielsen et al., 1999).
The Viking, or Central, Graben in the center of the
North Sea exhibits the classic sag-basin-over-rift, or
steer’s-head, profile (Harding, 1984). The underlying rift
is the Viking, formed by as much as 75 km of Permian–
Jurassic east-west extension during its abortive rift stage.
Rifting continued locally along the Viking Graben into
the Early Cretaceous. Underlying the rift and exposed on
its flanks are coarse, nonmarine clastic rocks of Devonian
age deposited in a ‘‘pregraben’’ depression and thought
to be related to late orogenic activity in the Paleozoic
Caledonian orogeny (Harding, 1984).
Figure 16. Nine giant fields of
India and Pakistan (see Appendix
A for field names keyed to num-
bers shown). Basins are indicated
in capital letters: Ganges (top right),
Indus, Indus Cone, Hingol (left),
Baluchistan (left), Kirthar, Kundar-
Urgun (top right), Sulamin,
Kutch, Saurashtra, Bombay, Cam-
bay, Narmada, Satpura, Prahnita-
Godovari. We classified basin
type most responsible for giants
in the southern area as continen-
tal rifts with overlying sag basins
formed during the opening of the
Arabian Sea to left. Basin type most
responsible for giants in the north-
ern area is continent-continent col-
lision. Age of orogenic belts in area
of giant fields: purple (PCP) = up-
per Precambrian to Middle Cam-
brian; green (M2) = Upper Juras-
sic to Upper Cretaceous; green
(MT) = Upper Cretaceous to Oli-
gocene; yellow (T) = Miocene to
Holocene.
Intense Jurassic normal faulting created the rotated
blocks; the upthrown edges of these blocks were eroded
about the time when the rifting cycle was ending. Some
of the most productive fields in the North Sea produce
from Middle to Lower Jurassic sands truncated beneath
the tops of these rotated blocks (Harding, 1984; Livera
and Gdula, 1990; Shepherd et al., 1990; Van Vessem
et al., 1990). The initial phase of extension was charac-
terized by relatively closely spaced normal faults, whereas
later-stage extension appears to be concentrated on fewer,
larger faults, some of which had earlier movements as
well. In map view, normal basin-bounding faults exhibit
complex patterns with long straight or gently curving
straight segments and connected by dogleg-shaped faults
(Harding, 1984) (Figure 17).
Cretaceous and Tertiary thermal subsidence related
to the rise of mantle lithosphere after this extensional
event has produced a regional subsidence extending well
44 / Mann et al.

Figure 17. Forty-nine giant fields

of the North Sea and Norwegian
margin (see Appendix A for field
names keyed to numbers shown).
Basins are indicated in capital let-
ters: Voring, Helgeland, Møre, West
Shetland, West Hebrides, Minches,
North Sea, Midland, Kish Bank,
Man-Furness, Solway, Norwegian-
Danish, Horn, Viking, Central,
Moray-Firth, Lower Saxony (bot-
tom). We classified basin type most
responsible for giants in the North
Sea as continental rifts with over-
lying sag basins formed during a
failed ocean opening. Basin type
most responsible for giants in the
area of the Møre and Helgeland
Basins of the Norwegian margin are
passive margin basins fronting a
major ocean basin (North Atlantic)
Age of orogenic belts in area of giant
fields: purple (PCP) = upper Pre-
cambrian to Middle Cambrian;
purple (P1) = Upper Cambrian
to Lower Devonian; purple (P2) =
Middle Devonian to Mississippian;
blue (PM) = Pennsylvanian to Mid-
dle Triassic.

beyond the fault-bounded limits

of the Central Graben (Sclater and
Christie, 1980) (Figure 17). The
sag basin has filled with about 1 km
of mainly chalk, sand, and shale li-
thologies of Early Cretaceous to
Neogene age (Sclater and Christie,
1980). Multiple unconformities near
the top of the graben fill prohibit
precise dating of the onset of the sag
basin, but the base of the sag is gen-
erally considered Early Cretaceous. The base of the sag Triassic salt have grown since Triassic to Paleocene time
basin exhibits broad folds associated with differential and were probably triggered by rifting during the Triassic
compaction and draping that act as important structural (Figure 17). Rocks of the sag basin fractured and domed
traps for hydrocarbons produced by maturation of Late by salt intrusion provide important structural traps for
Jurassic shale present in the underlying rift section. These giant fields such as Ekofisk (Feazel et al., 1990; Cornford,
structures disappear upsection in the sag basin, where 1994) and Eldfisk (d’Heur, 1990) (Figure 17). Tertiary
simple stratigraphic traps in undeformed and subhori- deformation was limited to localized inversion of normal
zontal submarine fans such as those in the Frigg field are faults in response to the Alpine collision far to the south
present (Heritier et al., 1990). and provide important structural traps (Hillier, 1990).
Other important traps are found in fractured Late Macgregor (1995) concludes that limited fault inversion
Cretaceous and Paleocene chalks domed by salt diapir- such as that affecting the Viking Graben may play a
ism (Davison et al., 2000). Diapirs of Late Permian and positive role in hydrocarbon systems by creating large,
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 45
simple anticlinal traps that are not breached by surface-
penetrating faults.
The region between Europe and Greenland, includ-
ing the Møre Basin of Norway north of the Viking
Graben (Figure 17), underwent several episodes of litho-
spheric extension in Mesozoic and Cenozoic times until
complete continental separation occurred in the earliest
Eocene (Skogseid, 1994). During the continental separa-
tion, massive volcanic activity formed the early Tertiary
North Atlantic volcanic province present along the entire
Norwegian slope margin. The Møre passive margin
overlies deeply buried rift basins of Jurassic and Early
Cretaceous age and a thick, overlying passive margin sec-
tion of Cretaceous–Cenozoic age which contains deep-
water hydrocarbon deposits. In contrast to the Viking
Graben, the Møre margin was strongly influenced by
the opening of the North Atlantic manifested by much
thicker Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic passive margin
sequences. For this reason, we conclude that the Møre
margin of the North Sea area is a passive margin.
TECTONIC SETTING OF
FIVE GIANT FIELDS OF
THE BARENTS SEA
The Uralide orogen and its offshore extension onto
the Nova Zemlya archipelago of the Arctic margin of
northern Russia form the geographic and geologic divide
between Europe and Asia and mark a zone of Paleozoic
collision of the East European craton with an Asian collage
of mainly arc-related terranes (Ziegler, 1988) (Figures
18, 21). Tectonic evolution of the Urals included rifting
and the development of a passive continental margin on
the East European platform in latest Cambrian to ear-
liest Ordovician, followed by middle Paleozoic rifting of
microcontinental fragments and the assembly of island
arcs and back-arc basins in the Uralian paleoocean sep-
arating the East European platform from the Siberian
craton (Berzin et al., 1996). Final collision between these
two continental blocks and the intervening ocean and
arc-related collage propagated from south to north oc-
curred in Late Carboniferous to Permian. Westward
thrusting of arc-related elements toward the East Eu-
ropean platform produced the north-south –trending
Ural foredeep composed of the Volga and Ural Basins,
merging to the south with the North Caspian Basin
(Figure 21) and to the north with the offshore, north-
south – trending North and South Barents Basins (Figure
18). The northernmost area of the onland Urals foredeep
is called the Timan-Pechora Basin, which trends at a
slightly oblique angle to the Ural Mountains (Figure 21).
The north-south Uralide foreland trend is superim-
posed on an older rifted margin of Silurian–Ordovician
age, as observed to the south beneath the foredeep of the
Ural fold-thrust belt (Johansen et al., 1992; Tull, 1997;
Gudlaugsson et al., 1998). As in the petroleum-rich onland
Timan-Pechora Basin to the south, the fault-bounded
rifts form the main depocenters for Paleozoic sedimentary
rocks. Total sediment thicknesses are shown by Johansen
et al. (1992) to be as much as 20 km beneath the South
Barents Basin. Two giant fields with mainly gas produc-
tion are present in the saddle separating the North and
South Barents Basins (Figure 18). We classify the tectonic
setting of these giants as a rift with overlying sag basin.
Rift structures of late Paleozoic age and associated
with early opening between Greenland and Norway are
more numerous and better documented in the western,
Norwegian sector of the Barents Sea (Gudlaugsson et al.,
1998). These western rifts experienced rapid late Pa-
leozoic subsidence probably linked to Uralide collision-
related foreland basin subsidence in the eastern Barents
Sea and experienced subsequent Late Jurassic to Early
Cretaceous rifting associated with the opening of the
present-day North Atlantic Ocean.
Johansen et al. (1992) note that source rocks in the
region are Devonian and Upper Jurassic anoxic shales.
The Devonian source rocks extend along the Uralide
foredeep trend as far south as the North Caspian Basin
(Figure 21) and were controlled by a combination of high
sea level, the development of silled anoxic basins, and/or
upwelling (Ormiston and Oglesby, 1995). Reservoirs in
the Barents region include a variety of Paleozoic and
Mesozoic carbonate and sandstone units.
TECTONIC SETTING OF 24
GIANT FIELDS OF THE
NORTHERN BLACK AND
CASPIAN SEA REGIONS
Three deep-water basins rest on Cretaceous to
Paleocene oceanic or very thinned continental crust
along the northern margin of the collisional belt: the
western and eastern Black Sea and southern Caspian
(Robinson et al., 1996) (Figure 19). These basins under-
went rapid Oligocene – Holocene subsidence related to
the closure of Tethys (Nikishin et al., 1997). Partially
inverted rift structures, such as the Dneipr-Donetsk, and
related fault and isopach patterns that were controlled
in part by this Oligocene – Holocene closure phase are
apparent on the map shown in Figure 19. In the Black
Sea basins, the thickest Oliogocene–Holocene sediments
reach as much as 8 – 10 km. Two maximums in the rate of
46 / Mann et al.
Figure 18. Five giant fields of the Barents Sea (see
Appendix A for field names keyed to numbers shown).
Basins are indicated in capital letters: Barents Sea, Kara
Sea (right), Timan-Pechora Basin (bottom). We classified
basin type most responsible for giants as those formed as
continental rifts with overlying sag basins formed during
the opening of the Barents Sea. Age of orogenic belts in
area of giant fields: purple (PCP) = upper Precambrian
to Middle Cambrian; blue (PM) = Pennsylvanian to
Middle Triassic.
subsidence occurred at the Eocene – Oligocene boundary
and during the last 10 m.y.
The Black Sea is a composite basin formed by rifting
in the Aptian (western basin, Robinson et al., 1996) and
Paleocene – Eocene (eastern basin, Robinson et al., 1997;
Banks et al., 1997) along the northern edge of Tethys.
Oceanic crust in the center of the Black Sea may act as a
rigid bulwark around which deformed continental crust
moves past along the North Anatolian fault of Turkey
(Reilinger et al., 1997).
Giant fields of the Tersk-Caspian foreland basin in
the North Caucasus (Georgia) are reservoired in frac-
tured middle Eocene volcaniclastic rocks, the main proven
reservoir in Georgia, and are trapped in folds related to
the overthrusting of the Northern Caucasus Mountains
(Robinson et al., 1997) (Figure 19). The widespread oc-
currence of oil in a swath along the foreland of the
North Caucasus, including giant discoveries, indicates
the presence of a working oil-sourcing system from
the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea. Oil chemistry indi-
cates that a single late Eocene source rock deposited in
Paleogene extensional basins is responsible for genera-
tion of oil in this setting. These source rocks matured
during northward, Neogene thrusting of the Caucasus
associated with the final closure of the Tethyan area.
Source rocks range in age from Paleozoic through
Paleogene, with dominantly Eocene reservoirs. Struc-
tures formed during the closure of Tethys and include the
inverted Dnieper-Donetsk rift to the north of the Black
Sea (Figure 19).
The Dnieper-Donetsk Basin is part of a Devonian
rift system that cuts across the European craton in a
northwesterly direction (Figure 19). The thickness of
Devonian and younger strata and interbedded volcanic
rocks is as much as 18 km (Stovba et al., 1996). Several
periods of basin inversion have occurred from the Per-
mian to the Holocene, depending on what part of the rift
is considered. Giant oil and gas accumulations are con-
centrated in the Carboniferous to Early Permian postrift
section (Kabyshev et al., 1998).
TECTONIC SETTING OF 39
GIANT FIELDS OF THE
SOUTHERN CASPIAN SEA
AND KOPET-DAG REGION
Convergence at present-day rates of 1.3 cm/yr be-
tween Eurasia and Arabia is accommodated by a zone of
overthrusting and foreland basin formation in the region
of the southern Caspian Sea and Kopet-Dag foreland
(Jackson et al., 1995) (Figure 20). Lyberis and Manby
(1999) note that the Miocene to Holocene oblique con-
vergence between the two plates is accommodated by
both purely convergent east-west – trending faults and
folds and by purely northwest-trending right-lateral
strike-slip faults. Giants are concentrated in three areas:
the fault-controlled sill between the southern and north-
ern Caspian Seas, the wedge-shaped Kopet-Dag foreland,
and the Amu Dar’ya area (Figure 20). We classify the
tectonic setting of all giants in this area as collisional
margin produced by the terminal collision between two
continental blocks.
Two proposed origins for the basin include a trapped
remnant of early Mesozoic oceanic crust (Berberian,
1983) or a Middle to Late Jurassic marginal basin formed
adjacent to the Tethyan ocean (Devlin et al., 1999). Re-
cent geologic and geophysical data reviewed by Devlin
et al. (1999) support the marginal-basin hypothesis. As
in the case of the Black Sea, oceanic crust of the South
Caspian Basin appears to act as a rigid block around
which crust is molded and deformed (Figure 20). The
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 47

25-km-thick sedimentary section

of the South Caspian Sea is de-
formed by symmetrical, northwest-
trending buckle folds which detach
on a shale horizon at a depth of 10–
12 km (Hall and Sturrock, 2001).
Folding initiated about 3.4 Ma
(Devlin et al., 1999). Mud volca-
noes fed by shale diapirs rooting in
the overpressured shale horizon at
depth are common both on- and
offshore. Source rocks are Oligo-
cene to early Miocene diatomaceous
shale. Basin modeling indicates that
most oil was generated from the
Pliocene to Quaternary and was fa- Figure 19. Twenty-four giant fields of the North Caucasus –North Caspian
cilitated by rapid burial rates in the region (see Appendix A for field names keyed to numbers shown). Basins are
foreland setting. Reservoirs are con- indicated in capital letters: Dniepr-Donetsk, North Caspian, Indol-Kuban
centrated in late Miocene–Pliocene foreland, Mangyshlak, Tersk-Caspian foreland, Rion. We classified basin type
fluvial and lacustrine sandstones. most responsible for giants as related to continent-continent collision between
Hydrocarbons in the Kopet-Dag Arabia and Eurasia. Age of orogenic belts in area of giant fields: purple (PCP) =
and Amu Dar’ya area of Turkme- upper Precambrian to Middle Cambrian; blue (PM) = Pennsylvanian to Middle
nistan include both gas and oil Triassic; green (M1) = Middle Triassic to Middle Jurassic; green (M2) =
Upper Jurassic to Upper Cretaceous; (MT) = Upper Cretaceous to Oligocene;
found in large anticlines and domes
yellow (T) = Miocene to Holocene.
formed by plate convergence and
along strike-slip faults (Lyberis and
Manby, 1999) (Figure 20). Reser-
voirs include Callovian and Oxfordian limestone with (Ziegler, 1988; Berzin et al., 1996) (Figure 21). Final
Kimmeridgian evaporites forming the seal. The main collision between these two continental blocks and the
source is considered to be Jurassic siltstone and clay- intervening ocean and arc-related collage occurred in
stone. Giants in the Mangyshlak Basin near the middle the Late Carboniferous to Permian. Thrusting toward
Caspian Sea area occur at the site of a Late Permian– the East European Platform produced the north-south –
Triassic rift with a total sedimentary thickness exceed- trending Ural foredeep composed of the Volga and Ural
ing 9 km (Ulmishek, 1990) (Figure 20). At the end of Basins, merging to the south with the North Caspian Basin
the Triassic, the rift was inverted. Ninety percent of the (Figure 21) and to the north with the offshore North and
discovered hydrocarbons are concentrated in structural South Barents Basins (Figure 18).
traps in the Jurassic section beneath the upper Callovian– The site of the present foreland basin originally formed
Kimmeridgian regional seal. the eastern rifted margin of Baltica during the Ordovician–
Permian; grabens formed major Paleozoic depocenters
in the basin. A foreland basin was superimposed on this
TECTONIC SETTING OF 26 margin during the collision of the Ural arc during the
GIANT FIELDS OF THE URAL Late Permian– Early Jurassic (Figure 21). Structural trap
MOUNTAINS REGION formation occurred during this orogeny and resulted in
folds forming as far as 500 km west of the Uralian defor-
As described above in relation to the Barents Sea, the mation front. Source rocks are traceable Devonian shales
evolution of the Urals included rifting and the develop- deposited during the early graben phase prior to collision
ment of a passive continental margin on the East Eu- (Tull, 1997). Migration in the foreland has been mainly
ropean platform in latest Cambrian to earliest Ordovi- vertical.
cian, followed by middle Paleozoic rifting of micro- The northern end of the Urals foreland basin near
continental fragments and the assembly of island arcs the Barents Sea, called the Timan-Pechora Basin, is a
and back-arc basins in the Uralian paleoocean separating major producer of Paleozoic-sourced oil and gas (Tull,
the East European Platform from the Siberian Craton 1997) (Figure 21). Sources include the widespread
48 / Mann et al.

‘‘Domanik’’ source rocks that include Devonian organic-
rich shale. The close spatial correlation between con-
centrations of these source rocks in local depocenters
and oil fields suggests a dominantly vertical migration
pattern. Inefficient seals disrupted by and largely related
to the Uralide collisional event permit migration between
multiple Middle Devonian –Triassic reservoirs. Regional
inversion or preforeland rift basins during the Uralide
orogeny produced anticlinal traps. Other source rocks
are present in the Timan-Pechora Basin but are distributed
only locally. The widespread Domanik source rocks of
Devonian age are likely to extend offshore into the shelfal
area of the Barents Sea, making this a promising area for
future exploration (Figure 18).
In the south, the Karachaganak field, one of the largest
oil-gas-condensate developments of the 1990s, is located
on the northern edge of the North Caspian Basin in Ka-
zakhstan (O’Hearn et al., this volume) (Figure 21). The
primary reservoir section is biohermal and platform car-
bonate rocks ranging in age from Late Devonian to Early
Permian. The limestone evolved into an isolated, atoll-
like platform and was subsequently sealed by Early Per-
mian evaporites.
Triassic (Peterson and Clarke, 1991). Peterson and Clarke
(1991) state that the rifts are characterized by strong
positive gravity and magnetic anomalies related to the
presence of basic intrusive rocks. Volcanic and sedimen-
tary rocks are present in only the upper part of the graben
fill. Vertical displacement along the graben margins is
3 – 5 km, and geothermal gradients in the overlying
Mesozoic fill are elevated above background tempera-
tures. The largest of the now deeply buried rifts discussed
by Peterson and Clarke (1991) extends 1800 km in a
north-south direction and from a few kilometers to 50 km
across strike (Figure 22). Rifting was concurrent with
trap volcanism in the Siberian Craton to the east. The
northeast-trending Yenisey Basin suggests that the West
Siberian Basin may have been part of a three-armed rift
system that intersected near the present-day coast of the
Kara Sea north of Russia (Figure 22).
The active rift stage of the West Siberian Basin ter-
minated in the Late Triassic and was followed by tectonic
subsidence and deposition of predominantly siliciclastic
sedimentary rocks of Jurassic to Quaternary age (Pinous
et al., 2001). The thickness of this Mesozoic sag basin
increases northward from an average of 3–5 to 5–7 km

TECTONIC SETTING
OF 93 GIANT FIELDS
OF THE WEST
SIBERIAN BASIN
The West Siberian Basin, one of
the largest low-relief (<100 m)
sedimentary basins in the world, is
a northward-plunging Jurassic –
Quaternary steer’s-head or sag basin
overlying a Permian – Triassic rift
system (Figure 22). The basin is the
leading hydrocarbon province of
Russia and is surpassed globally only
by the dense cluster of giants in the
Persian Gulf area (Figure 15). Gas is
present mainly in the northern part
of the basin, whereas both oil and
Figure 20. Thirty-nine giant fields of South Caspian-Kopet-Dag region (see
gas are found in the southern and cen-
Appendix A for field names keyed to numbers shown). Basins are indicated in
tral part of the basin (Grace and Hart,
capital letters: South Caspian, Mangyshlak, Amu Dar’ya, Syr Dar’ya (top
1986). right), Kopet-Dag foreland, Afghan-Tadjhik. We classified basin type most
The basement of the basin con- responsible for giants as related to continent-continent collision between
sists of folded Paleozoic and Precam- Arabia and Eurasia. Age of orogenic belts in area of giant fields: purple (PCP)
brian rocks that were extended and = upper Precambrian to Middle Cambrian; blue (PM) = Pennsylvanian to
crosscut by north-south – trending Middle Triassic; green (MT) = Upper Cretaceous to Oligocene; yellow (T) =
rifts during the Early and Middle Miocene to Holocene.
Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 49

along the coast of the Kara Sea (Peterson and Clarke,

1991) (Figure 22). A. Bally (2001, personal commu-
nication) and Vyssotski (2000) note that the deeply
buried rifts are not obvious on regional seismic lines in-
terpreted in detail by Vyssotski (2000). The slow, pre-
sumably thermally driven subsidence of the rifted area
was accompanied by occasional reactivation of Triassic
rift structures and vertical motion of basement blocks.
We infer a rift setting for the giants of the West Siberian
Basin.
Most of the giants are now found in an area of north-
south – and northwest-trending arches in the central part
of the basin (Figure 22). Production is from clastic sed-
imentary rocks in the Jurassic, Neocomian, and Aptian–
Cenomanian. Cretaceous clastic rocks deposited in a
deltaic marine transitional complex of the overlying sag
basin (Peterson and Clarke, 1991; Pinous et al., 2001).
Traps are mainly in regional arches and anticlines, along
with stratigraphic traps (Figure 22). For example, the
Urengoy gas field, the world’s largest, is found at the
crest of a large northwest-trending anticline associated
with a basement block uplift (Grace and Hart, 1990).
Greatest growth on the Urengoy Anticline occurred in
the middle to Late Cretaceous. The Messoyakh gas field
is located on a large, doubly plunging anticline trending
about N60E (Krason and Finley, 1992).
In addition to the main oil-gas occurrences in the
Jurassic and Cretaceous fill of the sag basin, hydro-
carbons have been found in middle and upper Paleozoic
sedimentary rocks. Each interval seems to be associated
with a distinctive source rock. One explanation for the
widespread source rocks is the long-lived subsidences of
the western edge of the basin that produced a semi-
starved restricted circulation in a platform depression.
This setting allowed long-term accumulation of marine
plankton under anoxic deeper water bottom conditions
and allowed the preservation of unusually large amounts
of marine organic material for oil generation. Restriction
may have been provided also by a sill separating the

Figure 21. Twenty-six giant fields of the Ural-Timan-

Pechora foreland (see Appendix A for field names
keyed to numbers shown). Basins are indicated in
capital letters: Ural foreland, Timan-Pechora, Volga,
Ural, North Caspian (bottom left). We classified basin
type most responsible for giants as related to continent-
continent collision between Europe and Asia. Age of
orogenic belts in area of giant fields: purple (PCP) =
upper Precambrian to Middle Cambrian; purple (P2) =
Middle Devonian to Mississippian; blue (PM) = Penn-
sylvanian to Middle Triassic.
50 / Mann et al.

Figure 22. Ninety-three giant fields of

West Siberian Basin (see Appendix A for
field names keyed to numbers shown).
Basins are indicated in capital letters:
West Siberian, Kara Sea (top left),
Yenisej-Khatanga (top right). We clas-
sified basin type most responsible for
giants as continental rifts with overlying
sag basins formed during a failed ocean
opening. Age of orogenic belts in area
of giant fields: purple (PCP) = upper
Precambrian to Middle Cambrian; purple
(P2) = Middle Devonian to Mississip-
pian; blue (PM) = Pennsylvanian to Mid-
dle Triassic. Numbers 3, 4, and 5 in red
circles indicate sites of largest gas giant
discoveries of the 1990s (see Appendix C).

shallow West Siberian platformal basin

from the fully marine Arctic Ocean to the
north (Peterson and Clarke, 1991).

TECTONIC SETTING OF
SEVEN GIANT FIELDS
OF SIBERIA
The giant fields of the southeastern
edge of the Siberian Platform in eastern
Siberia are unique in that they are the only
significant cluster of giants on earth de-
rived from upper Precambrian source rocks
(Figure 23). An age of more than 650 m.y.
for these oils is remarkable, given the
observation that the median age of the
world’s oil is 35 m.y. (Macgregor, 1996a).
To rephrase this observation, half of the
world’s existing oil fields was not filled
before the Oligocene (35 Ma), whereas
only a sixth was filled during or before the
Mesozoic.
Tull (1997) notes that continental sep-
aration of Laurentia, Siberia, Baltica, and
various Gondwanan blocks at the transi-
tion from the late Precambrian to Cam-
brian resulted in global sea level rise and in
the flooding of stable cratons by nutrient-
enriched waters, leading to high biopro-
ductivity and source-rock formation. Areas
of Precambrian oil with distinctive bio-
marker and stable isotope geochemistries
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 51

et al., 1995). In the Baykit Anticline,

the section includes shallow-shelf
carbonate rocks that pass westward
into basinal clastic rocks. Reservoirs
are formed by fracturing and kar-
stification of stromatolitic and de-
trital dolostones and are sealed by
latest Precambrian mud rock and
Cambrian salt. Source rocks include
laminated mud rock and limestone
deposited in lagoonal and basinal
shelf settings. Timing of generation
is poorly known, but maximum
burial was in the Late Cambrian–
Early Ordovician, and the onset of
hydrocarbon generation was prob-
ably in the late Precambrian (Tull,
1997).
In the Nepa-Botuoba Anticline,
this section is largely absent, and
instead, Precambrian crystalline
basement of the Siberian Craton
is overlain by latest Precambrian
sandstone and mud rock and latest
Precambrian – Cambrian carbonate
and evaporite rocks. Shallow marine
sandstone and Cambrian reefs act as
reservoirs that are sealed by Lower
Cambrian salt. Late Precambrian
Figure 23. Seven giant fields of the Siberian Platform (see Appendix A for mudstone has been suggested as the
field names keyed to numbers shown). Basins are indicated in capital letters: source rock. As in the Paleozoic-
Ngara-Lena, Ygyatta (top right). We classified basin type most responsible for sourced Permian Basin (Figure 8)
giants as continental rifts with overlying sag basins formed a Precambrian and the North African basins (Fig-
rifting event along the margin of the Siberian Craton. Age of orogenic belts in ure 14), a major factor in the long-
area of giant fields: purple (PCP) = upper Precambrian to Middle Cambrian. lived preservation of the Siberian
oil appears to be the presence of an
include North China, Oman, the MacArthur Basin of efficient and widespread Cambrian salt seal, ranging in
Australia, European Russia, and Siberia. thickness from a few hundred meters to 1500 m. Few of
Although underexplored, about 50 oil and gas fields, the faults affecting the subsalt sequence have breached
including six giants (Figure 23), have been discovered the top seal (Tull, 1997).
on the Siberian Platform. Estimates of discovered re- We infer a rift setting for these giant fields, given the
serves are large: 40 tcf of gas and 6 billion bbl of liquids great thickness of passive-margin-type sedimentation.
(Tull, 1997). Giants are concentrated in two northeast-
trending anticlines separated by a distance of 500 km,
each with its own source rock: the western Baykit Anti-
cline with late Precambrian (Riphean) sources and the TECTONIC SETTING OF
eastern Nepa-Botuobuya Anticline with latest Precam- EIGHT GIANT FIELDS OF
brian (Vendian) sources (Tull, 1997) (Figure 23). EASTERN CHINA
The basement of the Siberian Platform consists of a
complexly deformed early Precambrian basement over- Giant fields of eastern China occur mainly in the
lain by a thick rift and passive-margin-related sedimen- Bohai Basin, one of a family of early Cenozoic exten-
tary cover of late Precambrian to Mesozoic age (Delvaux sional basins that lie along the eastern margin of Asia
52 / Mann et al.
from Russia to Vietnam (Allen et al., 1997; Qiang and
McCabe, 1998) (Figure 24). Paleocene–early Eocene rift-
ing was diffuse, transtensional, and related to rollback of
the subducted Pacific Plate beneath the Asian continent
(Northrup et al., 1995), whereas middle Eocene rifting
appears to have been more organized in a large right-
stepping basin formed as a very large pull-apart basin on
right-lateral strike-slip faults (Figure 24). Narrower zones
of transtension are present north and south of the basin.
Earthquakes indicate that right-lateral strike-slip fault-
ing continues to the present day in a pattern consistent
with the distinct outline of the lazy-Z-shaped pull-apart
basin seen in the area of the Huabei and Bohai Basins in
Figure 24 (Nabelek et al., 1987). For this reason, we
classify this tectonic setting as strike-slip. Reservoirs in-
clude karsted carbonate units sourced by Paleogene shales.
Kuykendall et al. (this volume) describe the Peng Lai
giant discovery of 1999 in the south-central part of Bohai
Bay (Figure 24). They interpret the setting as a pull-apart
with 6 km of synrift clastic fill in the main depocenter
and as much as 4 km of postrift clastic fill. The struc-
tural trap for the field is a complex, strike-slip –related
anticline, and the reservoir is lacustrine-fluvial sand.
TECTONIC SETTING OF ONE
GIANT FIELD IN THE
EAST CHINA SEA
The East China Sea Basin is located between the
mainland of eastern China and the Ryuku Islands be-
tween southern Japan and northern Taiwan (Figure 25)
(Shansu et al., 1992). Two parallel but distinct sets of
basins are present. The Okinawa Trough is a nonpro-
ductive, deep-water, back-arc basin associated with late
Miocene to Holocene subduction of the Pacific Ocean
floor along the Ryukyu Trench (Lun, 1992; Sibuet et al.,
1998). The East China Sea Basin is a productive, shelfal
basin in which one giant field is located, and extensive
exploration is now in progress (Figure 25).
The East China Sea Basin and Okinawa Trough are
separated by a narrow zone of late Miocene –late Plio-
cene convergent deformation called the Diaoyudao Up-
lift, or Taiwan-Sinzi folded zone (Kong et al., 2000).
According to Wang et al. (1995), the East China Sea shelf
basin formed in a sequence of stages: (1) Late Cretaceous
to Eocene extension, probably as the result of back-arc
extension and thermal subsidence, resulting in about 9
km of postrift clastic sedimentary rocks (CCOP, 1991);
(2) tectonic inversion during the Oligocene and Mio-
cene, uplifting the Diaoyudao Uplift and producing folds
at the sites of former normal faults in the East China
Sea Basin; (3) continued Pliocene–Pleistocene thermal
subsidence without inversion.
According to Wang et al. (1995), the East China Sea
Basin contains abundant gas. Source rocks include Eo-
cene through Miocene marine, lacustrine, and swamp
facies that have been deeply buried. Miocene clastic
reservoirs have the greatest potential.
TECTONIC SETTING OF TWO
GIANT FIELDS OF EASTERN
SAKHALIN ISLAND
Two giant fields are located in the East Sakhalin Basin
along the central-west coast of Sakhalin Island in the
Russian Far East (Figure 26). Neogene to Holocene strike-
slip faulting is the dominant tectonic style on Sakhalin
Island because the elongate island straddles and parallels
the seismically active North America–Eurasia right-lateral
strike-slip plate boundary (Fournier et al., 1994; Worrall
et al., 1996) (Figure 26). Onland in Sakhalin, Fournier
et al. (1994) show mapping evidence for north-south
right-lateral faults associated with right-lateral earthquake
focal mechanisms, narrow Neogene fault-controlled ba-
sins, and associated en-echelon folds. North of Sakhalin in
the Sea of Okhotsk, Worrall et al. (1996) describe a zone
of post-Miocene flower structures along the same north-
south trend as observed on land in Sakhalin and contin-
uous with north-south strike-slip fault trends on the
mainland of Russia in southern Siberia. To the west of
Sakhalin in the Sea of Okhotsk, pre-Miocene rift-related
faults are dragged oroclinally into the shear zone as pre-
dicted for a right-lateral shear zone (Worrall et al., 1996).
A deeply buried early Tertiary unconformity surface
mapped by Worrall et al. (1996) in the Sea of Okhotsk
along the eastern margin of Sakhalin attests to a large
degree of either transtension (Worrall et al., 1996) or,
alternatively, transpression (Fournier et al., 1994) ac-
companying north-south right-lateral plate motion.
Strike-slip faulting appears to have initiated in the
early Cenozoic and has been transpressional through
much of this time. During the period from Eocene to
Pliocene, the deforming, northern part of the island
received reservoir-forming sands and source- and seal-
forming muds derived from the paleodelta of the Amur
River, a major river system of eastern Asia, that empties
into the Sea of Okhotsk at Sakhalin Island (Tull, 1997).
Sand/mud ratio in deltaic sedimentary rocks decreases
eastward across Sakhalin Island and into the offshore
East Sakhalin Basin (Figure 25).
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 53

Miocene diatomite and marine mud-

stone interbedded with deltaic reser-
voir sandstone.

