www.jpg.co.

uk

Journal of Petroleum Geology,Vol. 44(3), July 2021, pp 213-236 213

EXPLORATION PLAYS IN THE

CAUCASUS REGION

G.Tari1*, G. Blackbourn2, D.R.D. Boote3, R.F. Sachsenhofer4

and A.Yukler5

Exploration efforts around the Greater Caucasus region started towards the end of the 19th
century and established a wide range of petroleum play types in various basin segments
around the orogen. All these plays are associated with the flanks of the inverted thrust-fold
belt and the adjacent foreland basin systems, but display significant variation among the
basin segments depending on the tectonostratigraphic units involved and the degree of
exploration maturity. Whereas the same main source rocks have generated most of the
hydrocarbons in all the basins (namely organic-rich shales in the Oligocene – Lower Miocene
Maykop Group and the Eocene Kuma Formation), it is primarily the trapping style, both
proven and speculative, which is responsible for the broad spectrum of play types observed.
Eleven play type diagrams across six main petroleum provinces of the Greater Caucasus
region are presented in this paper and summarize the current exploration understanding
of the existing discoveries and potential new play targets. These play cartoons offer a
prospect-scale summary of both mature producing and underexplored basin segments in a
coherent visual manner, and are therefore intended to promote future exploration efforts
in the Caucasus region.The testing of new play types requires the proper risking of the two
most critical elements in the region: hydrocarbon kitchen effectiveness, and post-charge trap
modification. The de-risking of these factors will require properly designed, fit-for-purpose
acquisition of modern geological and geophysical data sets.

INTRODUCTION of this large number of fields into petroleum provinces

A number of petroleum provinces have been recognised
in the broader Caucasus region (Fig. 1), some of which
have been explored since the latest nineteenth century
(Boote et al., 2018). Some 40 B boe (billion barrels
oil-equivalent) of recoverable hydrocarbons have
been discovered to-date and are reservoired in about
1000 oil and gas fields flanking the Greater Caucasus
mountains between the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov and
the Caspian Sea (Boote et al., 2018). The subdivision
1
OMV Upstream,Vienna, Austria.
2
Blackbourn Geoconsulting, Bo’ness, West Lothian,
Scotland.
3
Davidboote Consulting, London.
4
Chair in Petroleum Geology, Montanuniversitaet
Leoben, 8700 Leoben, Austria.
5
Georgian Oil and Gas Ltd., Tbilisi, Georgia.
*corresponding author: Gabor.Tari@omv.com
is based on their location, shared tectonostratigraphic
architecture and petroleum systems elements. The
petroleum provinces include the Indol-Kuban, Azov-
Kuban, Stavropol High, Terek-Caspian, Absheron-
Pribalkhan, Lower Kura and Upper Kura-Kartli
areas (Fig. 1). In all these petroleum provinces,
the timing of deformation in the Greater Caucasus
fold-and-thrust belt has played a pivotal role. The
majority of petroleum fields in the Caucasus region
were charged by organic-rich Paratethyan shales of
the Middle – Upper Eocene Kuma Formation and/
or the Oligocene – lower Miocene Maykop (Maikop)
Group, as has been established by detailed geochemical
work (Sachsenhofer et al., 2017, 2018), although
Mesozoic source rocks are locally important in some
Key words: Greater Caucasus, petroleum province,
exploration play, thrust-fold belt, foredeep, foreland
basin, risk.

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

Tari plays.indd 213 19/06/2021 12:30:11

 214 Exploration plays in the Caucasus region

40°E 50°E 60°E

OIL AND GAS FIELDS L

A
OIL R A
N A E
OIL, GAS
S TA S
KH
50°N OIL, GAS, CONDENSATE
GAS, OIL
GAS, CONDENSATE, OIL AZA N
GAS, CONDENSATE K
GAS
N
TA
A KIS
A INE SSI BE
UKR RU UZ

Prikumsk PP

Azov-Kuban PP Stavropol High PP

C Figure 2
A
S
P
IA TAN
Terek-Caspian PP
N ENIS 40°N
KM
TUR
45°N

Sudak-Kerch PP

S
E
A
IA
B L A C K S E A R GTBILISI Upper Kura BAKU
GEO IJAN
Apsheron-Pribalkhan PP
Rioni PP Kartli PP
RBA
2000 AZE Lower Kura PP
1000
AR
200
ME
NI
YEREVAN
A West Turkmenistan PP

TURK
EY AN
IR 200
40°N
ANKARA 500 KM
40°E 50°E TEHRAN 35°N

Fig. 1. Regional geological map of the wider Caucasus region adapted from a 1:5 million scale International
Geological Map of Europe and Adjacent Area (BGR, 2005) with simplified oil and gas field locations (coloured
circles) superimposed (Boote et al., 2018).The colours of the geologic map conform to those of the International
Stratigraphic Commission scheme.The location of Fig. 2 is shown by the red rectangle. Petroleum provinces
(PPs) are after Boote et al. (ibid.). PPs discussed in this paper are: (i) northern Caucasus foreland – Indol-Kuban,
Terek-Caspian and Absheron-Prebalkhan; and (ii) southern Caucasus foreland – Lower Kura, Upper Kura-Kartli,
Rioni and NE Black Sea.
intermontane and foreland basins (Oblasov et al., 2020; Raw data elements, such as seismic reflection
Yandarbiev et al., 2021 this issue; Sachsenhofer et al., profiles or well-logs, are purposefully not shown in this
2021 this issue). contribution, but the original sources of the data which
This review offers a brief summary of the most were used to formulate the authors’ interpretations are
important petroleum play types in the broader Caucasus instead referenced. Play type cartoons were created to
region (Fig. 1). One or two play type cartoons have provide a generalized exploration understanding of the
been compiled for each petroleum province (Fig. 2) to various basins in a coherent style. Regardless of the
capture both the typical conventional plays and also, granularity of the geological and geophysical data-
in some cases, some untested speculative plays. These sets behind each cartoon, they offer a uniform visual
visual play type summaries are intended not only to help treatment of the plays and the key fields and prospects.
contextualise the geology of the existing discoveries These cartoons can also be viewed as a “zoomed-in
and fields, but also to trigger new exploration concepts look” at the critical segments of the regional transects
and efforts to find additional hydrocarbon resources. of Boote et al. (2018) around the Greater Caucasus.
Play type cartoons can be instrumental in the
DATA SETS AND METHODOLOGY exploration work-flow. Those compiled for this
contribution (Figs 3-13) emphasize the basic geometry
In the vast study area (Fig. 1) which extends across of the basin with its stratigraphy coloured by age. On
parts of several countries (Russia, Azerbaijan, Georgia top of this simplified tectonostratigraphic framework,
and Ukraine), the authors had variable access to the target reservoir intervals are shown with a lithologic
subsurface information such as seismic reflection and overlay, either clastics or carbonates. Within the
well data, depending on the location. In basins where reservoir targets, the extent of possible oil and gas pay
limited or no subsurface data was available, published zones are indicated. The proportions of these graphic
literature and proprietary exploration reports were used elements are unavoidably exaggerated compared to
as the basis for the review. their actual real-life geometry, but regardless, they help

Tari plays.indd 214 19/06/2021 12:30:24

 G.Tari et al. 215

200
to convey the spatial arrangement of the plays visually.

corresponding to the centre of each field.The petroleum provinces (semi-transparent green polygons) around the fields are identical to those shown in Fig. 1 except for
the speculative province located in the Eastern Black Sea indicated by the green dashed line.The approximate traces of the play type summaries shown in Figs 3-13 are
Also, the cartoons were drawn decidedly not to scale in
order to capture in one figure all the plays which may

fields in the broader Caucasus region (adapted from Boote et al., 2018). Note that instead of the field outlines, circles are shown
not actually co-exist in a single transect across a basin.
Another important element in the play type cartoons is
CASPIAN SEA
OIL AND GAS FIELDS

OIL, GAS, CONDENSATE

GAS, CONDENSATE, OIL

the depiction of the main source rock intervals.

GAS, CONDENSATE

Figure 5
In addition to existing plays, conceptual or

BAKU
speculative play types are also shown. In the

Figure 6
OIL, GAS

GAS, OIL

descriptive text below, a clear distinction is made

GAS
OIL

between the proven and speculative plays to promote

I
TRO IVICH

Muradkhnaly
Muradkhanly
further exploration efforts. A major advantage of the
UGH
-D
ARY
Figure 4

play type cartoons is that they convey exploration

IN
ED I
KUS

BAS
T RO DZH AB

thinking in an effective manner. After all, if the phrase

UGH

“a picture is worth a thousand words” is correct, then

A
-AG
Figure 7
KUR
AKH

a play type cartoon for an explorer is worth millions

LIENT

EVL

of words (Tari et al., 2017).

UCASUS
TAN SA

No detailed stratigraphic descriptions are included

DAGES

in this overview paper in order to keep the focus on

Taribani

LESSER CA

the exploration plays. For a detailed treatment of the

Samgori
Figure 8

Mesozoic to Cenozoic stratigraphy around the Greater

CAUCASUS

Caucasus area, the reader is referred to Adamia et al.

