www.jpg.co.

uk

Journal of Petroleum Geology,Vol. 44(3), July 2021, pp 237-258 237

SOUTH CAUCASUS PALAEOGEOGRAPHY

AND PROSPECTIVITY: ELEMENTS OF
PETROLEUM SYSTEMS FROM THE BLACK SEA
TO THE CASPIAN

G. A. Blackbourn1, N.Tevzadze2, A. Janiashvili2, O. Enukidze3

and V. Alania3

Nine Mesozoic and Cenozoic palaeogeographic maps are presented to illustrate the
petroleum prospectivity of the South Caucasus from a fresh perspective and as part of the
wider Caucasus region. Previously, elements of petroleum systems – reservoir, source and
sealing lithologies, and the timing of their formation – have mostly been examined within
individual sub-basins or licence blocks, and regional understanding has been limited. Emphasis
is placed here on the onshore prospectivity of Georgia and Azerbaijan; the well-known
Pliocene Productive Series of eastern Azerbaijan and the southern Caspian is not considered.
The Great Caucasus Basin (GCB) formed in the Early Jurassic following closure of
PalaeoTethys, and remained a significant feature, despite structural modifications, until
end-Eocene underthrusting and uplift converted the basin into the Greater Caucasus
mountains. By the Toarcian a major delta system had developed along its northeastern
margin, while the Transcaucasus block to the south was mostly covered by a shallow sea with
limited sediment supply. Bajocian volcanism across the South Caucasus was accompanied
by modification of the structure of the Great Caucasus Basin with the intrusion of tholeiitic
dykes, possibly associated with onset of northward NeoTethyan subduction. Rising sea levels
led to the abandonment of the GCB delta system. Relative uplift of the South Caucasus in
the Bathonian created lowlands surrounded by marginal settings in which paralic deposits
and coals were laid down. Jurassic hydrocarbon source rocks include deep-marine shales
deposited within the Great Caucasus Basin together with coals; their potential is confirmed
by numerous seeps within both Georgia and Azerbaijan. Various Middle Jurassic sandstones
are potential reservoirs.
Carbonates dominated by the late Callovian, with widespread development of Oxfordian
reefs and of Late Jurassic evaporite basins in the North Caucasus. Bedded anhydrites in
Georgia comprise potential seals. Shallow-marine clastics again became widespread across
the Caucasus in the Cretaceous, later replaced by carbonates including chalk-like limestones.
Deeper-marine conditions persisted in the Great Caucasus Basin, which became less well-
defined and split into separate depocentres. Fractured chalks are known reservoirs in the
North Caucasus and prospective reservoirs in the South Caucasus.

1
Blackbourn Geoconsulting, 26 East Pier Street, Bo’ness,
West Lothian, EH51 9AB, Scotland, United Kingdom.
2
Georgia Oil and Gas Ltd., 4a Freedom Square, Entrance
2, Floor 5, Tbilisi, Georgia.
3
Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, M. Nodia Institute Key words: South Caucasus, Great Caucasus Basin,
of Geophysics, Tbilisi, Georgia. palaeogeography, Mesozoic, Cenozoic, petroleum,
* corresponding author: graham@blackbourn.co.uk prospectivity, Georgia, Azerbaijan,

© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Petroleum Geology © 2021 Scientific Press Ltd