TECTONIC SETTING
OF 23 GIANT FIELDS
OF SUNDA
We infer several basin types re-
sponsible for giants formed in this
extensive and tectonically complex
region. Sunda, the Sunda shelf, and
Sundaland are the collective terms
given to the geographical and geo-
logic entity of southern Indochina,
the Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, the
Northwest Java Sea, and southern
Borneo (Figure 27). The largely sub-
merged Sunda continental block orig-
inally formed by fragments derived
from Gondwanaland that accreted
to Laurasia during the late Paleozoic
and Mesozoic. By the early Tertiary,
Sunda was a stable block protruding
Figure 24. Eight giant fields of northeastern China (see Appendix A for
to the southeast from Laurasia and
field names keyed to numbers shown). Basins are indicated in capital
letters: Erlieng, Shaanxi Platform, Huabei, Bohai, North Yellow Sea, South surrounded by subduction zones.
Yellow Sea. We classified basin type most responsible for giants as right- Rifting related to diverse tectonic
lateral strike-slip motion along the Pacific margin of eastern Asia. Age of processes and the subsequent gen-
orogenic belts in area of giant fields: purple (PM) = Pennsylvanian to Lower eration of lacustrine and restricted
Triassic; green (M2) = Upper Jurassic to Upper Cretaceous. marine basins in the confines of the
continental block have played a ma-
jor role in the generation of its wide-
spread, giant hydrocarbon provinces
Because strike-slip motion is long-lived and large- (Cole and Crittenden, 1997) (Figure 27). Middle to late
offset, deltaic sands have presumably been sheared and Tertiary rifting has produced major ocean basins and pas-
displaced in a complex manner along the length of the sive margins, including those surrounding the southwest-
plate boundary. Present-day strike-slip displacements cen- ward-impinging South China Sea, back-arc basins such as
tered along the axis of the island are thought to have dis- those in Sumatra, and large strike-slip pull-aparts or trans-
rupted many of the onland reservoirs as indicated by the tensional basins at fault stepovers or along the trend of
frequency of underfilled structural traps and surface oil strike-slip zones related to the India-Asia collision such
seeps. Less-intense shearing in the East Sakhalin Basin in as those in the East Andaman Sea, Pattani trough, and
the eastern offshore area has left large, en-echelon anti- Yingge Sea (Figure 27). Lee and Lawver (1995) and Hall
clines intact and is the present-day focus of exploration. (1997) provide plate quantitative tectonic reconstruc-
Faulted onshore fields contain fault seals, whereas off- tions of Sunda and a summary of key geologic studies.
shore seals consist of muddy sediment interbeds.
Hydrocarbon generation is thought to have been Strike-Slip–Related Giants of Sunda
contemporaneous with late Neogene strike-slip –related
folding and faulting (Tull, 1997). Geochemistry of Sak- Sunda giants we classify as strike-slip related include
halin oils indicates both marine and terrestrial sources (1) giants of the Yingge Sea along the southeast extension
(Tull, 1997). Possible marine sources include middle of the Red River left-lateral strike-slip fault of Vietnam;
54 / Mann et al.
Figure 25. One giant field in the East China Sea (see Appendix A for field
name keyed to number shown). Basins are indicated in capital letters: South
Yellow Sea, Kyongsang, Tsushima, Fukue, East China Sea, Okinawa, Danjo. Neogene period of left-lateral strike-
We classified basin type most responsible for giants as continental rifts with
overlying sag basins. Age of orogenic belts in area of giant fields: green (M2) =
Upper Jurassic to Upper Cretaceous; green (MT) = Upper Cretaceous
to Oligocene; yellow (T) = Miocene to Holocene.
(2) giants in the Pattani Trough and Malay Basin, pull-
apart basins formed along a southeast extension of the
Three Pagoda right-lateral strike-slip fault zone; (3) giants
in the East Andaman Basin, a large pull-apart formed
along the southeast extension of the Sagaing right-lateral
fault (Figure 27).
Yingge Sea
We classify giants of the Yingge Sea (Tonkin Gulf) as
strike-slip given their position along the offshore ex-
tension of the active Red River right-
lateral strike-slip fault zone, a 900-
km-long onland fault proposed to ac-
commodate tectonic escape of crustal
fragments eastward from the site of
the India-Eurasia collision (Allen
et al., 1984) (Figure 27). By ‘‘tectonic
escape,’’ or successively pushing
large fragments of Southeast Asia
along left-lateral strike-slip faults, the
India-Asia collision removed a sig-
nificant volume of Southeast Asian
lithosphere from the front part of
the collision north of India (Tappo-
nier et al., 1986). Although this pre-
Quaternary history and sense of
offset are debated for the Red River
fault zone, Allen et al. (1984) estab-
lished that the near-linear and topo-
graphically prominent Red River
fault zone experienced 5.5 km of
right-lateral offset in Pleistocene
and Holocene time at average slip
rates of 2 – 5 mm/yr, and projected
seaward into the Yingge Sea. Rangin
et al. (1995) used seismic reflection
lines tied to deep wells in the Yingge
Sea to constrain a two-stage history
for the elongate basin: (1) a 30 –15-
m.y. period of diffuse northwest-
southeast extension probably accom-
panying the opening of the adjacent
South China Sea in the interval of
32–15 Ma (Briais et al., 1993); (2) a
slip localized in a 30-km-wide zone
along the axis of the basin and re-
sulting in offset not more than a few
tens of kilometers. Present-day activ-
ity on these offshore faults is not clear
from this study.
Rangin et al. (1995) and Roques et al. (1997) used
both onland and offshore seismic and well data to propose
that north-south right-lateral faulting parallel to the east-
ern margin of Vietnam, instead of left-lateral faulting
along the Red River trend, is the dominant influence on
the margin of Vietnam and probably accompanied the
opening of the South China Sea from 32 to 15 Ma (Briais
et al., 1993). Roques et al. (1997) outline potential plays
offshore Vietnam that include possible lacustrine source
rocks formed in Paleogene rifts with major reservoir
and seals provided by clastic and carbonate rocks above
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 55

south right-lateral shearing pro-

posed by Roques et al. (1997) along
the east coast of Vietnam.
In summary, we choose to em-
phasize an acknowledgedly poorly
documented young phase of left-
lateral shear continuous with the
Red River fault zone and/or right-
lateral strike-slip deformation along
the eastern margin of Vietnam for
the formation of the Yingge Sea and
its giant fields, pending a more com-
prehensive understanding of the re-
gional tectonics. Two alternative
explanations for the tectonic setting
of this area are (1) that the Yingge
Sea formed as a failed rift at a high
angle to the main spreading center
of the South China Sea and was sub-
sequently modified by strike-slip tec-
tonics and (2) that the Yingge Sea
formed as a broad, transtensional
strike-slip trough associated with the
rotation of adjacent crustal blocks,
in the mode described by Mann
(1997).

Pattani and Malay Basins,

Gulf of Thailand

Figure 26. Two giant fields of eastern Sakhalin Island (see Appendix A for field The Pattani Basin has a Tertiary
names keyed to numbers shown). Basins are indicated in capital letters: North section with as much as 8500 m of
Sakhalin, East Sakhalin, West Sakhalin, Tatar Strait, Kurile (in bottom right), Oligocene and younger sediments
Central Okhotsk (right), South Okhotsk (right), Sea of Okhotsk (right), deposited in deep half grabens
Tempoku (bottom). We classified basin type most responsible for giants as
bounded by a series of en-echelon
right-lateral strike-slip motion between the North American and Eurasian Plates.
normal faults (Watcharanantakul
Age of orogenic belts in area of giant fields: purple (PM) = Pennsylvanian to
Lower Triassic; green (M2) = Upper Jurassic to Upper Cretaceous. and Morley, 2000). Giant fields
are found on both flanks of the
Pattani Basin and on the southeast-
ern termination of the Malay Basin
upthrown rift blocks. Matthews et al. (1997) and Mayall (Figure 27). We classify the setting for these giant fields
et al. (1997) use well and seismic reflection data from in the Gulf of Thailand as strike-slip because the com-
offshore Vietnam to describe pre–late Oligocene to Mio- bined appearance of the northwest-trending offshore
cene rifts probably formed during the opening of the Malay Basin, the north-south –trending offshore Pattani
South China Sea filled with lacustrine or fluvial sedi- Trough, and its onland extension that together approx-
ments and overlain by middle Miocene to early Pliocene imate the shape of a ‘‘lazy-Z’’ pull-apart basin (Mann
carbonate buildups on structural highs. et al., 1983) at a stepover in the right-lateral Three
We classify one giant field (Bach Ho) in the Mekong Pagodas fault zone of Thailand (Tapponier et al., 1986)
Delta area of Vietnam (Figure 27) as a passive margin (Figure 27).
setting, given its position adjacent to the South China Sea Strike-slip motion appears to terminate in a com-
and its landward position to the west of the zone of north- plex way on the transversely oriented Penyu and West
56 / Mann et al.

Natuna Basins at the southeastern

limit of the Malay Basin in the cen-
tral area of Sunda (Figure 27). How-
ever, Morley (2001) notes that major
strike-slip motion ceased about
30 Ma along both the onland and
offshore basins in the Pattani-Malay
trend. He proposes the mechanism
of subduction rollback of the Indian
Plate west of the area to explain the
lack of strike-slip faulting, the dia-
chronous onset and termination of
rifting in the basins, and the non-
uniform lithospheric extension.
Pending GPS and further geologic,
earthquake focal mechanism, and
seismic reflection studies, we prefer
the right-lateral strike-slip mech-
anism of Tapponier et al. (1986) on
the basis of the regional left-stepping
fault pattern seen in Figure 27 and
the very similar left-stepping pull-
apart geometry seen in the Anda-
man Sea to the west along the right-
lateral Sagaing fault zone.

East Andaman Sea

The Andaman Sea is located east

of the western Sunda arc and west of
the Malay Peninsula and contains

Figure 27. Twenty-three giant fields of Sunda (see Appendix A for field names keyed to numbers shown). Basins
are indicated in capital letters: Manoi (top), Yingge Sea, Beibu Gulf (top), Guang Zhou (top), Pearl River mouth
(top), Khorat Plateau, Moulein, Sittane Valley, Central Myanmar, South Myanmar, Martaban, East Andaman,
Mergui, Pattani Trough, Kra, Western Chumphon, Malay, Panjang, Mekong, Saigon, West Natuna, Penyu, East
Natuna, Sarawak, Sabah Trough, Brunei-Sabah, Palawan, Tarakan, South China Sea (upper right quadrant),
Kentigua, Malawi, North Sumatra, Central Sumatra, Sibolga (right), Bengkulu, Menawai Trough, Java outer arc,
Lombok, Sunda, Northwest Java, Java Ridge, Sunda Shelf, Java Sea, Kutei, Madura, Bali, Northeast Java Sea,
Pati, Bawean, South Makasar, Barito, Asen, Billiton. We infer several basin types responsible for giants formed in
this extensive and tectonically complex region. Strike-slip related giants include (1) giants of the Yingge Sea along
the southeast extension of the Red River left-lateral strike-slip fault of Vietnam, (2) giants in the Pattani Trough
and Malay Basin, pull-apart basins formed along a southeast extension of the Three Pagoda right-lateral strike-slip
fault zone, and (3) giants in the East Andaman Basin, a large pull-apart formed along the southeast extension of
the Sagaing right-lateral fault. Passive-margin– related giants include (1) the Brunei-Sabah and Sarawak Basin at
the southeastern margin of the South China Sea and (2) the Kutei Basin along the eastern margin of Kalimantan.
Arc-related giants include those of the North Sumatra, Central Sumatra, South Sumatra, and Northwest Java
Basins. Age of orogenic belts in area of giant fields: purple (PCP) = upper Precambrian to Middle Cambrian;
blue (PM) = Pennsylvanian to Middle Triassic; green (M1) = Middle Jurassic to Middle Triassic; green (M2) =
Upper Jurassic to Upper Cretaceous; green (MT) = Upper Cretaceous to Oligocene; yellow (T) = Miocene to
Holocene.
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 57
giant fields along its northern margin (Figure 27). The
center of the basin consists of a left-stepping, en-echelon
array of deep subbasins formed by seafloor spreading in a
lazy-Z-shaped pull-apart basin starting about 13 Ma and
continuing to the present day with an average spreading
rate of 3.7 cm/yr (Curray, 1989). Right-lateral strike-slip
faults in the Andaman Sea converge and extend onland
as the 1300-km-long right-lateral Sagaing fault zone,
which may carry as much as 450 km of right-lateral
offset, probably since the Miocene (Tapponier et al.,
1986). To the south, faults converge and extend onland
as the right-lateral Sumatra fault zone that crosses the
center of the island of Sumatra (Sieh and Natawidjaja,
2000). Strike-slip faulting on this western edge of Sunda
is driven by oblique subduction of the Indian Plate as
well as tectonic escape of lithospheric wedges from the
India-Eurasia collision zone to the northwest (Tappo-
nier et al., 1986). The structural style is typically strike-
slip, with positive and negative ‘‘flower structures’’
(Harding, 1983a).
Passive-Margin–Related Giants of Sunda
Our proposed passive-margin-related giants include
(1) the Brunei-Sabah and Sarawak Basin at the south-
eastern margin of the South China Sea and (2) the Kutei
Basin along the eastern margin of Kalimantan (Figure 27).
Basins in the former region face the southeastern part
of the South China Sea. The Sabah Trough and Palawan
area formed by low-angle normal faulting during rifting
between continental areas of Kalimantan and Vietnam
and intervening, now submerged, continental blocks in
the Late Cretaceous to early Paleocene (Schluter et al.,
1996). This rift zone was abandoned in favor of the pres-
ent site of seafloor spreading in the South China Sea 32–
15 Ma (Briais et al., 1993). Rift basins filled with la-
custrine source rocks formed during the aborted rift
episode provide the source for much, if not all, of the pe-
troleum reserves in the area (Milsom et al., 1997). Rifts are
now deeply buried beneath passive margin and seaward-
prograding deltaic sediments of the middle Miocene –
Holocene Champion-Baram delta complex in Brunei
Darussalam (Schreurs, 1997). Structures include deltaic
growth faults, shale diapirism produced by loading of
mobile prodelta shale, and superimposed right-lateral
faults related to tectonic shearing (Van Rensbergen and
Morley, 2000). The main reservoirs occur in coastal, flu-
viomarine, and lower coastal plain sediments, or topsets
of the delta complexes.
Because the spreading direction of the South China
Sea is approximately parallel to the length of the Sara-
wak margin, right-lateral strike-slip faulting played an
important role in the sedimentation and deformation
during late Oligocene to Miocene (Mat Zin and Swar-
bick, 1997).
To the north of Brunei Darussalam, in Palawan, a
similar style of rifting related to the opening of the South
China Sea formed a series of northeast-trending horsts
and grabens containing oil-prone marine and possibly
lacustrine source rocks (Milsom et al., 1997; Williams,
1997). Passive margin subsidence during the middle
Oligocene to middle Miocene was accompanied by rel-
ative tectonic quiescence marked by the deposition of
carbonate platforms and pinnacle reefs developed on
horst blocks. Collision between the Palawan area and
arcs in the Philippines in the period of middle Miocene
to early Pliocene introduced a flood of clastic rocks shed
from the collision zone that buried carbonate reefs to
the west (Williams, 1997), along with a convergent over-
print of late structures (Roberts, 1983).
The Kutai Basin of East Kalimantan (Borneo) is the
largest and deepest (15 km) basin in Indonesia and is the
site of a cluster of oil and gas giants (Figure 27). The basin
formed as a rifted area in the middle Eocene as the result
of opening of the Makassar Straits and Philippine Sea
(Cloke et al., 1999). The synrift sequences of the basin
are poorly understood and explored because of the poor
seismic resolution of rifts on seismic data, poor or re-
mote exposure of rift-related Paleogene rocks, and early
middle Miocene inversion. During the early Miocene,
a period of eastward deltaic progradation (Mahakam
Delta) occurred across the area that led to overpressur-
ing of prodelta shales (Lambert et al., this volume). Cham-
bers and Daly (1997) have used seismic and gravity data
to restore inversion effects that include broad regional
folding of a shale-rich overpressured section. Inversion
contributed to the immense thickness of the basin as
older depocenters were uplifted, eroded, and deposited
in eastward-prograding deltaic complexes. Giant fields
produce from reservoirs of middle Miocene to Pliocene
age. Source rocks in the deltaic section are derived from
the underlying Paleogene rift section (Lambert et al., this
volume).
Arc-Related Giants of Sunda
Arc-related giants include those of the North Sumatra,
Central Sumatra, South Sumatra, and the Northwest Java
Basins (Figure 27). These basins lie north of the Sunda
volcanic arc on the southwestern margin of the Sunda
continent. Collision between Australia and the eastern
Sunda arc in the late Miocene – Pliocene produced
58 / Mann et al.

continental collision. We classify the

Kalimantan area as a zone of arc-
continent collision and the Pattani
Trough as a pull-apart basin on a
strike-slip fault.

TECTONIC SETTING
OF 18 GIANT FIELDS
OF NORTHWEST
AUSTRALIA
Two concentrations of giant
fields occur along the rifted passive
margin of northwest Australia. In the
southwest, seven giants occur in the
area of the Exmouth Plateau and
Dampier Basin (Figure 28). To the
Figure 28. Eighteen giant fields of northwest Australia (see Appendix A for northeast, three giants are found
field names keyed to numbers shown). Basins are indicated in capital letters: between the Bonaparte Gulf and
Browse, Bonaparte Gulf, Ord (to right), Fitzroy Trough, Canning, Beagle, the Timor Trench of the Sumatran
Dampier, Barrow, Exmouth, Exmouth Plateau, Indian Ocean. We classified subduction zone. In the area of the
basin type most responsible for giants as passive margin basins fronting a southwestern fields (collectively
major ocean basin (Indian Ocean). Age of orogenic belts in area of giant known as the Carnarvon Basin), ba-
fields: yellow (T) = Miocene to Holocene. sin development began in the early
Paleozoic with the deposition of
more than 4 km of Ordovician and
structural inversion of Paleogene back-arc rifts, particu- Silurian sandstone, carbonate, and evaporite (Baillie et al.,
larly in the eastern area near the Bali Basin and in 1994).
Sumatra (Figure 27) (Harding, 1983b). The tectonic Paleozoic sedimentation, including a phase of gla-
conditions for giants in this area include back-arc–related cially influenced Carboniferous marine sedimentation,
Paleogene rifts with thick, oil-prone lacustrine shale was terminated by an early phase of rifting in the Late
overlain by thick marine deltaic clastic reservoirs of Permian. Rifting recommenced in either the latest Tri-
Miocene age, high heat flow associated with the adjacent assic or earliest Jurassic during the breakup of Pangea and
volcanic arc, and multiple phases of deformation that led to seafloor spreading in the western Indian Ocean
formed traps prior to the main phase of maturation and (Figure 28). The Triassic includes a basal marine shale
migration (Williams and Eubank, 1995). Structural in- sequence overlain by coarser grained fluvial-deltaic se-
version of rifts occurred in the middle Miocene and was quences. Most of the present-day structural elements
nearly synchronous in the eastern area (Letouzey et al., and petroleum systems formed during this rift event. A
1990). Letouzey et al. (1990) infer that increased coupling large sag basin formed above the rifts to evolve into the
between the subducting Indian Plate and the overriding present-day passive margin which totals 15 – 18 km in
Sunda Block was responsible for inversion of rifts by thickness. Since the beginning of the Cenozoic, the West-
reversal of motion on bounding normal faults. Reservoir ern Australian basins have drifted steadily northward and
rocks include Miocene carbonate rocks with shale seals have become increasingly calcareous, reflecting lower
and Miocene deltas (Buck and McCulloh, 1994). (warmer) paleolatitudes and altered global oceanic cir-
Three main areas of giant fields in Sunda include culation patterns. Cretaceous marine shales and carbon-
central and northern Sumatra, Brunei Darussalam on ate rocks reflect these changes and are overlain by a thick
the western margin of the island of Kalimantan, and the Tertiary carbonate wedge.
Pattani Trough of offshore Thailand (Figure 26). In Su- Regional seismic lines across the Carnarvon Basin re-
matra, inverted late Neogene rift structures are present veal a rifted margin overlain by a thick, carbonate-clastic
in a back-arc setting, and we classify this as a zone of passive margin sequence (AGSO North West Shelf Study
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 59

Group, 1994). In the northwestern area, a similar history

of Paleozoic subsidence, Mesozoic rifting, and Mesozoic–
Cenozoic thermal subsidence and passive margin forma-
tion is observed. Cenozoic reactivation of older rift-related
faults and borehole breakout patterns reflect northeast-
southwest stress transmitted by the distant New Guinea–
Australia collision (Hillis et al., 1997). We classify the
setting of giants in this area as a passive margin fronting
a major ocean basin.
The petroleum system of northwestern Australia
consists of Triassic to Cretaceous reservoirs, Jurassic ma-
rine source rocks, Cretaceous regional seal, and a ther-
mal blanket of Tertiary carbonate rocks (Bradshaw et al.,
1994). The oils from northwestern Australia are very
similar geochemically and indicate deposition of the
source rock in marine anoxic conditions with the input
of a significant amount of terrestrial organic matter.
Restriction of rift basins was provided by outer emergent
highs.

Figure 29. Three giant fields of western Irian Jaya

TECTONIC SETTING OF THREE
GIANT FIELDS OF WESTERN
IRIAN JAYA
Three giant fields are found in the Cenozoic Bintuni
Basin on the western end (‘‘Bird’s Neck’’) of Irian Jaya
in Indonesia (Figure 29). The Bintuni Basin and the
adjacent and contemporaneous Lengguru Fold Belt are
the principal structural features of the Bird’s Neck region
(Pigram et al., 1982). As north-northwest –trending fea-
tures, they represent a dramatic strike change from the
largely east-west trends of the central range of eastern
Irian Jaya and Papua New Guinea that were formed by
middle Oligocene to Holocene collision between con-
tinental rocks of the northern margin of Australia and
continental and arc rocks in Irian Jaya and Papua New
Guinea (Pigram et al., 1989). North of the Bintuni Basin
lies the Kenum Block, an extensive basement composed
of Paleozoic crystalline rocks, probably rifted from the
northern margin of Australia during the Mesozoic break-
up of Gondwana and the opening of the Indian Ocean.
Charlton (2000) proposes that the Bird’s Head region
was the site of north-south continental extension from
the Turonian to the Maastrichtian. The Kenum Block
was uplifted in the late Cenozoic and was the principal
source area for clastic rocks shed into the northern Bin-
tuni Basin.
The Bintuni Basin formed rapidly after the middle
to early late Miocene, when a former shallow marine
platform area was rapidly deepened (Pigram et al.,
(see Appendix A for field names keyed to numbers
shown). Basins are indicated in capital letters: Bintuni,
Meervlakte (to right), Salawati, Halmahera, Ceram
Trough, New Guinea Trench (to right), Banda Sea
to lower left, Arafura Sea to lower right. We classified
basin type most responsible for giants as continental
rifts with overlying sag basins. Age of orogenic belts
in area of giant fields: blue (PM) = Pennsylvanian to
Middle Triassic; green (MT) = Upper Cretaceous to
Oligocene; yellow (T) = Miocene to Holocene.
1982). Finer grained clastic material was derived from
the uplift and erosion of the Lengguru Fold Belt east of
the basin. Pigram et al. (1982) propose a model for the
creation of the Bintuni Basin and adjacent fold belt by
collision between the older basement rocks of the area
and an east-facing subduction zone in the late Miocene.
Continued deformation into the Pliocene caused the
marked asymmetry of the Bintuni Basin and the widen-
ing of the Lengguru Fold Belt.
The three giant fields occur along the northern edge
of the Bintuni basin where hydrocarbons have long been
known from seeps (Figure 29). Reservoirs occur in clas-
tic units derived from the erosion of the northern edge of
the basin (Kenum Block). Sources are thought to be either
Mesozoic or Miocene units.
Pending further data on this area, we tentatively
follow Charlton (2000) and classify these giants as rift
related.
60 / Mann et al.

between Australia and Antarctica

that ultimately resulted in seafloor
spreading of the Southern Ocean.
Early rifting was mainly north-south
but affected northeast- and south-
west-trending basement trends in
older rocks. Late Jurassic–Barremian
synrift normal faults produced thick
wedges of alluvial and fluvial sed-
iments. The overlying Aptian –
Albian sequence consists of several
kilometers of widespread and more
parallel-bedded volcanogenic, flu-
viatile sandstone with less evidence
of synrift faulting (Hill et al., 1995).
About 95 Ma, continental breakup
occurred and extension propagated
along the west and east coasts of
Tasmania, leaving the Bass Strait as
a failed rift with little Late Creta-
ceous sediment deposited. Renewed
rifting to the west in the Otway Basin
led to seafloor spreading and the
formation of a passive margin. The
boundary between the passive margin
Figure 30. Five giant fields of the Bass Strait, Australia and Tasmania. Basins in the Otway Basin and the failed rift
are indicated in capital letters: Gippsland, Bass, Tasmania East, Tasmania, in the Bass Strait is marked by the
Sorrell, Otway, Tasman Sea to left, Indian Ocean to right. We classified basin Sorrell margin (Figure 30). After the
type most responsible for giants as a continental passive margin fronting a
breakup 95 Ma, renewed rifting
major ocean basin (Tasman Sea). Age of orogenic belts in area of giant fields:
affected the Otway, Gippsland, and
purple (PCP) = upper Precambrian to Middle Cambrian; purple (P1) =
Upper Cambrian to Lower Devonian; purple (P2) = Middle Devonian to southern Bass Basins and led to
Mississippian. locally thick Late Cretaceous sedi-
mentation. Tertiary thermal sub-
sidence of the region led to the dep-
osition of marls followed by a grad-
ual transition to Neogene temperate
climate carbonate rocks.
TECTONIC SETTING OF FIVE In the Gippsland Basin, inversion began in the late
GIANT FIELDS OF THE BASS Eocene and continued until the middle Miocene (Davis,
STRAIT, AUSTRALIA 1983; Glenton, 1991). Hill et al. (1995) propose that
AND TASMANIA younger Miocene – Pliocene inversion of rift structures
in the Otway, Gippsland, and Bass Basins resulted
Bass Strait, separating Australia and Tasmania, is from the long-distance transmission of compressional
underlain by the Gippsland and Bass failed-rift basins (Fig- stresses associated with the collision of Australia with
ure 30). The Otway Basin lies to the west along the New Guinea, as also proposed by Hillis et al. (1997)
southern margin of Australia. Bass Strait was previously for the northwest margin of Australia. Regardless of its
the most prolific oil and gas province in Australia, but it age, regional inversion produced large anticlinal traps for
has now matured and has been supplanted by recent giant fields in the area, including Snapper (Glenton,
increases in production along the passive margin of north- 1991) and Barracouta (Davis, 1983). Reservoirs include
west Australia (Figure 28). Late Cretaceous – Paleogene nonmarine to marine sand-
Rifting in all three basins in the area resulted from the stone, and sources include organic matter of terrestrial
Late Jurassic–Early Cretaceous intracontinental rifting origin.
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 61
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Where are the 877 giant fields of the
world found?
Remarkably, almost all of these 877 giant fields, which
by some estimates account for 67% of the world’s pe-
troleum reserves, are concentrated in 27 regions of the
world, which we show on the maps in Figure 4 – 30. The
worldwide distribution of the 27 regions, along with
the top five oil and gas discoveries of the 1990s, is sum-
marized in Figure 1 and Appendix B.