TBILISI

(1991, 2010, 2012, 2011, 2015), Nikishin et al. (2001,

2017), Afanasenkov et al. (2007), Popov et al. (2010,
2019), Glumov et al. (2014a,b), Boote et al. (2018),
GREATER

Sachsenhofer et al. (2018), Tari and Simmons (2018)

and Tari et al. (2018).
Similarly, the source and charge elements of
Shromisubani

the petroleum systems are not discussed. The main

Chaladidi
Supsa

effective source rocks in the Greater Caucasus area,

Figure 9

such as the Middle–Upper Eocene Kuma Formation,

Ochamchira
Okumi

HPX-1

GH
OU AN Oligocene – Lower Miocene Maykop Group, and
Figure 10

TR URI

Middle–Upper Miocene Diatom Formation, have been

G
00
10
systematically described by authors including Abrams
Sürmene-1

and Narimanov, 1997; Feyzullayev et al., 2001; Isaksen

Gudauta
SHA Figure 11

et al., 2007; Sachsenhofer et al. (2017, 2018, 2021 this

DGE

issue), Yandarbiev et al. (2017a,b; 2021 this issue),

Y RI

Gavrilov et al. (2017, 2021 this issue), Vincent and

UGH

BLACK SEA
TSK

Kaye (2018), Mayer et al. (2018), Pupp et al. (2018),

Figure 3

TRO

Aghayeva et al. (2021 this issue), Boote et al. (2018)

Maria-1

and Oblasov et al. (2020).

PSE

Figure 12
TUA

0
200

REGIONAL GEOLOGICAL SETTING

OF THE CAUCASUS
500 KM
H
Figure 13
HIG
AZOV SEA

LAS
PAL

GE

The Greater Caucasus mountain belt is a prominent

RID
Subbotina

topographic feature extending between Russia, Georgia

200and gas
OV
GH

GH

and Azerbaijan (Fig. 1). The core of this mountain

00
US
HI
OU

1000 20

range is dominated by Jurassic sediments overlying

AE

DR
TR

T Y

AN
TE

of oil
IN

various basement units, indicating the presence of

OK
CRIMEA

indicated by red lines.

a large-scale pre-existing basin prior to its orogenic

R
SO

Fig. 2. Distribution

transformation. There is a general consensus that

the Great Caucasus Basin (GCB) developed as an
elongated WNW-ESE trending extensional rift shortly
after the Eo-Cimmerian orogeny at the end of the
Triassic (Nikishin et al., 2001; Golonka, 2007; Adamia
et al., 2011). However, the geodynamic context of

Tari plays.indd 215 19/06/2021 12:30:28

 216 Exploration plays in the Caucasus region
Early Jurassic continental extension in the southern part
of the Scythian Plate has been interpreted differently by
various authors (see Blackbourn et al., 2021 this issue).
One school of thought considers the Great Caucasus
Basin as a Jurassic back-arc rift associated with a
northward-dipping subduction zone (Adamia et al.,
2011; McCann et al, 2017; Hässig et al., 2020). The
alternative model envisions it as an intra-continental
rift which started to form as early as the Sinemurian
(Koronovskii et al., 1997; Lomize and Panov, 2001;
Saintot et al., 2006; Vincent et al., 2016). In this model,
the rift system was dominated by a large master fault on
its northern flank and a flexural margin on its southern
flank. The basin is situated in an upper plate position
with regard to the active southern margin of Eurasia.
Whether subduction roll-back was the driver for rifting
or other mechanisms were involved, and whether a
contemporaneous arc was present for the whole of its
duration, is not properly understood. Regardless of the
geodynamic origin of the Jurassic extensional system,
opening did not advance to the formation of oceanic
crust as no Jurassic ophiolites have been reported
anywhere along the Greater Caucasus (e.g. Vincent
et al., 2018).
Early-Middle Jurassic extension came to an end
by the Callovian when a prominent unconformity
developed across the entire Great Caucasus Basin.
This surface has been interpreted as the top syn-
rift unconformity or the manifestation of the Mid-
Cimmerian orogenic phase culminating with local
inversion and erosion (Nikishin et al., 2017; McCann
et al., 2017). The Great Caucasus Basin remained open
after the Mid-Cimmerian inversion in the Late Jurassic
(Nikishin et al. 1998; Guo et al., 2011; Blackbourn et
al., 2021 this issue) even if there was renewed rifting
in the Early Cretaceous (e.g. Nikishin et al., 2012;
Vincent et al., 2016).
By the mid-Aptian, the Great Caucasus Basin
started to be infilled by siliciclastics and deep-water
clastic sedimentation prevailed during the rest of the
Cretaceous and Early Cenozoic (Barrier and Vrielynck,
2008; Barrier et al., 2018; Blackbourn et al., 2021
this issue). Initial collision between the Arabian
promontory and Eurasia began towards the end of the
Eocene, followed by the onset of orogenic inversion of
the Greater Caucasus during the Oligocene (Vincent et
al., 2007, 2016, 2020; Nikishin et al., 2010) leaving the
South Caspian as an isolated oceanic remnant (Green
et al., 2009). A deep-water basin system formed during
the Middle Eocene – Early Miocene and was filled
with organic-rich shales of the Kuma (Middle – Upper
Eocene) and Lower Maykop (Oligocene – Lower
Miocene) Formations, with increasing amounts of
interbedded sandstones in the upper part of the Maykop
interval. There is evidence for subaerial exposure
of the Caucasus from the Oligocene onwards, with
Tari plays.indd 216
pronounced flexure of the forelands due to the loading
of the crust during orogenesis (Vincent et al., 2007).
Orogenesis intensified by mid-Miocene time with
rapid asymmetric subsidence of the northern Indol-
Kuban and Terek-Caspian foredeeps (Ershov et al.,
1999, 2003; Popov et al., 2019). From this stage on,
the Greater Caucasus evolved as a collisional orogen
(Philip et al., 1989; Mosar et al., 2010). Deformation
continued to the present day with significant uplift and
erosion of the Greater Caucasus (Avdeev and Niemi,
2011; Vezzoli et al., 2012, 2020; Vincent et al., 2016,
2020), and neotectonic folding and thrusting (Saintot
and Angelier, 2002; Alania et al., 2010, 2020; Mosar
et al., 2010; Forte et al., 2010; Marinin and Saintot,
2012; Yakovlev and Sorokin, 2018).
The structure of the Greater Caucasus can be
understood from the many detailed investigations
which have been carried out along its northern and
southern flanks. On the northern side, modern
understanding of this orogen was formulated in the
early 1990s with the recognition of the co-existence
of both thin-skinned and thick-skinned deformation
(e.g. Sobornov, 1994, 1996). The understanding of the
southern flank also saw the emergence of mixed-mode
and thin-skinned deformation models at the same time
(e.g. Banks et al., 1997; Robinson et al., 1997; Nemčok
et al., 2013; Tibaldi et al., 2017; Alania et al., 2020a,b,
2021). There is a general consensus that the present-
day Greater Caucasus is the result of a very large scale
positive structural inversion of a Jurassic extensional
basin system which may have had an average width
of only 100-200 km (Banks et al., 1997; Saintot et
al., 2006; Adamia et al., 2010, 2017; Nikishin et al.,
2010; 2017).
Along strike to the SE, the Absheron Ridge in the
Central Caspian provides a good structural template
for the large-scale structural pattern of the Greater
Caucasus (Guliyev et al., 2003; Green et al., 2009).
The central part of this thrust-fold belt, which is
well constrained by deep seismic and well data, is
interpreted to contain Middle-Late Jurassic syn-rift
units beneath the Cretaceous and Cenozoic sequences
which are better preserved on the flanks. These syn-rift
units were inverted during the Miocene and Pliocene in
an asymmetric manner reflecting perhaps the polarity
of the original extensional basin fabric, i.e. with steeper
thrusts along the northern edge towards the Scythian
Platform and an accretionary wedge with low-angle
overthrusts towards the oceanic South Caspian Basin
(Green et al., 2009). The thrusting and folding on both
flanks of the Absheron Ridge explains the observed
deep foreland basins (Brunet et al., 2003; Egan et al.,
2009). The formation of both the Greater Caucasus and
the Absheron Ridge foldbelts is driven by the ongoing
collision between the Eurasian and Arabian Plates (e.g.
Jackson, 1992).
19/06/2021 12:30:28
 G.Tari et al. 217

SW MOST PRODUCTION NE
OVERTURNED SOUTH
CRETACEOUS ABINSK LEVKINSK NOVODMITRIEVSKAYA KHADYZHENSK
REEF BELT
1
M AA

EO PLIOCENE
K R AK I
3 C ENE CHO 2 AN

6
MIOCENE
3 5
NE
CE
ED

PALEO
3 8
ID
IV

UN
D

O
MAYK PIAN
US MAA
4
CRE ACEO
T
5
6 8
H
GROWT
?

EOCEN
6 EOCENE
7 GROWTH
3 3

KU
M
A

EF
?
GR

SC

LY
ION

H MAYKOPIAN
OW
PA

TH
ERS

LE

CE 3
O
INV

N E 3
? SC H
FLY A
KUM
ENE
EOC
PAL
CRETACEOUS
? UNDIVIDED
1 HEAVY OIL IN PONTIAN PINCHOUT

2 SHALLOW ANTICLINES ? A
MA MALMIAN
3 DEEP ANTICLINAL FOLDS 7

ON
4 SUB-UNCONFORMITY TRUNCATION Y
NFORMIT

SI
AN UNCO
CALLOVI

ER
5 SUPRA-UNCONFORMITY COARSE CLASTICS

V
DOGGER

IN
6 SUBTHRUST EOCENE/PALEOCENE FLYSCH
SYN-RIF
T
7 REEFS, MALMIAN/NEOCOMIAN (?)

8 INTRA-MAYKOPIAN STRATIGRAPHIC TRAP NOT TO SCALE!

Fig. 3. Play types of the West Kuban Basin in the Indol-Kuban Petroleum Province, Russia. For location, see Fig.
2. Note that this cartoon is a summary of various plays targeted along strike that may not be present in a single
cross-section. MAA: Maastrichtian. Compiled from various sources (Luckow, 2003; Blackbourn, 2008; Mosyakin et
al., 2010, 2015; Asthakov et al., 2015).