Blackbourn.indd 237 21/06/2021 15:47:02

 238 South Caucasus palaeogeography and prospectivity
Uplift of the southern South Caucasus during the
Paleogene led to northward transport of sediment
into evolving E-W to ESE-WSW basins in eastern
Georgia and western Azerbaijan. Marine deposits within
these basins form reservoirs, including thick fractured
volcanogenic turbidites in eastern Georgia. Reduced
sediment supply here at the start of the Late Eocene
allowed organic-rich restricted-marine source rocks to
accumulate.
Rapid uplift of the GCB associated with underthrusting
at the end of the Eocene led to emergence of the Greater
Caucasus mountains. The prolific Maikopian source
rocks were deposited in restricted-marine conditions
during the Oligocene and Early Miocene over the North
Caucasus, parts of Azerbaijan and western Georgia, but
they are diluted by coarser clastics in eastern Georgia
where the Late Eocene source is more significant. Later
Miocene uplift of the entire Caucasus region resulted
in progressive marine regression, and the formation of
potential reservoirs in alluvial and shallow-marine sands.
INTRODUCTION
The South Caucasus extends from the Greater
Caucasus mountains in the north, across the relatively
low-lying belt of land which runs from the eastern
Black Sea to the South Caspian, and southwards to
the Lesser Caucasus. It encompasses the territories of
Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia (Fig. 1). In addition
to prolific Pliocene oil and gas fields in the South
Caspian Basin and its extension into eastern Azerbaijan
onshore (not considered here), numerous oil and gas
occurrences are known from the onshore basins of the
South Caucasus, ranging from commercial fields to
sub-commercial accumulations, widespread surface
seeps and subsurface shows. These hydrocarbon
accumulations occur within a variety of Mesozoic
and Cenozoic reservoirs, sourced from several distinct
horizons. Economic success has, however, been
limited.
Although the South Caucasus is now divided by
national boundaries and separated from the North
Caucasus by the Greater Caucasus mountains,
through most of its history the entire Caucasus
region comprised a single geological province which
continues westwards into the eastern Black Sea Basin
and eastwards into the South Caspian and beyond.
In the past, exploration in this region has commonly
focussed on restricted areas, uninformed by the
wider picture. The easternmost segment of the South
Caucasus, largely within Azerbaijan, has often been
treated merely as a westerly extension of the South
Caspian Basin, while the western segment, mostly
Georgian, has been regarded as a separate onshore
province, although its geological continuity with the
eastern Black Sea has been more widely recognised
Blackbourn.indd 238
in recent years (e.g. Adamia et al., 2017; Tari et al.,
2018 and other papers in the same volumes). The
present study takes a step back, considering the
evolution of this larger region as a single province.
Nine palaeogeographic maps are presented, ranging
from Early Jurassic to Miocene in age. They attempt
to illustrate the geological development of the entire
South Caucasus region, especially its main reservoir
and source-rock horizons, in the context of its regional
setting between the North Caucasus and Central
Caspian Sea in the north to the former NeoTethyan
margin in the south. They therefore include parts of
the Russian Federation, Armenia and small sections
of western Kazakhstan, northeastern Turkey and
northwestern Iran. In addition to latitudes and
longitudes, some present-day geographic features,
such as coastlines and rivers, are shown in outline
for reference purposes. This enlarged perspective
is intended to provide fresh insights and to inspire
renewed exploration of this large and geologically
complex region.
The study focuses on the evolution of depositional
systems and associated petroleum-system elements:
primarily the potential source rocks and reservoirs.
Less attention is paid here to the tectonic evolution of
the region. Structural information such as controlling
faults has been omitted, and no attempt has been
made at palinspastic reconstructions. The structural
interpretation of the region remains in some respects
uncertain, and attempts to depict earlier tectonic
configurations and patterns of faulting would have
required a choice to be made between several
contrasting models, quite beyond the scope of this
paper. However, in some cases the palaeogeographic
maps should help to constrain tectonic reconstructions,
and comments have been made in the text where this
is the case, especially in relation to the evolution of
the Great Caucasus Basin.
To some extent the nine palaeogeographic maps
are schematic. Existing palaeogeographic maps
of key horizons from various parts of the South
Caucasus have been integrated to provide an overview
of the distribution and development of potential
petroleum-systems elements. Differences and conflicts
between the sources used to compile the maps were
rationalised and accommodated by deliberately
conflating the available data across relatively
broad time intervals. Despite these limitations, we
consider that these maps provide a useful framework
for enhancing understanding of known petroleum
systems in the region, and potentially for identifying
new ones. Inevitably the process of refining these
palaeogeographic interpretations is unending, and the
maps presented here should be regarded as a work in
progress intended as a guide and template for further
higher-resolution palaeogeographic studies.
19/06/2021 12:31:22
 G. A. Blackbourn et al.
Fig. 1. General location map of the wider Greater Caucasus area. The black rectangle illustrates the position of
the palaeogeographic maps in Figs 3-11 in relation to the modern geography; other locations mentioned in the
text are also labelled.
The nine time-horizons were selected to illustrate
the development of known or potential source-rock
and reservoir systems across the South Caucasus. How
these have developed structurally into the numerous
hydrocarbon plays identified is discussed further by
Tari et al. (2021 this issue). The prolific Pliocene
Productive Series was not included, partly because it
is only of significance in eastern Azerbaijan and the
Caspian Sea, and partly because it has been described
in great detail elsewhere. No recent overview of the
Productive Series has been published, but Reynolds et
al. (1998) remains a key reference.
DATA SOURCES
In a short paper, it is not possible to explain the specific
sources or interpretative criteria for each of the maps
presented or to discuss alternative interpretations.
The palaeogeographic maps presented here have been
synthesised from existing maps covering portions
of the South Caucasus and adjacent regions, some
previously unpublished. These include unpublished
maps of the Caspian and Caucasus regions (Blackbourn
Geoconsulting, 2001; 2002), others obtained from
now-defunct Soviet-era institutions during the early
1990s, and detailed but unattributed maps of Georgia
by D. Yu. Papava dated 1979. Each of these maps
was produced by workers familiar with the regions
covered, combining their own field studies with
data from numerous other sources. Thousands of
published papers, mostly in the Russian language, have
provided details of specific areas. We have drawn on
our significant experience of working in the South
Blackbourn.indd 239
239
Caucasus and regions to the north, but have relied on
the published literature for coverage of Armenia. This
is relatively sparse. The main sources were Jrbashyan et
al. (2001), and some of the references therein, together
with geological maps of Armenia. However, these
sources provide only a very generalised view and do
not cover each of the time-horizons represented here.
Some resort has therefore been made to chronological
interpolation, and although the portions of the
palaeogeographic maps covering Armenia do provide
some insight into the variety of geological processes
active at the relevant times, less reliance should be
placed on the precise geographies depicted.
In areas of overlap between the earlier maps
used in these new compilations, there are inevitable
discrepancies reflecting different data sets, alternative
interpretations, and differences in the precise time
horizons represented. Geological judgement has
been used to smooth these discrepancies. However,
where specific reasons for choosing between different
interpretations were lacking, a decision was made as
to the “most likely” transition from the environment
depicted on one map to that on the other.
Owing to the large amount of unpublished
information (and verbal discussions) which have gone
into the preparation of these palaeogeographies, the
reference list is far from exhaustive. Older references
were excluded where the interpretations and concepts
they addressed had been included in later and more
accessible papers or in our precursor maps. In general
the referenced papers are restricted to those found
to give the most useful, reliable and up-to-date
information on specific topics.
19/06/2021 12:31:22
 240 South Caucasus palaeogeography and prospectivity
GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
Towards the end of the Triassic, Cimmeria, an
aggregate of microcontinental blocks which had earlier
been calved off from northern Gondwana, collided
with the southern margin of Eurasia, marking the final
closure of the PaleoTethys ocean. In the Caucasus
region this is represented by the Transcaucasus block
(Şengőr, 1984). The resulting suture is now mostly
buried deep beneath the northern part of the South
Caucasus and within the Greater Caucasus thrust zone.
The complex history of the Palaeozoic and Triassic of
the Caucasus region, reviewed by Okay and Nikishin
(2015) and others, is not yet fully understood. A Late
Palaeozoic and Triassic inlier within the Russian sector
of the NW Caucasus is described by Gaetani et al.
(2005). In broad terms, a Triassic and older volcanic
arc which had existed above a northward-dipping
oceanic slab in the area of the present Greater Caucasus
ceased activity, and a period of uplift associated with
closure corresponds with the early (or Eo-) Cimmerian
orogeny. Following a period of quiescence, northward
subduction resumed farther south along the southern
margin of the newly-accreted Transcaucasus block, on
which a new volcanic arc developed.
Owing to the present-day depth of burial of
the Triassic, together with the deformation and
metamorphism associated with the early Cimmerian
orogeny, and as a result of Triassic (in the north) and
Jurassic (in the south) volcanism, the Triassic of the
South Caucasus is generally regarded as economic
basement.
There are contrasting models for the initial
formation of the Great Caucasus Basin (GCB).
According to one model (e.g. Nikishin et al. (1997)
and others), the GCB was formed as a back-arc basin
above a northward-dipping subduction zone south of
the Transcaucasus block at the end of the Triassic.
Extreme crustal thinning was accompanied by basaltic
volcanism. There are differing views as to whether this
led to continental rupture and the formation of oceanic
crust, most probably during the Toarcian, although no
traces of ophiolitic associations have been identified
within the GCB.
Koronovskii et al. (1997) and Lomize and Panov
(2001) provide a contrasting model for the formation
of the GCB. They consider that the southern margin
of the Cimmerian continent, after it had accreted onto
Eurasia, remained a passive margin until around the
Aalenian/Bajocian boundary. According to this model
the GCB was initiated during the Early Jurassic as a
continental rift basin in an extensional setting. The
asymmetric geometry of the basin, with a steep,
uplifted northern margin and a gentler southern margin,
may reflect the presence of an underlying northward-