How have we classified the basinal settings
of giants in this paper?
For giant fields with multiphase histories, we attempt
the difficult task of discriminating the single tectonic
event/setting that we consider to have had the most pro-
found effect on hydrocarbon formation, migration, and
trapping. Our main classification criterion is the basin style
dominating at the most typical stratigraphic and structural
level of giant accumulations, as discussed for each area.
The categories are shown in the key to Figure 1.

How many giants correspond to each of
the six basin classification categories
we propose?
We present tectonic and basinal maps of these 27
key regions and classify the tectonic setting of the giants
in these regions using six classes of tectonic setting: (1)
continental passive margins fronting major ocean basins
(304 giants); (2) continental rifts and overlying sag or
steer’s-head basins (271 giants); (3) collisional margins
produced by terminal collision between two continents
(173 giants); (4) collisional margins produced by con-
tinental collision related to terrane accretion, arc colli-
sion, and/or shallow subduction (71 giants); (5) strike-
slip margins (50 giants); (6) subduction margins not
affected by major arc or continental collisions (8 giants)
(Figure 2c).

What percentages of the total number of
877 giant fields correspond to the six basin
classification categories we propose?
Continental passive margins fronting major ocean basins
form the dominant tectonic setting that includes 33% of the
world’s giant fields (Figure 2c). Continental rifts and
overlying sag basins, especially failed rifts at the edges or
interiors of continents, form the second most common
tectonic setting, which includes 31% of the world’s giant
fields. Terminal collision belts between two continents and
associated foreland basins form the third setting, with 20%
of the world’s giant fields. Other setting classes, in-
cluding foreland basins at collision margins related to
terrane accretion, arc collision, and/or shallow subduction,
basins in strike-slip margins, and basins in subduction
margins, are relatively insignificant, with 14% or less of
the total basin population.
Our tabulations indicate the importance of exten-
sional settings formed during the early and late stages of
oceanic opening for giant accumulations: The rift and
passive categories combined account for two-thirds, or
66%, of all 877 giants (Figure 2C). Our result differs sig-
nificantly from previously published giant classifications
in which collisional settings form the dominant tectonic
setting for oil giants (Figure 2a, b).

What accounts for the differences between
our tabulation of the setting of giants
and tabulations by previous workers?
A previous correlation of 509 giant fields by Carmalt
and St. John (1986) used basin classifications by Klemme
(1971) and by Bally and Snelson (1980). Using the Klemme
classification, the three most common basins contain-
ing giant oil fields, according to Carmalt and St. John
(1986), are collision zones (40%), accreted margins (16%),
and rifted margins (15%) (Figure 2a). Using the Bally
and Snelson classification, the three most common ba-
sins containing giant oil fields, according to Carmalt and
St. John (1986), are type-A foredeeps (41%), cratonic
basins (23%), and Atlantic-type passive margins (15%)
(Figure 2b).
Variations between our results (Figure 2c) and those
of Carmalt and St. John (1986) probably reflect differing
interpretations of the ‘‘main’’ basinal phase responsible
for the formation of the source rocks, structures, and stra-
tigraphy of the giant field. We assigned passive margins and
rifts as the dominant giant-field-forming process more
often than the previous studies, despite the presence of
later, superimposed convergent or strike-slip tectonics
on these original extensional features.
Within a long-term plate-tectonic framework, we
view and classify pre-Cenozoic ‘‘cratonic’’ basins now
located in continental interiors as active margin basins of
previous orogenies and rifting events instead of basins
passively formed in ‘‘stable’’ continental interiors.
62 / Mann et al.
Another significant difference is our frequent inter-
pretation of rift and overlying sag basin in interior cra-
tonic areas instead of a simple ‘‘cratonic sag’’ without an
underlying rift. This reflects our view and that of many
workers that most deep cratonic basins are underlain by
rifts which have activated a long-lived pulse of thermal
subsidence responsible for the formation of the over-
lying sag basin. The North Sea is perhaps the best studied
example of this rift and related thermal subsidence
process (Sclater and Christie, 1980) (Figure 17). We sug-
gest that other deeply filled cratonic basins associated
with giant fields await improved seismic reflection and
drilling to fully document their underlying rift origin
(e.g., West Siberian, Figure 22; North Caspian, Figure
19; eastern part of the Persian Gulf, Figure 15; Illizi
Basin, Algeria, Figure 14; Siberian Platform, Figure 23;
Canadian Arctic Islands, Figure 5).

What are some reasons to explain why
our proposed basin categories of rifts and
passive margins are associated with almost
two-thirds of all giant fields?
We propose the following possibilities to explain
the dominance of extensional rift and passive margin
settings over all other tectonic settings: (1) localization of
high-quality source rocks in lacustrine and restricted ma-
rine settings during the early rift stage; (2) effectiveness of
the sag or passive margin section above rifts to either act as
reservoirs for hydrocarbons generated in the rift section
and/or to seal hydrocarbons generated in the underlying
rift section; (3) tectonic stability achieved after the early rift
stage that allows sources and reservoirs to remain un-
disturbed or to be slightly inverted by tectonic events
acting on distant plate boundaries (Macgregor, 1996a).

What are some of the main trends in the
discovery of giant fields in the 1990s that
might continue into the early 21st century?
Trends in the discovery of giants in the 1990s that
might continue into the 21st century include
1) discovery of fields in basinal settings along passive
margins such as Brazil (Figure 12), west Africa
(Figure 13), and the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 9) as-
sociated with location of the highest quality source-
rock areas and increasing number of ‘‘subtle’’ traps,
which are not associated with anticlines or arches and
rely mainly on nonstructural or stratigraphic trap-
ping; these subtle traps can be detected only by using
3-D seismic reflection data
2) continued discovery of giants in known areas, in-
cluding expansion of the Persian Gulf hydrocarbon
province south into Yemen and the Arabian Penin-
sula and north into Iraq (Figure 15); expansion of the
West Siberian Basin in the Arctic offshore area (Fig-
ure 22); radial expansion of the subcircular Illizi Basin
of Algeria (Figure 14)
3) continued discoveries in Southeast Asia, where Ce-
nozoic rift, passive margin, and strike-slip environ-
ments all coexist around the South China Sea or in
the largely submerged Sunda continent (Figure 27)
4) along-strike expansion of foreland trends in the
Rocky Mountains (Figure 7), northern South Amer-
ica (Figure 10), southern Andes (Figure 11), Ural –
Timan-Pechora (Figure 21) and Barents Sea (Figure
18), and North Slope (Figure 4)
5) expansion of discoveries in the Black Sea– Caspian
region (Figures 19, 20) associated with closure and
burial of northern Tethyal passive margin or arc-
related basins

Will deep- and ultradeep water hold the
most future discoveries of giant fields, or
have discoveries plateaued even in the face
of more widespread and intensive deep- and
ultradeep-water exploration?
Deep-water exploration and drilling are assumed here
to relate to water depths more than 200 m deep, and ultra-
deep relates to depths exceeding 500 m. Dolivo (1997)
reviews the history of deep- and ultradeep-water explo-
ration from its infancy in the oil crisis of the early 1970s.
We use his results here as a possible reflection for trends
in deep-water giant discoveries. He found that success
rates for deep and ultradeep wells of all sizes have in-
creased steadily from an initial 10 –20% in the 1970s to
30 – 40% in the early 1990s. Since 1992, he found, the
success rate tends to be more stable because deep-water
emerged as a separate specialty with its unique plays
(i.e., gravity flows derived from the shelf) instead of
reflecting only the success of wells on the slope that
extend known plays on the shelf. The latter approach
was the mainstay of deep-water exploration in the late
1970s and early 1980s (Dolivo, 1997).
Giant-field discoveries and deep-water exploration
intersected in the massive discoveries by Petrobras of
deep-water reserves in the Albacora, Marlim, Marlim Sul,
and Barracuda fields between 1984 and 1989 (Figure 12).
All of these reserves are found in sandstones deposited as
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 63
mass-flow deposits in a deep-water setting. Buoyed by
these Brazilian discoveries, exploration of the conjugate
rift-passive margin in west Africa in the 1990s has led to
giant discoveries in similar deep-water facies (Figure 13).
In summary, it is unclear at this stage whether these
rather restricted areas of giants (particularly in the case
of the concentration of giants in the Campos Basin of
Brazil; Figure 12) can be extended along strike to the
north and south.

How common was the discovery of ‘‘new’’
giant areas in the 1990s, and what are the
implications of this for future exploration?
The Bird’s Head area in a remote and tectonically
complex rift setting in Irian Jaya appears to be the only
newly discovered giant province in the 1990s (Figure 29).
Most of the giants of the 1990s, including the top five oil
and gas giants shown in Figure 1, are clustered in areas of
known giants and, in some cases, are offset wells from a
producing giant, as in the case of the Persian Gulf (Figure
15), Algeria (Figure 14), Brazil (Figure 12), and the Gulf
of Mexico (Figure 9). The observation suggests that
expansion beyond the limits of our 27 clusters of giant
fields defined in Figure 1 is leveling off, even in the face
of intensive global exploration from the 1980s to the
present.

Do the Precambrian and Paleozoic
continental interiors hold any more
surprises in terms of the discovery of giants,
or will most future giant discoveries
continue to cluster near Mesozoic and
Cenozoic plate margins?
Despite the association of giant fields with Cenozoic
or Mesozoic plate edges (especially failed rifts trending
at high angles to continental margins; Macgregor, 1995)
and the young age of most giants (median age of giants
compiled by Macgregor [1996a] is 35 Ma), the pos-
sibility always exists for further discovery of ‘‘lockbox’’
or ‘‘high-preservation oil system’’ giants stored in now
cratonic but poorly understood Paleozoic or Precam-
brian plate edges. Examples of these types of known
Paleozoic and Precambrian hydrocarbon giant clusters
are the Permian Basin in the United States (Figure 8),
the Illizi Basin of Algeria (Figure 14), and the Siberian
Platform (Figure 23). In the Illizi Basin, Macgregor
(1998) notes the low drilling density (29 wells per
10,000 km2) in comparison to other petroleum prov-
inces (the North American and North Sea averages are
500 and 90 wells/10,000 km2, respectively). The least
explored and most extensive stable Paleozoic and Pre-
cambrian Platform areas are found in the former Soviet
Union, but other poorly known continental interiors
such as Africa and South America may offer similar
opportunities.
Future discoveries of giants fields
In the 134 years between 1868 and 2002, petro-
leum explorationists discovered 877 giant oil and gas
fields catalogued in this paper. In the 21st century, will
we see increased giant discoveries only in the 27 regions
of the earth described in this paper, or will see new
concentrations of giants emerge in other, previously
unexplored, areas?
A perspective on 20th-century discoveries to 1983
is given by Parke A. Dickey:
We usually find oil in new places with old
ideas. Sometimes, also, we find oil in an old
place with a new idea, but we seldom find
much oil in an old place with an old idea.
Several times in the past, we have thought
we were running out of oil, whereas actually
we were only running out of ideas (Perrodin,
1983).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The digital data for pre-1990 giant oil fields outside
North America were provided to the University of Texas
in October 1997 by Petroconsultants (now part of the
IHS Energy Group) and are used here with their per-
mission. We thank Ken Chew at IHS Energy Group in
Geneva for his help in obtaining these data, Perry Fischer
for his encouragement at the 2001 AAPG Annual Meet-
ing to submit our poster in paper form to World Oil, and
M.K. Horn and Michel T. Halbouty for encouraging the
submission of an updated and modified version of the
World Oil paper to this memoir. We thank M.K. Horn
for providing data and preprints on giant fields and Al-
bert Bally for his helpful comments and suggestions on
this paper. Special thanks go to Lisa Watson for her
assistance in manuscript and map preparation. The first
author welcomes comments and corrections for this
compilation at paulm@ig.utexas.edu. UTIG contribution
no. 1590.
 64 / Mann et al.
APPENDIX A
NUMERIC LISTING OF GIANT OIL AND GAS FIELDS
Ultimate Ultimate
Ultimate Ultimate recovery recovery
recovery recovery condensate equivalent
Field Location Field name Oil or gas oil (MMBO) gas (tcf ) (MMBO) (MMBOE)
1 United States — Alaska Kenai gas 3.1 523
2 United States — Alaska Kuparuk River oil 2595 2595
3 United States — Alaska McArthur River oil 550 0.7 670
4 United States — Alaska Point Thomson (Flaxman Island) gas 5.0 350 1183
5 United States — Alaska Prudhoe Bay oil 13,010 13,010
6 Canada — NWT Franklin Issungnak oil 500 500
7 Canada — NWT Franklin Koakoak oil 1200 1200
8 Canada — NWT Franklin Kopanoar gas 500 3.0 1000
9 Canada — NWT Franklin Parsons Lake gas 3.5 583
10 Canada — NWT Franklin Char gas 3.0 500
11 Canada — NWT Franklin Cisco oil 1000 1000
12 Canada — NWT Franklin Drake Point gas 6.0 1000
13 Canada — NWT Franklin Hecla gas 4.0 667
14 Canada — NWT Franklin Whitefish gas 5.0 833
15 United States — California Brea (Olinda, Sansinena) oil 439 0.5 525
16 United States — California Buena Vista Hills oil 678 1.1 859
17 United States — California Coalinga oil 906 906
18 United States — California Coalinga Nose oil 505 0.6 603
19 United States — California Elk Hills oil 1407 1.4 1647
20 United States — California Huntington Beach oil 1138 0.8 1273
21 United States — California Kern River oil 1676 1676
22 United States — California Kettleman Hills North Dome gas 460 3.0 952
23 United States — California Long Beach oil 945 1.1 1125
24 United States — California Midway-Sunset oil 2692 0.5 2780
25 United States — California Point Arguello oil 500 500
26 United States — California Rio Vista gas 3.5 583
27 United States — California San Ardo oil 529 529
28 United States — California Santa Fe Springs oil 633 0.8 773
29 United States — California South Belridge oil 1381 1381
30 United States — California Ventura Avenue (Rincon) oil 1012 2.4 1417
31 United States — California Wilmington oil 2788 1.3 3006
32 Canada — Alberta Bonnie Glen oil 445 0.8 570
33 Canada — Alberta Claresholm gas 5.0 833
34 Canada — Alberta Elmworth (Wapati) gas 20.0 3333
35 Canada — Alberta Judy Creek oil 600 600
36 Canada — Alberta Kaybob South oil 540 2.5 957
37 Canada — Alberta Leduc-Woodbend oil 500 500
38 Canada — Alberta Pembina oil 1800 1800
APPENDIX A
NUMERIC LISTING OF GIANT OIL AND GAS FIELDS (cont.)

Ultimate Ultimate
Ultimate Ultimate recovery recovery
recovery recovery condensate equivalent
Field Location Field name Oil or gas oil (MMBO) gas (tcf ) (MMBO) (MMBOE)
39 Canada — Alberta Rainbow oil 720 720
40 Canada — Alberta Redwater oil 832 832
41 Canada — Alberta Swan Hills oil 931 931
42 Canada — Alberta Swan Hills South oil 510 510
43 United States — Colorado Rangely oil 904 904
44 United States — New Mexico Blanco-Basin gas 12.4 25 2058
45 United States — Utah Anschutz Ranch East gas 180 4.0 847
46 United States — Wyoming Elk Basin oil 500 500
47 United States — Wyoming Salt Creek oil 676 676
48 United States — Wyoming Whitney Canyon (Carter Creek) gas 115 5.3 997
49 United States — New Mexico Blinebry-Drinkard oil 256 1.5 506
50 United States — New Mexico Eunice (Jalmat, Monument) gas 157 8.1 1505
51 United States — New Mexico Vacuum oil 524 524
52 United States — Oklahoma Burbank oil 547 547
53 United States — Oklahoma Cushing oil 500 500

Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 65

54 United States — Oklahoma Golden Trend oil 523 1.0 690
55 United States — Oklahoma Hugoton (Panhandle) gas 20.0 3333
56 United States — Oklahoma Mocane-Laverne oil 652 652
57 United States — Oklahoma Oklahoma City oil 829 829
58 United States — Oklahoma Seminole oil 822 822
59 United States — Oklahoma Sho-Vel-Tum oil 1355 1355
60 United States — Texas Cowden North oil 500 500
61 United States — Texas Cowden South (Foster, Johnson) oil 589 589
62 United States — Texas East Texas oil 5382 5382
63 United States — Texas Fullerton oil 315 1.5 565
64 United States — Texas Goldsmith (Andector) oil 866 866
65 United States — Texas Gomez gas 3.0 500
66 United States — Texas Keystone oil 314 1.5 564
67 United States — Texas McElroy (Dune) oil 578 578
68 United States — Texas Puckett gas 3.0 500
69 United States — Texas Sand Hills oil 246 1.6 511
70 United States — Texas Scurry (Skelly, Snyder, Diamond M) oil 1701 1.3 1924
71 United States — Texas Seminole oil 719 719
72 United States — Texas Slaughter (Levelland) oil 1505 1.0 1672
73 United States — Texas South Sand Belt (Ward Estes) oil 900 900
74 United States — Texas Spraberry Trend oil 932 932
75 United States — Texas Wasson oil 2102 1.0 2263
76 United States — Texas Yates oil 1955 1955
 66 / Mann et al.
APPENDIX A
NUMERIC LISTING OF GIANT OIL AND GAS FIELDS (cont.)

Ultimate Ultimate
Ultimate Ultimate recovery recovery
recovery recovery condensate equivalent
Field Location Field name Oil or gas oil (MMBO) gas (tcf ) (MMBO) (MMBOE)
77 Canada — Newfoundland Hibernia oil 1850 2.0 2183
78 Canada — Nova Scotia Venture gas 3.6 598
79 United States —Arkansas Smackover oil 581 581
80 United States —Illlinois Illinois, Old Fields oil 675 675
81 United States —Ohio-Indiana Lima-Indiana oil 514 514
82 United States —Pennsylvania Bradford oil 658 658
83 United States —Texas Conroe oil 748 748
84 United States —Texas Van oil 550 550
85 Mexico Abkatún oil 561 0.2 602
86 Mexico Agave oil 876 4.9 1687
87 Mexico Akal (Cantarell Complex) oil 4433 2.6 4870
88 Mexico Arenque oil 1000 1000
89 Mexico Cáctus oil 1700 2.8 2165
90 Mexico Cerro Azul (Amatlán, Naranjos) oil 1250 1250
91 Mexico Chac oil 500 500
92 Mexico Chicontepec gas 227 3.6 825
93 Mexico Giraldas oil 435 1.5 682
94 Mexico Iris oil 1500 1.0 1667
95 Mexico Ixtoc oil 800 800
96 Mexico José Colomo (Chilapilla) gas 50 3.8 675
97 Mexico Jujo oil 500 500
98 Mexico Maloob oil 842 0.3 900
99 Mexico Panuco (Ébano Panuco) oil 971 971
100 Mexico Paredón oil 500 500
101 Mexico Poza Rica oil 2000 2000
102 Mexico Reynosa (Hidalgo, Klump) gas 3.5 583
103 Mexico Rı́o Nuevo oil 500 500
104 Mexico Samarı́a (Bermúdez Complex) oil 7000 17.5 9917
105 Mexico Sihil oil 1115 0.3 1164
106 Mexico Sitio Grande oil 765 765
107 Mexico Zaap oil 598 0.2 638
108 United States —deep-water Atlantis oil 575 575
Gulf of Mexico
109 United States —deep-water Mad Dog oil 500 500
Gulf of Mexico
110 United States —deep-water Mars oil 700 700
Gulf of Mexico
APPENDIX A
NUMERIC LISTING OF GIANT OIL AND GAS FIELDS (cont.)

Ultimate Ultimate
Ultimate Ultimate recovery recovery
recovery recovery condensate equivalent
Field Location Field name Oil or gas oil (MMBO) gas (tcf ) (MMBO) (MMBOE)
111 United States —deep-water Tahiti oil 500 500
Gulf of Mexico
112 United States —deep-water Thunder Horse oil 1000 1000
Gulf of Mexico (formerly Crazy Horse)
113 United States —Louisiana Bastian Bay gas 80 3.3 622
114 United States —Louisiana Bateman Lake gas 75 3.0 575
115 United States —Louisiana Bay Marchand oil 736 0.8 861
116 United States —Louisiana Bayou Sale gas 167 3.5 750
117 United States —Louisiana Caillou Island oil 642 642
118 United States —Louisiana Eugene Island Block 330 oil 290 1.5 540
119 United States —Louisiana Grand Isle Block 43 oil 358 1.0 525
120 United States —Louisiana Monroe gas 7.2 1203
121 United States —Louisiana South Pass Block 24 oil 475 0.8 600
122 United States —Louisiana South Pass Block 27 oil 520 520
123 United States —Louisiana Tiger Shoal gas 30 3.0 530

Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 67

124 United States —Louisiana Timbalier Bay oil 507 0.7 622
125 United States —Louisiana Vermilion Block 14 gas 3.0 500
126 United States —Louisiana Vermilion Block 39 gas 15 3.0 515
127 United States —Louisiana West Delta Block 30 oil 531 0.5 621
128 United States —Louisiana West Delta Block 73 oil 625 625
129 United States —Texas Agua Dulce (Stratton) gas 150 2.2 515
130 United States —Texas Borregos (Seeligson) oil 689 689
131 United States —Texas Carthage (Cotton Valley) gas 6.0 50 1050
132 United States —Texas Greta (Tom O’Connor) oil 803 803
133 United States —Texas Hastings oil 710 710
134 United States —Texas Hawkins oil 886 886
135 United States —Texas Katy gas 20 6.0 1020
136 United States —Texas La Gloria gas 31 3.0 531
137 United States —Texas Old Ocean gas 129 5.0 962
138 United States —Texas Pledger gas 3.0 500
139 United States —Texas Thompson oil 500 500
140 United States —Texas Webster oil 605 605
141 United States —Texas West Ranch oil 378 1.0 545
142 Colombia Cano Limon oil 1066 1066
143 Colombia Chuchupa (Abilena, Riohacha) gas 3.5 583
144 Colombia Cupiagua oil 487 1.4 728
145 Colombia Cusiana oil 1445 3.1 1961
146 Colombia Infantas – La Cira oil 500 500
APPENDIX A

68 / Mann et al.
NUMERIC LISTING OF GIANT OIL AND GAS FIELDS (cont.)

Ultimate Ultimate
Ultimate Ultimate recovery recovery
recovery recovery condensate equivalent
Field Location Field name Oil or gas oil (MMBO) gas (tcf ) (MMBO) (MMBOE)
147 Colombia Opon gas 4.0 667
148 Colombia Volcanera gas 5.0 250 1083
149 Ecuador Sacha oil 650 650
150 Ecuador Shushufindi-Aguarico oil 586 0.3 644
151 Peru La Brea (Parinas, Talara) oil 1000 15.0 3500
152 Trinidad and Tobago Fyzabad Group oil 510 510
(Coora, Palo Seco, Quarry)
153 Trinidad and Tobago KK 4-2 (Poinsettia) gas 3.0 500
154 Trinidad and Tobago Red Mango (Columbus Basin) gas 3.0 90 590
155 Trinidad and Tobago Soldado Main oil 500 500
156 Venezuela Bachaquero oil 8989 8989
(Bolı́var Coastal Complex)
157 Venezuela Boscan oil 1565 1565
158 Venezuela Cabinas oil 500 500
(Bolı́var Coastal Complex)
159 Venezuela Carito gas 3987 10.9 5808
160 Venezuela Centro oil 1000 1000
161 Venezuela Cerro Negro Area oil 512 0.1 521
162 Venezuela Dación oil 660 660
163 Venezuela Furrial-Musipán gas 2738 4.8 3542
164 Venezuela Guara East oil 630 630
165 Venezuela Hamaca Area oil 5408 0.0 5408
166 Venezuela La Paz oil 900 900
167 Venezuela Lago oil 632 632
168 Venezuela Lagunillas oil 6393 6393
(Bolı́var Coastal Complex)
169 Venezuela Lama (Bolı́var Coastal Complex) oil 710 710
170 Venezuela Lamar oil 1500 1500
171 Venezuela Mara oil 1500 1500
172 Venezuela Mata (Pirital, Jusepı́n, Mulata, gas 250 2.0 583
Muri, Tacat)
173 Venezuela Mejillones gas 3.0 500
174 Venezuela Mene Grande oil 700 700
175 Venezuela Nipa oil 580 580
176 Venezuela Oficina (Frı́a, Guico) oil 960 960
177 Venezuela Patao gas 10.0 1667
178 Venezuela Quiriquire gas 335 3.0 828
179 Venezuela Santa Bárbara gas 692 10.1 2378
APPENDIX A
NUMERIC LISTING OF GIANT OIL AND GAS FIELDS (cont.)