In the following sections of the paper, the various will not be discussed even though the hydrocarbon
petroleum provinces in the Greater Caucasus area (Fig. accumulations are largely due to the formation of the
1) are discussed in a clockwise direction, starting in orogen to the south. These foreland basins include the
the north with the Azov-Kuban foreland petroleum Azov-Timashev Arch and interior Kuban Basin in the
provinces (PPs). The oil and gas fields in the petroleum broader Azov-Kuban foreland region; the Stavropol
provinces defined by Boote et al. (2018) are all located Arch separating the western and eastern parts of the
along the perimeters of the Greater Caucasus inverted North Caucasus (Terek-Caspian) foreland basin; and
rift (Fig. 2). the Prekumsk high to the NE of the North Caucasus
basin (Fig. 1).
NORTHERN CAUCASUS
PETROLEUM PLAY TYPES Indol-Kuban Foredeep Petroleum Province
The precursor Jurassic and Cretaceous basin underlying
The northern foreland of the Greater Caucasus (Fig. 1) the Western Kuban foreland basin system (sensu
includes several prolific petroleum provinces (Boote DeCelles and Giles, 1996) (Fig. 3) developed along
et al., 2018). Reservoirs have a broad age range from the southern margin of the Scythian Platform facing an
Permo-Triassic to Neogene reflecting a complex extensional basin system to the south. The maximum
tectonostratigraphic and charge history. The dominant thickness of the Cretaceous section is on the order of
part of total reserves in the North Caucasus region 4-6 km although it is poorly constrained by drilling
have been found in Neocomian carbonates (35%), due to its great depth. The overlying uppermost
followed by Paleogene (25%) and Neogene (20%) Cretaceous to Paleocene-Eocene section is thinner
clastics. Various Upper Cretaceous (15%) and Permo- (2-3 km) corresponding to a post-rift sequence.
Triassic to Jurassic reservoirs (5%) also contribute to Subsidence in the foreland basin system was initiated
the reserves base. at the beginning of the Oligocene and accommodated
In this contribution, some of the basin segments thick (2-4 km) asymmetric wedges of Oligocene –
located in the northern foreland of the Greater Caucasus Lower Miocene shales (Maykop Group) on both sides

Tari plays.indd 217 19/06/2021 12:30:29

 218 Exploration plays in the Caucasus region
of the rising Greater Caucasus orogen (Afanasenkov
et al., 2007; Vincent et al., 2007; Nikishin et al.,
2010). Maykop wedge-top sediments may have been
present over the fold and thrust belt but these are now
largely eroded (Fig. 3). Subsidence continued into the
Miocene-Pliocene (Ershov et al., 1999, 2003) with the
deposition of a more regionally extensive foredeep
sequence extending across the Azov/Taman region to
the Crimea (Baskakova and Nikishin, 2018; Popov et
al., 2019), where sediments started to prograde away
from the uplifting Greater Caucasus mountain range.
Neotectonic uplift and unroofing of the NW Caucasus
mountains is still ongoing (Saintot and Angelier, 2002;
Marinin and Saintot, 2012).
In this oil-dominated petroleum province, most
of the hydrocarbons are reservoired in sandstones of
Oligocene to Pliocene age, with some gas accumulations
found in Cretaceous and Jurassic limestones. The
elongated fields are arranged in a NW-SE trending
strip along the proximal part of the foredeep and tend
to be relatively small although they range up to 2.4
TCF/250 MM brl in size. Accumulations at shallow
depth often contain biodegraded oil. The fields are
charged mainly by Middle–Upper Eocene and Lower
Oligocene source rocks (Boote et al., 2018; Oblasov
et al., 2020). Total reserves are estimated at 3400 MM
boe with an average field size of 22 MM boe.
Several known plays are located along the junction
between the Greater Caucasus orogen and the West
Kuban foredeep (Fig. 3). The shallowest of these is
the pinch-out of uppermost Miocene (Pontian) sands
against the base-Cenozoic unconformity (play #1)
although many of these traps were found to leak to
the surface. There are also shallow, simple 4-way
closures above deeper anticlines in the Miocene basin
fill of the foredeep sequence (play #2). Within the
folded belt itself there are a multitude of anticlinal
closures (Mosyakin et al., 2010, 2015; Asthakov et al.,
2015), including overturned fold limbs (play #3). This
play could include multiple reservoirs ranging from
Eocene flysch sandstones to Maastrichtian fractured
chalks. Some of the overthrust faults have overturned
and steeply dipping beds which truncate against
the base-Maykop unconformity (play #4). Above
the same unconformity, locally developed coarse
clastics at the base of the Maykop sequence may form
stratigraphic traps (speculative play #5). The more
prominent overthrusts may provide sub-thrust traps
for the Paleogene flysch units (speculative play #6).
Afanasenkov et al. (2007) and Nikishin et al. (2017)
mentioned the successful Upper Jurassic Khadyzhensk
reef play beneath the foredeep basin fill at the edge of
the south-facing carbonate platform (play #7). Whether
these reefs could be targeted within the foldbelt itself
remains to be seen (Mosyakin et al., 2015; Asthakov et
al., 2015). Finally, deep-water intra-Maykop sandstone
Tari plays.indd 218
units may present stratigraphic traps due to the ongoing
uplift of the Greater Caucasus which has tilted the
entire basin fill (speculative play #8).
Terek-Caspian Foredeep Petroleum Province
The Terek-Caspian foredeep (Fig. 2) bounding the
northeastern flank of the Greater Caucasus reservoirs
some 4.9 B brl oil and small amounts of gas-condensate
and non-associated gas, much of it in the giant
Starogroznenskoye and Malgobek-Voznesenskoye
fields. The average field size is estimated to be 94 MM
boe (Boote et al., 2018).
The foreland basin system has a deep Hercynian
and Cimmerian basement. Regional projections
suggest the presence of local syn- and post-rift Triassic
and Lower–Middle Jurassic marine shales and sands
with Upper Jurassic – Neocomian carbonates, clastics
and Tithonian salt resting unconformably above. The
overlying Cretaceous – Eocene interval is dominated by
a regionally more extensive sequence of shales, marls
and carbonates, passing up into Oligocene – Lower
Miocene deep-water Maykop facies deposited during
the initial phase of plate collision and orogenesis. This
culminated during the mid-Miocene with major uplift
and unroofing of the Greater Caucasus continuing to
the present, as the adjacent foredeep subsided rapidly
to accommodate a great thickness of later Miocene –
Pleistocene sediment.
The various segments of the orogenic wedge have
been described by Sokolov (1990); Sobornov (1990,
1994, 1996, 2020, 2021 this issue), Blackbourn (2008)
and Blackbourn et al. (2021 this issue). Two major and
additional secondary antiformal trends developed in
front of the rising orogen with growth continuing into
the Quaternary (Fig. 4). The anticlines are typically
detached on the Maykop Group and, where present
along strike (Sokolov et al., 1990; Blackbourn et
al., 2021 this issue), on Upper Jurassic evaporites
(Sobornov, 1994, 1996, 2021 this issue).
Nearly all the fields in the province are trapped in
elongate, thrusted anticlinal closures along the two
main structural trends. Some 55% of the reserves in the
region are reservoired in fractured Upper Cretaceous
carbonates at depths ranging from 1650 m to 5200 m,
while 35% occur in multiple, laterally discontinuous
Middle Miocene sandstones at less than 1200 m depth
(Boote et al., 2018). A few smaller accumulations
have been found in deeper Albian-Aptian sandstones
and Neocomian – Upper Jurassic carbonates. The
play type cartoon was compiled focusing on the SE
part of Dagestan (Fig. 4); for other trapping styles see
Sobornov (2021 this issue).
The shallow traps within the Miocene were found
in the early 1900s in surface anticlines which are
related to detached thrust faults verging opposite to
the underlying folded belt (play #1). Larger and deeper
19/06/2021 12:30:29
 G.Tari et al. 219

SW NE
DAGESTAN COAST CASPIAN SEA
LINE
MIOCEN
E
1
QUATERNARY
PLIOCENE

SL SARMATIAN UNCONFORMITY
O PE
4 D EL
YKOP TA S
MA FA Y STEM

DE
E NS
EOC NE-

TA
PA DE
LTA

C
L SY

HM
EO STE
CE M
2

EN
T MIOCENE DELTA PLAIN
CR NE
ET
AC 4
2 EO
DE US
S
LT
A 3 BASIN FLOOR FAN
PL
AIN

EOCENE
JUR 2 ? MIOCENE
ASS ES?
IC DEEPWATER SHAL
2
ES
HAL NT
BASI NS F RO MAYKOP
LTA 2 3
DE
PE 5
SL O DE L
BA TA PLAIN
SE
ME 5
NT
U ND 5 6
IVI LS COALS
D LS COA CIMM
ED COA ER IAN UNC v v
v v v v v v
ON FORMITY
v v v v v v v v v v
VOLCANICS?
v

MENT BASEME
BASE IDED NT
LT

TRIASSIC
U

V
UNDI
FA

“MARITIME BUR
IED U
PLIF
ER

RIFT SHOU T”
LDER
ST

?
?