dipping detachment.
Blackbourn.indd 240
In any event, the stratigraphic evidence records
that the GCB began to form as an elongate WNW-
ESE trending rift basin following the earliest Jurassic
collapse of the early Cimmerian orogen. It lay
approximately along the line of the early Cimmerian
suture, 200-300 km north of, and sub-parallel with, the
new NeoTethyan ocean margin. A number of small-
scale basins dominated by coal-swamp and clastic
deposition formed across the wide platformal area to
the north of the GCB, over the area of the present-day
Precaucasus (the extensive, relatively low-lying region
to the north of the Greater Caucasus mountains) and
the Central Caspian Sea (which together comprise the
Scythian Platform). A shallow-marine clastic shelf
developed over parts of the Transcaucasus block to the
south. A marine transgression penetrated to the deepest,
axial zone of the GCB during the early Sinemurian and
to the northern basin margin by the late Sinemurian. By
the Pliensbachian, the sea had onlapped the southern
margin of the Scythian Platform and it continued to
transgress northwards during the Toarcian. Rifting
was accompanied during the late Sinemurian and
Pliensbachian by the eruption of calc-alkaline lavas
and intermediate to acid pyroclastics on the northern
margin of the GCB (for example in the Sadon Suite
of the Central Caucasus in Russia; Chotchaev et al.,
2018).
Continued crustal extension and thinning led to
tholeiitic magmatism during the late Pliensbachian
to Aalenian period, with emplacement of dolerite
dykes and fissure eruptions of probable Bajocian age
which extend along the centre of the GCB for over
700 km (Fig. 4; e.g. Lomize and Sukhanov, 2006).
Southward-dipping faults gave rise to narrow basins,
such as the Tyrnyauz-Pshekha trough on the northern
margin of the basin, filled by shallow-marine deposits
of Pliensbachian to Aalenian age.
PALAEOGEOGRAPHIC MAPS
Map 1: Toarcian (Fig. 3)
The deep-marine Great Caucasus Basin dominates
this map, extending from southeast to northwest for
approximately 800 km. The Basin is often considered
to continue westwards into the southern Crimea (e.g.
Adamia et al., 2011), in which case its length would be
at least 1200 km. Owing to later crustal shortening, the
GCB would have been considerably wider than appears
on these non-palinspastically restored maps. Adamia
et al. (2011) reviewed several published estimates
of the Late Cretaceous width of the Basin, based on
palaeomagnetic data, which vary from around 400-
1000 km, compared with the present width of up to
around 200 km. These figures are broadly compatible
with calculations of Ershov et al. (2003), based on
assumptions regarding lithospheric thickening, who
19/06/2021 12:31:22
 G. A. Blackbourn et al.
Fig. 2. Summary legend for the palaeogeographic maps in Figs 3-11.
estimate shortening of 200-300 km across the Greater
Caucasus mountains. The Sevan-Akera suture zone
represents the southern limit of the Transcaucasus
block, and therefore the contemporary NeoTethyan
ocean margin.
There is little evidence for major sediment sources
in the south, and the small submarine fan deposits
shown locally along the southern margin of the
GCB are speculative. Thick deltaic deposits with a
stratigraphic thickness of up to 9 km along the northern
margin, sourced from the NE and passing SWward
into major turbidite fans, were however documented
by Gavrilov (1989; 1994a-c), and are depicted here as
the Urukh and Argun-Samur fan systems, named after
the river valleys in which the deposits are exposed.
Owing to the abundance of coarse clastics along
the northern flank of the GCB, Toarcian deposits
are unlikely to include significant source rocks here.
Potential Toarcian source rocks are however more
likely to occur along the southern margin of the basin
in present-day Georgia and Azerbaijan.
The eastern extent of the GCB into the present
Caspian Sea is conjectural. There is no evidence that
the deep basin extended this far east, although if the
basin structure were controlled by a northward-dipping
detachment (i.e. according to one of the models cited
above) it would be tempting to equate this with the
present northward-dipping underthrust beneath the
Apsheron Sill which crosses the Caspian in a west-east
direction to the east of Baku (Egan et al., 2009 and
others). The South Caspian oceanic basin is not thought
Blackbourn.indd 241
241
to have formed by this time (see below), and shallow-
marine conditions may have extended across this area
rather than the deeper-marine setting illustrated.
During the Aalenian there was a global fall in
sea level, against an overall rising trend throughout
much of the Jurassic (e.g. Haq, 2018). This led to
downcutting of fluvial channels into older deposits in
the region to the north of the GCB, and the sediment
transported from the northeast, which had become
increasingly silt- and clay-dominated, became sand-
rich again. Much of this sand was carried out to the
front of the Great Caucasus deltaic system where
reworking by coastal and shallow-marine processes led
to the development of elongate sand-bodies parallel to
the shoreline (Gavrilov, 1994b).
Aalenian sandstones in northern Azerbaijan
are represented by the sand-rich Atashka horizon,
typically 50-60 m thick, which comprises the oldest-
known hydrocarbon-bearing unit in the country. It
is associated with surface shows and small seeps of
light oil in the Afurdzha, Ugakh and Atachai areas
close to the Caspian coast, and with a flow of oil from
a well drilled in the Keschai area (Ali-zade et al.,
1966). Farther northwest in Dagestan, the equivalent
sandy portion of the Batlukh Suite is over 600 m thick
(Gavrilov, 1994b & c). Renewed sea-level rise later in
the Aalenian led to back-filling of the incised valleys,
with basal transgressive sands deposited directly on
the unconformity. These sands now provide potential
hydrocarbon reservoirs in various localities around the
Caspian Sea (Blackbourn, 2013).
19/06/2021 12:31:23
 242 South Caucasus palaeogeography and prospectivity
Map 2: Bajocian (Fig. 4)
As global sea-levels continued to rise and flood the
Scythian Platform during the Bajocian, the focus of
coarse clastic deposition shifted from the northern flanks
of the Great Caucasus Basin towards the northeast,
to the Mangyshlak region of western Kazakhstan
(location on Fig. 1). A thick sand-rich succession of
fluvio-deltaic to shallow-marine sands here comprises
a major reservoir succession (Blackbourn, 2013).
The GCB deltas were progressively abandoned and
blanketed by distal marine silts and clays. As a result,
the marine deposits of this age which extend over the
South Caucasus region and surrounding areas are
dominated by fine-grained deposits. An extensive low-
gradient shallow-marine plain extended over much of
the Scythian Platform, passing into the fluvio-deltaics
of Mangyshlak in the northeast. The Stavropol Arch,
a long-lived uplifted block in the south-central portion
of the Scythian Platform, remained as an area of land
and a local source of clastic sediments.
Ever since deep seismic-refraction studies were
first undertaken during the 1950s, it has been apparent
that the South Caspian Basin accommodates around
20-25 km of sediment (Gegelyantz et al., 1958) and
that the underlying continental crust appears to be
absent in places. This is now generally explained by
the presence of oceanic crust of probable Jurassic
age (Abdullayev et al., 2015, and others). While its
precise age is uncertain, unpublished studies of the
Kopetdag Basin to the east of the South Caspian in
SW Turkmenistan and NE Iran (Fig. 1) by one of the
present authors (G.A.B.) provide evidence consistent
with major intra-Bajocian rifting. Although lacking
evidence of oceanic crust, the Kopetdag Basin appears
to be an eastward extension of the South Caspian
oceanic basin. Studies of the well-exposed Jurassic
succession within the Bolshoi Balkhan hills on the
NW margin of the Kopetdag Basin (Fig. 1), especially
around the Lyamaburun section (Luppov, 1957),
suggest that major rifting occurred during deposition
of a Bajocian marine succession, comprising mainly
claystones at least 1000 m thick. Although the age of
the pre-Bajocian sequence is ambiguous, the syn-rift
claystones appear to overlie a thin sequence of older
Jurassic coastal to shallow-marine sediments resting
on Palaeozoic to Triassic basement. In the southeast
of the Kopetdag Basin in Iran, the late Bajocian to
Bathonian Kashafrud Formation has been described by
Poursoltani et al. (2007) and Taheri et al. (2009). This
fluvial to deep-marine succession is comparable to that
of the Bolshoi Balkhan and represents deposition on the
faulted margin of a rapidly subsiding intracontinental
basin, with sediment transport directed NWwards
towards the basin centre. Fürsich et al. (2009) also
concluded that the Bajocian “mid-Cimmerian” tectonic
event in the Alborz mountains to the south of the
Blackbourn.indd 242
Caspian Sea and in other Iranian localities reflects the
break-up unconformity of the South Caspian Basin.
Direct evidence for the age of South Caspian
rifting is absent from the mapped area owing to the
considerable depth of the Jurassic sequence and
its partial underthrusting beneath the present-day
Greater Caucasus. However, depositional processes
and volcanism in the region are consistent with a
major structural and tectonic change during the
latest Aalenian and Bajocian. Compression, uplift
and erosion are marked by a regional unconformity
observed throughout the GCB and beyond (e.g. Lomize
and Panov, 2001), possibly correlated with the mid-
Cimmerian event identified in Iran. The deep axial
zone of the GCB shifted towards the SW, to what had
previously been its southern margin (compare Maps
1 and 2), and persisted as a deep-water trough, with
modifications, until the Paleocene. The pre-Bajocian
depositional axis was inverted to form a chain of
locally-emergent structural highs, possibly in response
to block rotation similar to, and of the same age as,
that noted in Iran by Fürsich et al. (2009). A new
deep-marine depocentre also formed in Dagestan to the
northeast of the inverted high, extending into northern
Azerbaijan. To the south, major volcanism across the
Transcaucasus block deposited up to 2-3 km of calc-
alkaline lavas and pyroclastics over a very wide area.
More-local alkaline volcanism occurred in and around
the GCB, with tholeiitic dyke emplacement along its
northern margin (Lomize and Sukhanov, 2006).
The absence of substantial volcanism in the South
Caucasus and the GCB before this Bajocian event
suggests that northward-directed Tethyan subduction
only began at this time, as proposed by Koronvskii
et al. (1997) and Lomize and Panov (2001). This
contradicts the alternative hypothesis of Early Jurassic
subduction and the formation of the GCB as a back-
arc basin. It is sometimes assumed that the GCB is
a westward extension of the South Caspian oceanic
basin (and therefore of the Kopetdag Basin farther to
the east), but this is not supported by the stratigraphic
evidence. Rather, it appears that the GCB was most
active during the Early Jurassic. The Bajocian tholeiitic
dyke emplacement suggests that the GCB may have
failed at this time to be transformed into an oceanic
basin, and although it persisted as a significant elongate
depocentre and was periodically reactivated within
a broadly extensional regime, the main focus of
extension shifted southeast with the creation of oceanic
crust in what is now the South Caspian Basin.
Thick marine Bajocian deposits are associated with
widespread oil and gas shows in north-central Georgia
(Vakhaniya and Mgeladze, 2006), probably sourced
from associated organic-rich shales. Comparable
Bajocian marine shales farther east within the GCB
and the Dagestan depocentre mostly lie within the
19/06/2021 12:31:23
 G. A. Blackbourn et al. 243