Ultimate Ultimate
Ultimate Ultimate recovery recovery
recovery recovery condensate equivalent
Field Location Field name Oil or gas oil (MMBO) gas (tcf ) (MMBO) (MMBOE)

180 Venezuela Santa Rosa gas 291 1.5 545

181 Venezuela Tı́a Juana (Bolı́var Coastal Complex) oil 13,390 13,390
182 Venezuela Urdaneta oil 1000 1000
183 Venezuela Yucal-Placer gas 4.4 726
184 Peru Pagoreni 1X (75-29-1X) gas 4.0 180 667
(Camisea Area)
185 Argentina Ara –Canadon Alfa gas 116 2.5 533
186 Argentina Carina gas 3.0 500
187 Argentina Comodoro Rivadavia oil 3244 3244
188 Argentina Loma de la Lata gas 8.7 208 1658
189 Argentina Ramos gas 3.0 54 500
190 Argentina San Pedrito gas 5.0 235 1068
191 Bolivia Itau and San Alberto gas 2493 14.0 160 4987
192 Bolivia Margarita gas 1216 6.5 141 2432
193 Peru Cashiriari (Camisea Area) gas 8.0 495 1828

Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 69

194 Peru San Martı́n (Camisea Area) gas 3.3 215 765
195 Brazil Jubarte (block BC-60) oil 600 600
196 Brazil 1-RJS-539 oil 650 650
197 Brazil Albacora oil 676 0.4 750
198 Brazil Albacora East oil 700 0.7 818
199 Brazil Barracuda oil 1200 1200
200 Brazil Guaricema gas 4.3 715
201 Brazil Marlim oil 2430 2.2 2800
202 Brazil Marlim Sul oil 1289 1.1 1471
203 Brazil Miranga oil 590 590
204 Brazil Riachuelo gas 6.4 1065
205 Brazil Roncador oil 3200 3200
206 Angola Benguela oil 750 750
207 Angola Block 15 Complex (13 discoveries oil 3500 3500
through 2002)
208 Angola Dalia 1 oil 750 0.2 783
209 Angola Dalia 2 oil 500 0.1 521
210 Angola Girassol oil 838 0.3 880
211 Angola Kuito oil 750 0.4 808
212 Angola Landana oil 500 0.0 500
213 Angola Malongo North and South (Cabinda B) oil 850 850
214 Angola Malongo West oil 800 800
215 Angola Rosa oil 500 0.1 521
 70 / Mann et al.
APPENDIX A
NUMERIC LISTING OF GIANT OIL AND GAS FIELDS (cont.)
Ultimate Ultimate
Ultimate Ultimate recovery recovery
recovery recovery condensate equivalent
Field Location Field name Oil or gas oil (MMBO) gas (tcf ) (MMBO) (MMBOE)
216 Angola Takula oil 2500 2500
217 Congo (Brazzaville) Emeraude Marin oil 500 500
218 Congo (Brazzaville) Loango oil 500 500
219 Congo (Brazzaville) Moho Marine oil 600 600
220 Congo (Brazzaville) N’Kossa Marine oil 500 500
221 Equatorial Guinea Ceiba oil 500 500
222 Gabon Rabi-Kounga oil 1000 1000
223 Ivory Coast Espoir (Jacqueville) oil 1000 1000
224 Nigeria Agbami oil 731 1.0 890
225 Nigeria Amenam-Kpono oil 770 0.0 770
226 Nigeria Apoi North –Funiwa oil 550 550
227 Nigeria Asasa oil 516 516
228 Nigeria Biseni – Samabri East gas 200 3.0 40 740
229 Nigeria Bomu oil 311 1.8 608
230 Nigeria Bonga oil 1171 0.2 1200
231 Nigeria Bonga, Southwest oil 1400 500 1400
232 Nigeria Bosi gas 5.0 833
233 Nigeria Cawthorne Channel oil 439 1.8 731
234 Nigeria Edop oil 742 742
235 Nigeria Erha oil 600 1.5 850
236 Nigeria Forcados Yokri oil 736 1.2 936
237 Nigeria Gbaran gas 180 4.0 28 875
238 Nigeria Ikija 1 (offshore) gas 3.0 500
239 Nigeria Imo River oil 333 1.1 516
240 Nigeria Jones Creek oil 800 800
241 Nigeria Kokori oil 500 500
242 Nigeria Krakama oil 500 500
243 Nigeria Meren gas 362 1.4 595
244 Nigeria Nembe Creek oil 887 887
245 Nigeria Nnwa Doro gas 8.0 1333
246 Nigeria Obagi oil 450 0.6 557
247 Nigeria Odidi gas 193 3.0 693
248 Nigeria Okan gas 386 2.7 836
249 Nigeria Oso oil 691 691
250 Nigeria Soku gas 138 5.4 1034
251 Nigeria Ubit oil 790 1.7 1074
252 Nigeria Ukot oil 600 600
253 Sudan Unity oil 900 900
APPENDIX A
NUMERIC LISTING OF GIANT OIL AND GAS FIELDS (cont.)

Ultimate Ultimate
Ultimate Ultimate recovery recovery
recovery recovery condensate equivalent
Field Location Field name Oil or gas oil (MMBO) gas (tcf ) (MMBO) (MMBOE)

254 Albania Bubulime (Kolonja-Bubullima) gas 5.0 833

255 Albania Divjake gas 3.0 500
256 Algeria Alrar (D-52) gas 4.9 167 982
257 Algeria El Biar oil 500 0.4 567
258 Algeria Gassi Touil oil 500 2.7 948
259 Algeria Hassi Berkine Sud oil 800 0.7 908
260 Algeria Hassi Messaoud gas 3840 7.7 5120
261 Algeria Hassi R’Mel gas 57 100.0 3989 20,716
262 Algeria In Amenas Nord gas 15.0 2500
263 Algeria Ourhoud oil 2000 0.5 30 2113
264 Algeria Rhourde El Baguel oil 688 688
265 Algeria Rhourde Nouss gas 27 6.8 1152
266 Algeria Tin Fouye –Tabankort gas 3.0 500
267 Algeria Zarzaitine gas 116 2.3 506
268 Egypt Amal (Egypt) oil 2500 2500

Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 71

269 Egypt Belayim Land oil 500 500
270 Egypt Belayim Marine oil 804 0.4 878
271 Egypt El Morgan oil 1500 1500
272 Egypt El Temsah gas 1 4.5 951
273 Egypt Ha’py gas 3.0 508
274 Egypt July oil 750 750
275 Egypt October oil 500 500
276 Egypt Ramadan oil 500 500
277 Egypt Scarab-Saffron gas 4.0 667
278 Egypt Simian gas 3.5 583
279 France Lacq gas 8.1 1348
280 France Mellion-Rousse gas 3.5 583
281 Italy Vega East oil 625 625
282 Libya Al Wafa gas 135 2.7 590
283 Libya Amal (Libya) gas 3322 3.5 3906
284 Libya Attahadi gas 10.0 200 1867
285 Libya Augila-Nafoora oil 834 1.5 1084
286 Libya Bahi oil 600 600
287 Libya Beda oil 703 0.2 732
288 Libya Bouri (NC041-B) oil 533 533
289 Libya Bu Attifel (A-100) oil 1444 4.4 127 2311
290 Libya Dahra East – Hofra oil 621 621
291 Libya Defa oil 1097 1097
 72 / Mann et al.
APPENDIX A
NUMERIC LISTING OF GIANT OIL AND GAS FIELDS (cont.)

Ultimate Ultimate
Ultimate Ultimate recovery recovery
recovery recovery condensate equivalent
Field Location Field name Oil or gas oil (MMBO) gas (tcf ) (MMBO) (MMBOE)
292 Libya Elephant oil 700 0.4 758
293 Libya Gialo oil 1087 0.3 1135
294 Libya Hateiba gas 4.8 795
295 Libya Intisar (Idris) ‘‘A’’ oil 1200 1200
296 Libya Intisar (Idris) ‘‘D’’ oil 1500 1500
297 Libya Mabruk oil 500 500
298 Libya Masrab oil 706 0.5 783
299 Libya Messla oil 1004 0.5 1094
300 Libya Nasser (Zelten) oil 515 0.7 0 632
301 Libya Raguba oil 1000 1000
302 Libya Samah oil 500 500
303 Libya Sarir C oil 2922 0.6 3015
304 Libya Sarir L (L-65) oil 1200 1200
305 Libya Waha oil 1400 1400
306 Morocco Meskala gas 5.0 833
307 Spain Serrablo gas 3.5 583
308 Tunisia El Borma oil 640 0.8 772
309 Tunisia Isis oil 1000 1000
310 Tunisia Sidi Abderrahman (Cap Bon) gas 5.5 917
311 Romania Deleni (Soros) gas 3.0 500
312 Romania Moreni – Gura Ocnitei oil 800 800
313 Bahrain Awali (Bahrain Field) gas 900 6.8 62 1300
314 Hungary Algyo gas 200 3.7 815
315 Iran Ab-E-Teimur oil 1735 1735
316 Iran Abouzar (formerly Ardeshir) oil 1600 1600
317 Iran Agha Jari oil 5760 9.9 7408
318 Iran Aghar gas 8.5 77 1493
319 Iran Ahwaz oil 13,350 23.3 17,234
320 Iran Assaluyeh gas 4.0 667
321 Iran Azadegan oil 6000 6000
322 Iran B. Structure gas 50.0 8333
323 Iran Bibi Hakimeh oil 2470 11.5 4395
324 Iran Binak oil 1000 1000
325 Iran Bushgan oil 1000 1000
326 Iran Buzurgan oil 1500 1500
327 Iran Dalan gas 3.0 500
328 Iran Darquain oil 1015 2.4 1412
APPENDIX A
NUMERIC LISTING OF GIANT OIL AND GAS FIELDS (cont.)

Ultimate Ultimate
Ultimate Ultimate recovery recovery
recovery recovery condensate equivalent
Field Location Field name Oil or gas oil (MMBO) gas (tcf ) (MMBO) (MMBOE)

329 Iran Day gas 500 500

330 Iran Dehluran oil 500 500
331 Iran Emam Hassan oil 550 0.3 600
332 Iran Fereidoon oil 10,000 10,000
333 Iran Foroozan oil 1982 1982
334 Iran G3 gas 15.0 750 3250
335 Iran Gachsaran oil 11,800 31.1 16,984
336 Iran Haft Kel oil 2000 2000
337 Iran Homa gas 4.7 57 839
338 Iran Jufeyr oil 500 500
339 Iran Kabir Kuh gas 5.6 933
340 Iran Kangan gas 50.0 8333
341 Iran Karanj gas 949 4.7 1731
342 Iran Kharg Island – Doroud (formerly Darius) oil 1655 7.0 2826
343 Iran Khesht oil 780 780

Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 73

344 Iran Kuh-I-Mand gas 330 10.1 2013
345 Iran Kupal gas 870 6.5 1951
346 Iran Kushk gas 500 500
347 Iran Lab-E-Safid oil 512 2.9 995
348 Iran Maleh Kuh gas 210 4.3 922
349 Iran Mansuri oil 1129 0.7 1249
350 Iran Marun oil 12,631 75.3 25,177
351 Iran Masjid-i-Sulemain oil 1125 0.8 1265
352 Iran Mokhtar 1 gas 3.9 658
353 Iran Naft Safid gas 234 3.8 870
354 Iran Nar gas 14.0 2333
355 Iran Nargesi oil 500 500
356 Iran Nowruz oil 592 0.4 653
357 Iran Paris (Faris) gas 3000 5.0 3825
358 Iran Pars North (Pars) gas 47.0 7833
359 Iran Pars South gas 1300 350.0 17,800 77,433
360 Iran Parsi gas 763 9.1 2284
361 Iran Pazanan gas 228 28.8 5031
362 Iran Qishm-Salag gas 11.3 1875
363 Iran Rag-E-Safid gas 3084 59.9 13,069
364 Iran Rostam oil 1000 1000
365 Iran Rudak-Milatun oil 1000 1.0 1167
 74 / Mann et al.
APPENDIX A
NUMERIC LISTING OF GIANT OIL AND GAS FIELDS (cont.)

Ultimate Ultimate
Ultimate Ultimate recovery recovery
recovery recovery condensate equivalent
Field Location Field name Oil or gas oil (MMBO) gas (tcf ) (MMBO) (MMBOE)
366 Iran Salman gas 572 6.4 1638
367 Iran Sarhun gas 7.0 1167
368 Iran Sarkhan gas 6.0 150 1157
369 Iran Sarvestan oil 500 500
370 Iran Sassan oil 1900 1900
371 Iran Shakeh oil 550 550
372 Iran Shanul gas 5.9 75 1058
373 Iran Sirri D oil 750 750
374 Iran Soroosh oil 2414 0.5 2497
375 Iran Tabnak gas 240 15.7 2858
376 Iran Zeloi oil 500 500
377 Iraq Abu Ghirab oil 638 638
378 Iraq Ahdab oil 500 0.1 517
379 Iraq Akkas gas 100 2.5 517
380 Iraq Baghdad, East oil 2000 2000
381 Iraq Baghdad, West oil 1000 0.1 1023
382 Iraq Bai Hassan oil 1882 1882
383 Iraq Gharraf oil 500 500
384 Iraq Halfayah oil 700 0.7 817
385 Iraq Hamrin oil 580 0.8 713
386 Iraq Jabal Fauqui (Fakkeh) oil 1000 1000
387 Iraq Jambur oil 2629 2629
388 Iraq Khabbaz oil 500 500
389 Iraq Kirkuk oil 17,000 17,000
390 Iraq Luhais oil 500 500
391 Iraq Majnoon oil 12,000 11.0 13,833
392 Iraq Mansuriyah gas 50 3.3 600
393 Iraq Nahr Umr oil 1000 1000
394 Iraq Nasiryah oil 500 500
395 Iraq Noor oil 500 500
396 Iraq Rachi oil 870 870
397 Iraq Ratawi oil 1400 0.7 1517
398 Iraq Rumaila North and South oil 22,000 22,000
399 Iraq Saddam oil 500 1.0 667
400 Iraq Safwan oil 500 0.4 558
401 Iraq Subba oil 770 770
402 Iraq Tuba oil 500 0.4 558
APPENDIX A
NUMERIC LISTING OF GIANT OIL AND GAS FIELDS (cont.)

Ultimate Ultimate
Ultimate Ultimate recovery recovery
recovery recovery condensate equivalent
Field Location Field name Oil or gas oil (MMBO) gas (tcf ) (MMBO) (MMBOE)

403 Iraq West Qurna oil 4885 4885

404 Iraq Zubair oil 6731 6731
405 Kuwait Abdalli oil 400 0.8 525
406 Kuwait Bahrah oil 1400 1400
407 Kuwait Greater Burgan oil 31,795 42.8 38,924
408 Kuwait Khashman oil 520 0.3 562
409 Kuwait Minagish oil 3162 1.4 3394
410 Kuwait Ratgar oil 1000 1000
411 Kuwait Raudhatain oil 7193 6.7 8318
412 Kuwait Sabriya oil 4626 5.3 5510
413 Kuwait Umm Gudair oil 2880 0.5 2962
414 Neutral Zone Dorra gas 400 7.0 1567
415 Neutral Zone Hout oil 541 1.7 832
416 Neutral Zone Khafji oil 8646 1.0 8815
417 Neutral Zone Wafra oil 1667 1.2 1867

Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 75

418 Oman Barik gas 3.0 500
419 Oman Fahud oil 900 900
420 Oman Khazzan gas 3.0 500
421 Oman Lekhwair oil 650 650
422 Oman Marmul oil 700 700
423 Oman Natih oil 1000 1000
424 Oman Nimr oil 500 500
425 Oman Saih Nihayda gas 77 3.2 604
426 Oman Saih Rawl gas 422 9.5 2007
427 Oman Yibal (Shuaiba) oil 1297 4.5 33 2081
428 Qatar Bul Hanine gas 296 4.7 1075
429 Qatar Dukhan oil 1598 9.0 3100
430 Qatar Idd El Shargi North Dome oil 610 3.2 1144
431 Qatar Maydan (Mahzam) gas 339 2.3 725
432 Qatar North Field gas 900.0 10,673 160,673
433 Qatar Northwest Dome gas 80.0 13,333
434 Saudi Arabia Abqaiq oil 10,265 14.2 12,632
435 Saudi Arabia Abu Hadriya oil 1210 0.3 1262
436 Saudi Arabia Abu Jifan oil 560 560
437 Saudi Arabia Abu Sa’fah oil 7554 7.1 8731
438 Saudi Arabia Abu Shaddad oil 450 1.0 617
439 Saudi Arabia Barqan gas 250 3.5 833
 76 / Mann et al.
APPENDIX A
NUMERIC LISTING OF GIANT OIL AND GAS FIELDS (cont.)

Ultimate Ultimate
Ultimate Ultimate recovery recovery
recovery recovery condensate equivalent
Field Location Field name Oil or gas oil (MMBO) gas (tcf ) (MMBO) (MMBOE)
440 Saudi Arabia Berri oil 9138 12.2 11,177
441 Saudi Arabia Dammam oil 912 2.4 1306
442 Saudi Arabia Dhib oil 1500 0.4 1567
443 Saudi Arabia Dibdibah oil 700 0.2 733
444 Saudi Arabia Dilam gas 400 5.0 150 1383
445 Saudi Arabia Fadhili oil 619 0.5 705
446 Saudi Arabia Farhah oil 600 0.1 623
447 Saudi Arabia Ghawar oil 66,058 186.2 97,099
448 Saudi Arabia Habari oil 700 700
449 Saudi Arabia Hamd oil 700 0.4 767
450 Saudi Arabia Hamur oil 1000 0.3 1050
451 Saudi Arabia Harmaliyah oil 1812 2.4 2206
452 Saudi Arabia Harqus oil 1000 1000
453 Saudi Arabia Hasbah oil 1800 0.5 1883
454 Saudi Arabia Hawtah oil 1969 1969
455 Saudi Arabia Hazmiyah oil 500 1.5 750
456 Saudi Arabia Jaladi oil 1800 1.0 1967
457 Saudi Arabia Jana oil 500 500
458 Saudi Arabia Jauf oil 600 0.2 625
459 Saudi Arabia Jawb oil 750 0.3 800
460 Saudi Arabia Jurayd oil 700 700
461 Saudi Arabia Karan oil 750 750
462 Saudi Arabia Khurais oil 8481 3.0 8988
463 Saudi Arabia Khursaniyah oil 3136 4.2 3832
464 Saudi Arabia Lawhah oil 1200 0.5 1283
465 Saudi Arabia Lughfah oil 1000 0.3 1050
466 Saudi Arabia Maghrib oil 600 0.5 683
467 Saudi Arabia Maharah oil 1100 0.5 1183
468 Saudi Arabia Manifa oil 16,820 4.8 17,613
469 Saudi Arabia Marjan oil 3256 1.5 3503
470 Saudi Arabia Mazalij oil 675 675
471 Saudi Arabia Qatif oil 7206 16.5 9957
472 Saudi Arabia Qubqub oil 750 0.6 850
473 Saudi Arabia Raghib oil 500 0.5 20 603
474 Saudi Arabia Rimthan oil 700 0.6 792
475 Saudi Arabia Sadawi oil 700 0.5 783
476 Saudi Arabia Safaniya oil 21,145 3.9 21,799
APPENDIX A
NUMERIC LISTING OF GIANT OIL AND GAS FIELDS (cont.)

Ultimate Ultimate
Ultimate Ultimate recovery recovery
recovery recovery condensate equivalent
Field Location Field name Oil or gas oil (MMBO) gas (tcf ) (MMBO) (MMBOE)
477 Saudi Arabia Sahba oil 500 0.5 583
478 Saudi Arabia Samin oil 750 0.0 750
479 Saudi Arabia Sharar oil 2000 0.7 2117
480 Saudi Arabia Shaybah (Zarrarah) oil 1000 1000
481 Saudi Arabia Suban oil 900 0.6 1000
482 Saudi Arabia Suhul gas 3.0 200 700
483 Saudi Arabia Takhman oil 653 653
484 Saudi Arabia Tinat gas 300 3.3 50 892
485 Saudi Arabia Wadayhi gas 3.0 350 850
486 Saudi Arabia Wari’ah oil 750 0.4 817
487 Saudi Arabia Zuluf oil 12,237 5.2 13,097
488 Syria Suwaidiyah (Souedie) oil 708 0.3 3 753
489 Turkmenistan Shatlyk (Sheketli, Shekhitli) gas 13.5 2255
490 UAE — Abu Dhabi Abu Al Bukhoosh (Abu Koosh) gas 197 5.0 1027

Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 77

491 UAE — Abu Dhabi Al Dabb’iya oil 500 500
492 UAE — Abu Dhabi Asab (with Asab, replaces Abu Jidu) oil 4249 15.4 6823
493 UAE — Abu Dhabi Bab (Murban Bab) oil 10,276 29.3 15,155
494 UAE — Abu Dhabi Bu Tini oil 1000 1000
495 UAE — Abu Dhabi Ghasha oil 1990 5.0 70 2900
496 UAE — Abu Dhabi Mender oil 516 0.1 533
497 UAE — Abu Dhabi Mubarrax oil 2000 2000
498 UAE — Abu Dhabi Murban Bu Hasa (Bu Hasa) oil 6519 8.3 7908
499 UAE — Abu Dhabi Nasr oil 1280 5.0 2113
500 UAE — Abu Dhabi Qusahwira oil 700 700
501 UAE — Abu Dhabi Saath Al Raaz Boot oil 900 5.5 65 1882
502 UAE — Abu Dhabi Sahil oil 1113 1.0 1276
503 UAE — Abu Dhabi Satah gas 200 3.4 762
504 UAE — Abu Dhabi Shah (with Asab, replaces Abu Jidu) oil 774 774
505 UAE — Abu Dhabi Umm Al-Dalkh oil 767 0.2 800
506 UAE — Abu Dhabi Umm Shaif oil 3866 30.7 8975
507 UAE — Abu Dhabi Zakum oil 17,223 12.4 19,283
508 UAE — Abu Dhabi Zarrarah oil 1200 1.8 1500
509 UAE — Dubai Fateh oil 1100 1100
510 UAE — Dubai Fateh Southwest oil 1142 1142
511 UAE — Dubai Margham gas 2.7 234 681
512 UAE — Sharjah Sajaa gas 3.3 246 799
 78 / Mann et al.
APPENDIX A
NUMERIC LISTING OF GIANT OIL AND GAS FIELDS (cont.)
Ultimate Ultimate
Ultimate Ultimate recovery recovery
recovery recovery condensate equivalent
Field Location Field name Oil or gas oil (MMBO) gas (tcf ) (MMBO) (MMBOE)

513 Yemen Alif oil 900 900

514 Yemen Masila Complex oil 900 900
515 Yemen Yah gas 5.0 833
516 Azerbaijan Azeri oil 1250 0.2 1285
517 Azerbaijan Bakhar gas 3.5 583
518 Azerbaijan Balakhany Sabunchino (Ramany) oil 2400 2400
519 Azerbaijan Bibieibatskoye (Bibi Eybat) oil 2000 2000
520 Azerbaijan Gunesli oil 671 0.5 762
521 Azerbaijan Karachukhur-Zykh oil 600 600
522 Azerbaijan Peschanyy More oil 600 600
523 Azerbaijan Sangachali Duvanyy (Baku Archipelago) gas 286 2.0 19 632
524 Azerbaijan Surakhanskoye oil 900 900
525 Azerbaijan Shah Deniz gas 24.7 700 4817
526 Iran Khangiran gas 12.3 2042
527 Iran Saradjeh (Sarajeh) gas 5.0 833
528 Turkmenistan Achak gas 5.6 932
529 Turkmenistan Bagadzhin gas 9.5 1583
530 Turkmenistan Barsa-Gelmez oil 306 1.7 26 608
531 Turkmenistan Bayrmalinskoye gas 3.1 515
532 Turkmenistan Burun oil 537 0.5 10 627
533 Turkmenistan Cheleken oil 640 640
534 Turkmenistan Dauletabad (Dovletabad-Donmez) gas 27.9 74 4717
535 Turkmenistan Goturdepe oil 537 0.5 10 627
536 Turkmenistan Gugurti gas 4.0 667
537 Turkmenistan Kirpichlin gas 8.6 1432
538 Turkmenistan Korpedzhe gas 115 5.3 28 1029
539 Turkmenistan Kotur-Tepe (Leninskoye) oil 1460 1.5 1710
540 Turkmenistan Naipskoye gas 8.0 1333
541 Turkmenistan Odzhak gas 3.0 500
542 Uzbekistan Gazli (Gazlinskoye) gas 27 16.6 7 2801
543 Uzbekistan Kandymskoye (Khadzhiy) gas 5.2 31 904
544 Uzbekistan Uchkyrskoye gas 3.0 500
545 Bangladesh Feni gas 0 3.3 548
546 India Ankleshwar oil 520 520
547 India Bassein gas 7.0 199 1363
548 India Bassein, North oil 550 550
549 India Bombay High oil 1300 0.8 1432
APPENDIX A
NUMERIC LISTING OF GIANT OIL AND GAS FIELDS (cont.)
Ultimate Ultimate
Ultimate Ultimate recovery recovery
recovery recovery condensate equivalent
Field Location Field name Oil or gas oil (MMBO) gas (tcf ) (MMBO) (MMBOE)
550 India Dhirubhai (KG-DWN-98/2 block) gas 5.0 833
551 India Lakwa oil 500 500
552 India Moran gas 43 48.0 8043
553 India Nahorkatiya oil 500 500
554 Pakistan Mari gas 8.2 1362
555 Pakistan Qadirpur gas 4.0 6 669
556 Pakistan Sui gas 11.2 1873
557 Pakistan Uch gas 4.1 675
558 Pakistan Zargun South (Zarghun South) gas 3.0 500
559 Austria Matzen oil 475 0.6 582
560 Germany Salzwedel (Wustrow) gas 3.5 583
561 Italy Malossa gas 1.8 325 618
562 Netherlands Bergen gas 3.5 583
563 Netherlands Groningen gas 43.0 11 7178
564 Netherlands Placid gas 3.5 583

Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 79

565 Norway 7121/04-01 (Snoehvit) gas 42 3.9 80 772
566 Norway Albuskjell oil 172 2.4 570
567 Norway Block 30/3 oil 500 500
568 Norway Draugen oil 2000 0.2 2028
569 Norway Edda gas 68 6.0 1068
570 Norway Ekofisk oil 3800 3.9 4452
571 Norway Ekofisk West oil 390 2.2 755
572 Norway Eldkfisk oil 502 3.0 1002
573 Norway Grane oil 603 0.1 620
574 Norway Heidrun oil 1156 0.7 1450
575 Norway Kristin gas 269 1.4 502
576 Norway Lavrans gas 190 2.6 619
577 Norway Midgard gas 8 4.0 110 785
578 Norway Norne oil 569 0.5 8 664
579 Norway Ormen Lange gas 0 11.0 0 1833
580 Norway Oseberg oil 5800 1.2 59 6056
581 Norway Skarv-Idun oil 350 1.0 517
582 Norway Sleipner gas 6.14 470 1493
583 Norway Smoerbukk (Smorbukk) gas 3.7 500 562
584 Norway Snorre oil 1900 0.3 44 1997
585 Norway Statfjord oil 9000 2.0 102 9430
586 Norway Troll gas 1226 22.8 93 5118
 80 / Mann et al.
APPENDIX A
NUMERIC LISTING OF GIANT OIL AND GAS FIELDS (cont.)

Ultimate Ultimate
Ultimate Ultimate recovery recovery
recovery recovery condensate equivalent
Field Location Field name Oil or gas oil (MMBO) gas (tcf ) (MMBO) (MMBOE)
587 Norway Valhall oil 832 1.09 0 1014
588 Norway and United Kingdom Frigg gas 4.2 697
589 United Kingdom Audrey gas 3.0 500
590 United Kingdom Beryl A oil 500 500
591 United Kingdom Block 16/26 gas 200 3.0 700
592 United Kingdom Brent oil 243 2.1 599
593 United Kingdom Britannia gas 3.0 161 669
594 United Kingdom Bruce gas 148 2.2 510
595 United Kingdom Buzzard oil 500 500
596 United Kingdom Clair oil 600 600
597 United Kingdom Claymore oil 500 500
598 United Kingdom Cormorant oil 500 500
599 United Kingdom Forties oil 2000 2000
600 United Kingdom Fulmar oil 500 500
601 United Kingdom Hewett gas 3.5 583
602 United Kingdom Indefatigable gas 6 4.4 731
603 United Kingdom Leman gas 10 11.0 1843
604 United Kingdom Magnus oil 565 565
605 United Kingdom Morecambe gas 5.0 833
606 United Kingdom Ninian oil 1100 1100
607 United Kingdom Piper oil 837 837
608 United Kingdom Thistle oil 510 510
609 United Kingdom West Sole gas 3.0 500
610 Norway Gullfaks (Statvik) oil 5300 0.7 15 5438
611 Russia Ledovoye (Barents) gas 3.1 7 530
612 Russia Ludlov gas 8.1 1353
613 Russia Shtokman gas 60.0 100 10,100
614 Russia Khar’yaga oil 1078 1078
615 Russia Kumzha (Kumzhinskoye) gas 3.2 28 566
616 Russia Layavozh gas 62 4.4 56 857
617 Russia Usa (Usanovskoye) oil 598 598
618 Russia Usinskoye oil 3100 3100
619 Russia Vozey oil 1000 1000
620 Russia Yuzhno Khilchuyu oil 500 500
(Khylchuyuskoye Yuzhnoye)
621 Iran Tang-i-bijar gas 3.4 565
622 Kazakhstan Bozashchy Severnyy oil 540 540
APPENDIX A
NUMERIC LISTING OF GIANT OIL AND GAS FIELDS (cont.)

Ultimate Ultimate
Ultimate Ultimate recovery recovery
recovery recovery condensate equivalent
Field Location Field name Oil or gas oil (MMBO) gas (tcf ) (MMBO) (MMBOE)
623 Kazakhstan Kalamkas oil 760 0.8 899
624 Kazakhstan Karazhanbas oil 597 597
625 Kazakhstan Kashagan oil 13,000 13,000
626 Kazakhstan Tengiz oil 5829 11.9 7812
627 Russia Anastasiyevsko (Troitskoye) oil 509 2.2 6 876
628 Russia Astrakhan’ gas 89.6 4689 19,629
629 Russia Korobki gas 150 3.0 650
630 Russia Malgobek Voznesenskoye oil 635 635
(Aliyurt, Alkhazovo, Gorskoye)
631 Russia Maykop gas 3.2 610
632 Russia Oktyabr’skoye oil 520 520
633 Russia Ozeksuatskoye oil 500 500
634 Russia Serafimovka oil 500 500
635 Russia Severo Stavropol (Pelagiada) gas 8.0 1333
636 Russia Shebelinka gas 18.6 3098

Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 81

637 Russia Sosnino (Sovetskoye, Medvedev) oil 4200 4200
638 Russia Starogroznyy oil 650 650
639 Russia Tul’skiy gas 70 3.2 602
640 Ukraine Glynsko-Rozbyshev gas 310 2.0 643
641 Ukraine Pryluky (Prilukskoye, Dnepr) oil 588 588
642 Ukraine Yefremovka gas 4.6 765
643 Ukraine Zapadno Krestishchenskoy gas 8.1 1348
644 Azerbaijan Neft Dashlary and Neftyanyye Kamni oil 1200 1200
645 Kazakhstan Rakushechnoye gas 4.3 717
646 Kazakhstan Uzen’ oil 1658 0.6 1758
647 Kazakhstan Zhetybay oil 650 0.8 784
648 Kazakhstan Karachaganak gas 49.2 5001 13,199
649 Kazakhstan Zhanazhol oil 772 4.4 212 1723
650 Russia Bavly oil 500 500
651 Russia Dmitriyevskoye (Samara) oil 500 500
652 Russia Kuleshovka oil 759 759
653 Russia Mukhanovo oil 1530 1530
654 Russia Novo Elkhov (Novoyelkhov-Aktash) oil 1300 672
655 Russia Orenburg (Krasnyy Kholm, gas 700 62.8 11,165
Krasnoyarskoye)
656 Russia Shkapovo oil 1251 1251
657 Russia Tolbazy oil 565 565
 82 / Mann et al.
APPENDIX A
NUMERIC LISTING OF GIANT OIL AND GAS FIELDS (cont.)