MA
N

1
IO

SHALLOW ANTICLINE
RS

2 DEEPER ANTICLINE
VE

IN
IN

3 SUBTHRUST

VE
RS
4 STRATIGRAPHIC TRAPS, CENOZOIC

IO
5 INTRA-JURASSIC STRATIGRAPHIC/COMBINATION TRAP

N?
NOT TO SCALE!
6 CIMMERIAN UNCONFORMITY TRAP

Fig. 4. Play types of the southern Dagestan segment of the Terek-Caspian Petroleum Province; for location see
Fig. 2. Note that this cartoon is a summary of various plays targeted along strike that may not be present in a
single cross-section. Compiled from various sources (Sokolov et al., 1990; Sobornov, 1990, 1996, 2020, 2021 this
issue; Blackbourn, 2008, 2013; Blackbourn et al., 2021 this issue).

anticlines were drilled later and these 4-way closed and shaly sequences associated with the incoming
traps are arranged beneath the foredeep sequence in “palaeo-Volga” delta system (Gavrilov, 2020).
NW-SE trending rows (play #2). While the Cretaceous Limited geochemical information available
reservoirs in these anticlines provide the largest reserves suggests that the shallow oils are sourced from
in the region, deeper Jurassic units may provide gas basinal organic-rich anoxic shales of the Rupelian
accumulations perhaps as deep as the Middle Jurassic Lower Maykop and Middle – Upper Eocene Kuma
delta-front sandstones units (speculative deeper part Formations but the origin of the deeper hydrocarbons
of play #2). Similar to the edge of the Kuban foredeep is uncertain (Boote et al., 2018; Yandarbiev et al.,
basin, the main thrust faults are probably inverted this issue). Besides the Middle Jurassic coals, Middle
extensional faults with significant reverse offset Jurassic (Bajocian) marine shales with locally up
forming sub-thrust traps (speculative play #3). There to 5-10% TOC dominated by terrigenous organic
were at least two major episodes of delta progradation matter may have contributed to the petroleum system
away from the foldbelt during the Miocene and the later (Yandarbiev et al., 2021 this issue).
uptilted shingled turbidites may provide stratigraphic
traps (speculative play #4). Similarly, the delta-front Absheron-Pribalkhan Petroleum Province
and delta-plain sandstones in the much deeper and The Absheron-Pribalkhan Ridge (Fig. 2) is the
older Middle Jurassic delta system (Sokolov et al., structural continuation of the Greater Caucasus across
1990; Sobornov, 2021 this issue; Blackbourn et al., the Caspian Basin (Green et al., 2009). The Ridge
2021 this issue) could be transformed into stratigraphic is comprised of several sub-parallel transpressional
traps due to late differential uplift of the collisional anticlinal trends, folded and inverted during the
orogen (speculative play #5). Finally, at great depth, the Plio-Pleistocene. Some 39.8 B boe of reserves are
Eo-Cimmerian unconformity between the Triassic and reservoired in Pliocene (Productive Series) sandstones
Jurassic is potentially a play with sandstones above it within structural and combination traps, charged by lower
(speculative play #6). The last two plays are assumed to Maykop Group and Diatom Formation source rocks
be gas-prone and to be sourced from the Jurassic coaly (Abrams and Narimanov, 1997; Boote et al., 2018).

Tari plays.indd 219 19/06/2021 12:30:30

 220 Exploration plays in the Caucasus region

SSW NNE
KAINARDZHA UPLIFT
CHYRAGGALA AMIRKHANLY FIELD AGZYBIRCHALA
AMSARI-PIREBEDIL
SIAZAN HOMOCLINE SYNCLINE
KHUSARY-KHACHMAS COASTLINE
STEP

QUATERNARY
PLIOCENE
1 1
IFT SERIES”
N-R “PRODUCTIVE
SY
D

MI
OCENE
RTE

2 MIOCENE
INVE

MA
YKOP N
IA
4 GRO
WTH? 2
E 4
PAL OCENE
? EOCENE
CR
ETAC KUMA 3
EOUS ?
UPP
? ER JU
2 4 SIC
RASSIC IAS ICS
? TR CAN
L
MID VO
DL E ?
JURASSIC FT
-RI
SYN
AINED
ULT

LOW
?
ER FA

ER JU
RASSIC
NSTR

STRATIGRAPHIC TRAPS
IVATED
1 IN OVERTURNED MONOCLINE
MAST

2 3-WAY FAULT BOUNDED, HIGH-SIDE

UNCO

REACT

3 SUBUNCONFORMITY TRUNCATION

NOT TO SCALE! 4 PINCHOUT ON FLEXURAL MARGIN

Fig. 5. Play types of the Kusary-Divichi Trough in the western part of the Absheron-Pribalkhan Petroleum
Province, Azerbaijan; for location, see Fig. 2. Note that this cartoon is a simplified summary of various plays
targeted along strike that may not be present in a single cross-section. Compiled from various sources
(Blackbourn, 2010).

The Kusary-Divichi Trough is a segment of the
Cenozoic foredeep to the NE of the Greater Caucasus
which lies within the northeastern coastal strip of
Azerbaijan in an area known as the Precaspian-Kuba
region (Blackbourn, 2010). The Kusary-Divichi
Trough is therefore the southeastern onshore portion
of the Terek-Caspian basin but extends eastwards into
the Caspian Sea (Fig. 2). The onshore portion of the
Precaspian-Kuba region is up to 130 km long from
northwest to southeast with a width of up to 50 km.
The Siazan homocline and the adjacent Talabi-
Kainardzha uplift zone (Fig. 5) are regarded as the
most prospective areas within the Precaspian-Kuba
region. The Siazan homocline extends for 75 km and
is cut by numerous lengthwise faults (normal, reverse
and thrust) and comparatively smaller transverse
faults. The discoveries within the Siazan zone are
associated with homoclinal, often overturned to the
NE, Paleogene to Miocene and Upper Cretaceous
units (Fig. 5). The existing fields rely on structural,
stratigraphic and combination traps (Blackbourn,
2010). The main reservoirs are sandy horizons in
Lower Maykopian strata, with a total thickness of
the sandy beds within the upper horizons of 30-35
m and in the lower horizons of 40-48 m (initial oil
flows were up to 100-500 b/d). The accumulations
are no more than 300 m wide due to the uptilted trap
geometries. In the multi-layer Amirkhanly field located
in the west of the homocline, small flows of oil (up
to only 20-30 b/d) were obtained from the Paleocene
and hydrocarbon shows have been observed within
the Eocene sequence. Oil has also flowed at economic
rates from the Chokrakian horizon (Middle Miocene).
In the Zagly-Zeiva part of the central area of the
Siazan homocline, oil is being produced from the
Lower Maykopian, Eocene and Paleocene successions
and also from the Upper Cretaceous. Some wells
flowed at an initial rate of 1000+ b/d from the
Upper Cretaceous and Lower Paleogene combined.
Indications of oil were also observed in core samples
from the Middle Miocene (Sarmatian) strata.
In summary, in the Kusary-Divichi Trough, most
of the play types are associated with the SW margin
of a deep Cenozoic trough (Fig. 5). The near-vertical,
multiply-overturned reservoirs along the SW margin
of the Siazan homocline provide the most typical
trap (play #1) which is a combination trap due to the
lithological boundaries required to provide up-dip seal.
Large near-vertical faults in the axis of the foredeep
show pronounced along-strike variation, with offset
switching from reverse to normal depending on the
degree of reactivation of a presumably Jurassic syn-rift
fault fabric. Regardless of the sense of displacement,
the resulting fault-bounded traps are a proven play
(play #2) in this basin.
There are no reports, to the present authors’
knowledge, of proven stratigraphic traps in the axial
part of the foredeep which is up to 6 km deep. However,