Fig. 3. Toarcian palaeogeography of the Caucasus region.

Blackbourn.indd 243 19/06/2021 12:31:24

 244 South Caucasus palaeogeography and prospectivity
thrust belt and appear post-mature in surface exposures
examined by one of the authors (G.A.B.), but they may
have generated hydrocarbons prior to Eocene uplift.
Potential Bajocian reservoirs in Georgia are commonly
degraded owing to their tuffaceous content, although in
northeastern Azerbaijan numerous oil and gas shows
have been observed, especially within the Bajocian
Khinalug Suite, including in the Begimdag-Tekchai,
Afurdzha, Yalama, Khudat and other areas (Ali-zade
et al., 1966).
Map 3: Bathonian (Fig. 5)
Alkaline volcanism ceased abruptly over most of
the South Caucasus in the Bathonian, although it
continued to a lesser extent in southwest Georgia and
parts of Armenia. Relative uplift led to the formation
of islands in Georgia bounded by shallow-marine and
coal-bearing sequences, with deeper-marine deposits
in the Great Caucasus Basin to the north and NE. In
parts of Azerbaijan, Bajocian shallow-marine lavas
and clastics are overlain by freshwater clastics of late
Bathonian age. An area of land in the Central Caspian
(the “Central Caspian Arch”) may also have expanded,
and became a clastic sediment source supplying sands
to the northern margin of the Great Caucasus Basin
which had widened but possibly also shallowed.
Marine deposits had, in contrast, partially onlapped
the Stavropol Arch since the Bajocian. The Bathonian
is now thin or absent throughout much of the Greater
Caucasus and Precaucasus region owing to latest
Bathonian or earliest Callovian uplift and erosion.
The Bathonian paralic sandstones form potential
reservoirs in Georgia. Thick coal deposits and organic-
rich deep- (and possibly some shallower-) marine
shales are potential hydrocarbon source rocks.
A substantial, though often gradational, facies
transition is observed throughout much of the Caspian
and Caucasus region between Bathonian clastics and
Callovian carbonates. Most Callovian hydrocarbon
accumulations within the Caspian region, including a
number of small fields in the Pre-Kuma region of the
eastern Precaucasus, lie within basal Callovian clastics.
Map 4: Tithonian (Fig. 6)
During the later Jurassic, ongoing tectonic adjustments
created a number of depositional basins and uplifts
within the wider Caucasus region, with local highs
shedding clastic detritus into carbonate-rich basins.
A chain of reefs developed around the margins of
the Great Caucasus Basin and the Terek-Caspian
Basin to the north during the Oxfordian, with reef
talus and massive reef blocks accumulating in
adjacent deeper-water areas. Oxfordian carbonates
were replaced by evaporites in many areas during
the Kimmeridgian and into the Tithonian. The reef
limestones depicted on Fig. 6 represent those which
Blackbourn.indd 244
may have persisted, at least as topographic features,
into the Tithonian; they had previously been more
widespread. A sequence of evaporites, including
halites, interbedded with limestones and up to around
2000 m thick, accumulated within the Terek-Caspian
Basin immediately to the north of the GCB. To the
south, in Georgia, the equivalent evaporite sequence is
dominated by bedded anhydrites. These do not extend
into Azerbaijan, where shallow-marine limestones
occur, with volcanic intercalations associated with
volcanism to the southwest.
The source of Tithonian continental to shallow-
marine clastics in the far northeast of Azerbaijan is
uncertain since they are otherwise surrounded by
carbonates, evaporites and low-lying land. They
are shown as being associated with a known clastic
source farther to the north, although the clastics may
alternatively (or additionally) have been transported
from the Central Caspian Arch to the northeast.
The Late Jurassic evaporites within Georgia
form an effective sealing lithology, with sands and
limestones acting as potential reservoirs. The reef
deposits fringing the Great Caucasus Basin comprise
potential reservoir-trap combinations.
Early to Middle Cretaceous: By the earliest
Cretaceous a variety of clastic and subordinate
carbonate sediments were being deposited over much
of the area, although evaporite deposition continued
locally into the Valanginian or earliest Hauterivian.
A widespread near- base-Cretaceous unconformity
appears to be associated with a Berriasian ‘late
Cimmerian’ tectonic event. As the Early Cretaceous
progressed, water depth gradually increased and land
areas decreased. Tuffaceous interbeds are common
within the Aptian and Albian successions in the South
Caucasus. By the Albian, virtually the entire area of
the map apart from the Great Caucasus Basin was
covered by a shallow-marine clastic-dominated shelf.
Substantial amounts of sand, commonly glauconitic,
accumulated within shelf bars and other shallow-
marine deposits, especially in the east. The sources
of such large volumes of sand are unclear; restricted
low-lying areas of land to the north of the GCB may
have supplied some sediment, but major source areas
probably lay farther to the north and northwest such
as the Rostov Arch (northeast of the Azov Sea; Fig.
1) or the Voronezh Ridge, a distant but substantial
basement uplift to the northwest of the North
Caspian Sea. Numerous, though mostly small, oil
accumulations occur within Albian marine-sandstone
reservoirs in many parts of the South Caucasus, and
both hydrocarbon shows and occasional flows of oil
have been encountered in northeastern Azerbaijan
within a variety of Lower Cretaceous sandstones (e.g.
Ali-zade et al., 1966).
19/06/2021 12:31:24
 G. A. Blackbourn et al. 245

Fig. 4. Bajocian palaeogeography of the Caucasus region.