Ultimate Ultimate
Ultimate Ultimate recovery recovery
recovery recovery condensate equivalent
Field Location Field name Oil or gas oil (MMBO) gas (tcf ) (MMBO) (MMBOE)
658 Russia Tuyrnazy oil 1000 1000
659 Afghanistan Shibarghan gas 3.6 615
660 Turkmenistan Beurdeshik (Buyerdeshik) gas 3.0 500
661 Uzbekistan Alan gas 5.9 987
662 Uzbekistan Dengizkul-Khauzak-Shady gas 3.5 14 597
663 Uzbekistan Kokdumalak gas 250 1.5 500
664 Uzbekistan Samantepe gas 3.5 583
665 Uzbekistan Shurtan (Uzbekistan) gas 15.3 2546
666 Uzbekistan Urtabalak gas 3.6 598
667 Uzbekistan Zevardy gas 4.6 57 831
668 Russia Arlan oil 894 0.1 913
669 Russia Chutyr-Kiyengop (Kiengopsko-Chutyr) oil 542 542
670 Russia Mancharovo oil 500 500
671 Russia Mazunin gas 13.5 2250
672 Russia Pavlovskoye (Perm) oil 500 500
673 Russia Romashkino oil 2324 0.5 2408
674 Russia Vuktyl gas 28 3.3 163 743
675 Russia Yarega oil 779 779
676 Russia Yarino –Kamemmyy Log oil 510 510
677 Russia Kyrtaiol’skoye gas 55.0 9167
678 Russia Agan oil 500 0.2 529
679 Russia Antipayuta gas 5.0 833
680 Russia Arkticheskoye gas 300 63.0 10,800
681 Russia Ayvasedapur oil 1070 2.5 1480
682 Russia Beregovoye (Tyumen) gas 26 9.0 27 1553
683 Russia Bol’shoy Kruzenshtern gas 12.4 2073
684 Russia Bolshoye Chernogor oil 800 800
685 Russia Bovanenko gas 76.4 12,725
686 Russia Bystrina oil 574 1.2 5 786
687 Russia Druzhnoye oil 741 0.1 757
688 Russia Fedorovsko-Surgut oil 1918 8.8 53 3444
689 Russia Gubkin gas 12.5 2083
690 Russia Gyda (Gydan) gas 0 5.1 6 855
691 Russia Kazanskoye gas 75 3.5 658
692 Russia Khalmerpayuta gas 5.3 78 961
693 Russia Khanchey (Khangey) gas 16 3.9 112 772
694 Russia Kharampur gas 739 13.3 2954
APPENDIX A
NUMERIC LISTING OF GIANT OIL AND GAS FIELDS (cont.)

Ultimate Ultimate
Ultimate Ultimate recovery recovery
recovery recovery condensate equivalent
Field Location Field name Oil or gas oil (MMBO) gas (tcf ) (MMBO) (MMBOE)
695 Russia Kharasavey gas 25.7 13 4293
696 Russia Kharvutin gas 4.0 667
697 Russia Kholmogor oil 500 500
698 Russia Komsomol’ gas 16.0 2667
699 Russia Komsomol’sk (Tyumen) oil 1092 1.3 1308
700 Russia Komsomol’sk Severnyy (Severo Komsomol) oil 950 4.8 20 1770
701 Russia Krasnoleninsk oil 6839 3.9 7490
702 Russia Leningrad (Kara) gas 55.0 7 9174
703 Russia Lokosovo oil 566 0.1 590
704 Russia Luginets gas 198 3.0 691
705 Russia Lyantor oil 1938 7.2 3134
706 Russia Malo-Balyk oil 1176 0.5 1261
707 Russia Malygin gas 15.0 2499
708 Russia Mamontovo oil 1750 1750
709 Russia Medvezh’ye gas 29.6 4940

Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 83

710 Russia Megion oil 885 885
711 Russia Messoyakha gas 14.0 2333
712 Russia Muravlenko gas 817 5.6 1744
713 Russia Myl’dzhino gas 23 3.1 66 612
714 Russia Nakhodka gas 26 4.8 826
715 Russia Neytin gas 4.0 667
716 Russia Novyy Port (Novoportovskoye) gas 700 3.5 1288
717 Russia Nurma gas 3 6.3 38 1090
718 Russia Nyda gas 3.5 583
719 Russia Palyanovo gas 6.5 1083
720 Russia Pelyata gas 6.5 1083
721 Russia Pogranichnoye (Tyumen) oil 755 0.1 770
722 Russia Pokachev oil 800 800
723 Russia Povkhov oil 1108 0.5 1184
724 Russia Pravdinsk-Salym oil 9104 2.9 9582
725 Russia Priob’ye oil 5474 1.6 5747
726 Russia Punga (Punginskoye) gas 3.5 10 585
727 Russia Rusanov (Kara) gas 26.7 41 4491
728 Russia Russkoye oil 2990 1.6 3260
729 Russia Russkoye Yuzhnoye gas 7 23.4 3905
730 Russia Salym Zapadnyy oil 612 0.1 627
731 Russia Samotlor oil 5648 5.2 102 6619
 84 / Mann et al.
APPENDIX A
NUMERIC LISTING OF GIANT OIL AND GAS FIELDS (cont.)

Ultimate Ultimate
Ultimate Ultimate recovery recovery
recovery recovery condensate equivalent
Field Location Field name Oil or gas oil (MMBO) gas (tcf ) (MMBO) (MMBOE)
732 Russia Semakovskoye gas 19.0 3167
733 Russia Severo Urengoy gas 35.0 5833
734 Russia Soleninskoye Yuzhno gas 3.5 583
735 Russia Sredneyamal’skoye gas 7.5 1250
736 Russia Sugmut oil 600 0.2 638
737 Russia Sutormin oil 903 0.1 919
738 Russia Tagra oil 610 0.4 672
739 Russia Tambey Severnyy gas 24.0 120 4120
740 Russia Tarko –Sale Vostochnoye gas 15.0 2496
741 Russia Tasiyskoye gas 12.4 134 2201
742 Russia Taylakovo oil 1290 0.1 1302
743 Russia Taz (Tazovskoye) gas 3.1 509
744 Russia Tevlin-Konitlor oil 3311 1.1 3489
745 Russia Totayakha gas 3.0 507
746 Russia Tyan oil 1726 0.4 1785
747 Russia Urengoy (Vostochno Urengoy) gas 1200 335.4 1500 58,607
748 Russia Urengoy Vostochnyy gas 32.4 5400
749 Russia Ust’-Bakykskoye (Balyk, Ust Balyk) oil 2300 2300
750 Russia Vachim oil 700 0.3 752
751 Russia Van’yegan oil 1460 3.6 2058
752 Russia Var’yegan oil 611 2.5 16 1041
753 Russia Var’yegan Severnyy oil 545 0.5 633
754 Russia Vat’yegan oil 1994 0.3 2051
755 Russia Vengayakha gas 532 3.6 1139
756 Russia Verkhne-Kolik’yegan oil 1008 4.2 1712
757 Russia Verkhnepurpey gas 3.5 583
758 Russia Vyngapur gas 226 5.1 1072
759 Russia Yagun Yuzhnyy oil 1329 0.4 1396
760 Russia Yamburg gas 153.8 537 26,177
761 Russia Yamsovey gas 24.0 4000
762 Russia Yaroyakha (Yaroyakhskoye) gas 287 4.2 200 1178
763 Russia Yermakovo oil 909 0.1 933
764 Russia Yetypur gas 70 6.2 1102
765 Russia Yubileynoye (Tyumen) gas 14.9 10 2493
766 Russia Yurkharovo gas 6 9.0 96 1602
767 Russia Yuzhno Cheremshankskoye oil 1440 1440
(Sorgut, Cheremshanskoye Yuzhnoye)
APPENDIX A
NUMERIC LISTING OF GIANT OIL AND GAS FIELDS (cont.)

Ultimate Ultimate
Ultimate Ultimate recovery recovery
recovery recovery condensate equivalent
Field Location Field name Oil or gas oil (MMBO) gas (tcf ) (MMBO) (MMBOE)
768 Russia Yuzhno-Samburg gas 10.5 1750
769 Russia Yuzhno-Tambey gas 3.5 583
770 Russia Zapadno Surgutskoye (Surgut) oil 2000 2000
771 Russia Zapadno-Tarkosalin gas 3.5 583
772 Russia Zapolyarnoye gas 320 121.0 706 21,193
773 Russia Chayanda gas 725 5.6 17 1678
774 Russia Kovykta gas 6.6 43 1143
775 Russia Maastakh (Mastakhskoye) gas 6.4 1065
776 Russia Soba (Sobinskoye) gas 20 4.5 60 830
777 Russia Sredne Botnobin (Botnobin) gas 149 17.3 3031
778 Russia Sredne Botuoba gas 400 4.9 23 1243
779 Russia Sredne Vilyuy (Vilyuyskoye) gas 6.8 119 1252
780 Russia Srednetyung gas 3.1 33 550
781 Russia Talakan oil 568 1.0 4 731
782 Russia Taxs-Yur’yash gas 15 3.5 6 609

Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 85

783 Russia Verkhne Vilyuchanskoye gas 260 10.5 2010
784 Russia Verkhne-Chona oil 1244 1.5 11 1505
785 Russia Yurubcheno-Tokhomo gas 427 3.2 60 1022
786 China Dagang Complex oil 500 500
787 China Daqing Complex (Taking [Taching]) oil 1250 1250
788 China Daqing Complex, Saertu oil 2441 2441
789 China Daqing Complex, Xingshugang oil 1104 1104
790 China Haituozi oil 500 500
791 China Jingbian-Hengshan gas 3.0 500
792 China Karamay Complex oil 5027 1.4 5266
793 China Kela gas 3.9 651
794 China Laochunmiao (Ya-her-hsia, Yumen) oil 500 500
795 China Leng-hu oil 1100 1100
796 China Liaohe Complex oil 500 500
(Shuguang, Huanxiling, Shenyang)
797 China Peng Lai oil 500 0.1 517
798 China Renqiu oil 2000 2000
799 China Shengli Complex, Gudao oil 779 2.0 1105
800 China Shengli Complex, Gudong oil 400 0.7 514
801 China Shengli Complex, Shengtuo oil 1079 0.6 1177
802 China Tazhong gas 135 3.0 135 770
803 China Huangkuanshan gas 5.0 833
 86 / Mann et al.
APPENDIX A
NUMERIC LISTING OF GIANT OIL AND GAS FIELDS (cont.)

Ultimate Ultimate
Ultimate Ultimate recovery recovery
recovery recovery condensate equivalent
Field Location Field name Oil or gas oil (MMBO) gas (tcf ) (MMBO) (MMBOE)
804 China Jinghan (Chien Chiang) oil 500 500
805 China Lung-nu-ssu oil 606 606
806 China Shiyoukou-Tungchi gas 7.8 1300
807 China Zhongyuan oil 733 733
808 China Chunxiao gas 20 3.0 65 585
809 Russia Chayvo, Odoptu and Arkutun-Dagi gas 2300 17.1 5150
810 Russia Lun gas 20 10.0 1683
811 Brunei Ampa Southwest gas 125 7.0 1292
812 Brunei Champion gas 389 2.1 744
813 Brunei Seria oil 1730 2.0 2063
814 China Dongfang gas 3.5 590
815 China Yacheng gas 3.6 1 600
816 Indonesia Ardjuna B oil 600 0.6 698
817 Indonesia Arun gas 13.7 2282
818 Indonesia Attaka oil 1000 1000
819 Indonesia Badak gas 4 2.7 93 548
820 Indonesia Bangko oil 500 500
821 Indonesia Duri oil 1691 1691
822 Indonesia Handil oil 800 800
823 Indonesia Kuang oil 600 600
824 Indonesia Minas gas 1324 18.0 4324
825 Indonesia Natuna gas 45.0 7500
826 Indonesia Nilam (Kalimantan) gas 5 3.1 83 610
827 Indonesia Peciko gas 6.0 180 1180
828 Indonesia Sumpal gas 4.6 767
829 Indonesia Tunu gas 20.7 924 4379
830 Indonesia West Seno Complex oil 320 1.4 553
831 Malaysia Central Luconia E-11 gas 3.0 500
832 Malaysia Central Luconia F-06 gas 3.4 565
833 Malaysia Central Luconia F-23 gas 3.0 500
834 Malaysia Guntong oil 500 500
835 Malaysia Jintan gas 3.0 75 575
836 Malaysia K05 1 gas 5.0 833
837 Malaysia Seligi oil 500 500
838 Myanmar Yadana gas 5.0 833
839 Myanmar Yetagun gas 50 3.2 583
840 Philippines Malampaya gas 75 3.5 123 781
APPENDIX A
NUMERIC LISTING OF GIANT OIL AND GAS FIELDS (cont.)

Ultimate Ultimate
Ultimate Ultimate recovery recovery
recovery recovery condensate equivalent
Field Location Field name Oil or gas oil (MMBO) gas (tcf ) (MMBO) (MMBOE)
841 Thailand B Structure gas 7.3 1215
842 Thailand Benchamas gas 420 3.0 920
843 Thailand Bongkot gas 4.3 61 769
844 Thailand Satun gas 3.2 532
845 Vietnam Bach Ho (White Tiger) oil 950 1.3 0 1167
846 Indonesia Ubadari gas 3.0 500
847 Indonesia Vorwata gas 11.0 1833
848 Indonesia Wiriagar-Deep gas 6.0 1000
849 Australia Bayu/Undan gas 3.4 400 967
850 Australia Brecknock gas 5.3 57 940
851 Australia Callirhoe gas 3.5 583
852 Australia Chrysaor gas 3.1 40 557
853 Australia Dionysus gas 3.0 0 500
854 Australia Evans Shoal gas 7.7 33 1316
855 Australia Geryon gas 4.0 667

Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 87

856 Australia Gidgealpa gas 5.0 833
857 Australia Goodwyn gas 3.6 231 830
858 Australia Gorgon gas 16.4 197 2923
859 Australia Io gas 3.0 500
860 Australia Jansz gas 3.0 500
861 Australia Moomba gas 5.0 833
862 Australia Orthrus gas 3.0 500
863 Australia Perseus gas 6.5 187 1267
864 Australia Petrel gas 4.0 667
865 Australia Rankin North gas 6.8 76 1209
866 Australia Scarborough gas 8.0 0 1333
867 Australia Scott Reef gas 12.2 149 2179
868 Australia Sunrise/Loxton Shoals/Sunset gas 3.1 55 576
869 Australia Titanichthys gas 500 500
870 Namibia Kudu gas 3.6 600
871 Papua New Guinea Hides gas 8.0 70 949
872 Australia Barracouta gas 500 1.8 137 937
873 Australia Halibut oil 700 700
874 Australia Kingfish oil 1250 1250
875 Australia Marlin gas 3.6 266 866
876 Australia Snapper gas 100 2.4 500
877 New Zealand Maui gas 75 5.3 957
88 / Mann et al.

APPENDIX B 296 Libya, Intisar (Idris) ‘‘D,’’ oil

GIANT OIL AND GAS 297 Libya, Mabruk, oil
FIELDS CLASSIFIED BY 298 Libya, Masrab, oil
TECTONIC SETTING 299 Libya, Messla, oil
300 Libya, Nasser (Zelten), oil
A. Continental Rifts and Overlying 301 Libya, Raguba, oil
‘‘Steer’s Head’’ Sag Basins 302 Libya, Samah, oil
303 Libya, Sarir C, oil
10 Canada —NWT Franklin, Char, gas 304 Libya, Sarir L (L-65), oil
11 Canada —NWT Franklin, Cisco, oil 305 Libya, Waha, oil
12 Canada —NWT Franklin, Drake Point, gas 306 Morocco, Meskala, gas
13 Canada —NWT Franklin, Hecla, gas 308 Tunisia, El Borma, oil
14 Canada —NWT Franklin, Whitefish, gas 309 Tunisia, Isis, oil
80 United States-Illinois, Illinois, Old Fields, oil 310 Tunisia, Sidi Abderrahman (Cap Bon), gas
81 United States-Ohio-Indiana, Lima-Indiana, oil 418 Oman, Barik, gas
253 Sudan, Unity, oil 419 Oman, Fahud, oil
254 Albania, Bubulime (Kolonja-Bubullima), gas 420 Oman, Khazzan, gas
255 Albania, Divjake, gas 421 Oman, Lekhwair, oil
256 Algeria, Alrar (D-52), gas 422 Oman, Marmul, oil
257 Algeria, El Biar, oil 423 Oman, Natih, oil
258 Algeria, gassi Touil, oil 424 Oman, Nimr, oil
259 Algeria, Hassi Berkine Sud, oil 425 Oman, Saih Nihayda, gas
260 Algeria, Hassi Messaoud, gas 426 Oman, Saih Rawl, gas
261 Algeria, Hassi R’Mel, gas 427 Oman, Yibal (Shuaiba), oil
262 Algeria, In Amenas Nord, gas 439 Saudi Arabia, Barqan, gas
263 Algeria, Ourhoud, oil 466 Saudi Arabia, Maghrib, oil
264 Algeria, Rhourde El Baguel, oil 480 Saudi Arabia, Shaybah (Zarrarah), oil
265 Algeria, Rhourde Nouss, gas 482 Saudi Arabia, Suhul, gas
266 Algeria, Tin Fouye – Tabankort, gas 491 UAE —Abu Dhabi, Al Dabb’iya, oil
267 Algeria, Zarzaitine, gas 492 UAE— Abu Dhabi, Asab (with Asab, replaces Abu
268 Egypt, Amal (Egypt), oil Jidu), oil
269 Egypt, Belayim Land, oil 493 UAE —Abu Dhabi, Bab (Murban Bab), oil
270 Egypt, Belayim Marine, oil 496 UAE —Abu Dhabi, Mender, oil
271 Egypt, El Morgan, oil 497 UAE —Abu Dhabi, Mubarrax, oil
274 Egypt, July, oil 498 UAE —Abu Dhabi, Murban Bu Hasa (Bu Hasa), oil
275 Egypt, October, oil 500 UAE —Abu Dhabi, Qusahwira, oil
276 Egypt, Ramadan, oil 502 UAE —Abu Dhabi, Sahil, oil
281 Italy, Vega East, oil 504 UAE — Abu Dhabi, Shah (with Asab, replaces Abu
282 Libya, Al Wafa, gas Jidu), oil
283 Libya, Amal (Libya), gas 508 UAE —Abu Dhabi, Zarrarah, oil
284 Libya, Attahadi, gas 511 UAE —Dubai, Margham, gas
285 Libya, Augila-Nafoora, oil 512 UAE —Sharjah, Sajaa, gas
286 Libya, Bahi, oil 513 Yemen, Alif, oil
287 Libya, Beda, oil 514 Yemen, Masila Complex, oil
288 Libya, Bouri (NC041-B), oil 515 Yemen, Yah, gas
289 Libya, Bu Attifel (A-100), oil 560 Germany, Salzwedel (Wustrow), gas
290 Libya, Dahra East-Hofra, oil 562 Netherlands, Bergen, gas
291 Libya, Defa, oil 563 Netherlands, Groningen, gas
292 Libya, Elephant, oil 564 Netherlands, Placid, gas
293 Libya, Gialo, oil 566 Norway, Albuskjell, oil
294 Libya, Hateiba, gas 567 Norway, Block 30/3, oil
295 Libya, Intisar (Idris) ‘‘A,’’ oil 569 Norway, Edda, gas
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 89

570 Norway, Ekofisk, oil 638 Russia, Starogroznyy, oil

571 Norway, Ekofisk West, oil 639 Russia, Tul’skiy, gas
572 Norway, Eldkfisk, oil 640 Ukraine, Glynsko-Rozbyshev, gas
573 Norway, Grane, oil 641 Ukraine, Pryluky (Prilukskoye, Dnepr), oil
580 Norway, Oseberg, oil 642 Ukraine, Yefremovka, gas
582 Norway, Sleipner, gas 643 Ukraine, Zapadno Krestishchenskoy, gas
584 Norway, Snorre, oil 645 Kazakhstan, Rakushechnoye, gas
585 Norway, Statfjord, oil 646 Kazakhstan, Uzen’, oil
586 Norway, Troll, gas 647 Kazakhstan, Zhetybay, oil
587 Norway, Valhall, oil 677 Russia, Kyrtaiol’skoye, gas
588 Norway and United Kingdom, Frigg, gas 678 Russia, Agan, oil
589 United Kingdom, Audrey, gas 679 Russia, Antipayuta, gas
590 United Kingdom, Beryl A, oil 680 Russia, Arkticheskoye, gas
591 United Kingdom, Block 16/26, gas 681 Russia, Ayvasedapur, oil
592 United Kingdom, Brent, oil 682 Russia, Beregovoye (Tyumen), gas
593 United Kingdom, Britannia, gas 683 Russia, Bol’shoy Kruzenshtern, gas
594 United Kingdom, Bruce, gas 684 Russia, Bolshoye Chernogor, oil
595 United Kingdom, Buzzard, oil 685 Russia, Bovanenko, gas
596 United Kingdom, Clair, oil 686 Russia, Bystrina, oil
597 United Kingdom, Claymore, oil 687 Russia, Druzhnoye, oil
598 United Kingdom, Cormorant, oil 688 Russia, Fedorovsko-Surgut, oil
599 United Kingdom, Forties, oil 689 Russia, Gubkin, gas
600 United Kingdom, Fulmar, oil 690 Russia, Gyda (Gydan), gas
601 United Kingdom, Hewett, gas 691 Russia, Kazanskoye, gas
602 United Kingdom, Indefatigable, gas 692 Russia, Khalmerpayuta, gas
603 United Kingdom, Leman, gas 693 Russia, Khanchey (Khangey), gas
604 United Kingdom, Magnus, oil 694 Russia, Kharampur, gas
605 United Kingdom, Morecambe, gas 695 Russia, Kharasavey, gas
606 United Kingdom, Ninian, oil 696 Russia, Kharvutin, gas
607 United Kingdom, Piper, oil 697 Russia, Kholmogor, oil
608 United Kingdom, Thistle, oil 698 Russia, Komsomol’, gas
609 United Kingdom, West Sole, gas 699 Russia, Komsomol’sk (Tyumen), oil
610 Norway, Gullfaks (Statvik), oil 700 Russia, Komsomol’sk Severnyy (Severo Komsomol),
611 Russia, Ledovoye (Barents), gas oil
612 Russia, Ludlov, gas 701 Russia, Krasnoleninsk, oil
613 Russia, Shtokman, gas 702 Russia, Leningrad (Kara), gas
622 Kazakhstan, Bozashchy Severnyy, oil 703 Russia, Lokosovo, oil
623 Kazakhstan, Kalamkas, oil 704 Russia, Luginets, gas
624 Kazakhstan, Karazhanbas, oil 705 Russia, Lyantor, oil
625 Kazakhstan, Kashagan, oil 706 Russia, Malo-Balyk, oil
626 Kazakhstan, Tengiz, oil 707 Russia, Malygin, gas
627 Russia, Anastasiyevsko (Troitskoye), oil 708 Russia, Mamontovo, oil
628 Russia, Astrakhan’, gas 709 Russia, Medvezh’ye, gas
629 Russia, Korobki, gas 710 Russia, Megion, oil
630 Russia, Malgobek Voznesenskoye (Aliyurt, Alkha- 711 Russia, Messoyakha, gas
zovo, Gorskoye), oil 712 Russia, Muravlenko, gas
631 Russia, Maykop, gas 713 Russia, Myl’dzhino, gas
632 Russia, Oktyabr’skoye, oil 714 Russia, Nakhodka, gas
633 Russia, Ozeksuatskoye, oil 715 Russia, Neytin, gas
635 Russia, Severo Stavropol (Pelagiada), gas 716 Russia, Novyy Port (Novoportovskoye), gas
636 Russia, Shebelinka, gas 717 Russia, Nurma, gas
637 Russia, Sosnino (Sovetskoye, Medvedev), oil 718 Russia, Nyda, gas
90 / Mann et al.