Tari plays.indd 220 19/06/2021 12:30:30

 G.Tari et al.
there may be traps associated with the base-Maykop
unconformity – either truncation traps below it
(speculative play #3: Fig. 5) or pinch-out traps above
(speculative play #4).
SOUTHERN CAUCASUS
PETROLEUM PLAY TYPES
The southern foreland basin system of the Greater
Caucasus is quite different geodynamically from that to
the north, mostly because of the narrow Kartli and Kura
foredeep basins which extend towards the Georgian
and Azeri segments of the Lesser Caucasus (Fig.1). To
the west of these basins, the foreland system comprises
the Rioni Basin which is located partially offshore.
In the Eastern Black Sea Basin, the foredeep is well-
defined by the relatively deep Tuapse Trough in the
Russian sector (Fig. 1), but is not very well developed
in the Georgian sector including the Rioni Basin.
The overall size of proven reserves in the southern
foreland is also quite different, and is about an order
of magnitude smaller than in the foreland basin
system to the north (Boote et al., 2018). While there
are well explored mature petroleum provinces in this
region, such as the Lower Kura Basin, other parts are
comparatively underexplored, such as most parts of the
Eastern Black Sea Basin (Tari and Simmons, 2018).
The “super-basin” South Caspian region is
excluded from this overview as it is an outlier, with an
estimated 47 B boe total reserves discovered in mostly
Neogene clastic reservoirs (Boote et al., 2018). Oil
and gas is reservoired here in fluvio-deltaic sandstones
of the Middle Pliocene Productive Series, with more
limited production from fractured Miocene shales and
Oligocene sandstones. This exceptional petroleum
basin (e.g. Guliyev et al., 2003; Goodwin et al.,
2020) accommodated up to 10 km of Pliocene-Recent
marine, fluvio-deltaic and lacustrine sands and shales,
and is bounded by south-verging thrusting along the
southern flank of the Absheron Sill. The basin fill in the
western and northern part of the depression has been
deformed by northwest trending anticlinal buckle folds,
often cored by overpressured mud intrusions and mud
volcanoes, while north-south to NE-SW trending fold
trends dominate the central and eastern part associated
with large scale slumping and gravity slides.
The Lower Kura petroleum provinces, which
extend across onshore and offshore Azerbaijan (Fig. 1),
are less prolific than the Absheron-Pribalkhan province
which is located mostly in the Caspian offshore (Boote
et al., 2018). Yet, the overall petroleum province
includes 15+ significant fields with reserves of 4.1 B
boe, charged by Maykop Group organic-rich shales
and by the Upper Miocene Diatom Formation, and
mostly reservoired in the Pliocene Productive Series
and more locally in Miocene sandstones. The average
Tari plays.indd 221
221
field size is 78 MM boe (Boote et al., 2018). The trap
types are similar to those of the Absheron-Pribalkhan
petroleum province.
Middle Kura sub-province,
western Azerbaijan
In the Middle Kura Basin of western Azerbaijan, as part
of the Upper Kura-Kartli petroleum province (Boote
et al., 1998), exploration efforts have been focused
in the Evlakh-Agdzhabedi Trough (Fig. 2) since the
1960s. Some 60 years later, it is regarded as a mature
petroleum basin and yet numerous questions regarding
its geology and hydrocarbons remain (Buryakovsky
et al., 2001; Blackbourn, 2010). Accumulations differ
from those along the coastline which are trapped in
complex sometimes overturned anticlinal structures,
often associated with mud intrusions and partially
unroofed during the late Pliocene – Pleistocene (e.g.
Narimanov et al., 1998; Abdullaev et al., 1998).
From the early 1970s, following the recovery of the
commercial oil flows from Upper Cretaceous volcanics
in the Muradkhanly region (Fig. 2), exploration
increased. As a result, the limits within which the
volcanics were known to be hydrocarbon-bearing
were extended, and new small oil accumulations were
discovered in the Eocene, Oligocene and Miocene
(Maykopian and Chokrakian) sequences.
The Upper Cretaceous has been penetrated in the
majority of the known Mesozoic volcanic subsurface
“steps” along the basin axis. The succession is
composed of a variety of volcanic and sedimentary
rocks. A maximum thickness of approximately
2000 m of Upper Cretaceous volcanics (comprising
andesite, basalt, dolerite and porphyrite lavas) has been
penetrated. Based on the age of intercalated sediments,
the prolonged volcanic activity occurred between the
Albian and Campanian (Buryakovsky et al., 2001).
In the “flagship” Muradkhanly field (Fig. 6), the
commercial oil reserves are associated with weathered
and fractured volcanic rocks (Klostermann et al., 1996;
Blackbourn, 2010) in the upper portion of the Upper
Cretaceous section. Petrographic studies (Buryakovsky
et al., 2001) show that reservoir properties depend
on the degree of weathering. Subordinate production
comes from terrigenous, carbonate and pyroclastic
rocks of Eocene age. Small, commercial oil reserves
have also been discovered in the Middle Miocene
terrigenous-carbonate rocks of Chokrakian age. Based
on dense well control, the Muradkhanly oil field is
understood to be associated with an antiform defined
by the top of the Cretaceous volcanic succession at a
minimum depth of 3000 m (Fig. 6). Within the 4200
m contour line, the overall field size is about 150 km2.
Dips vary from 10 to 20°. The structure has two crestal
faults trending NW-SE (Fig. 6). Whereas the main oil
reserves are concentrated in the crestal area, there is
19/06/2021 12:30:30
 222 Exploration plays in the Caucasus region

SW MURADKHANLY FIELD NE
0 0
QUATERNARY

1 ABSHERON 1
PLIOCENE

AKCHAGYL
2 2
PRODUCTIVE UNIT
SARMATIAN
DEPTH (km)

MIOCENE KONKIAN-KARAGANIAN
1
CHOKRAKIAN
3 3
MAYKOPIAN
OLIGOCENE 1 2
UPPER EOCENE
4 2 2 4

UPPER CRETACEOUS
3
5 1 3-WAY FAULT-BOUNDED, HIGH-SIDE 5

2 3-WAY FAULT-BOUNDED, LOW-SIDE

1.25x VERTICAL EXAGGERATION 3 STRATIGRAPHIC, WEATHERED VOLCANICS?

6 6

Fig. 6. Play types of the Muradkhanly field in the Middle Kura Basin, western Azerbaijan, in the eastern
part of the Upper Kura – Kartli Petroleum Province; for location see Fig. 2. Compiled from various sources
(Klostermann et al., 1996; Buryakovsky et al., 2001; Blackbourn, 2010).
also an oil accumulation on the western flank of the
structure (Fig. 6).
The oil-saturated intervals extend from the top of
the weathered Upper Cretaceous volcanics to a depth
of 10-50 m in some wells, and to a depth of 100 m or
more in others. However reservoir-quality porosity
and permeability values were measured at depths of
up to 450 to 500 m below the top-volcanics. Deeper
intervals, i.e. from 1,000 to 2,000 m (Wells 3 and 6),
are dry or showed insignificant flows of water.
The most productive zone is the upper 25-30
m of the Upper Cretaceous volcanic succession.
Buryakovsky et al. (2001) documented that the OWC is
located at different depths in different types of volcanic
rocks. Therefore there is no through-going OWC across
the field, but instead in map-view the OWC intersects
the top-volcanics depth contour. Since the reservoirs
are characterized by a non-uniform oil content, due to
the laterally and vertically changing reservoir quality
paramaters, production rates vary significantly across
the field. Buryakovsky et al. (2001) reported initial oil
production rates of 7 to 220 b/d in 48% of wells, from
220 to 750 b/d in 35% of wells, and more than 750 b/d
in 17% of wells.
The overall shape of the Muradkhanly structure
may reflect that of a Cretaceous palaeo-volcano (Fig.
6). Proven plays at this field include 3-way fault-
bounded closures associated with Miocene normal
faults, either in footwall or hangingwall locations
(plays #1 and #2). A challenging but proven play is
that associated with the weathering (and fracturing?)
of the Cretaceous volcanics beneath the pre-Cenozoic
unconformity (play #3). This stratigraphic play, which
is not necessarily a “buried hill” type, is related
to the lengthy subaerial exposure of the volcanics
before they were successively buried by Paleocene,
Eocene and Oligocene sediments. The geometry of
the onlapping proven source rocks within the Eocene
(Kuma Formation) onto the Cretaceous volcanics may
be a factor in the unusual geometry of the oil field on
the NW flank of the Muradkhanly structure (Fig. 6).
Upper Kura – Kartli Petroleum Province,
central and eastern Georgia
The onshore Upper Kura and Kartli Basins form a
Neogene foreland depression bounded by the Greater
Caucasus and Achara-Trialeti fold-thrust belts (Fig.
1). Compressional deformation probably started in
the Late Eocene but culminated in the Pliocene, when
basinal sequences to the north and south were thrust
onto the underlying Shatsky-Dzirula Platform (Banks
et al., 1997; Adamia et al., 2010; 2017; Alania et al.,
2020a,b, 2021; Gusmeo et al., 2021). Hydrocarbons
are trapped in complex, faulted anticlinal structures
along the flank of the Achara-Trialeti range, reservoired
in Middle Eocene volcaniclastic reservoirs with
smaller accumulations in Miocene clastics and deeper
Cretaceous sediments (Robinson et al., 1997). The
largest field, the Samgori field complex (Fig. 2), has
produced >160 MM brl from fractured Middle Eocene
volcaniclastic rocks (Vernik, 1990; Patton, 1993;
Grynberg et al., 1993; Tari et al., 2021 this issue). Its
oil is tentatively typed to the Oligocene Maykop Group
and older Eocene shales (Sachsenhofer et al., 2018;
2021 this issue). Geological constraints suggest that
small fields on the north side of the basin may have
been charged from an older Upper Cretaceous source
(Boote et al., 2018). Total reserves are estimated to

Tari plays.indd 222 19/06/2021 12:30:31

 G.Tari et al. 223

SW NE
TARIBANI FIELD MIRZAANI FIELD DIDI SHIRAKI “BASIN EDGE” TREND
THRUST-TOP (PIGGY-BACK) BASIN
DIDI SHIRAKI-1 KHIRSA-1
QUATERNARY
MEOT
IAN
L AP ?
1 ON
SA
PLIOCENE
M E O TI
AN 1 PONTIAN
? RM
ATIA
N
MA
2 E YK
PA OC OP
SA

MEOTIAN LE E
GROWTH 3
RM

O N

IA
NE CE
?

N
OC ?

E
AT

NE
O
IAN

M
2 3

T
MIOCENE IA

US
N NE O
CO

R
? MIA

-TH
SARMATIAN N

CK
?

BA
SA UP
RM PE
AT PRE-KINEMATIC R
JU
IA RA
N SS
SARMATIAN IC
MI
D
VO DLE
LC J
SA AN URA
RM ICS SSI
BASAL DE MA ? C
AT
TACHM
ENT
Y KO
PIAN IA N
?
EOC
ENE
PALE LO
OCE WE
NE OLIGO R
NEO CENE JUR
COM ? MAYKO ASS
IA N PIAN IC? ?
1
N

GROWTH PINCHOUT
SIO

THICK-SKINNE
2 NEOGENE ANTICLINE RAM
ER

D
THRUSTING P ?
INV

3 “BASIN EDGE” SUBTHRUST ANTICLINE NOT TO SCALE!