Blackbourn.indd 245 19/06/2021 12:31:25

 246 South Caucasus palaeogeography and prospectivity

Fig. 5. Bathonian palaeogeography of the Caucasus region.

Blackbourn.indd 246 19/06/2021 12:31:27

 G. A. Blackbourn et al. 247

Fig. 6. Tithonian palaeogeography of the Caucasus region.

Blackbourn.indd 247 19/06/2021 12:31:28

 248 South Caucasus palaeogeography and prospectivity
Map 5: Turonian (Fig. 7)
Carbonates, chalks and marls became dominant again
throughout the Caucasus area in the Late Cretaceous.
By the Turonian most of the mapped area comprised
a shallow sea, although deeper waters remained along
much of the Great Caucasus Basin, and a low-lying
landmass to its north continued to shed some sediment
to both north and south. The lower Turonian in Western
Kazakhstan and some adjacent parts of the Scythian
Platform is represented by shallow-marine sandstones,
but these are overlain with sharp unconformity by late
Turonian marls and chalks. Igneous activity within the
South Caucasus still generated occasional volcanic
interbeds during the earlier Turonian, especially
within Georgia and western Azerbaijan, although these
decreased through time.
Late Cretaceous – Early Cenozoic:The palaeo-
geography of the Caucasus region remained quite
stable throughout the Late Cretaceous and into the
earliest Cenozoic. Fig. 7, illustrating the Turonian, is
therefore broadly representative of that whole period.
Late Cretaceous chalks are extensively fractured over
a wide area on either side of the Greater Caucasus
mountains owing to the tectonism associated with
their orogenesis. Fractured chalks form hydrocarbon
reservoirs within numerous fields in the North
Caucasus including in Chechnya (Grozny area, Fig.
1), along the Dagestan coast and farther north. Similar
reservoirs may therefore be regarded as prospective in
the South Caucasus. Oil shows are widespread in the
Upper Cretaceous carbonates of Azerbaijan (e.g. Ali-
zade, 1966), with occasional production taking place
for example in the Siazan field close to the Caspian
coast in the northeast.
By this time the GCB had become less distinct
and was split into several broad depocentres, named
on Fig. 7 as the Novorossiisk, Chiaur and East
Kobystan troughs. Geochemical data indicate that late
Cenomanian to early Turonian black bituminous clays
of the Novorossiisk Trough include some intervals with
TOC values exceeding 10% (Levitan et al., 2010), with
significant source-rock potential.
Map 6: Middle Eocene (Fig. 8)
Late Cretaceous to Early Cenozoic tectonism
associated with the successive collision of arcs and
microcontinental blocks along the north NeoTethyan
margin south of the Caucasus, within a belt stretching
from present-day eastern Turkey to northern Iran, was
complex and its elucidation is beyond the scope of this
paper. Dilek et al. (2010) provided a useful review.
Following closure of the northern portion of NeoTethys
along the Sevan-Akera suture at around the end-
Cretaceous, Paleocene uplift of the Lesser Caucasus
led to northward transport of large volumes of clastic
Blackbourn.indd 248
sediment into a developing basin which extended from
central Georgia to central Azerbaijan and which is well-
exposed in eastern Georgia around Tbilisi. Here, the
E-W to NNW-SSE trending Adjara-Trialeti Basin (A-
TB: Fig. 8) may be a continuation, via the Rioni Basin
of western Georgia, of the eastern Black Sea Basin; to
the SE, it continues into the Yevlakh-Agjabedi Basin
(Y-AB: Fig. 8) of western Azerbaijan (e.g. Buniat-zade
et al., 1994). In west-central Georgia, 1500-3000 m
of deep-marine deposits of Paleocene to Early Eocene
age, the Borjomi flysch, were sourced from local highs
and more distal areas to the south.
Limited volcanism within the Lesser Caucasus
during the Paleocene and Early Eocene increased
substantially in the Middle Eocene, with thick volcanic
sequences developing in SW Georgia and SWwards
into Turkey, and in the Talysh area of SE Azerbaijan.
Differential tectonic movements within the South
Caucasus which had begun during the Paleocene and
Early Eocene intensified. Volcanism along the uplifted
northern rim of the Lesser Caucasus in eastern Georgia
and western Azerbaijan (the Somkheto-Agdam uplift:
Fig. 8) led to the collapse of the steep southern margin
of the Adjara-Trialeti-Yevlakh-Agjabedi Basin, with
the development of a substantial sequence of turbidites
and debrites, especially within Georgia where they
are encased within deep-water shales and tuffaceous
deposits. The former Great Caucasus Basin became
a zone of relative uplift north of here (the “Georgian
Block”), as shown by the northward onlap of Eocene
deposits onto it and the presence of shallow-marine
sediments with evidence of possible local emergence.
Uplift may have been associated with an early phase of
closure of NeoTethys to the south. Fieldwork northwest
of Tbilisi by the present authors provides evidence for
turbidites which may have travelled axially along the
basin, possibly eastwards from the Dzirula massif in
north-central Georgia. North of the Georgian Block,
tectonic activity was less intense, and marine clastic
deposits, with subordinate carbonates and only limited
distal volcanic material, accumulated within the
extensive Kuma Basin. Restricted-marine conditions
here led to the development of good quality potential
hydrocarbon source rocks (Sachsenhofer et al., 2018).
Middle Eocene turbidite sandstones within Georgia
have known reservoir potential, including within the
Samgori-Patardzeuli field in the east of the country, as
do shallower-marine sandstones in Azerbaijan within
the Tarsdallyar field and elsewhere. Their high volcanic
content often degrades reservoir quality, although this
is commonly mitigated by fracturing (Tari et al., 2021
this issue). Marine shales of this age within the Adjara-
Trialeti Basin have source rock potential, although they
are often diluted by significant proportions of clastic
and volcanogenic material. However, farther west, a
succession of shallower-marine marls in the northern
19/06/2021 12:31:28
 G. A. Blackbourn et al. 249

Fig. 7. Turonian palaeogeography of the Caucasus region.