719 Russia, Palyanovo, gas 770 Russia, Zapadno Surgutskoye (Surgut), oil
720 Russia, Pelyata, gas 771 Russia, Zapadno-Tarkosalin, gas
721 Russia, Pogranichnoye (Tyumen), oil 772 Russia, Zapolyarnoye, gas
722 Russia, Pokachev, oil 773 Russia, Chayanda, gas
723 Russia, Povkhov, oil 774 Russia, Kovykta, gas
724 Russia, Pravdinsk-Salym, oil 775 Russia, Maastakh (Mastakhskoye), gas
725 Russia, Priob’ye, oil 776 Russia, Soba (Sobinskoye), gas
726 Russia, Punga (Punginskoye), gas 777 Russia, Sredne Botnobin (Botnobin), gas
727 Russia, Rusanov (Kara), gas 778 Russia, Sredne Botuoba, gas
728 Russia, Russkoye, oil 779 Russia, Sredne Vilyuy (Vilyuyskoye), gas
729 Russia, Russkoye Yuzhnoye, gas 780 Russia, Srednetyung, gas
730 Russia, Salym Zapadnyy, oil 781 Russia, Talakan, oil
731 Russia, Samotlor, oil 782 Russia, Taxs-Yur’yash, gas
732 Russia, Semakovskoye, gas 783 Russia, Verkhne Vilyuchanskoye, gas
733 Russia, Severo Urengoy, gas 784 Russia, Verkhne-Chona, oil
734 Russia, Soleninskoye Yuzhno, gas 785 Russia, Yurubcheno-Tokhomo, gas
735 Russia, Sredneyamal’skoye, gas 791 China, Jingbian-Hengshan, gas
736 Russia, Sugmut, oil 808 China, Chunxiao, gas
737 Russia, Sutormin, oil 846 Indonesia, Ubadari, gas
738 Russia, Tagra, oil 847 Indonesia, Vorwata, gas
739 Russia, Tambey Severnyy, gas 848 Indonesia, Wiriagar-Deep, gas
740 Russia, Tarko – Sale Vostochnoye, gas 856 Australia, Gidgealpa, gas
741 Russia, Tasiyskoye, gas 861 Australia, Moomba, gas
742 Russia, Taylakovo, oil 877 New Zealand, Maui, gas
743 Russia, Taz (Tazovskoye), gas
744 Russia, Tevlin-Konitlor, oil B. Continental Passive Margins Fronting
745 Russia, Totayakha, gas Major Ocean Basins
746 Russia, Tyan, oil
747 Russia, Urengoy (Vostochno Urengoy). gas 2 United States-Alaska, Kuparuk River, oil
748 Russia, Urengoy Vostochnyy, gas 4 United States-Alaska, Point Thomson (Flaxman
749 Russia, Ust’-Bakykskoye (Balyk, Ust Balyk), oil Island), gas
750 Russia, Vachim, oil 5 United States-Alaska, Prudhoe Bay, oil
751 Russia, Van’yegan, oil 6 Canada— NWT Franklin, Issungnak, oil
752 Russia, Var’yegan, oil 7 Canada— NWT Franklin, Koakoak, oil
753 Russia, Var’yegan Severnyy, oil 8 Canada— NWT Franklin, Kopanoar, gas
754 Russia, Vat’yegan, oil 9 Canada— NWT Franklin, Parsons Lake, gas
755 Russia, Vengayakha, gas 62 United States-Texas, East Texas, oil
756 Russia, Verkhne-Kolik’yegan, oil 77 Canada— Newfoundland, Hibernia, oil
757 Russia, Verkhnepurpey, gas 78 Canada— Nova Scotia, Venture, gas
758 Russia, Vyngapur, gas 79 United States-Arkansas, Smackover, oil
759 Russia, Yagun Yuzhnyy, oil 83 United States-Texas, Conroe, oil
760 Russia, Yamburg, gas 84 United States-Texas, Van, oil
761 Russia, Yamsovey, gas 85 Mexico, Abkatún, oil
762 Russia, Yaroyakha (Yaroyakhskoye), gas 86 Mexico, Agave, oil
763 Russia, Yermakovo, oil 87 Mexico, Akal (Cantarell Complex), oil
764 Russia, Yetypur, gas 88 Mexico, Arenque, oil
765 Russia, Yubileynoye (Tyumen), gas 89 Mexico, Cáctus, oil
766 Russia, Yurkharovo, gas 90 Mexico, Cerro Azul (Amatlán, Naranjos), oil
767 Russia, Yuzhno Cheremshankskoye (Sorgut, Cher- 91 Mexico, Chac, oil
emshanskoye Yuzhnoye), oil 92 Mexico, Chicontepec, gas
768 Russia, Yuzhno-Samburg, gas 93 Mexico, Giraldas, oil
769 Russia, Yuzhno-Tambey, gas 94 Mexico, Iris, oil
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 91

95 Mexico. Ixtoc, oil 195 Brazil, Jubarte (block BC-60), oil

96 Mexico, José Colomo (Chilapilla), gas 196 Brazil, 1-RJS-539, oil
97 Mexico, Jujo, oil 197 Brazil, Albacora, oil
98 Mexico, Maloob, oil 198 Brazil, Albacora East, oil
99 Mexico, Panuco (Ébano Panuco), oil 199 Brazil, Barracuda, oil
100 Mexico, Paredón, oil 200 Brazil, Guaricema, gas
101 Mexico, Poza Rica, oil 201 Brazil, Marlim, oil
102 Mexico, Reynosa (Hidalgo, Klump), gas 202 Brazil, Marlim Sul, oil
103 Mexico, Rı́o Nuevo, oil 203 Brazil, Miranga, oil
104 Mexico, Samarı́a (Bermúdez Complex), oil 204 Brazil, Riachuelo, gas
105 Mexico, Sihil, oil 205 Brazil, Roncador, oil
106 Mexico, Sitio Grande, oil 206 Angola, Benguela, oil
107 Mexico, Zaap, oil 207 Angola, Block 15 Complex, oil
108 United States — deep-water Gulf of Mexico, 208 Angola, Dalia, oil
Atlantis, oil 209 Angola, Dalia 2, oil
109 United States —deep-water Gulf of Mexico, Mad 210 Angola, Girassol, oil
Dog, oil 211 Angola, Kuito, oil
110 United States—deep-water Gulf of Mexico, Mars, oil 212 Angola, Landana, oil
111 United States—deep-water Gulf of Mexico, Tahiti, 213 Angola, Malongo North and South (Cabinda B), oil
oil 214 Angola, Malongo West, oil
112 United States — deep-water Gulf of Mexico, 215 Angola, Rosa, oil
Thunder Horse (formerly Crazy Horse), oil 216 Angola, Takula, oil
113 United States — Louisiana, Bastian Bay, gas 217 Congo (Brazzaville), Emeraude Marin, oil
114 United States — Louisiana, Bateman Lake, gas 218 Congo (Brazzaville), Loango, oil
115 United States — Louisiana, Bay Marchand, oil 219 Congo (Brazzaville), Moho Marine, oil
116 United States — Louisiana, Bayou Sale, gas 220 Congo (Brazzaville), N’Kossa Marine, oil
117 United States — Louisiana, Caillou Island, oil 221 Equatorial Guinea, Ceiba, oil
118 United States—Louisiana, Eugene Island Block 330, 222 Gabon, Rabi-Kounga, oil
oil 223 Ivory Coast, Espoir (Jacqueville), oil
119 United States —Louisiana, Grand Isle Block 43, oil 224 Nigeria, Agbami, oil
120 United States — Louisiana, Monroe, gas 225 Nigeria, Amenam-Kpono, oil
121 United States —Louisiana, South Pass Block 24, oil 226 Nigeria, Apoi North –Funiwa, oil
122 United States —Louisiana, South Pass Block 27, oil 227 Nigeria, Asasa, oil
123 United States — Louisiana, Tiger Shoal, gas 228 Nigeria, Biseni –Samabri East, gas
124 United States — Louisiana, Timbalier Bay, oil 229 Nigeria, Bomu, oil
125 United States — Louisiana, Vermilion Block 14, gas 230 Nigeria, Bonga, oil
126 United States — Louisiana, Vermilion Block 39, gas 231 Nigeria, Bonga, Southwest, oil
127 United States — Louisiana, West Delta Block 30, oil 232 Nigeria, Bosi, gas
128 United States — Louisiana, West Delta Block 73, oil 233 Nigeria, Cawthorne Channel, oil
129 United States —Texas, Agua Dulce (Stratton), gas 234 Nigeria, Edop, oil
130 United States — Texas, Borregos (Seeligson), oil 235 Nigeria, Erha, oil
131 United States—Texas, Carthage (Cotton Valley), gas 236 Nigeria, Forcados Yokri, oil
132 United States — Texas, Greta (Tom O’Connor), oil 237 Nigeria, Gbaran, gas
133 United States — Texas, Hastings, oil 238 Nigeria, Ikija 1 (offshore), gas
134 United States — Texas, Hawkins, oil 239 Nigeria, Imo River, oil
135 United States — Texas, Katy, gas 240 Nigeria, Jones Creek, oil
136 United States — Texas, La Gloria, gas 241 Nigeria, Kokori, oil
137 United States — Texas, Old Ocean, gas 242 Nigeria, Krakama, oil
138 United States — Texas, Pledger, gas 243 Nigeria, Meren, gas
139 United States — Texas, Thompson, oil 244 Nigeria, Nembe Creek, oil
140 United States — Texas, Webster, oil 245 Nigeria, Nnwa Doro, gas
141 United States — Texas, West Ranch, oil 246 Nigeria, Obagi, oil
92 / Mann et al.

247 Nigeria, Odidi, gas 413 Kuwait, Umm Gudair, oil

248 Nigeria, Okan, gas 414 Neutral Zone, Dorra, gas
249 Nigeria, Oso, oil 415 Neutral Zone, Hout, oil
250 Nigeria, Soku, gas 416 Neutral Zone, Khafji, oil
251 Nigeria, Ubit, oil 417 Neutral Zone, Wafra, oil
252 Nigeria, Ukot, oil 428 Qatar, Bul Hanine, gas
272 Egypt, El Temsah, gas 429 Qatar, Dukhan, oil
273 Egypt, Ha’py, gas 430 Qatar, Idd El Shargi North Dome, oil
277 Egypt, Scarab-Saffron, gas 431 Qatar, Maydan (Mahzam), gas
278 Egypt, Simian, gas 432 Qatar, North Field, gas
313 Bahrain, Awali (Bahrain Field), gas 433 Qatar, Northwest Dome, gas
316 Iran, Abouzar (formerly Ardeshir ), oil 434 Saudi Arabia, Abqaiq, oil
321 Iran, Azadegan, oil 435 Saudi Arabia, Abu Hadriya, oil
322 Iran, B. Structure, gas 436 Saudi Arabia, Abu Jifan, oil
332 Iran, Fereidoon, oil 437 Saudi Arabia, Abu Sa’fah, oil
333 Iran, Foroozan, oil 438 Saudi Arabia, Abu Shaddad, oil
334 Iran, G 3, gas 440 Saudi Arabia, Berri, oil
356 Iran, Nowruz, oil 441 Saudi Arabia, Dammam, oil
358 Iran, Pars North (Pars), gas 442 Saudi Arabia, Dhib, oil
359 Iran, Pars South, gas 443 Saudi Arabia, Dibdibah, oil
364 Iran, Rostam, oil 444 Saudi Arabia, Dilam, gas
366 Iran, Salman, gas 445 Saudi Arabia, Fadhili, oil
370 Iran, Sassan, oil 446 Saudi Arabia, Farhah, oil
373 Iran, Sirri D, oil 447 Saudi Arabia, Ghawar, oil
374 Iran, Soroosh, oil 448 Saudi Arabia, Habari, oil
378 Iraq, Ahdab, oil 449 Saudi Arabia, Hamd, oil
379 Iraq, Akkas, gas 450 Saudi Arabia, Hamur, oil
380 Iraq, Baghdad, East, oil 451 Saudi Arabia, Harmaliyah, oil
381 Iraq, Baghdad, West, oil 452 Saudi Arabia, Harqus, oil
383 Iraq, Gharraf, oil 453 Saudi Arabia, Hasbah, oil
385 Iraq, Hamrin, oil 454 Saudi Arabia, Hawtah, oil
390 Iraq, Luhais, oil 455 Saudi Arabia, Hazmiyah, oil
391 Iraq, Majnoon, oil 456 Saudi Arabia, Jaladi, oil
393 Iraq, Nahr Umr, oil 457 Saudi Arabia, Jana, oil
394 Iraq, Nasiryah, oil 458 Saudi Arabia, Jauf, oil
396 Iraq, Rachi, oil 459 Saudi Arabia, Jawb, oil
397 Iraq, Ratawi, oil 460 Saudi Arabia, Jurayd, oil
398 Iraq, Rumaila North and South, oil 461 Saudi Arabia, Karan, oil
399 Iraq, Saddam, oil 462 Saudi Arabia, Khurais, oil
400 Iraq, Safwan, oil 463 Saudi Arabia, Khursaniyah, oil
401 Iraq, Subba, oil 464 Saudi Arabia, Lawhah, oil
402 Iraq, Tuba, oil 465 Saudi Arabia, Lughfah, oil
403 Iraq, West Qurna, oil 467 Saudi Arabia, Maharah, oil
404 Iraq, Zubair, oil 468 Saudi Arabia, Manifa, oil
405 Kuwait, Abdalli, oil 469 Saudi Arabia, Marjan, oil
406 Kuwait, Bahrah, oil 470 Saudi Arabia, Mazalij, oil
407 Kuwait, Greater Burgan, oil 471 Saudi Arabia, Qatif, oil
408 Kuwait, Khashman, oil 472 Saudi Arabia, Qubqub, oil
409 Kuwait, Minagish, oil 473 Saudi Arabia, Raghib, oil
410 Kuwait, Ratgar, oil 474 Saudi Arabia, Rimthan, oil
411 Kuwait, Raudhatain, oil 475 Saudi Arabia, Sadawi, oil
412 Kuwait, Sabriya, oil 476 Saudi Arabia, Safaniya, oil
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 93

477 Saudi Arabia, Sahba, oil 836 Malaysia, K05 1, gas

478 Saudi Arabia, Samin, oil 845 Vietnam, Bach Ho (White Tiger), oil
479 Saudi Arabia, Sharar, oil 849 Australia, Bayu/Undan, gas
481 Saudi Arabia, Suban, oil 850 Australia, Brecknock, gas
483 Saudi Arabia, Takhman, oil 851 Australia, Callirhoe, gas
484 Saudi Arabia, Tinat, gas 852 Australia, Chrysaor, gas
485 Saudi Arabia, Wadayhi, gas 853 Australia, Dionysus, gas
486 Saudi Arabia, Wari’ah, oil 854 Australia, Evans Shoal, gas
487 Saudi Arabia, Zuluf, oil 855 Australia, Geryon, gas
490 UAE—Abu Dhabi, Abu Al Bukhoosh (Abu Koosh), 857 Australia, Goodwyn, gas
gas 858 Australia, Gorgon, gas
494 UAE— Abu Dhabi, Bu Tini, oil 859 Australia, Io, gas
495 UAE— Abu Dhabi, Ghasha, oil 860 Australia, Jansz, gas
499 UAE— Abu Dhabi, Nasr, oil 862 Australia, Orthrus, gas
501 UAE— Abu Dhabi, Saath Al Raaz Boot, oil 863 Australia, Perseus, gas
503 UAE— Abu Dhabi, Satah, gas 864 Australia, Petrel, gas
505 UAE— Abu Dhabi, Umm Al-Dalkh, oil 865 Australia, Rankin North, gas
506 UAE— Abu Dhabi, Umm Shaif, oil 866 Australia, Scarborough, gas
507 UAE— Abu Dhabi, Zakum, oil 867 Australia, Scott Reef, gas
509 UAE— Dubai, Fateh, oil 868 Australia, Sunrise/Loxton Shoals/Sunset, gas
510 UAE— Dubai, Fateh Southwest, oil 869 Australia, Titanichthys, gas
545 Bangladesh, Feni, gas 870 Namibia, Kudu, gas
546 India, Ankleshwar, oil 872 Australia, Barracouta, gas
547 India, Bassein, gas 873 Australia, Halibut, oil
548 India, Bassein, North, oil 874 Australia, Kingfish, oil
549 India, Bombay High, oil 875 Australia, Marlin, gas
550 India, Dhirubhai (KG-DWN-98/2 block), gas 876 Australia, Snapper, gas
565 Norway, 7121/04-01 (Snoehvit), gas
568 Norway, Draugen, oil C. Strike-slip Margins
574 Norway, Heidrun, oil
575 Norway, Kristin , gas 1 United States — Alaska, Kenai, gas
576 Norway, Lavrans, gas 3 United States — Alaska, McArthur River, oil
577 Norway, Midgard, gas 15 United States — California, Brea (Olinda, Sansine-
578 Norway, Norne, oil na), oil
579 Norway, Ormen Lange, gas 16 United States — California, Buena Vista Hills, oil
581 Norway, Skarv-Idun, oil 17 United States — California, Coalinga, oil
583 Norway, Smoerbukk (Smorbukk), gas 18 United States — California, Coalinga Nose, oil
811 Brunei, Ampa Southwest, gas 19 United States — California, Elk Hills, oil
812 Brunei, Champion, gas 20 United States — California, Huntington Beach, oil
813 Brunei, Seria, oil 21 United States — California, Kern River, oil
818 Indonesia, Attaka, oil 22 United States —California, Kettleman Hills North
819 Indonesia, Badak, gas Dome, gas
822 Indonesia, Handil, oil 23 United States — California, Long Beach, oil
825 Indonesia, Natuna, gas 24 United States — California, Midway-Sunset, oil
826 Indonesia, Nilam (Kalimantan), gas 25 United States — California, Point Arguello, oil
827 Indonesia, Peciko, gas 26 United States — California, Rio Vista, gas
829 Indonesia, Tunu, gas 27 United States — California, San Ardo, oil
830 Indonesia, West Seno Complex, oil 28 United States — California, Santa Fe Springs, oil
831 Malaysia, Central Luconia E-11, gas 29 United States — California, South Belridge, oil
832 Malaysia, Central Luconia F-06, gas 30 United States —California, Ventura Avenue (Rin-
833 Malaysia, Central Luconia F-23, gas con), oil
835 Malaysia, Jintan, gas 31 United States — California, Wilmington, oil
94 / Mann et al.

153 Trinidad and Tobago, KK 4-2 (Poinsettia), gas 63 United States — Texas, Fullerton, oil
173 Venezuela, Mejillones, gas 64 United States — Texas, Goldsmith (Andector), oil
177 Venezuela, Patao, gas 65 United States — Texas, Gomez, gas
786 China, Dagang Complex, oil 66 United States — Texas, Keystone, oil
787 China, Daqing Complex (Taking [Taching]), oil 67 United States — Texas, McElroy (Dune), oil
788 China, Daqing Complex, Saertu, oil 68 United States — Texas, Puckett , gas
789 China, Daqing Complex, Xingshugang, oil 69 United States — Texas, Sand Hills, oil
790 China, Haituozi, oil 70 United States — Texas, Scurry (Skelly, Snyder,
796 China, Liaohe Complex (Shuguang, Huanxiling, Diamond M), oil
Shenyang), oil 71 United States — Texas, Seminole, oil
797 China, Peng Lai, oil 72 United States — Texas, Slaughter (Levelland), oil
798 China, Renqiu, oil 73 United States — Texas, South Sand Belt (Ward
799 China, Shengli Complex, Gudao, oil Estes), oil
800 China, Shengli Complex, Gudong, oil 74 United States — Texas, Spraberry Trend, oil
801 China, Shengli Complex, Shengtuo, oil 75 United States — Texas, Wasson, oil
803 China, Huangkuanshan, gas 76 United States — Texas, Yates, oil
804 China, Jinghan (Chien Chiang), oil 82 United States — Pennsylvania, Bradford, oil
805 China, Lung-nu-ssu, oil 279 France, Lacq, gas
806 China, Shiyoukou-Tungchi, gas 280 France, Mellion-Rousse, gas
807 China, Zhongyuan, oil 307 Spain, Serrablo, gas
809 Russia, Chayvo, Odoptu and Arkutun-Dagi, gas 311 Romania, Deleni (Soros), gas
810 Russia, Lun, gas 312 Romania, Moreni – Gura Ocnitei, oil
814 China, Dongfang, gas 314 Hungary, Algyo, gas
815 China, Yacheng, gas 315 Iran, Ab-E-Teimur, oil
834 Malaysia, Guntong, oil 317 Iran, Agha Jari, oil
837 Malaysia, Seligi, oil 318 Iran, Aghar, gas
838 Myanmar, Yadana, gas 319 Iran, Ahwaz, oil
839 Myanmar, Yetagun, gas 320 Iran, Assaluyeh, gas
841 Thailand, B Structure, gas 323 Iran, Bibi Hakimeh, oil
842 Thailand, Benchamas, gas 324 Iran, Binak, oil
843 Thailand, Bongkot, gas 325 Iran, Bushgan, oil
844 Thailand, Satun, gas 326 Iran, Buzurgan, oil
327 Iran, Dalan, gas
D. Continent-continent Collisional Margins 328 Iran, Darquain, oil
329 Iran, Day, gas
49 United States — New Mexico, Blinebry-Drinkard, 330 Iran, Dehluran, oil
oil 331 Iran, Emam Hassan, oil
50 United States — New Mexico, Eunice (Jalmat, 335 Iran, Gachsaran, oil
Monument), gas 336 Iran, Haft Kel, oil
51 United States — New Mexico, Vacuum, oil 337 Iran, Homa, gas
52 United States — Oklahoma, Burbank, oil 338 Iran, Jufeyr, oil
53 United States — Oklahoma, Cushing, oil 339 Iran, Kabir Kuh, gas
54 United States — Oklahoma, Golden Trend, oil 340 Iran, Kangan, gas
55 United States — Oklahoma, Hugoton (Panhandle), 341 Iran, Karanj, gas
gas 342 Iran, Kharg Island– Doroud (formerly Darius), oil
56 United States — Oklahoma, Mocane-Laverne, oil 343 Iran, Khesht, oil
57 United States — Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, oil 344 Iran, Kuh-I-Mand, gas
58 United States — Oklahoma, Seminole, oil 345 Iran, Kupal, gas
59 United States — Oklahoma, Sho-Vel-Tum, oil 346 Iran, Kushk, gas
60 United States — Texas, Cowden North, oil 347 Iran, Lab-E-Safid, oil
61 United States — Texas, Cowden South (Foster, 348 Iran, Maleh Kuh, gas
Johnson), oil 349 Iran, Mansuri, oil
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 95

350 Iran, Marun, oil 536 Turkmenistan, Gugurti, gas

351 Iran, Masjid-i-Sulemain, oil 537 Turkmenistan, Kirpichlin, gas
352 Iran, Mokhtar 1, gas 538 Turkmenistan, Korpedzhe, gas
353 Iran, Naft Safid, gas 539 Turkmenistan, Kotur-Tepe (Leninskoye), oil
354 Iran, Nar, gas 540 Turkmenistan, Naipskoye, gas
355 Iran, Nargesi, oil 541 Turkmenistan, Odzhak, gas
357 Iran, Paris (Faris), gas 542 Uzbekistan, Gazli (Gazlinskoye), gas
360 Iran, Parsi, gas 543 Uzbekistan, Kandymskoye (Khadzhiy), gas
361 Iran, Pazanan, gas 544 Uzbekistan, Uchkyrskoye, gas
362 Iran, Qishm-Salag, gas 551 India, Lakwa, oil
363 Iran, Rag-E-Safid, gas 552 India, Moran, gas
365 Iran, Rudak-Milatun, oil 553 India, Nahorkatiya, oil
367 Iran, Sarhun, gas 554 Pakistan, Mari, gas
368 Iran, Sarkhan, gas 555 Pakistan, Qadirpur, gas
369 Iran, Sarvestan, oil 556 Pakistan, Sui, gas
371 Iran, Shakeh, oil 557 Pakistan, Uch, gas
372 Iran, Shanul, gas 558 Pakistan, Zargun South (Zarghun South), gas
375 Iran, Tabnak, gas 559 Austria, Matzen, oil
376 Iran, Zeloi, oil 614 Russia, Khar’yaga, oil
377 Iraq, Abu Ghirab, oil 615 Russia, Kumzha (Kunzhinskoye), gas
382 Iraq, Bai Hassan, oil 616 Russia, Layavozh, gas
384 Iraq, Halfayah, oil 617 Russia, Usa (Usanovskoye), oil
386 Iraq, Jabal Fauqui (Fakkeh), oil 618 Russia, Usinskoye, oil
387 Iraq, Jambur, oil 619 Russia, Vozey, oil
388 Iraq, Khabbaz, oil 620 Russia, Yuzhno Khilchuyu (Khylchuyuskoye Yuz-
389 Iraq, Kirkuk, oil hnoye), oil
392 Iraq, Mansuriyah, gas 621 Iran, Tang-i-bijar, gas
395 Iraq, Noor, oil 634 Russia, Serafimovka, oil
488 Syria, Suwaidiyah (Souedie), oil 644 Azerbaijan, Neft Dashlary and Neftyanyye Kamni, oil
489 Turkmenistan, Shatlyk (Sheketli, Shekhitli), gas 648 Kazakhstan, Karachaganak, gas
516 Azerbaijan, Azeri, oil 649 Kazakhstan, Zhanazhol, oil
517 Azerbaijan, Bakhar, gas 650 Russia, Bavly, oil
518 Azerbaijan, Balakhany Sabunchino (Ramany), oil 651 Russia, Dmitriyevskoye (Samara), oil
519 Azerbaijan, Bibieibatskoye (Bibi Eybat), oil 652 Russia, Kuleshovka, oil
520 Azerbaijan, Gunesli, oil 653 Russia, Mukhanovo, oil
521 Azerbaijan, Karachukhur-Zykh, oil 654 Russia, Novo Elkhov (Novoyelkhov-Aktash), oil
522 Azerbaijan, Peschanyy More, oil 655 Russia, Orenburg (Krasnyy Kholm, Krasnoyars-
523 Azerbaijan, Sangachali Duvanyy (Baku Archipela- koye), gas
go), gas 656 Russia, Shkapovo, oil
524 Azerbaijan, Surakhanskoye, oil 657 Russia, Tolbazy, oil
525 Azerbaijan, Shah Deniz, gas 658 Russia, Tuyrnazy, oil
526 Iran, Khangiran, gas 659 Afghanistan, Shibarghan, gas
527 Iran, Saradjeh (Sarajeh), gas 660 Turkmenistan, Beurdeshik (Buyerdeshik), gas
528 Turkmenistan, Achak, gas 661 Uzbekistan, Alan, gas
529 Turkmenistan, Bagadzhin, gas 662 Uzbekistan, Dengizkul-Khauzak-Shady, gas
530 Turkmenistan, Barsa-Gelmez , oil 663 Uzbekistan, Kokdumalak, gas
531 Turkmenistan, Bayrmalinskoye, gas 664 Uzbekistan, Samantepe, gas
532 Turkmenistan, Burun, oil 665 Uzbekistan, Shurtan (Uzbekistan), gas
533 Turkmenistan, Cheleken, oil 666 Uzbekistan, Urtabalak, gas
534 Turkmenistan, Dauletabad (Dovletabad-Donmez), 667 Uzbekistan, Zevardy, gas
gas 668 Russia, Arlan, oil
535 Turkmenistan, Goturdepe, oil 669 Russia, Chutyr-Kiyengop (Kiengopsko-Chutyr), oil
96 / Mann et al.