Fig. 7. Play types in the Upper Kura Basin, eastern Georgia, in the central part of the Upper Kura – Kartli
Petroleum Province. Besides the proven plays of the Taribani and Mirzaani fields, the “basin edge trend” remains
untested. For location, see Fig. 2. Compiled from various sources (Morariu and Noual, 2009; Adamia et al., 2010;
Nemčok et al., 2013; Alania et al., 2020a,b; 2021).

be 593 MM boe. For these relatively underexplored
basins, two play type cartoons were compiled for
eastern and central Georgia (Figs 7 and 8, respectively).
The Mirzaani oil field is located on the southern
limb of a prominent syncline (Fig. 7) in the Pliocene
thin-skinned fold-and-thrust belt of the Greater
Caucasus propagating to the south (Alania et al.,
2020a,b; 2021). The stratigraphic traps are provided by
up-dip pinch-outs in shallow-water to fluvial sandstone
units in an overall Pliocene growth sequence (play #1).
The nearby Taribani field is associated with stacked
Upper Miocene clastic reservoirs in a sub-thrust
anticline (play #2). The location of the anticline may
be due to a deeper inverted thick-skinned fault which
is responsible for the ramp in the overlying basal thin-
skinned thrust. The overall contractional deformation
in this frontal zone of the Greater Caucasus may be
accommodated by a mixture of thin-skinned and thick-
skinned contractional structures (Nemčok et al., 2013).
Note that the Didi Shiraki-1 well was drilled into the
centre of the large thrust-top syncline and reached
total depth at 4891 m in Sarmatian (Middle Miocene)
rocks (Fig. 7). Besides the proven regional source
rock of the Oligocene – Lower Miocene Maykop
Group, the equivalents of the Middle Eocene Kuma
Formation may also possibly have contributed to the
charge in this basin. However, there is no geochemical
evidence yet to prove this (Sachsenhofer et al., 2017,
2018, 2021 this issue; Boote et al., 2018). Similarly,
it is uncertain whether the Upper Miocene Diatom
Formation extends from the Lower to the Upper Kura
Basin, and if so whether it would have reached oil
window maturity.
In a more internal position, the Mesozoic sequence
was incorporated into the thin-skinned fold-and-thrust
belt (Fig. 7). The resulting geometry defines the “basin
edge” play at the northern perimeter of the Upper Kura
Basin that has been the main focus of exploration
efforts in the last decade. Historically, the geometry
of the thrust-fold belt was poorly understood and a
key well (Khirsa-1; Fig. 7) was drilled in 1985-1988
without the benefit of modern seismic data. This well
reached the top of the Mesozoic carbonates (Lower
Cretaceous – Jurassic) at 2190 m and reached total
depth at 5010 m in Middle Jurassic tuffs.
Subsequent seismic data acquisition in 1990-1991
showed that the well was drilled down-dip from an
anticlinal feature (Fig. 7). The Mesozoic carbonates
emplaced at only about 1.5 km depth were targeted
by one well (Lloyd-1) but could not be reached due to
drilling problems.
Therefore the “basin-edge” play with its sub-thrust
anticlinal trap and Mesozoic carbonate reservoirs
remains untested (speculative play #3). A successful
test would become a “play opener” as there are
lookalike structures along the approximately 100 km

Tari plays.indd 223 19/06/2021 12:30:31

 224 Exploration plays in the Caucasus region

S N
NORIO SHALLOW GREATER
TELETI FIELD OVERTURNED FIELDS CAUCASUS
BEDS
OIL SEEPS 1
KARTLI BASIN MI
OC
EN
MI E
P OC E N E
O UPPER EOCENE
K
AY

KUMA AC
BRE HED MA
M

1 ? YK
OP
ICS MAY
AN KOP NO
LC RI
VO O
E
E OC
EN ? MAYK
OP OV
LOWER ER
? 2
KU M
A TH
RU
E ST
PALEOCEN
2
4 2 PER 3
UP ENE
C KU
2 EO VOLCANICS M A
CRETACEO
US
MA

VOLCANIC
S LOWER EOCENE
SH

LOWER EOCENE
ST

R
O

LOWE E
ER
RT

GROW3
PALEOCENE
EOCEN
C

FAU
UT

TH
TH? ?
G R OW
?

E PALEOCE
LT

EN
LE OC UNCONS NE
PA TRAIN
E
US D
EO
TAC
CRE ACEOUS
CRET PALEOCENE
INVE
STEE

1 SHALLOW 4-WAY ANTICLINES

NO

RSIO

2
INV

SUBTHRUST
PEN

N?
ERS

SUB-OVERTHRUST 4-WAY ANTICLINE

N?

SIO
3
ING?

(NORIO DEEP)

ER
ION

WEATHERED CRETACEOUS VOLCANICS NOT TO SCALE!

4

V
(MURADKHANLY ANALOGUE?)

IN
Fig. 8. Play types in the Tbilisi segment of the Kartli Basin, Georgia, in the western part of the Upper Kura
-Kartli Petroleum Province, for location see Fig. 2. Compiled from various sources (Vernik, 1990; Patton, 1993;
Grynberg et al; 1993; Alania et al., 2020a,b, 2021).

long northern edge of the Kura Basin in eastern and are some small and shallow fields associated with the
central Georgia. hangingwall of this low-angle (20-30o) south-vergent
Several oil and gas fields are located around Tbilisi Pliocene overthrust. However, much larger reserves
in central Georgia (Fig. 2). All these have 4-way dip- were found along strike to the east beneath the same
closures at the main Middle Eocene reservoir level (Fig. regional overthrust plane in the Ninostminda segment
8) at various depths between 0.3 and 3 km (play #1). of the Samgori field (Vernik, 1990; Patton, 1993,
The bounding faults for all these relatively symmetric Robinson et al., 1997). The undeveloped Manavi oil
anticlines are steep (60-70o) reverse faults and therefore discovery further to the east is also considered as a
they are positive inversion structures inherited from proper subthrust analogue. Therefore the same overall
Cretaceous or Early Eocene rift grabens (Robinson sub-overthrust trapping configuration (play #3) is
et al., 1997, Robinson, 2019). Since the Upper and expected to be found towards the west in the Norio
Middle Eocene does not show syn-kinematic growth Deep prospect (Fig. 8). The exact trap configuration
across the structures, they correspond to a post-rift is difficult to determine due to the subthrust imaging
basin fill succession. Based on the geometry of the challenges associated with the existing 2D seismic
thrust faults, the inversion occurred along north- data, but all the alternative structural interpretations
vergent, E-W striking, out-of-the-basin thrusts (Fig. suggest an antiformal feature for the Norio Deep
8). Many of these thrusts can be observed on various prospect. The most likely source rocks for this deep
2D and 3D seismic reflection lines and also at outcrop target include the Oligocene to Lower Miocene
(Robinson, 2019). During the Pliocene inversion of the Maykop Group and organic-rich shales within the
pre-existing half-grabens, the buttressing effect of the Upper Eocene sequence which appear to have different
footwall of the master basin-bounding fault caused the characteristics compared to the Kuma Formation
development of thrusts that verge away from that fault elsewhere in the Caucasus region.
towards the subordinate flank of the basin. Therefore In addition to the above plays, a deeper speculative
on the northern flanks of the anticlines, subthrust play may also exist in the Georgian part of the Kura
traps are expected to occur (play #2) with an inherent Basin (Fig. 8) comprising the cores of inverted
fault-seal risk. anticlinal structures (speculative play #4) by analogy
In contrast to the reverse faults along the Teleti, with the Muradkhanly weathered and fractured
South Dome and Samgori trend, there is a prominent Cretaceous volcanics (Fig. 7). Given the overall depth,
structural element in the shallower Oligocene to gas is expected in this play and it would require an
Miocene basin fill, the Norio overthrust (Fig. 8). There older than Eocene source rock for the charge (Fig. 8).

Tari plays.indd 224 19/06/2021 12:30:32

 G.Tari et al. 225

TSAISHI
WSW ENE

COASTLINE
ANTICLINE
ANAKLIA KVALONI
CHALADIDI TREND
QUATERNARY
TREND QUATERNARY

ENE
PLIOC

AN
PONTI
E
C EN
IO
Y PL MEOTIAN
AR UPPE E
ERN 1 R MIOCEN
AT

ON
QU

LA
P
ON

LA

P
LA

ON
P
MIDD E
LE MIOCEN

2
1
MAYKOPIAN

EOCENE-
SENONIAN
APTIAN-
2 TURONIAN
NEOCOMIAN
?
IC EVAPORITES
UPPER JURASS
3 3
S 3
ORITE
EVAP EDGE? RIFT
ZERO 4 POST-
GE
5 4
AR RIFT 5
CH POST-
5
T
IFT -RIF
SYN-R SYN
S
AL
AN S AN CO
CI IC NI
JO AN T HO
S BA OLC BA
AL V
CO

ANTICLINAL
1 4-WAY, SENONIAN ANTICLINAL
2 4-WAY, NEOCOMIAN 3 PRE/INTRA-SALT
4-WAY AND PINCH-OUT 4 SUBUNCONFORMITY
TRUNCATION 5 HIGH
3-WAY
SIDE FAULT NOT TO SCALE!

Fig. 9. Play types in the northern part of the Rioni Basin, mostly onshore (modified from Tari et al., 2018). For
location, see Fig. 2. The absence of hydrocarbons in the already-drilled Tsaishi and Kvaloni anticlines may be
explained either by breaching due to their recent reactivation (Tibaldi et al., 2017) and/or by the tortuous and
long migration from the inferred offshore hydrocarbon kitchen (Mayer et al., 2018).