Blackbourn.indd 249 19/06/2021 12:31:29

 250 South Caucasus palaeogeography and prospectivity
Rioni Basin are interpreted as a prolific oil source
(Pupp et al., 2018). Furthermore, potential Middle
Eocene reservoirs are often closely associated with
basal-Late Eocene source rocks in both eastern Georgia
and western Azerbaijan (see below), well-placed for
efficient charging.
Map 7: Late Eocene (Fig. 9)
Volcanic activity continued in the Lesser Caucasus
during the Late Eocene, although with reduced
intensity, and the pattern of basins and uplifted
areas remained broadly similar. This enabled up to
several hundred metres of organic-rich restricted
marine shales to accumulate early in the Late Eocene
within the Adjara-Trialeti Basin of eastern Georgia,
associated with oil seeps (the Navtlug Beds). Similar
deposits continue eastwards into Azerbaijan, but they
are generally thinner, and were deposited in a more
oxygenated environment. These basins are rimmed in
places with relatively coarse-grained shallow-marine
deposits. Elsewhere across the region, clastics and
carbonates were deposited within generally shallow-
marine environments, with increasing proportions of
volcanic material towards the south.
Since at least the Early Eocene, and possibly the
Paleocene, sections of the NNW-SSE zone of the
former Great Caucasus Basin had experienced mild
inversion, and possibly local subaerial emergence,
compared with basinal areas to the south and north.
However, the onset of rapid uplift, presumably
associated with the underthrusting which would result
in the emergence of the Greater Caucasus mountains,
does not appear to have started until the latest Eocene.
This has been established by Vincent et al. (2016) for
the western Greater Caucasus, and is supported by
unpublished seismic data from the northeast Caucasus
which demonstrates the collapse of an unstable north-
facing marine slope at about the same time, or possibly
slightly later.
Late Eocene marine shales are a rich source rock
in the Tbilisi area, exuding oil from surface exposures.
They are of particular importance onshore in eastern
Georgia where the Maikopian (see below) is a less
prolific source.
Map 8: Maikopian (Fig. 10)
By the Late Eocene to Early Oligocene, a restricted-
marine Paratethyan seaway had developed in front
of the advancing NeoTethyan collisional thrust zone.
Prolific organic-rich shales of the Maikop Group,
deposited in the deeper parts of this seaway in front of
the rising Greater Caucasus mountains, are the primary
source responsible for charging the world-class North
Caucasus and South Caspian petroleum provinces.
The Maikop Group, named after the town of
Maikop in the western North Caucasus, extends
Blackbourn.indd 250
stratigraphically from the base of the Oligocene to the
Early Miocene (Jones and Simmons, 1997), and Map
8 (Fig. 10) is intended to represent approximately the
mid-Oligocene. However, since correlation of some
sections is poor and outcrop is often limited, the
palaeogeography is quite generalised and no specific
Maikopian age should be inferred.
The Greater Caucasus mountains had been
uplifted rapidly since the end-Eocene. Vincent et
al. (2016) proposed that elevations in the western
Greater Caucasus reached at least 1.7 km in the
Early Oligocene. The Maikopian foreland basin to
the north was accumulating organic-rich shales with
silty turbidites, the main sediment source being not
the Greater Caucasus itself but the hinterland to the
northeast, with submarine clinoforms prograding
southwards to create an unstable slope (Kunin et al.,
1989). The Maikopian source succession extends
across the South Caspian into western Turkmenistan.
To the south of the Greater Caucasus within Azerbaijan,
a thick Maikopian sequence with excellent source-
rock properties extends into the Kura Basin (e.g.
Washburn et al., 2019). However, as the basin narrows
into western Azerbaijan and eastern Georgia the
proportion of coarse clastics increases, and although
the Maikopian is present within the Adjara-Trialeti
Basin in the Tbilisi region, and locally appears to
exceed 3000 m in thickness, its source potential is
poor. Farther west, however, within the Rioni Basin
of western Georgia, and probably its continuation into
parts of the eastern Black Sea, the Maikopian source
rock potential has again been shown to be high (Pupp
et al., 2018).
Map 9: Middle Miocene (Fig. 11)
After the end of the Maikopian, uplift was not
restricted to the Greater Caucasus but affected the
entire Caucasus region. The resulting gradual marine
regression led to an expansion of the land areas and
associated coarse-clastic fluvio-deltaic to shallow-
marine deposition, with only localised carbonates,
although these increase away from the Caucasus
towards the northeast. Deep-marine basins persisted
only in the South Caspian and Black Sea. The Middle
Miocene Diatomaceous Suite of Azerbaijan has been
suggested as a source rock, although Sachsenhofer
et al. (2018) concluded that data are mixed and that
oil maturity is likely only to have been reached in the
deeper parts of the South Caspian. The widespread
coarser-clastic formations, however, do provide an
abundance of known and potential reservoirs, notably
within the Middle Miocene Chokrakian horizon (e.g.
Ali-zade et al., 1966), including in the Muradkhanly
field of central Azerbaijan. Later Miocene and
Pliocene fluvial to shallow-marine sandstones also
form reservoirs in western Georgia, including in the
19/06/2021 12:31:29
 G. A. Blackbourn et al. 251

Fig. 8. Middle Eocene palaeogeography of the Caucasus region.

Blackbourn.indd 251 19/06/2021 12:31:30

 252 South Caucasus palaeogeography and prospectivity

Fig. 9. Late Eocene palaeogeography of the Caucasus region.

Blackbourn.indd 252 19/06/2021 12:31:30

 G. A. Blackbourn et al. 253

Fig. 10. Maikopian palaeogeography of the Caucasus region.

Blackbourn.indd 253 19/06/2021 12:31:32

 254 South Caucasus palaeogeography and prospectivity

Fig. 11. Middle Miocene palaeogeography of the Caucasus region.