670 Russia, Mancharovo, oil 158 Venezuela, Cabinas (Bolı́var Coastal Complex),
671 Russia, Mazunin, gas oil
672 Russia, Pavlovskoye (Perm), oil 159 Venezuela, Carito, gas
673 Russia, Romashkino, oil 160 Venezuela, Centro, oil
674 Russia, Vuktyl, gas 161 Venezuela, Cerro Negro Area, oil
675 Russia, Yarega, oil 162 Venezuela, Dación, oil
676 Russia, Yarino-Kamemmyy Log, oil 163 Venezuela, Furrial-Musipán, gas
792 China, Karamay Complex, oil 164 Venezuela, Guara East, oil
793 China, Kela, gas 165 Venezuela, Hamaca Area, oil
802 China, Tazhong, gas 166 Venezuela, La Paz, oil
167 Venezuela, Lago, oil
168 Venezuela, Lagunillas (Bolı́var Coastal Complex), oil
E. Continental Collisions Related to Terrane 169 Venezuela, Lama (Bolı́var Coastal Complex), oil
Accretion, Arc Collision, and/or Shallow 170 Venezuela, Lamar, oil
Subduction 171 Venezuela, Mara, oil
172 Venezuela, Mata (Pirital, Jusepı́n, Mulata, Muri,
32 Canada —Alberta, Bonnie Glen, oil Tacat), gas
33 Canada —Alberta, Claresholm, gas 174 Venezuela, Mene Grande, oil
34 Canada —Alberta, Elmworth (Wapati), gas 175 Venezuela, Nipa, oil
35 Canada —Alberta, Judy Creek, oil 176 Venezuela, Oficina (Frı́a; Guico), oil
36 Canada —Alberta, Kaybob South, oil 178 Venezuela, Quiriquire, gas
37 Canada —Alberta, Leduc-Woodbend, oil 179 Venezuela, Santa Bárbara, gas
38 Canada —Alberta, Pembina, oil 180 Venezuela, Santa Rosa, gas
39 Canada —Alberta, Rainbow, oil 181 Venezuela, Tı́a Juana (Bolı́var Coastal Complex),
40 Canada —Alberta, Redwater, oil oil
41 Canada —Alberta, Swan Hills, oil 182 Venezuela, Urdaneta, oil
42 Canada —Alberta, Swan Hills South, oil 183 Venezuela, Yucal-Placer, gas
43 United States — Colorado, Rangely, oil 184 Peru, Pagoreni 1X (75-29-1X) (Camisea Area),
44 United States — New Mexico, Blanco-Basin, gas gas
45 United States — Utah, Anschutz Ranch East, gas 185 Argentina, Ara –Canadon Alfa, gas
46 United States — Wyoming, Elk Basin, oil 186 Argentina, Carina, gas
47 United States — Wyoming, Salt Creek, oil 187 Argentina, Comodoro Rivadavia, oil
48 United States — Wyoming, Whitney Canyon (Car- 188 Argentina, Loma de la Lata, gas
ter Creek), gas 189 Argentina, Ramos, gas
142 Colombia, Cano Limon, oil 190 Argentina, San Pedrito, gas
143 Colombia, Chuchupa (Abilena; Riohacha), gas 191 Bolivia, Itau and San Alberto, gas
144 Colombia, Cupiagua, oil 192 Bolivia, Margarita, gas
145 Colombia, Cusiana, oil 193 Peru, Cashiriari (Camisea Area), gas
146 Colombia, Infantas– La Cira, oil 194 Peru, San Martin (Camisea Area), gas
147 Colombia, Opon, gas 561 Italy, Malossa, gas
148 Colombia, Volcanera, gas 794 China, Laochunmiao (Ya-her-hsia, Yumen), oil
149 Ecuador, Sacha, oil 795 China, Leng-hu, oil
150 Ecuador, Shushufindi-Aguarico, oil 871 Papua New Guinea, Hides, gas
151 Peru, La Brea (Parinas, Talara), oil
152 Trinidad and Tobago, Fyzabad Group (Coora, Palo
Seco, Quarry), oil F. Subduction Margins
154 Trinidad and Tobago, Red Mango (Columbus
Basin), gas 816 Indonesia, Ardjuna B, oil
155 Trinidad and Tobago, Soldado Main, oil 817 Indonesia, Arun, gas
156 Venezuela, Bachaquero (Bolı́var Coastal Complex), 820 Indonesia, Bangko, oil
oil 821 Indonesia, Duri, oil
157 Venezuela, Boscan, oil 823 Indonesia, Kuang, oil
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 97
824 Indonesia, Minas, gas
828 Indonesia, Sumpal, gas
840 Philippines, Malampaya, gas
APPENDIX C
Five Largest Giant Oil Discoveries of the
1990s Classified by Tectonic Setting and
Exploration Trend
1) Ghawar, Saudi Arabia: passive margin basin; Persian
Gulf exploration
2) Greater Burgan, Kuwait: passive margin basin;
Persian Gulf exploration
3) Marun, Iran: continent-continent collision foreland
basin; expansion of Persian Gulf exploration to north-
east into onland foreland basin areas of Iran and Iraq
4) Safaniya, Saudi Arabia: passive margin basin; Persian
Gulf exploration
5) Rumaila North and South, Iraq: passive margin basin;
Persian Gulf exploration
Five Largest Giant Gas Discoveries of the
1990s Classified by Tectonic Setting and
Exploration Trend
1) North Field, Qatar: passive margin basin; Persian
Gulf exploration
2) Pars South, Iran: passive margin basin; expansion of
Persian Gulf exploration into deeper water foreland
basin area of Persian Gulf
3) Urengoy (Vostochno Urengoy), Russia: rift basin with
overlying sag basin; West Siberia basin exploration
4) Yamburg, Russia: rift basin with overlying sag basin;
West Siberia basin exploration
5) Zapolyarnoye, Russia: rift basin with overlying sag
basin; West Siberia basin exploration
Identification of the five largest oil and gas fields was provided by M. K. Horn.
REFERENCES CITED
AGSO North West Shelf Study Group, 1994, Deep reflec-
tions on the North West Shelf: Changing perceptions of
basin formation, in P. Purcell and R. Purcell, eds., The
sedimentary basins of Western Australia: Petroleum
Exploration Society of Australia, p. 63 – 76.
Allen, C., A. Gillespie, H. Yuan, K. Sieh, Z. Buchun, and Z.
Chengnan, 1984, Red River and associated faults,
Yunnan Province, China: Quaternary geology, slip rates,
and seismic hazard: Geological Society of America
Bulletin, v. 95, p. 686 – 700.
Allen, M., D. Macdonald, Z. Xun, S. Vincent, and C. Brouet-
Menzies, 1997, Early Cenozoic two-phase extension and
late Cenozoic thermal subsidence and inversion of the
Bohai Basin, northern China: Marine and Petroleum
Geology, v. 14, p. 951 – 972.
Alsharhan, A., 1993, Asab field — United Arab Emirates, Rub
al Khali Basin, Abu Dhabi, in N. H. Foster and E. A.
Beaumont, comps., Structural traps VIII, AAPG Trea-
tise of petroleum geology, Atlas of oil and gas fields,
p. 69 – 97.
Anderson, J., J. Cartwright, S. Drysdall, and N. Vivian, 2000,
Controls on turbidite sand deposition during gravity-
driven extension of a passive margin: Examples from
Miocene sediments in Block 4, Angola: Marine and
Petroleum Geology, v. 17, p. 1165 – 1203.
Aquino, J., J. Ruiz, M. Flores, and J. Garcia, The Sihil field:
Another giant below Cantarell, offshore Campeche,
Mexico, this volume.
Atwater, T., 1970, Implications of plate tectonics for the
Cenozoic evolution of western North America: Geolog-
ical Society of America Bulletin, v. 81, p. 3513 – 3536.
Ave Lallemant, H., 1997, Transpression, displacement
partitioning, and exhumation along the Caribbean/
South American Plate boundary zone: Tectonics, v. 16,
p. 272 – 289.
Babb, S., and P. Mann, 1999, Structural and sedimentary
development of a Neogene transpressional plate bound-
ary between the Caribbean and South America Plates
in Trinidad and the Gulf of Paria, in P. Mann, ed.,
Caribbean basins, Sedimentary basins of the world
(K. Hsu, series editor), Amsterdam, Elsevier, p. 495– 557.
Bachu, S., 1997, Flow of formation waters, aquifer charac-
teristics, and their relation to hydrocarbon accumula-
tions, northern Alberta Basin: AAPG Bulletin, v. 81,
p. 712 – 733.
Baillie, P., C. Powell, Z. Li, and A. Ryall, 1994, The tectonic
framework of Western Australia’s Neoproterozoic to
recent sedimentary basins, in P. Purcell and R. Purcell,
eds., The sedimentary basins of Western Australia:
Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia, p. 45 – 62.
Bally, A., 1982, Musings over sedimentary basin evolution:
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London, Series A, v. 305, p. 325 – 338.
Bally, A., 1989, Phanerozoic basins of North America, in A.
Bally and A. Palmer, eds., The geology of North
America — An overview: Geological Society of America,
v. A, p. 397 – 446.
Bally, A., and S. Snelson, 1980, Facts and principles of world
petroleum occurrence: Realms of subsidence, in A. Miall,
ed., Facts and principles of world petroleum occurrence:
Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 6,
p. 9 – 94.
Bandouy, S., and C. Legorjus, 1991, Sendji field — People’s
Republic of Congo, Congo Basin, in N. H. Foster and
E. A. Beaumont, comps., Structural traps V, AAPG
Treatise of petroleum geology, Atlas of oil and gas fields,
p. 121 – 149.
Banerjee, A., M. Jha, A. Mittal, N. Thomas, and K. Misra,
2000, The effective source rocks in the north Cambay
Basin, India: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 17,
p. 1111 – 1129.
98 / Mann et al.
Banks, C., A. Robinson, and M. Williams, 1997, Structure
and regional tectonics of the Achara-Trialet fold belt and
the adjacent Rioni and Kartli foreland basins, Republic of
Georgia, in A. G. Robinson, ed., Regional and petroleum
geology of the Black Sea and surrounding region: AAPG
Memoir 68, p. 331 – 346.
Bartok, P., 1993, Pre-breakup geology of the Gulf of Mexico –
Caribbean: Its relation to Triassic and Jurassic rift systems
of the region: Tectonics, v. 12, p. 441 – 459.
Berberian, M., 1983, The southern Caspian: A compressional
depression floored by a trapped, modified oceanic crust:
Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 20, p. 163 – 183.
Berzin, R., O. Oncken, J. Knapp, A. Perez-Estaun, T.
Hismatulin, N. Yunusov, and A. Lipilin, 1996, Orogenic
evolution of the Ural Mountains: Results from an in-
tegrated seismic experiment: Science, v. 274, p. 220 – 221.
Beydoun, Z., M. Hughes-Clarke, and R. Stonely, 1992,
Petroleum in the Zagros Basin: A late Tertiary foreland
basin overprinted onto the outer edge of a vast
hydrocarbon-rich Paleozoic – Mesozoic passive margin
shelf, in R. Macqueen and D. Leckie, eds., Foreland
basins and fold belts: AAPG Memoir 55, p. 309 – 339.
Beydoun, Z., M. Bamahmoud, and A. Nani, 1993, The Qishn
Formation, Yemen: Lithofacies and hydrocarbon habitat:
Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 10, p. 364 – 372.
Bird, P., 1996, Computer simulations of Alaskan neotec-
tonics: Tectonics, v. 15, p. 115 – 136.
Bird, P., 1998, Kinematic history of the Laramide orogeny
in latitudes 358 – 498N, western United States: Tectonics,
v. 17, p. 780 – 801.
Bird, K., and C. Molenaar, 1992, The North Slope foreland
basin, Alaska, in R. Macqueen and D. Leckie, eds., Fore-
land basins and fold belts: AAPG Memoir 55, p. 363 – 393.
Biswas, S., M. Rangaraju, J. Thomas, and S. Bhattacharya,
1994, Cambay-Hazad petroleum system in the South
Cambay Basin, India, in L. Magoon and W. Dow, eds.,
The petroleum system — From source to trap: AAPG
Memoir 60, p. 615 – 624.
Boote, D., D. Clark-Lowes, and M. Traut, 1998, Palaeozoic
petroleum systems of North Africa, in D. Macgregor, R.
Moody, and D. Clark-Lowes, eds., Petroleum geology of
North Africa: Geological Society (London) Special
Publication 132, p. 7 – 68.
Bradley, D., and W. Kidd, 1991, Flexural extension of the
upper continental crust in collisional foredeeps: Geolog-
ical Society of America Bulletin, v. 103, p. 1416 – 1438.
Bradshaw, M., J. Bradshaw, A. Murray, D. Needham, L.
Spencer, R. Summons, J. Wilmot, and S. Winn, 1994,
Petroleum systems in Western Australia, in P. Purcell and
R. Purcell, eds., The sedimentary basins of Western
Australia: Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia,
p. 63 – 76.
Brennan, P., 1990, Greater Burgan field (Kuwait), in N. H.
Foster and E. A. Beaumont, comps., Structural traps I:
AAPG Treatise of petroleum geology, Atlas of oil and gas
fields, p. 103 – 128.
Brennan, P., 1992, Raguba field — Libya, Sirte Basin, in N. H.
Foster and E. A. Beaumont, comps., Structural traps VII:
AAPG Treatise of petroleum geology, Atlas of oil and gas
fields, p. 267 – 289.
Briais, A., P. Patriat, and P. Tapponnier, 1993, Updated inter-
pretation of magnetic anomalies and sea-floor spreading
stages in the South China Sea: Implications for the Ter-
tiary tectonics of Southeast Asia: Journal of Geophysical
Research, v. 98, p. 6299 – 6328.
British Petroleum, 1992, Map of world total oil and gas
reserves: AAPG, scale 1:68,000,000, 1 sheet.
Bruns, T., 1983, Model for the origin of the Yakutat Block, an
accreted terrane in the northern Gulf of Alaska: Geology,
v. 11, p. 718 – 721.
Buck, S., and T. McCulloh, 1994, Bampu-Peutu petroleum
system, North Sumatra, Indonesia, in L. Magoon and W.
Dow, eds., The petroleum system — From source to trap:
AAPG Memoir 60, p. 625 – 637.
Budnik, R., 1986, Left-lateral intraplate deformation along the
Ancestral Rocky Mountains: Implications for late Paleo-
zoic plate motions: Tectonophysics, v. 132, p. 195 – 214.
Buitrago, J., 1994, Petroleum systems of the Neiva area,
Upper Magdalena Valley, Colombia, in L. Magoon and
W. Dow, eds., The petroleum system — From source to
trap: AAPG Memoir 60, p. 483 – 497.
Burke, K., 1975, Atlantic evaporites formed by evaporation of
water spilled from Pacific, Tethyan, and southern oceans:
Geology, v. 3, p. 613 – 616.
Burke, K., 1977, Aulacogens and continental breakup: Annual
Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, v. 5, p. 371 – 396.
Burke, K., 1985, Rift basins: Origin, history, and distribution:
17th Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,
Texas, p. 33 – 40.
Busby, C., and R. Ingersoll, 1995, Tectonics of sedimentary
basins: Cambridge, Massachusetts, Blackwell Science,
579 p.
Carmalt, S. W., and B. St. John, 1986, Giant oil and gas fields,
in M. T. Halbouty, ed., Future petroleum provinces of
the world (Proceedings of the Wallace E. Pratt Memorial
Conference, Phoenix, December 1984): AAPG Memoir
40, p. 11 – 53.
Carman, G., and P. Hardwick, 1983, Geology and regional
setting of Kuparuk oil field, Alaska: AAPG Bulletin, v. 67,
p. 1014 – 1031.
Castillo, M., 2001, Structural analysis of Cenozoic fault
systems using 3-D seismic data in the southern Mar-
acaibo basin, Venezuela: Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Texas at Austin, 188 p.
Coordinating Committee for Geoscience Programmes
(CCOP), 1991, Total sedimentary isopach maps offshore
East Asia: CCOP Technical Bulletin, 23, 116 p.
Chambers, J., and T. Daly, 1997, A tectonic model for the
onshore Kutai Basin, East Kalimantan, in A. Fraser, S.
Matthews, and R. Murphy, eds., Petroleum geology of
Southeast Asia: Geological Society (London) Special
Publication 126, p. 375 – 393.
Charlton, T., 2000, Late Cretaceous evolution of the Bird’s
Head, Irian Jaya; a failed rift? (abs.): AAPG Bulletin,
v. 84, p. 1411.
Christie-Blick, N., and N. Biddle, 1985, Deformation and
basin formation along strike-slip faults, in N. Biddle and
N. Christie-Blick, eds., Strike-slip deformation, basin
formation, and sedimentation: SEPM Special Publication
37, p. 1 – 34.
Cobbold, P., P. Davy, D. Gapais, E. Rossello, E. Sadybakasov,
J. Thomas, J. Tondji Biyo, and M. de Urreiztieta, 1993,
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 99
Sedimentary basins and crustal thickening: Sedimentary
Geology, v. 86, p. 77 – 89.
Cloke, I., S. Moss, and J. Craig, 1999, Structural controls on
the evolution of the Kutai Basin, East Kalimantan:
Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, v. 17, p. 137 – 156.
Cohen, H., and K. McClay, 1996, Sedimentation and shale
tectonics of the northwestern Niger Delta: Marine and
Petroleum Geology, v. 13, p. 313 – 328.
Cole, J., and S. Crittenden, 1997, Early Tertiary basin
formation and the development of lacustrine and semi-
lacustrine/marine source rocks on the Sunda shelf of SE
Asia, in A. Fraser, S. Matthews, and R. Murphy, eds.,
Petroleum geology of Southeast Asia: Geological Society
(London) Special Publication 126, p. 147 – 183.
Cooper, M., F. Addison, R. Alverez, A. Hayward, S. Howe,
A. Pulham, and A. Taborda, 1995, Basin development
and tectonic history of the Llanos Basin, Colombia, in
A. Tankard, R. Suarez, and H. Welsink, eds., Petro-
leum basins of South America: AAPG Memoir 62,
p. 659 – 665.
Cornford, C., 1994, Mandal-Ekofisk petroleum system in the
Central Graben of the North Sea, in L. Magoon and W.
Dow, eds., The petroleum system — From source to trap:
AAPG Memoir 60, p. 537 – 571.
Cramez, C., and M. Jackson, 2000, Superposed deformation
straddling the continental-oceanic transition in deep-
water Angola: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 17,
p. 1095 – 1109.
Creaney, S., and J. Allan, 1992, Petroleum systems in the
foreland basin of western Canada, in R. Macqueen and
D. Leckie, eds., Foreland basins and fold belts: AAPG
Memoir 55, p. 279 – 308.
Curray, J., 1989, The Sunda arc: A model for oblique plate
convergence: Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, v. 24,
p. 131 – 140.
d’Heur, M., 1990, Eldfisk field — Norway, Central Graben,
North Sea, in N. H. Foster and E. A. Beaumont, comps.,
Structural traps IV: AAPG Treatise of petroleum geology,
Atlas of oil and gas fields, p. 27 – 56.
Daly, M., 1989, Correlations between Nazca/Farallon plate
kinematics and fore-arc basin evolution in Ecuador:
Tectonics, v. 8, p. 769 – 790.
Davis, P., 1983, Gippsland basin, southeastern Australia, in
A. W. Bally, ed., Seismic expression of structural styles,
AAPG Studies in Geology No. 15, v. 3, section 3.3-20.
Davison, I., I. Alsop, P. Birch, C. Elders, N. Evans, H.
Nicholson, P. Rorison, D. Wade, J. Woodward, and M.
Young, 2000, Geometry and late-stage structural evolu-
tion of Central Graben salt diapirs, North Sea: Marine
and Petroleum Geology, v. 17, p. 499 – 522.
Delvaux, D., R. Moeys, G. Stapel, A. Melnikov, and V.
Ermikov, 1995, Paleostress reconstructions and geody-
namics of the Baikal region, central Asia, part I:
Paleozoic – Mesozoic prerift evolution: Tectonophysics,
v. 252, p. 61 – 101.
De Paor, D., D. Bradley, G. Eisenstadt, and S. Phillips, 1989,
The Arctic Eurekan orogeny: A most unusual fold and
thrust belt: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 101,
p. 952 – 967.
Devlin, W., J. Cogswell, G. Gaskins, G. Isaksen, D. Pitcher,
D. Puls, K. Stanley, and G. Wall, 1999, South Caspian
basin: Young, cool, and full of promise: Geological
Society of America Today, v. 9, p. 1 – 9.
Dickinson, W., M. Klute, M. Hayes, E. Janecke, M. Lundin,
M. McKittrick, and M. Olivares, 1988, Paleogeographic
and paleotectonic setting of Laramide sedimentary basins
in the central Rocky Mountain region: Geological Society
of America Bulletin, v. 100, p. 1023 – 1039.
Di Croce, J., A. Bally, and P. Vail, 1999, Sequence stra-
tigraphy of the eastern Venezuelan basin, in P. Mann,
ed., Caribbean basins, sedimentary basins of the world
(K. Hsu, series editor): Amsterdam, Elsevier, p. 419–476.
Dietrich, J., and L. Lane, 1992, Geology and structural
evolution of the Demarcation subbasin and Herschel
high, Beaufort-Mackenzie Basin, Arctic Canada: Bulletin
of the Canadian Journal of Petroleum Geology, v. 40,
p. 188 – 197.
Dolivo, E., 1997, What’s been drilled, found in deep-water
areas: Oil & Gas Journal, August 25, p. 104 – 112.
Edwards, J., 1997, Crude oil and alternative energy pro-
duction forecasts for the twenty-first century: The end
of the hydrocarbon era: AAPG Bulletin, v. 81, p. 1292 –
1305.
Erlich, R., and S. Barrett, 1992, Petroleum geology of the
Eastern Venezuela foreland basin, in R. Macqueen and D.
Leckie, eds., Foreland basins and fold belts: AAPG
Memoir 55, p. 341 – 362.
Erlich, R., A. Astorga, Z. Sofer, L. Pratt, and S. Palmer, 1996,
Palaeoceanography of organic-rich rocks of the Loma
Chumico Formation of Costa Rica, Late Cretaceous,
eastern Pacific: Sedimentology, v. 43, p. 691 – 718.
Exxon Tectonic Map of the World, 1985, World Mapping
Project, Exxon Production Research, Houston, Texas,
scale 1:5,000,000, 20 panels.
Falvey, D., 1974, The development of continental margins in
plate tectonic history: Australian Petroleum Exploration
Association Journal, v. 14, p. 95 – 106.
Feazel, C. T., I. A. Knight, and L. J. Pekot, 1990, Ekofisk
field — Norway: Central Graben, North Sea, in E. A.
Beaumont and N. H. Foster, comps., Structural traps IV:
Tectonic and nontectonic fold traps, AAPG Treatise of
petroleum geology, Atlas of oil and gas fields, p. 1 – 25.
Fermor, P., and I. Moffat, 1992, Tectonics and structure of
the western Canada foreland basin, in R. Macqueen and
D. Leckie, eds., Foreland basins and fold belts: AAPG
Memoir 55, p. 81 – 105.
Fournier, M., L. Jolivet, P. Huchon, K. Sergeyev, and L.
Oscorbin, 1994, Neogene strike-slip faulting in Sakhalin
and the Japan Sea opening: Journal of Geophysical
Research, v. 99, p. 2701 – 2725.
Fox, F., 1983, Structure sections across the Parry Islands fold
belt and the Vesey Hamilton salt wall, Arctic Archipel-
ago, Canada, in A. W. Bally, ed., Seismic expression of
structural styles, AAPG Studies in Geology No. 15, v. 3,
section 3.4.1.
Gabrielsen, R., T. Odinsen, and I. Grunnaleite, 1999,
Structuring of the northern Viking Graben and Møre
Basin: Influence of the basement structural grain and the
particular role of the Møre-Trondelag fault complex:
Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 16, p. 443 – 465.
Garcia-Molina, G., 1994, Structural evolution of SE Mexico
(Chiapas-Tabasco-Campeche): Offshore and onshore:
100 / Mann et al.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Rice University, Hous-
ton, Texas, 161 p.
Glenton, P., 1991, Snapper field — Australia: Offshore
Gippsland Basin, southeast Australia, in N. H. Foster
and E. A. Beaumont, comps., Structural traps V: AAPG
Treatise of petroleum geology, Atlas of oil and gas fields,
p. 227 – 250.
Grace, J., and G. Hart, 1986, Giant gas fields of northern
West Siberia: AAPG Bulletin, v. 70, p. 830 – 852.
Grace, J., and G. Hart, 1990, Urengoy gas field — U.S.S.R.:
West Siberian Basin, Tyumen district, in N. H. Foster and
E. A. Beaumont, comps., Structural traps III: AAPG
Treatise of petroleum geology, Atlas of oil and gas fields,
p. 309 – 335.
Greenwood, W., R. Anderson, R. Fleck, and C. Schmidt,
1980, Precambrian geologic history and plate tectonic
evolution of the Arabian shield: Saudi Arabia Ministry of
Petroleum and Mineral Resources, Mineral Resources
Bulletin, v. 24, p. 1 – 35.
Gries, R., 1990, Rocky Mountain foreland structures:
Changes in compression direction through time, in J.
Letouzey, ed., Petroleum and tectonics in mobile belts:
Paris, Editions Technip, p. 129 – 148.
Gries, R., J. Dolson, and R. Raynolds, 1992, Structural and
stratigraphic evolution and hydrocarbon distribution,
Rocky Mountain foreland, in R. Macqueen and D.
Leckie, eds., Foreland basins and fold belts: AAPG
Memoir 55, p. 395 – 425.
Gudlaugsson, S. T., J. I. Faleide, S. E. Johansen, and A. J.
Breivik, 1998, Late Palaeozoic structural development of
the South-western Barents Sea: Marine and Petroleum
Geology, v. 15, no. 1, p. 73 – 102.
Gumati, Y., and A. Nairn, 1991, Tectonic subsidence of
the Sirte Basin: Journal of Petroleum Geology, v. 11,
p. 205 – 217.
Guzmán-Speziale, M., 2000, The North American – Carib-
bean plate boundary west of the Motagua-Polochic fault
system: A fault jog in southeastern Mexico: Journal of
South American Earth Sciences, v. 13, p. 459 – 468.
Guzmán-Vega, M., and M. Mello, 1999, Origin of oil in the
Sureste Basin, Mexico: Bulletin American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, v. 83, p. 1068 – 1095.
Haeberle, F., 2001, Sizing up 362 US giant oil fields by basin
type: Oil & Gas Journal, April 9, p. 38 – 43.
Halbouty, M. T., 1970, Geology of giant petroleum fields:
AAPG Memoir 14, 575 p.
Halbouty, M. T., 1980, Giant oil and gas fields of the decade
1968 – 1978: AAPG Memoir 30, 596 p.
Halbouty, M. T., 1990, Giant oil and gas fields of the decade
1978 – 1988: AAPG Memoir 54, 526 p.
Halbouty, M. T., 2001, Online version of presentation at
AAPG symposium: Giant oil and gas fields of the decade
1990 – 2000, AAPG convention, Denver, Colorado:
hhttp://www. searchanddiscovery.com/documentsi (ac-
cessed June 5, 2001).
Halbouty, M. T., A. Meyerhoff, R. King, R. Dott, D. Klemme,
and T. Shabad, 1970, World’s giant oil and gas fields,
geologic factors affecting their formation, and basin
classification (part 1), in M. T. Halbouty, ed., Geology
of giant petroleum fields: AAPG Memoir 14, p. 502 – 528.
Hall, R., 1997, Cenozoic plate tectonic reconstructions of SE
Asia, in A. Fraser, S. Matthews, and R. Murphy, eds.,
Petroleum geology of SE Asia: Geological Society
(London) Special Publication 126, p. 11 – 23.
Hall, S., and V. Sturrock, 2001, Tectonic control on the
creation of supergiant fields in the central and south
Caspian area: Houston Geological Society Bulletin, v. 43,
p. 13 – 17.
Harding, T., 1983a, Structural inversion at Rambutan oil
field, South Sumatra Basin, in A. W. Bally, ed., Seismic
expression of structural styles, AAPG Studies in Geology
No. 15, v. 3, section 3.3-13.
Harding, T., 1983b, Divergent wrench fault and negative
flower structure, Andaman Sea, in A. W. Bally, ed.,
Seismic expression of structural styles, AAPG Studies in
Geology No. 15, v. 3, section 4.2-1.
Harding, T. 1984, Graben hydrocarbon occurrences and
structural style: AAPG Bulletin, v. 68, p. 333 – 362.
Harding, T., 1985, Seismic characteristics and identification
of negative flower structures, positive flower structures,
and positive structural inversion: AAPG Bulletin, v. 69,
p. 582 – 600.
Harding, T., 1990, Identification of wrench faults using
subsurface structural data: Criteria and pitfalls: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 74, p. 1590 – 1609.
Harding, T., and A. Tuminas, 1988, Interpretation of footwall
(lowside) fault traps sealed by reverse faults and con-
vergent wrench faults: AAPG Bulletin, v. 72, p. 738 – 757.
Harding, T., and A. Tuminas, 1989, Structural interpretation
of hydrocarbon traps sealed by basement normal fault
block faults at stable flank of foredeep basins and at rift
basins: AAPG Bulletin, v. 73, p. 812 – 840.
Helwig, J., 1985, Origin and classification of sedimentary
basins: Proceedings of the 17th Annual Offshore Tech-
nology Conference, Houston, Texas, v. 1, p. 21 – 32.
Hempton, M., 1987, Constraints on Arabian Plate motion
and extensional history of the Red Sea: Tectonics, v. 6,
p. 687 – 705.
Heritier, F., A. Conort, and E. Mure, 1990, Frigg field — U.K.,
and Norway, Viking Graben, North Sea, in N. H. Foster
and E. A. Beaumont, comps., Structural traps I: AAPG
Treatise of petroleum geology, Atlas of oil and gas fields,
p. 69 – 90.
Hessami, K., H. Koyi, C. Talbot, H. Tabasi, and E. Shabanian,
2001, Progressive unconformities within an evolving
foreland fold-thrust belt, Zagros Mountains: Journal of
the Geological Society (London), v. 158, p. 969 – 981.
Hill, K., K. Hill, G. Cooper, A. O’Sullivan, P. O’Sullivan, and
M. Richardson, 1995, Inversion around the Bass Basin,
SE Australia, in J. Buchanan and P. Buchanan, eds., Basin
inversion: Geological Society (London) Special Publica-
tion 88, p. 525 – 547.
Hillier, A., 1990, Leman field, in N. H. Foster and E. A.
Beaumont, comps., Structural traps I: AAPG Treatise
of petroleum geology, Atlas of oil and gas fields, p. 51 –
75.
Hillis, R., S. Mildren, C. Pigram, and D. Willoughby, 1997,
Rotation of horizontal stresses in the Australian North
West continental shelf due to the collision of the
Indo-Australian and Eurasian Plates: Tectonics, v. 16,
p. 323 – 335.
Horak, R., 1985, Tectonic and hydrocarbon maturation
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 101
history in the Permian Basin: Oil & Gas Journal, May 27,
p. 124 – 128.
Hubbard, R., S. Edrich, and R. Rattey, 1987, Geologic
evolution and hydrocarbon habitat of the ‘‘Arctic
Alaska Microplate’’: Marine and Petroleum Geology,
v. 4, p. 2 – 34.
Ivanhoe, L., and G. Leckie, 1993, Global oil, gas fields tallied,
analyzed: Oil & Gas Journal, v. 91, February 15, p. 87 –
91.
Jackson, J., and T. Fitch, 1981, Basement faulting and the
focal depths of the larger earthquakes in the Zagros
Mountains (Iran): Geophysical Journal of the Royal
Astronomical Society, v. 64, p. 561 – 586.
Jackson, J., J. Haines, and W. Holt, 1995, The accommoda-
tion of Arabia-Eurasia Plate convergence in Iran: Journal
of Geophysical Research, v. 100, p. 15,205 – 15,219.
Jackson, J., C. Cramez, and J. Fonck, 2000, Role of subaerial