Onshore and offshore Rioni Petroleum Province, (Sarmatian and Meotian) sandstones within Pliocene
Western Georgia anticlinal traps (Supsa and Shromisubani fields: Fig.
The Neogene Rioni foreland basin system in western 2) detached on overpressured Maykop shales in the
Georgia is located between the Achara-Trialeti folded south. Several well-studied seeps offshore (Pape et
belt in the south and the Greater Caucasus orogen to al., 2010, 2021; Reitz et al., 2011; Dembicki, 2020)
the north. These oppositely-verging thick- and thin- have an indistinguishable Maykop/Kuma geochemical
skinned fold-and-thrust belts are inverted against and signature similar to that observed onshore (Mayer et
detached on top of the Mesozoic Shatsky-Dzirula al., 2018), supporting the westward extension of the
Platform (Banks et al., 1997). During the Paleogene, Cenozoic petroleum system into the Eastern Black Sea
a deep-water basin system developed with a volcanic (Tari et al., 2018).
arc to the south (Lordkipanidze et al., 1989; Adamia et In the northern Rioni Basin, fractured Senonian
al., 1992; Kazmin and Tikhonova, 2006; Blackbourn chalks provide reservoirs in small anticlinal traps with
et al., 2021 this issue). With the onset of regional oil accumulations at the Chaladidi West and East fields.
inversion in the Greater Caucasus Basin to the north, These two fields prove play #1 in the basin (Fig. 9) with
the Paleogene trough was also inverted and thrust 4-way closures in detached anticlines located along
northwards (Achara-Trialeti foldbelt) in the Miocene or close to the leading edge of the Greater Caucasus
and Pliocene as the Greater Caucasus was thrust south deformational front. Oil with 26 to 28° API is produced
to form the Rioni foreland basin system. The Neogene from Upper Cretaceous to lower Paleocene chalks at
basin fill now overlies a Jurassic – Cretaceous platform about 2 km depth. However many similar, late-formed
sequence to the north and thick Eocene volcanics and structural closures tested in the basin are dry. As these
volcaniclastics in the south. may have formed after peak thrust-driven expulsion
A few small oilfields have been discovered in the and migration, those now reservoiring oil and gas
onshore Rioni Basin (Tari et al., 2018), suggesting may have been charged by secondary remigration and
the presence of at least two petroleum systems (Fig. spillage from earlier palaeo-accumulations (Boote et
1) which, given their size, were not classified as a al., 2018). A prominent example of such a structure is
petroleum province by Boote et al. (2018). The oil the large surface Tsaishi anticline which is associated
fields are reservoired in poor quality Upper Miocene with very recent earthquake activity (Tibaldi et al.,

Tari plays.indd 225 19/06/2021 12:30:32

 226 Exploration plays in the Caucasus region

SW POTI PLAY FAIRWAY NE

LASSE
MO
N? ENE
EAFLOOR IA PLIOC
DING S IN 4
ERO S
ES OMIAN
M NE O C

EXES E
OMPL CEN 4
L-LE VEE C MIO
CHANNE 1 P
A
ONL 5
3
IAN IN
COM VE
C ENE NEO RS
PLIO 1 5 IO
3 ED)
N?
RA P? IVID
N NO T UND
LOOR FA IC ( ?
BASIN F ASS
JUR ?
CEN
E NLA
P
UPP
ER
AN ICS
3 MIO O OLC
SPLAY IC V
S ASS S?
FAN JUR ASTIC
SLO
PE ? MID
D L E
C L
1
SHATSKY RIDGE
NE ER
OCE L-OV

P
OLIG ROL

DI
3 2

L
NA
IAN
MAYKOP OR FAN

IO
SIN FLO
G
BA 5°
RE 1 3-WAY FAULT BOUNDED HIGHSIDE

NE 2 ROLL-OVER ANTICLINE
.4

EOCE
cc

KUMA EN E 3 STRATIGRAPHIC PINCH-OUT

EOC
PAL
NOT TO SCALE! 4 4-WAY ANTICLINE (ANAKLIA)

OU S
LAP 5 INTRA-EVAPORITE (OKUMI)
ACE ON
RET
E RC
UPP T
-RIF
SYN

Fig. 10. Speculative play types in the central part of the Georgian Black Sea; for location see Fig. 2.The Poti
play fairway consists of different exploration plays compared to those previously considered in this segment of
the Black Sea. Note that offshore Georgia has not seen a single well drilled to-date and therefore all the plays
shown on this cartoon remain speculative.The only exception is the intra- or pre-salt Okumi play (#5) proven in
the northern onshore Rioni Basin (Robinson et al., 1997;Tari et al., 2018).

2017) underlining the trap timing and breaching risks to the maritime border with Turkey (Fig. 2). This play
(Tari et al., 2018). Regardless, the same anticlinal has been tested to an Upper Miocene (Sarmatian) level
crests offer a deeper play target within the Aptian- by the HPX-1 well in offshore Turkey, drilled by BP
Neocomian fractured carbonate sequence (speculative in 2005 (Fig. 2). The increase of volcanic material
play #2). Beneath a regional Upper Jurassic evaporite and change in composition from the Lower to the
detachment level (Banks et al., 1997), the Okumi-1 Upper Sarmatian potentially indicates the switching
well encountered a light oil find in Upper Jurassic of volcanic material provenance from the Achara-
shallow-marine sandstones in 1991 defining the proven Trialeti fold belt in the east to the Pontides in the
pre-salt play #3. Speculative play type #4 relies on south as the Gurian foldbelt progressively evolved.
truncation against the Callovian (mid-Cimmerian) The amount of volcaniclastics was substantial in the
unconformity, and is therefore stratigraphic in nature. encountered succession, and all the potential reservoir
Speculative play #5 assumes fault-bounded 3-way levels penetrated down to the total depth of the well
closures associated with Jurassic syn-rift fault blocks failed, primarily due to the negligible permeability of
(Fig. 9). The Middle Jurassic, high volatile bituminous the volcaniclastic sandstones caused by cementation.
coal in the nearby Tkibuli-Shaori mine contains a To mitigate this reservoir quality risk, drilling deeper
relatively high amount of methane (~15 m³/tonne, into the Miocene sequence could be considered in order
Sachsenhofer et al., 2021 this issue), explaining to reach deep-water sandstones units which may not
why speculative plays #4 and #5 are assumed to be have been compromised by the influx of Middle-Upper
gas-prone (Fig. 9). Tari et al. (2018) also reported Miocene volcaniclastic sediments from the Pontides.
excellent oil- and gas generating potential associated However, this may not remove the risk entirely, given
with Bathonian coaly shales taken from outcropping the abundance of Cretaceous and Eocene volcanics in
spot samples. the same southerly provenance region (Vincent et al.,
In the offshore part of the Rioni Basin, two major 2013; 2014).
as-yet untested play fairways were identified in the A secondary play type was also considered by
early 2000s (Tari et al., 2018). One of these fairways Anadarko along the Shatsky Ridge (Fig. 2). Their
included the anticlinal trend of the Gurian fold belt (or Anaklia Prospect was mapped on vintage Soviet-era
Gurian Trough of other authors) in the south, adjacent 2D seismic data as being on trend with the Ochamchira

Tari plays.indd 226 19/06/2021 12:30:33

 G.Tari et al.
Prospect located to the NW (Tugolesov et al., 1986;
Glumov et al., 2014a,b). Anaklia has a large 4-way
closure at the Lower Cretaceous level and the target
is a Neocomian karstified and fractured limestone
succession (play #4 in Fig. 10). Onshore wells, drilled
outside of the 4-way dip closure of the Ochamchira
Prospect, documented the reservoir potential of this
stratigraphic unit by flowing water up to 15,000 b/d.
This is the same reservoir interval as that proven
in Dagestan on the NE of the Greater Caucasus
(Sobornov, 2021 this issue).
A new speculative play fairway is introduced
here, located between those described above: the Poti
fairway (named after the town on the coast) along the
SE flank of the Shatsky Ridge (Fig. 10). Based on a
grid of 2D seismic lines, the primary play types in this
new fairway are combination traps associated with a
large antithetic normal fault along the SW flank of the
Shatsky Ridge (plays #1 and #2). This fault can be
mapped for at least 50 km along strike and corresponds
to a synthetic normal detachment fault forming a roll-
over system. The fault has an offset of the order of 200-
400 m, i.e. large enough to provide a robust fault seal
for multiple separate gas accumulations in its footwall
with Miocene – Pliocene reservoir intervals. Stacked
Middle – Upper Miocene (Sarmatian) to Pliocene
reservoir rocks, most likely slope fan and channel-levee
systems, are based on analogues defined by 3D seismic
data in the deep-water Ordu area offshore Turkey.
Regional work, using Soviet-era seismic mapping and
well results, suggests a preferred sediment entry point
to the Poti play fairway area from the north, from the
direction of the Mokva area in Abkhazia. A biogenic
gas charge for these clastic units is expected from the
Upper Miocene (Meotian?) shales, similar to that in
the Romanian Western Black Sea in the Domino play
fairway (Tari and Simmons, 2018). The Upper Miocene
– Pliocene deep-water sediments also have a pinch-
out against the Shatsky Ridge defining a stratigraphic
play (play #3) with the up-dip disconnection being
the critical risk. Similarly, the presence of larger-scale
stratigraphic traps is assumed in the deep-water area
associated with slope and basin floor fans which may
have a better seal risk, as they appear to terminate updip
in shaly units (play #3).
There is oil potential associated with deep-water
slope systems of the Oligocene to Lower Miocene
Maykop sequence partially trapped in a roll-over along
the flank of the Shatsky Ridge (play #2) charged by
Lower Oligocene (Khadumian) and Eocene Kuma
anoxic shales. There is a reservoir quality risk,
however, as these intra-Maykop deep-water clastics
had an easterly palaeo-provenance as opposed to the
Late Miocene – Pliocene northeasterly derivation
from the Greater Caucasus region proposed for the
Poti play fairway.
Tari plays.indd 227
227
Beneath the relatively narrow (5-10 km wide) shelf
area, there is oil potential in Neocomian carbonates
in anticlinal and partially eroded 4-way dip closures
(play #4). These thrusted anticlines trend NW-SE, and
it remains to be seen whether they are detached on a
regional Jurassic evaporite similar to that documented
in the nearby onshore Rioni Basin (Fig. 9) or represent
thick-skinned deformation associated with the
inversion of the Greater Caucasus. Based on regional
basin modelling, the charge for these anticlines, as
in the nearby onshore anticlines (e.g. Chaladidi), is
assumed to be from the deep-water Maykop and Kuma
kitchens located some 30-50 km to the west (Mayer
et al., 2018; Tari et al., 2018). Migration may have
occurred along the flank of the Shatsky Ridge (Fig. 10).
Finally, an intra-evaporite play (play #5) proven
by the onshore Okumi oil discovery may be present
in the offshore area as well as an exploration upside
beneath play #4. For this play, either intra-evaporite
black shales or Jurassic source rocks are envisioned
to provide oil charge (Boote et al., 2018; Tari et al.,
2018; Sachsenhofer et al., 2021 this issue).
The Neocomian play (play #4 in Fig. 10) is
potentially important along-strike to the NW. To
the NW of the Anaklia Prospect are the undrilled
Ochamchira and Gudauta Prospects. The Gudauta High
(Fig. 11) in the Abkhazian segment of the Eastern Black
Sea has been known for many years (e.g.Tugolesov
et al., 1985) and was highlighted as an exploration
target, easily accessible on the shelf, by Afanasenkov
et al. (2007), Glumov et al. (2014a,b) and Nikishin et
al. (2017). The large four-way structural closure (on
the order of 100-200 km2) at the level of the pre-rift
top-Neocomian carbonate platform is partially due to
the Neogene reactivation and positive inversion along
the northeastern end of the pre-existing Ordu-Pitsunda
regional transform fault (Nikishin et al., 2017). Due
to the lack of any offshore wells, all the plays shown
in Fig. 11 are conceptual at present.
The Gudauta High is located on top of the Shatsky
Ridge, and the play types summary was drawn in a
SW-NE dip direction across this regional high (Fig. 11).
Vintage 2D seismic data suggests that in general the
Shatsky Ridge (Fig. 2) has an extensional rift structure
defined by a set of normal faults segmenting it inboard
from the large master fault in the SW. Many of these
Cretaceous normal faults were reactivated during the
Miocene and therefore created 3-way fault-bounded
traps above the Ridge in the Cenozoic post-rift basin fill
(play #1). Outboard, at the abrupt bathymetric change,
there are detached normal faults causing roll-overs in
the Miocene-Pliocene basin fill (play #2). These plays
are assumed to have biogenic gas charge from Upper
Miocene (Meotian) shales.
The most important play of the Gudauta High is
that associated with karstified and partially eroded
19/06/2021 12:30:33
 228 Exploration plays in the Caucasus region