Blackbourn.indd 254 19/06/2021 12:31:32

 G. A. Blackbourn et al.
Supsa, Shromisubani and Tskaltsminda fields (Tari et
al., 2018).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The South Caucasus region encompasses several
countries divided by mountain ranges, with a long and
complex tectonic history and a number of hydrocarbon-
bearing sub-basins. As a result, hydrocarbon-
exploration efforts have tended to be concentrated
within small areas, whether defined by national- or
basin boundaries, topography or licence blocks. The
chief aim of the palaeogeographic maps presented here
has been to enable local exploration areas and basins
to be understood in a much broader context, which it is
hoped may lead to a better understanding of potential
petroleum-system elements and a fresh approach to
establishing new play concepts.
The main geographic focus of this work has been
the onshore basins of Georgia and Azerbaijan.The
Pliocene of eastern Azerbaijan and its continuation into
the South Caspian has not been included, since it has
been a central target of exploration in the region for
almost two centuries. The maps have been extended
beyond the primary areas of interest, partly so that the
depositional systems of the South Caucasus can be
understood in their wider context, and partly so that
the potential is recognised for extending play concepts
already known from surrounding areas to the South
Caucasus.
The widespread occurrence of the Maikopian
source-rock succession, by far the most prolific source
in the area, has often led to other potential hydrocarbon
sources being disregarded. The palaeogeographies
show that deep-marine deposits, including marine
shales, persisted within the GCB throughout the
Mesozoic and Paleogene (Figs 3-7). Further work on
the possibilities for hydrocarbon generation from these
deposits, and its timing in relation to the formation
of potential traps, may reveal new exploration
opportunities. The destruction of potential source
rocks within the GCB resulting from post-Eocene
uplift and tectonism was geologically quite a recent
event, and accumulations may exist which formed
earlier. Bathonian coals may also have sourced gas.
Potential Mesozoic reservoirs include a variety of
Middle Jurassic marine sandstones, Late Jurassic
carbonates including reefal deposits (some with
evaporite seals), and fractured Late Cretaceous chalks
which host numerous accumulations in parts of the
North Caucasus.
The Eocene stratigraphy and structure is complex,
but the close association of Middle Eocene fractured
reservoirs and Late Eocene source rocks in eastern
Georgia, a proven play, warrants further examination
(Figs 8 and 9). Structures in the deep basin here hold
Blackbourn.indd 255
255
tantalising prospects for sizeable gas accumulations.
Farther east in Azerbaijan, the Late Eocene is replaced
by the Maikopian as the main source (Fig. 10);
reservoir geometries and structure are complex, but
modern seismic is capable of achieving success where
previous drilling on surface structures has failed.
Miocene and later sandstones (Fig. 11) also include
potential reservoirs.
The specific petroleum-system elements mentioned
here, both proven and conjectural, are intended as
illustrative, but they do not exhaust the possibilities.
The Caucasus palaeogeographic maps presented are
intended to stimulate the imagination of geoscientists
to develop fresh and fertile leads which may result in
renewed exploration success in the region.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The palaeogeographic maps presented here are a
compilation of material gathered over several decades
from numerous published and unpublished sources and
conversations. We are hugely indebted to very many
geoscientists whose data we have used; it would be
impossible to acknowledge them individually and
invidious to name only a few. In order to bring some
uniformity to the maps, they are quite generalised
in many areas where previous excellent studies
would have permitted greater detail – and this also
applies where the present authors have had access to
proprietary data, although we are not aware of any
such data which would contradict the general facies
patterns presented. We trust that previous workers will
forgive us whether we have utilised or disregarded
their studies without full acknowledgement: we are
grateful to them. Furthermore, with the steady stream
of newly published (or newly discovered) data, we are
aware that the maps already have many shortcomings;
yet their rectification would be an endless task. They
are presented here in the spirit of il meglio è l’inimico
del bene.
We are most grateful to David Boote and Anatoly
Nikishin for helpful reviews, and would like to thank
Lisa Robertson for drafting the maps through various
revisions.
Data availability statement
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new
data were created or analyzed in this study.
REFERENCES
ABDULLAYEV, N. A., KADIROV, F. and GULIYEV, I. S.
2015. Subsidence history and basin-fill evolution in the
South Caspian Basin from geophysical mapping, flexural
backstripping, forward lithospheric modelling and gravity
modelling. In: Brunet, M.-F., McCann, T. and Sobel, E. R.
(Eds), Geological Evolution of Central Asian Basins and the
19/06/2021 12:31:33
 256 South Caucasus palaeogeography and prospectivity
Western Tien Shan Range. Geological Society Lond., Special
Publication, 427, 175-196.
ADAMIA, S., ALANIA, V. and CHABUKIANI, A., 2011. Great
Caucasus (Cavcasioni): a Long-Lived North-Tethyan Back-
Arc Basin. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences, 20, 5, 611-629.
ADAMIA, S. A., CHKHOTUA, T. G., GAVTADZE, T. T.,
LEBANIDZE, Z.A., LURSMANASHVILI, N. D., SADRADZE,
N. G., ZAKARAIA, D. P. and ZAKARIADZE, G. S. 2017.
Tectonic setting of Georgia-Eastern Black Sea: a review. In:
Sosson, M., Stephenson, R.A. and Adamia, S.A. (Eds),Tectonic
Evolution of the Eastern Black Sea and Caucasus. Geological
Society Lond., Special Publication, 428, 11-403.
ALI-ZADE, A. A., AKHMEDOV, G. A., AKHMEDOV A. M.,
ALIEV, A. K. and ZEINALOV, M. M., 1966. The Geology of
the Oil and Gas Fields of Azerbaijan [in Russian]. Nedra,
Moscow, 392 p.
BLACKBOURN, G. A., 2013. Jurassic reservoir systems of the
Central Caspian. GEO ExPro, 10, 5, 22-26.
BLACKBOURN GEOCONSULTING, 2001. Caspian
Palaeogeographic Atlas, 2 nd Edition. Blackbourn
Geoconsulting non-proprietary study.
BLACKBOURN GEOCONSULTING, 2002. Mesozoic
Palaeogeography of the Eastern Great Caucasus and
West-Central Caspian. Blackbourn Geoconsulting non-
proprietary study.
BUNIAT-ZADE, Z. A., SAFAROV, I. G., KHEIROV, M. B.,
and DIL’BAZI, A. Z., 1994. Facies Description of the
Palaeogene Deposits of Western Azerbaijan [in Russian].
Azerbaidzhanskoe Neftyanoe Khozyaistvo, 9-10, 5-10.
CHOTCHAEV, KH. O., SHEMPELEV, A. G., BURDZIEVA, O. G.,
MAKIEV, V. D., ZAALISHVILI, V. B., BERGER, M. G., ZAKS,
T. V. and TROFIMENKO, S. N., 2018. Structural-material
complexes as indicators of geodynamic situations by
example of eastern part of Central Caucasus. Advances in
Engineering Research, 182, 68-76.
DILEK, Y., IMAMVERDIYEV, N. and ALTUNKAYNAK, Ş., 2010.
Geochemistry and tectonics of Cenozoic volcanism in
the Lesser Caucasus (Azerbaijan) and the peri-Arabian
region: collision-induced mantle dynamics and its magmatic
fingerprint. International Geology Review, 52, 536-578.
EGAN, S. S., MOSAR, J., BRUNET, M-F. and KANGARLI,T., 2009.
Subsidence and uplift mechanisms within the South Caspian
Basin: insights from the onshore and offshore Azerbaijan
region. In: Brunet, M.-F.,Wilmsen, M. and Granath, J.W. (Eds),
South Caspian to Central Iran Basins. Geological Society Lond.,
Special Publication 312, 219-240.
ERSHOV, A., BRUNET, M-F., NIKISHIN, A., BOLOTOV, S.,
NAZAREVICH, B. and KOROTAEV, M., 2003. Northern
Caucasus basin: thermal history and synthesis of subsidence
models. Sedimentary Geology, 156, 95-118.
FÜRSICH, F. T., WILMSEN, M., SEYED-EMAMI, K. and
MAJIDIFARD, M. R., 2009. The mid-Cimmerian tectonic
event (Bajocian) in the Alborz Mountains, Northern Iran:
evidence of the break-up unconformity of the South
Caspian Basin. In: Brunet, M.-F., Wilmsen, M. & Granath, J.
W. (Eds), South Caspian to Central Iran Basins. Geological
Society Lond., Special Publication, 312, 189-203.
GAETANI, M., GARZANTI, E., POLINO, R., KIRICKO, Y.,
KORSAKHOV, S., CIRILLI, S., NICORA, A., RETTORI,
R., LARGHI, C. and BUCEFALO PALLIANI, R., 2005.
Stratigraphic evidence for Cimmerian events in NW
Caucasus (Russia). Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France,
176, 283-299.
GAVRILOV, Yu. O., 1989. Deposition in the Early and Middle
Jurassic Great Caucasus Basin (in relation to transgressions
and regressions) [in Russian]. Litologiya i Poleznye Iskopaemye,
2, 3-15.
GAVRILOV, Yu. O., 1994a.Gravitational displacement of
sedimentary masses on the surface of a submarine fan
(Liassic of the Northeast Caucasus) [in Russian]. Litologiya
Blackbourn.indd 256
i Poleznye Iskopaemye, 2, 126-133.
GAVRILOV, Yu. O., 1994b. An Early and Middle Jurassic
deltaic succession in the Northeast Caucasus: Paper 1,
sedimentological aspects [in Russian]. Litologiya i Poleznye
Iskopaemye, 4, 77-104.
GAVRILOV, Yu. O., 1994c. An Early and Middle Jurassic deltaic
succession in the Northeast Caucasus: Paper 2, formational
dynamics [in Russian]. Litologiya i Poleznye Iskopaemye, 5,
86-98.
HAQ, B. U., 2018. Jurassic Sea-Level Variations: A Reappraisal,
GSA Today, 28, 1, 4-10.
JRBASHYAN, R., CHLINGARYAN, G., KAGRAMANOV, YU.,
KARAPETYAN, A., SATIAN, M., SAYADYAN, YU. and
MKRTCHYAN, H., 2001. Geology of Meso-Cenozoic
basins of Central Armenia, with comment on indications of
hydrocarbons. Search and Discovery, Article #30007. http://
www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/armenia/.
GEGELYANTZ,A.A., GALPERIN, E. N., KOSMINSKAYA, I. P. and
KRAFSHINA, R. M., 1958. Structure of the earth’s crust in
the central part of the Caspian Sea based on deep seismic
profiles [in Russian]. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 123, 2, 520-22.
JONES, R. W. and SIMMONS, M. D., 1997. A review of the
stratigraphy of Eastern Paratethys (Oligocene-Holocene),
with particular emphasis on the Black Sea. In: A. G. Robinson
(Ed.), Regional and Petroleum Geology of the Black Sea and
Surrounding Region. AAPG Memoir 68, 39-52.
KORONOVSKII, N. V., LOMIZE, M. G., GUSHCHIN, A. I.,
ZARSHIKOV, A. A., PANINA, L. V. and ROMANOVSKAYA,
M. A., 1997. Main events in the tectonic evolution of the
Caucasus segment of the Mediterranean fold belt [in
Russian]. Vestn. Mosk. Univ. Ser. 4. Geologiya, 4, 5-12.
KUNIN, N. YA., KOSOVA, S. S. and BLOCKINA, G. YU., 1989.
Seismostratigraphic analysis of the sedimentary cover of
the Eastern Precaucasus [in Russian]. Litologiya i Poleznye
Iskopaemye, 6, 54-68.
LEVITAN, M. A., ALEKSEEV, A. S., BADULINA, N.V., GIRIN,YU.
P., KOPAEVICH, L. F., KUBRAKOVA, I. V., TYUTYUNNIK,
O. A. and CHUDETSKY, M. Yu., 2010. Geochemistry of
Cenomanian/Turonian boundary deposits in Gornyi Crimea
and the Northwestern Caucasus [in Russian]. Geokhimiya,
48, 6, 570-591.
LOMIZE, M. G. and PANOV, D. I., 2001. The initial non-magmatic
phase of subduction along the Crimean-Caucasian Tethyan
margin [in Russian]. Geotektonika, 4, 78-92.
LOMIZE, M. G. and SUKHANOV, M. K., 2006. The Great
Caucasus dyke belt: a Middle Jurassic back-arc structure?
[in Russian]. Byul. MOIP, Otd. Geol., 81, 6, 9-16.
LUPPOV, N. P. (Ed.), 1957. Geology of the USSR; Vol. XXII
Turkmen SSR, Part 1 Geological Description [in Russian].
Ministry of Geology and Subsurface Protection of the
USSR, 657 pp.
NIKISHIN, A. M., BOLOTOV, S. N., BARABOSHKIN, E. YU.,
BRUNA, M. F., ERSHOV,A.V., KLUTING, S., KONAEVICH, L.
F., NAZAREVICH, B. P. and PANOV, D. I., 1997. Mesozoic-
Cenozoic history and geodynamics of the Crimean-
Caucasus-Black Sea region [in Russian]. Vestnik Moskovskogo
Universiteta: Ser. 4, Geologiya, 3, 6-16.
OKAY, A. I. and NIKISHIN, A. M., 2015. Tectonic evolution of
the southern margin of Laurasia in the Black Sea region.
International Geology Review, 57, 1051-1076.
POURSOLTANI, M. R., MOUSSAVI-HARAMI, R. and GIBLING,
M. R., 2007. Jurassic deep-water fans in the Neo-Tethys
Ocean:The Kashafrud Formation of the Kopet-Dagh Basin,
Iran. Sedimentary Geology, 198, 53-74.
PUPP, M., BECHTEL, A., ĆORIĆ, S. GRATZER, R., RUSTAMOV,
J. and SACHSENHOFER, R. F., 2018. Eocene and Oligo-
Miocene source rocks in the Rioni and Kura Basins of
Georgia: depositional environment and petroleum potential.
Journal of Petroleum Geology, 41 (3), 367-392.
REYNOLDS, A. D., SIMMONS, M. D., BOWMAN, M. B. J.,
19/06/2021 12:31:33
 G. A. Blackbourn et al. 257