volcanic rocks and mantle plumes in creation of South
Atlantic margins: Implications for salt tectonics and
source rocks: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 17,
p. 477 – 498.
Jadoon, I., R. Lawrence, and R. Lillie, 1994, Seismic data,
geometry, evolution, and shortening in the active Sulai-
man fold and thrust belt of Pakistan, southwest of the
Himalayas: AAPG Bulletin, v. 78, p. 758 – 774.
Johansen, S., B. Ostisty, O. Birkeland, Y. Fedorovsky, V.
Martirosjan, O. Christesen, S. Cheredeev, E. Ignatenko,
and L. Margulis, 1992, Hydrocarbon potential in the
Barents Sea region: Play distribution and potential, in T.
Vorren, E. Bergsager, O. Dahl-Stamnes, E. Holter, B.
Johansen, E. Lie, and T. Lund, eds., Arctic geology and
petroleum potential: Norwegian Petroleum Society
Special Publication 2, New York, Elsevier, p. 273 – 320.
Kabyshev, B., B. Krivchenkov, S. Stovba, and P. Ziegler,
1998, Hydrocarbon habitat of the Dneipr-Donets de-
pression: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 15, p. 177 –
190.
Karner, G., N. Driscoll, J. McGinnis, W. Brumbaugh, and N.
Cameron, 1997, Tectonic significance of syn-rift sedi-
ment packages across the Gabon-Cabinda continental
margin: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 14, p. 973 –
1000.
Katz, B., V. Robison, W. Dawson, and L. Elrod, 1994,
Simpson-Ellenburger petroleum system of the Central
Basin Platform, west Texas, U.S.A., in L. Magoon and W.
Dow, eds., The petroleum system — From source to trap:
AAPG Memoir 60, p. 453 – 461.
Kazmi, A., and A. Riaz, 1982, Tectonic map of Pakistan,
Karachi, Geological Survey of Pakistan, scale 1:2,000,000,
1 sheet.
Kent, P., 1979, Emergent Hormuz salt plugs of southern Iran:
Journal of Petroleum Geology, v. 2, p. 117 – 144.
King, W., B. Mills, and S. Gardiner, The Masila fields,
Republic of Yemen, this volume.
Kingston, D., C. Dishroon, and P. Williams, 1983, Global ba-
sin classification system: AAPG Bulletin, v. 67, p. 2175 –
2193.
Kirschner, C., G. Gryc, and C. Molenaar, 1983, Regional
seismic lines in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska,
in A. W. Bally, ed., Seismic expression of structural styles,
AAPG Studies in Geology No.15, v. 1, section 1.2.5-1.
Klemme, H., 1971, To find a giant, find the right basin: Oil &
Gas Journal, v. 69, no. 10, p. 103 – 110.
Klemme, H., 1974, The giants and the supergiants: Oil & Gas
Journal, v. 1, March 8 and 15, p. 1971.
Klemme, H., 1994, Petroleum systems of the world involving
Upper Jurassic source rocks, in L. Magoon and W. Dow,
eds., The petroleum system — From source to trap:
AAPG Memoir 60, p. 51 – 72.
Klett, T., and J. Schmoker, 2001, Changes in observed field-
size estimates of the world’s giant oil fields (abs.): AAPG
Annual Convention, Denver, Colorado, p. A106.
Klett, T., and J. Schmoker, Reserve growth of the world’s
giant oil fields, this volume.
Kluth, C., and P. Coney, 1981, Plate tectonics of the
Ancestral Rocky Mountains: Geology, v. 9, p. 10 – 15.
Kong, F., L. Lawver, and T. Lee, 2000, Evolution of the
southern Taiwan-Sinzi folded zone and opening of the
Okinawa Trough: Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, v. 18,
p. 325 – 341.
Krason, J., and P. Finley, 1992, Messoyakh gas field — Russia,
West Siberian Basin, in N. H. Foster and E. A. Beaumont,
comps., Structural traps VII: AAPG Treatise of petro-
leum geology, Atlas of oil and gas fields, p. 197 – 220.
Kuykendall, M., J. O’Reilly, B. Patton, R. Mott, J. Yang-
Logan, and M. Gui, Petroleum geology of the Peng Lai
19-3 oil complex, Bohai Bay, People’s Republic of China,
this volume.
Lambert, B., B. Duval, Y. Grosjean, I. Umar, and P. Zaugg,
The Peciko case history: Impact of an evolving geological
model on the dramatic increase of gas reserves in the
Mahakam Delta, this volume.
Lee, T., and L. Lawver, 1995, Cenozoic plate tectonic
reconstruction of the South China Sea region: Tectono-
physics, v. 235, p. 149 – 180.
Leith, T., et al., 1992, Mesozoic hydrocarbon source-rocks of
the Arctic region, in T. Vorren, E. Bergsager, O. Dahl-
Stamnes, E. Holter, B. Johansen, E. Lie, and T. Lund,
eds., Arctic geology and petroleum potential: Norwegian
Petroleum Society Special Publication 2, Amsterdam,
Elsevier, p. 1 – 26.
Letouzey, J., P. Werner, and A. Marty, 1990, Fault reactivation
and structural inversion, back-arc and intraplate compres-
sive deformations: Example of the eastern Sunda shelf
(Indonesia): Tectonophysics, v. 183, p. 341 – 362.
Lewis, C., 1990, Sarir field [Sirte Basin, Libya], in N. H.
Foster and E. A. Beaumont, comps., Structural traps II:
AAPG Treatise of petroleum geology, Atlas of oil and gas
fields, p. 253 – 267.
Livera, S., and J. Gdula, 1990, Brent oil field, in N. H. Foster
and E. A. Beaumont, comps., Structural traps II: AAPG
Treatise of petroleum geology, Atlas of oil and gas fields,
p. 21 – 63.
Lowell, J., 1995, Mechanics of basin inversion from world-
wide examples, in J. Buchanan and P. Buchanan, eds.,
Basin inversion: Geological Society (London) Special
Publication 88, p. 39 – 57.
Lugo, J., and P. Mann, 1995, Jurassic – Eocene tectonic
evolution of Maracaibo Basin, Venezuela, in A. Tankard,
R. Suarez, and H. Welsink, eds., Petroleum basins of
South America: AAPG Memoir 62, p. 699 – 725.
Lun, Y., 1992, Geotectonic framework of the East China Sea,
102 / Mann et al.
in J. Watkins, F. Zhiqiang, and K. McMillen, eds.,
Geology and geophysics of continental margins: AAPG
Memoir 53, p. 17 – 25.
Lyberis, N., and G. Manby, 1999, Oblique to orthogonal
convergence across the Turan Block in the post-Miocene:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 83, p. 1135 – 1160.
Macedo, J., and S. Marshak, 1999, Controls on the geometry
of fold-thrust belt salients: Geological Society of America
Bulletin, v. 111, p. 1808 – 1822.
Macgregor, D., 1995, Hydrocarbon habitat and classification
of inverted rift basins, in J. Buchanan and P. Buchanan,
eds., Basin inversion: Geological Society (London) Spe-
cial Publication 88, p. 83 – 93.
Macgregor, D., 1996a, Factors controlling the destruction or
preservation of giant light oil fields: Petroleum Geo-
science, v. 2, p. 197 – 217.
Macgregor, D., 1996b, The hydrocarbon systems of north
Africa: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 13, p. 329 –
340.
Macgregor, D., 1998, Giant fields, petroleum systems, and
exploration maturity of Algeria, in D. Macgregor, R.
Moody, and D. Clark-Lowes, eds., Petroleum geology of
North Africa: Geological Society (London) Special
Publication 132, p. 79 – 96.
Magoon, L., and W. Dow, 1994, The petroleum system, in L.
Magoon and W. Dow, eds., The petroleum system —
From source to trap: AAPG Memoir 60, p. 3 – 24.
Mann, P., 1997, Model for the formation of large transten-
sional basins in zones of tectonic escape: Geology, v. 25,
p. 211 – 214.
Mann, P., 1999, Caribbean sedimentary basins: Classification
and tectonic setting from Jurassic to present, in P.
Mann, ed., Caribbean basins, Sedimentary basins of the
world (K. Hsu, series editor), Amsterdam, Elsevier,
p. 3 – 31.
Mann, P., and K. Burke, 1990, Transverse intra-arc rifting:
Palaeogene Wagwater Belt, Jamaica: Marine and Petro-
leum Geology, v. 17, p. 410 – 427.
Mann, P., M. Hempton, D. Bradley, and K. Burke, 1983,
Development of pull-apart basins: Journal of Geology,
v. 91, p. 529 – 554.
Mann, P., P. McLaughlin, W. van den Bold, S. Lawrence, and
M. Lamar, 1999, Tectonic and eustatic controls on
Neogene evaporitic and siliclastic deposition in the
Enriquillo Basin, Dominican Republic, in P. Mann, ed.,
Caribbean basins, Sedimentary basins of the world (K.
Hsu, series editor), Amsterdam, Elsevier, p. 287 – 342.
Marton, G., and R. Buffler, 1994, Jurassic reconstruction of
the Gulf of Mexico basin: International Geology Review,
v. 36, p. 545 – 586.
Marton, G., and R. Buffler, 1999, Jurassic – Early Cretaceous
tectono-paleogeographic evolution of the southeastern
Gulf of Mexico, in P. Mann, ed., Caribbean basins,
Sedimentary basins of the world (K. Hsu, series editor),
Amsterdam, Elsevier, p. 63 – 91.
Matthews, S., A. Fraser, S. Lowe, S. Todd, and F. Peel, 1997,
Structure, stratigraphy, and petroleum geology of the SE
Nam Con Son Basin, offshore Vietnam, in A. Fraser, S.
Matthews, and R. Murphy, eds., Petroleum geology of
Southeast Asia: Geological Society (London) Special
Publication 126, p. 89 – 106.
Mat Zin, I., and R. Swarbick, 1997, The tectonic evolution
and associated sedimentation history of Sarawak Basin,
eastern Malaysia: A guide for future hydrocarbon
exploration, in A. Fraser, S. Matthews, and R. Murphy,
eds., Petroleum geology of Southeast Asia: Geological
Society (London) Special Publication 126, p. 237 – 245.
May, S., K. Ehman, G. Gray, and J. Crowell, 1993, A new
angle on the tectonic evolution of the Ridge Basin, a
‘‘strike-slip’’ basin in southern California: Geological
Society of America Bulletin, v. 105, p. 1357 – 1372.
Mayall, M., A. Bent, and D. Roberts, 1997, Miocene
carbonate buildups offshore Socialist Republic of Viet-
nam, in A. Fraser, S. Matthews, and R. Murphy, eds.,
Petroleum geology of Southeast Asia: Geological Society
(London) Special Publication 126, p. 117 – 120.
McCabe, P., 1998, Energy resources — Cornucopia or empty
barrel?: AAPG Bulletin, v. 82, p. 2110 – 2134.
McCullough, C., 1990, Cano Limon field, Llanos Basin,
Colombia, in N. H. Foster and E. A. Beaumont, comps.,
Structural traps II: AAPG Treatise of petroleum geology,
Atlas of oil and gas fields, p. 65 – 93.
Meckel, L., D. Smith, and L. Wells, 1992, Ouachita fore-
deep basins: Regional paleogeography and habitat of
hydrocarbons, in R. Macqueen and D. Leckie, eds., Fore-
land basins and fold belts: AAPG Memoir 55, p. 427 –
444.
Mello, M. R., E. A. M. Koutsoukos, W. U. Mohriak, and G.
Bacoccoli, Selected petroleum systems in Brazil, in The
petroleum system — From source to trap, AAPG Memoir
60, p. 499 – 512.
Milsom, J., R. Holt, D. Ayub, and R. Smail, 1997, Gravity
anomalies and deep structural controls at the Sabah-
Palawan margins, South China Sea, in A. Fraser, S.
Matthews, and R. Murphy, eds., Petroleum geology of
Southeast Asia: Geological Society (London) Special
Publication 126, p. 417 – 427.
Moody, J. D., 1975, Distribution and geological character-
istics of giant oil fields, in A. Fischer and S. Judson, eds.,
Petroleum and global tectonics: Princeton University
Press, Princeton, New Jersey, p. 307 – 320.
Morley, C. K., 1999, Comparison of hydrocarbon prospec-
tivity in rift systems, in C. K. Morley, ed., Geoscience of
rift systems — Evolution of East Africa: AAPG Studies in
Geology No. 44, p. 233 – 242.
Morley, C., 2001, Combined escape tectonics and subduction-
rollback extension: A model for the evolution of the Ter-
tiary rift basins in Thailand, Malaysia, and Laos: Journal
of the Geological Society (London), v. 158, p. 461 –
474.
Nabelek, J., W. Chen, and H. Ye, 1987, The Tangshan
earthquake sequence and its implications for the evolu-
tion of the North China Basin: Journal of Geophysical
Research, v. 92, p. 12,615 – 12,628.
Nehring, R., 1978, Giant oil fields and world oil resources,
Rand Corporation Report, R-2284-CIA, 162 p.
Nikishin, A., M. Brunet, S. Cloetingh, and A. Ershov, 1997,
Northern Peri-Tethyan Cenozoic intraplate deformations:
Influence of the Tethyan collisional belt on the Eurasian
continent from Paris to Tian-Shan: Comptes Rendus
Académie Sciences, Paris, v. 324, series IIa, p. 49 – 57.
Nino, F., J. Chery, and J. Gratier, 1998, Mechanical modeling
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 103
of compressional basins: Origin and interaction of faults,
erosion, and subsidence in the Ventura Basin, California:
Tectonics, v. 17, p. 955 – 972.
Northrup, C., L. Royden, and C. Burchfiel, 1995, Motion of
the Pacific Plate relative to Eurasia and its potential
relation to Cenozoic extrusion along the eastern margin
of Eurasia: Geology, v. 23, p. 719 – 722.
Nurnberg, D., and D. Mueller, 1991, The tectonic evolution
of the South Atlantic from Late Jurassic to present:
Tectonophysics, v. 191, p. 27 – 53.
O’Hearn, T., S. Elliot, and A. Samsonov, Karachaganak field,
northern Pre-Caspian Basin, northwestern Kazakhstan,
this volume.
Oldow, J., A. Bally, H. Ave Lallemant, and W. Leeman,
1989, Phanerozoic evolution of the North American
Cordillera; United States and Canada, in A. Bally and
A. Palmer, eds., The geology of North America — An
overview: Geological Society of America, v. A, p. 139 –
232.
Oliver, J., 1986, Fluids expelled tectonically from orogenic
belts: Their role in hydrocarbon migration and other
geologic phenomena: Geology, v. 14, p. 99 – 102.
Ormiston, A. R., and R. J. Oglesby, 1995, Effect of Late
Devonian paleoclimate on source rock quality and
location, in A.-Y. Huc, ed., Paleogeography, paleocli-
mate, and source rocks: AAPG Studies in Geology No.
40, p. 105 – 132.
Passalacqua, H., F. Fernandez, Y. Gou, and F. Roure, 1995,
Crustal architecture and strain partitioning in the Eastern
Venezuelan ranges, in A. Tankard, R. Suarez, and H.
Welsink, eds., Petroleum basins of South America:
AAPG Memoir 62, p. 667 – 679.
Perez, O., R. Bilham, R. Bendick, J. Velandia, N. Hernandez,
C. Moncayo, M. Hoyer, and M. Kozuch, 2001, Velocity
field across the southern Caribbean Plate boundary and
estimates of Caribbean/South American plate motion
using GPS geodesy 1994 – 2000: Geophysical Research
Letters, v. 28, p. 2987 – 2990.
Perrodin, A., 1983, Dynamics of oil and gas accumulations:
Bulletin des Centres Recherches Exploration-Production
Elf-Aquitaine, Memoir 5, 343 p.
Peters, K., M. Pyttle, T. Elam, and P. Sundararaman, 1994,
Identification of petroleum systems adjacent to the San
Andreas fault, California, U.S.A., in L. Magoon and W.
Dow, eds., The petroleum trap — From source to trap:
AAPG Memoir 60, p. 423 – 436.
Peterson, J., and J. Clarke, 1991, Geology and hydrocarbon
habitat of the West Siberian Basin: AAPG Studies in
Geology No. 32, 96 p.
Petrobras, 1983, Campos and Espiritu Santo Basins, offshore
Brazil, in A. W. Bally, ed., Seismic expression of
structural styles, AAPG Studies in Geology No. 15,
v. 2, section 2.2.3-51 – 58.
Pettingill, H. S., 2001, Giant field discoveries of the 1990s:
The Leading Edge, v. 20, no. 7, p. 698 – 704.
Pierce, W. H., 1993, Southern Arabian Basin oil habitat: Seals
and gathering areas, in K. b. M. Al-Hinai, ed., Proceed-
ings, 8th Middle East Oil Show and Conference, Society
of Petroleum Engineers, v. 8, p. II.103 – II.111.
Pigram, C., G. Robinson, and S. Tobing, 1982, Late
Cainozoic origin for the Bintuni Basin and adjacent
Lengguru fold belt, Irian Jaya: Proceedings Indonesian
Petroleum Association, Eleventh Annual Convention,
Jakarta, Indonesia, June 1982, p. 109 – 126.
Pigram, C., P. Davies, D. Feary, and P. Symonds, 1989,
Tectonic controls on carbonate platform evolution in
southern Papua New Guinea: Passive margin to foreland
basin: Geology, v. 17, p. 199 – 202.
Pindell, J., and K. Tabbutt, 1995, Mesozoic – Cenozoic
Andean paleogeography and regional controls on hydro-
carbon systems, in A. Tankard, R. Suarez, and H.
Welsink, eds., Petroleum basins of South America:
AAPG Memoir 62, p. 101 – 128.
Pindell, J. L., R. Higgs, and J. F. Dewey, 1998, Cenozoic
palinspastic reconstruction, paleogeographic evolution,
and hydrocarbon setting of the northern margin of
South America, in J. L. Pindell and C. Drake, eds., Pa-
leogeographic evolution and non-glacial eustasy, north-
ern South America: SEPM Special Publication 58, p. 45 –
85.
Pinous, O., M. Levchuk, and D. Sahagian, 2001, Regional
synthesis of the productive Neocomian complex of West
Siberia: Sequence stratigraphic framework: AAPG Bul-
letin, v. 85, p. 1713 – 1730.
Qatar General Petroleum, 1991, Dukhan field — Qatar,
Arabian Platform, in N. H. Foster and E. A. Beaumont,
comps., Structural traps V: AAPG Treatise of petroleum
geology, Atlas of oil and gas fields, p. 103 – 120.
Qiang, J., and P. McCabe, 1998, Genetic features of petro-
leum systems in rift basins of eastern China: Marine and
Petroleum Geology, v. 15, p. 343 – 358.
Rangel, H. D., P. de T. M. Guimarães, and A. R. Spadini,
Barracuda and Roncador giant oil fields, deep-water
Campos Basin, Brazil, this volume.
Rangin, C., M. Klein, D. Roques, X. Le Pichon, and L. Trong,
1995, The Red River fault system in the Tonkin Gulf,
Vietnam: Tectonophysics, v. 243, p. 209 – 222.
Reijers, T., S. Petters, and C. Nwajide, 1997, The Niger
Delta Basin, in R. Selley, ed., African basins, Sedimentary
basins of the world (K. Hsu, series editor), Amsterdam,
Elsevier, p. 151 – 172.
Reilinger, R., S. McClusky, M. Oral, R. King, M. Toksoz, A.
Barka, I. Kinik, O. Lenk, and I. Sanli, 1997, Global
positioning system measurements of present-day crustal
movements in the Arabia-Africa-Eurasia plate collision
zone: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 102, p. 9983 –
9999.
Roberts, M., 1983, Seismic example of complex faulting
from northwest shelf of Palawan, Philippines, in A. W.
Bally, ed., Seismic expression of structural styles, AAPG
Studies in Geology No. 15, v. 3, section 4.2-18.
Robertson, P., and K. Burke, 1988, Evolution of southern
Caribbean Plate boundary, vicinity of Trinidad and
Tobago: AAPG Bulletin, v. 73, p. 490 – 509.
Robinson, A., J. Rudat, C. Banks, and R. Wiles, 1996, Petro-
leum geology of the Black Sea: Marine and Petroleum
Geology, v. 13, p. 195 – 223
Robinson, A., E. Griffith, A. Gardiner, and A. Home, 1997,
Petroleum geology of the Georgian fold and thrust belts
and foreland basins, in A. G. Robinson, ed., Regional and
petroleum geology of the Black Sea and surrounding
region: AAPG Memoir 68, p. 347 – 367.
104 / Mann et al.
Roques, D., S. Matthews, and C. Rangin, 1997, Constraints
on strike-slip motion from seismic and gravity data along
the Vietnam margin offshore Da Nang: Implications for
hydrocarbon prospectivity and opening of the East Viet-
nam Sea, in A. Matthews and R. Murphy, eds., Petroleum
geology of Southeast Asia: Geological Society (London)
Special Publication 126, p. 341 – 353.
Schluter, H., K. Hinz, and M. Block, 1996, Tectono-
stratigraphic terranes and detachment faulting of the
South China Sea and Sulu Sea: Marine Geology, v. 130,
p. 39 – 78.
Schreurs, J., 1997, Geology of Brunei deltas, exploration
status updated: Oil & Gas Journal, August 4, p. 76 – 80.
Sclater, J., and P. Christie, 1980, Continental stretching: An
explanation of the post-mid-Cretaceous subsidence of
the central North Sea Basin: Journal of Geophysical
Research, v. 85, p. 3711 – 3739.
Selley, R., 1997, The Sirte Basin of Libya, in R. Selley, ed.,
African basins, Sedimentary basins of the world (K. Hsu,
series editor), Amsterdam, Elsevier, p. 27 – 37.
Sengor, A., 1984, The Cimmeride orogenic system and the
tectonics of Eurasia: Geological Society of America
Special Paper 195, 82 p.
Shansu, W., X. Taijun, W. Shufen, and L. Libin, 1992,
Geological characteristics and petroleum potential of
sedimentary basins of the China continental shelf, in J.
Watkins, F. Zhiqiang, and K. McMillen, eds., Geology
and geophysics of continental margins: AAPG Memoir
53, p. 3 – 16.
Shepherd, M., C. Kearney, and J. Milne, 1990, Magnus field,
in N. H. Foster and E. A. Beaumont, comps., Structural
traps II: AAPG Treatise of petroleum geology, Atlas of
oil and gas fields, p. 95 – 125.
Sibuet, J., B. Deffontaines, S. Hsu, N. Thareau, J. Le Formal,
C. Liu, and ACT party, 1998, Okinawa trough back-arc
basin: Early tectonic and magmatic evolution: Journal of
Geophysical Research, v. 103, p. 30245 – 30267.
Sieh, K., and D. Natawidjaja, 2000, Neotectonics of the
Sumatran fault, Indonesia: Journal of Geophysical
Research, v. 105, p. 28295 – 28326.
Skogseid, J., 1994, Dimensions of the Late Cretaceous –
Paleocene northeast Atlantic rift derived from Cenozoic
subsidence: Tectonophysics, v. 240, p. 225 – 247.
Smith, W. H. F., and D. T. Sandwell, 1997, Global sea floor
topography from satellite altimetry and ship depth
soundings: Science, v. 277, p. 1956 – 1962.
Soulsby, A., S. Lawrence, D. Shaw, and S. Tubb, 1997, Struc-
tural analysis of the Indus Basin system from regional
seismic data: AAPG Bulletin, v. 81, no. 8, p. 1414.
St. John, B., 1984, Sedimentary provinces of the world —
Hydrocarbon productive and non-productive: Williams
and Heinz map, Capitol Heights, Maryland, scale
1:31,368,000, 1 sheet, Van der Grinten projection.
Stephenson, R. A., A. F. Embry, S. M. Nakiboglu, and M. A.
Hastaoglu, 1987, Rift-initiated Permian to Early Cretaceous
subsidence of the Sverdrup Basin, in C. Beaumont and
A. J. Tankard, eds., Sedimentary basins and basin-forming
mechanisms: Atlantic Geoscience Society, v. 12, p. 213 –
231.
Stocklin, J., 1986, The Vendian – Lower Cambrian salt basins
of Iran, Oman, and Pakistan: Stratigraphy, correlations,
paleogeography: Sciences de la Terre Memoir 47, p. 329 –
345.
Stovba, S., R. Stephenson, and M. Kivshik, 1996, Structural
features and evolution of the Dneipr-Donets Basin, Ukraine,
from regional seismic reflection profiles: Tectonophysics,
v. 268, p. 127 – 147.
Suess, E., L. Kulm, and J. Killingley, 1987, Coastal upwelling
and a history of organic-rich mudstone deposition off
Peru, in J. Brooks and A. Fleet, eds., Marine petroleum
source rocks: Geological Society (London) Special
Publication 26, p. 181 – 197.
Taboada, A., L. Rivera, A. Fuenzalinda, A. Cisternas, H.
Philip, H. Bijwaard, J. Olaya, and C. Rivera, 2000, Geo-
dynamics of northern Andes: Subductions and intracon-
tinental deformation (Colombia): Tectonics, v. 19,
p. 787 – 813.
Talukdar, S., and F. Marcano, 1994, Petroleum systems of the
Maracaibo Basin, Venezuela, in L. Magoon and W. Dow,
eds., The petroleum system — From source to trap:
AAPG Memoir 60, p. 463 – 481.
Tankard, A., et al., 1995, Structural and tectonic controls on
basin evolution in southwestern Gondwana during the
Phanerozoic, in A. Tankard, R. Suarez, and H. Welsink,
eds., Petroleum basins of South America: AAPG Memoir
62, p. 5 – 52.
Tapponier, P., G. Peltzner, and R. Armijo, 1986, On the
mechanism of the collision between India and Asia, in M.
Coward, ed., Collisional tectonics: Geological Society
(London) Special Publication 19, p. 115 – 157.
Texaco Canada Resources, 1983, Melville Island, Northwest
Territories, Canada Line no. 7, in A. W. Bally, ed.,
Seismic expression of structural styles, AAPG Studies in
Geology No. 15, v. 3, section 3.4.1.
Trencamp, R., J. N. Kellogg, J. T. Freymuller, and H. P. Mora,
2002, Wider plate margin deformations, southern Cen-
tral America and northwestern South America, CASA
GPS observations: Journal of South American Earth Sci-
ences, v. 15, issue 2, p. 157 – 171.
Tsang, P., 1990, Taglu field [Mackenzie Delta, Canada], in
N. H. Foster and E. A. Beaumont, comps., Structural
traps I: AAPG Treatise of petroleum geology, Atlas of oil
and gas fields, p. 191 – 212.
Tull, S., 1997, The diversity of hydrocarbon habitat in Russia:
Petroleum Geoscience, v. 3, p. 315 – 325.
Uliana, M., M. Arteaga, L. Legarreta, J. Cerdan, and G.
Peroni, 1995, Inversion structures and hydrocarbon
occurrence in Argentina, in J. Buchanan and P. Bucha-
nan, eds., Basin inversion: Geological Society (London)
Special Publication 88, p. 211 – 233.
Underhill, J., and S. Paterson, 1998, Genesis of tectonic
inversion structures: Seismic evidence for the develop-
ment of key structures along the Purbeck – Isle of Wight
disturbance: Journal of the Geological Society (London),
v. 155, p. 975 – 992.
Ulmishek, G., 1990, Uzen field — U.S.S.R.: Middle Caspian
Basin, South Mangyshlak region, in N. H. Foster and E. A.
Beaumont, comps., Structural traps IV: AAPG Treatise of
petroleum geology, Atlas of oil and gas fields, p. 281 – 297.
Urien, C. M., J. J. Zambrano, and M. R. Yrigoyen, 1995,
Petroleum basins of southern South America: An over-
view, in A. J. Tankard, S. R. Suarez, and H. J. Welsink,
 Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields / 105
eds., Petroleum basins of South America: AAPG Memoir
62, p. 63 – 77.
Valle, P., J. Gjelberg, and W. Helland-Hansen, 2001,
Tectonostratigraphic development in the eastern Lower
Congo Basin, offshore Angola, west Africa: Marine and
Petroleum Geology, v. 18, p. 909 – 927.
van der Hilst, R., and P. Mann, 1994, Tectonic implications of
subducted lithosphere beneath northwestern South
America: Geology, v. 22, p. 451 – 454.
van de Weerd, A., and P. Ware, 1994, A review of East
Algerian Sahara oil and gas province (Triassic, Gha-
dames, and Illizi Basins): First Break, v. 12, p. 363 –
373.
Van Rensbergen, P., and C. Morley, 2000, 3-D seismic study
of a shale expulsion syncline at the base of the Champion
Delta, offshore Brunei and its implications for the early
structural evolution of large delta systems: Marine and
Petroleum Geology, v. 17, p. 861 – 872.
Van Vessem, E., T. Gan, and J. Brooke, 1990, Ninian field,
United Kingdom, in N. H. Foster and E. A. Beaumont,
comps., Structural traps II: AAPG Treatise of petroleum
geology, Atlas of oil and gas fields, p. 161 – 199.
Vyssotski, A., 2000, A sequence stratigraphic analysis of the
Late Jurassic – Turonian in the context of the evolution of
the West Siberian Basin: Unpublished M.A. thesis, Rice
University, Houston, Texas, 115 p.
Wang, G., M. Coward, W. Yuan, S. Liu, and W. Wang, 1995,
Fold growth during basin inversion — Example from the
East China Sea Basin, in J. Buchanan and P. Buchanan,
eds., Basin inversion: Geological Society (London)
Special Publication 88, p. 493 – 522.
Watcharanantakul, R., and C. Morley, 2000, Syn-rift and
post-rift modelling of the Pattani Basin, Thailand: Evi-
dence for a ramp-flat detachment: Marine and Petroleum
Geology, v. 17, p. 937 – 958.
Watkins, J., and R. T. Buff ler, 1996, Gulf of Mexico: Deep-
water frontier exploration potential, in J. O. Jones and R.
L. Freed, eds., Structural framework of the northern Gulf
of Mexico: Gulf Coast Association of Geological So-
cieties Special Publication, p. 79 – 92.
Weber, J., T. Dixon, C. DeMets, W. Ambeh, P. Jansma, G.
Mattioli, J. Saleh, G. Sella, R. Bilham, and O. Perez, 2000,
GPS estimate of relative motion between the Caribbean
and South American Plates and geologic implications for
Trinidad and Venezuela: Geology, v. 29, p. 75 – 78.
Williams, H., 1997, Play concepts — Northwest Palawan,
Philippines: Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, v. 15, p. 251 –
273.
Williams, H., and R. Eubank, 1995, Hydrocarbon habitat in
the rift graben of the Central Sumatra Basin, Indonesia,
in J. Lambiase, ed., Hydrocarbon habitat in rift basins:
Geological Society (London) Special Publication 80,
p. 331 – 371.
Winker, C., and R. Buffler, 1988, Paleogeographic evolution
of the early deep-water Gulf of Mexico and margins,
Jurassic to middle Cretaceous (Comanchean): AAPG
Bulletin, v. 72, p. 318 – 346.
Worrall, D., V. Kruglak, F. Kunst, and V. Kuznetsov, 1996,
Tertiary tectonics of the Sea of Okhotsk, Russia: Far-field
effects of the India-Eurasia collision: Tectonics, v. 15,
p. 813 – 826.
Wright, T., 1991, Structural geology and tectonic evolution of
the Los Angeles Basin, in K. Biddle, ed., Active margin
basins: AAPG Memoir 52, p. 35 – 134.
Yin, A., 2000, Mode of Cenozoic east-west extension in Tibet
suggesting a common origin of rifts in Asia during the
Indo-Asian collision: Journal of Geophysical Research,
v. 105, p. 21,745 – 21,759.
Ziegler, P., 1988, Evolution of the Arctic-North Atlantic and
the western Tethys: AAPG Memoir 43, 198 p.
Ziegler, P., and F. Roure, 1996, Architecture and petroleum
systems of the Alpine orogen and associated basins, in P.
Ziegler and F. Horvath, eds., Peri-Tethys Memoir 2:
Structure and prospects of Alpine basins and forelands:
Memoires du Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle
179, Editions du Museum, Paris, p. 15 – 45.