HENTON, J., BRAYSHAW, A. C., ALI-ZADEH,A.A., GULIYEV,

I. S., SULEYMANOVA, S. F., ATAEVA, E. Z., MAMEDOVA, D.
N., and KOSHKARLY, R. O., 1998. Implications of outcrop
geology for reservoirs in the Neogene Productive Series,
Apsheron Peninsula, Azerbaijan. AAPG Bulletin, 82, 25-49.
SACHSENHOFER, R. F., POPOV, S. V., CORIC, S., MAYER, J.,
MISCH, D., MORTON, M. T., PUPP, M., RAUBALL, J. and
TARI, G., 2018. Paratethyan Petroleum Source Rocks: an
Overview. Journal of Petroleum Geology, 41 (3), 219-246.
ŞENGŐR, A. M. C., 1984. The Cimmeride Orogenic System
and the Tectonics of Eurasia. Special Papers of the Geological
Society of America, 195, 82 pp..
TAHERI, J., FÜRSICH, F.T. and WILMSEN, M., 2009. Stratigraphy,
depositional environments and geodynamic significance of
the Upper Bajocian-Bathonian Kashafrud Formation, NE
Iran. In: Brunet, M.-F., Wilmsen, M. and Granath, J. W. (Eds),
South Caspian to Central Iran Basins. Geological Society Lond.,
Special Publication, 312, 205-218.
TARI, G., VAKHANIA, D., TATISHVILI, G., MIKELADZE, V.,
GOGRITCHIANI, K.,VACHARADZE, S., MAYER, J., SHEYA,
C., SIEDL, W., BANON, J. J. M. and TRIGO SANCHEZ, J. L.,
2018. Stratigraphy, structure and petroleum exploration
play types of the Rioni Basin, Georgia. In: Simmons, M. D.,
Tari, G. C. and Okay, A. I. (Eds), Petroleum Geology of the
Black Sea. Geological Society Lond., Special Publication, 464,
403-438.
TA R I , G . , B L AC K B O U R N , G . , A . , B O OT E , D. R . D. ,
SACHSENHOFER, R. F. and YUKLER, A., 2021. Exploration
plays in the Caucasus region. Journal of Petroleum Geology
44, 3, 213-236 this issue.
TARI, G., VRSIC, A., GUMPENBERGER, T., MEKONNEN, E.,
HUJER, W., FALLAH, M., TEVZADZE, N., JANIASHVILI, A.,
PACE, P., RICCIATO, A., ALANIA, V. and ENUKIDZE, O.,
2021. Eocene volcaniclastics in the Kartli Basin, Georgia: a
fractured reservoir sequence. Journal of Petroleum Geology
44, 3, 413-424 this issue.
VAKHANIYA, D. E. and MGELADZE, Z.V., 2006. Hydrocarbons
within the sedimentary cover of the Georgian block of the
Transcaucasus intermontane area [in Russian]. Geologiya
Nefti i Gaza, 4, 14-21.
VINCENT, S. J., BRAHAM,W., LAVRISHCHEV,V.A., MAYNARD,
J. and HARLAND, M., 2016. The formation and inversion of
the western Greater Caucasus Basin and the uplift of the
western Great Caucasus: Implications for the wider Black
Sea region. Tectonics, 35, 2948-2962.
WASHBURN, A. M., HUDSON, S. M., SELBY, D., ABDULLAYEV,
N. and SHIYANOVA, N., 2019. Constraining the timing and
depositional conditions of the Maikop Formation within the
Kura Basin, Eastern Azerbaijan, through the application of
Re-Os geochronology and chemostratigraphy. Journal of
Petroleum Geology, 42, 3, 281-300.

Blackbourn.indd 257 19/06/2021 12:31:33