SW GUDAUTA NE

LTA
E DE
EN
IOC
PL
N
1 IO
AT
AD
R

G
1

O
TER TS? PR
WA RREN NE
DEE
P
CU 1 CE
? MIO
I AN
S SIN
ME 1

2
3 MAYKOPIA
N
MAYKOPIA
N 3
2
3 NEOCOMIA
N EOCENE E
UPPER JU PALEOCEN
RASSIC SENONIAN
NEOCOMIA ? EVAPORITES
N TURON
AN
CENO
MANIAN
3 CALLOVIAN U
NCONFO ALBIAN
4 RMITY 4
GR 5 APTIAN
5
OW
P T H N EO -
LA CO COMIAN CO
ON AL
S SY
N 4 ALS
-RIF
N
? VO T
PIA LC
KO AN VOL
MAY
LT

IC C ANIC
S S?
U

?
FA

BASEMEN
T ?
ER

1 3-WAY FAULT BOUNDED

ST

MA
KU
MA

2 ROLL-OVER ANTICLINE
NE
CE
EO
3 NEOCOMIAN CARBONATE BUILD-UPS
NOT TO SCALE!
4 DOGGER SYN-RIFT FAULT BLOCKS

5 SUBUNCONFORMITY TRUNCATION

Fig. 11. Speculative play types in the northern part of the Georgian Black Sea, for location see Fig. 2.The
Gudauta-Ochamchira play fairway was compiled from various sources (Afanasenkov et al., 2007; Glumov et al.,
2014a,b; Nikishin et al., 2015a,b, 2017;Tari and Simmons, 2018;Tari et al., 2018). Based on the interpretation of
modern reflection seismic data, there is a major unconformity within the Eocene or between the Palaeocene
and the Cretaceous (Anatoly Nikishin, personal comm., 2021).
Neocomian carbonate build-ups (play #3). Unlike the et al., 2017; Nikishin et al., 2017; Hässig et al., 2020)
Late Jurassic reefs (Guo et al., 2011), these build-ups and provide economic basement for exploration efforts.
may have a framework built by rudists (Vincent et al.,
2018b). Their presence was suggested by Glumov et Shatsky Ridge, Tuapse Trough, Kerch and Taman
al. (2014a,b), and the same Upper Jurassic to Lower Peninsulas Petroleum Province, NE Black Sea
Cretaceous carbonate platform has outcrop analogues A last, and largely underexplored, petroleum province
in Dagestan (Gavrilov, 2018). Since their stratigraphic segment along the southern margin of the Greater
position is in the pre-rift, their distribution across the Caucasus is located in the NE part of the Eastern Black
Shatsky Ridge may not show any correlation with Sea Basin, largely offshore (Fig. 2). Synthesising the
the syn-rift faults. Therefore the traps are expected to works of Afanasenkov et al. (2007), Meisner et al.
be combination traps defined by carbonate lithologic (2009), Almendinger et al. (2011), Mityukov et al.
facies boundaries and subsequent fault planes (Fig. 11). (2012) and Nikishin et al., (2015a,b, 2017), the post-
This is an exploration play which definitely needs 3D rift, syn-rift and pre-rift deep-water exploration plays
seismic data in order to de-risk it sufficiently. in the Russian segment of the Shatsky Ridge and in the
The Upper Jurassic evaporites are assumed to Tuapse Trough were described by Tari and Simmons
be very thin in this region (Nikishin et al., 2017), or (2018) and are summarised below (Fig. 12).
they may not be even present. Therefore the intra- The Tuapse Trough is located inboard from the
evaporite Okumi play (Fig. 9) cannot be considered Shatsky Ridge (Fig. 2) and remains undrilled. The
here. However, similar to the Rioni Basin to the SE NE part of the trough is largely occupied by a thin-
(Fig. 2), there are two conceptual plays within the skinned foldbelt that corresponds to the leading edge
pre-Callovian syn-rift Jurassic sequence. These plays of the Greater Caucasus propagating into the Eastern
rely on Bathonian clastics associated with gas-prone Black Sea (Fig. 12). The bulk of the pre-kinematic
coaly source rocks trapped in 3-way fault closures strata in the SE-vergent anticlines consists of the
(play #4) or in truncation traps beneath the Callovian Maykop Group (e.g. Nikishin et al., 2010, 2017).
break-up unconformity (play #5). Beneath these plays, Although no offshore wells have been drilled so far to
the presence of Bajocian volcanics is assumed (Fig. 11) provide direct calibration, the syn-kinematic sequence
as they are well known in the broader region (McCann appears to be mostly Middle Miocene to Pliocene in

Tari plays.indd 228 19/06/2021 12:30:34

 G.Tari et al. 229

SW MARIA PLAY FAIRWAY TUAPSE TROUGH/FOLDED BELT NE

DORMANT FOLDS
EROSION

ACTIVE FOLDS
BREACHED? 2

QUATERNARY DISTAL DON TURBIDITES

?
5 2
G
RO 2
P W TH
LA

GR O
BIOGENIC GAS ON 2
PLIOCENE

WT
5 H

UPPER MIOCENE
2
5
PALEO-DELTA? MIOCENE MA 3
YK
INCISION OP
IAN
U
U
U U
U U
1 3 T
ONLA
P U U 4 3 EN
U U U
M
U
U U U
?
U U U U U
1 CH
U U
TA
U U
MAYKOPIAN
U U U U
U REEFS
U U U U U

DE
U U U
U U U
4
ULT

U U U U U
U U U
P 1 P
U U U
U
U
ONLA
U
U
U U U ON K O
OLIGOCENE U U
LA A
AY
U U U U
R FA

U U
U U U U P M
GR TH
U U
-M
NTRA KU
U U
OW U
U U U U U U I
EOCENE U
ST E

U U
U U U
U U
U U U
CRYSTALLINE
MA

U CRET
IFT
U
PALEOCENE -R AC
BASEMENT?
SYN (UND EOUS
U
PRE-CALLOVIAN U
IVIDE
(RIFT SHOULDER?) JURASSIC? D)
(UNDIVIDED) U
U U U

UPUPEU U U U U U
U
RU JUUR U
SHATSKY RIDGE
U
U
A IC
U SSU U
U
U
?
U

?
? PRE-CALLOVIAN
JURASSIC?
(UNDIVIDED)

UPPER JURASSIC
1 REEFS/BUILD-UPS 2 ANTICLINAL
MAYKOPIAN
4-WAY
3 SUBTHRUST
MAYKOPIAN
3-WAY
4 INVERTED 3- AND 4-WAY
SYN-RIFT CLASTICS 5 STRATIGRAPHIC
TRAPS NOT TO SCALE!

Fig. 12. Speculative play types in the central part of the Russian Black Sea modified from Tari and Simmons
(2018). For location see Fig. 2. Several play types are associated with the Shatsky Ridge and the Tuapse foldbelt
but all remain speculative with the exception of the Upper Jurassic reef play (play #1) which was tested in 2018.
age (Afanasenkov et al., 2007; Meisner et al., 2009) The simplest traps in the Tuapse foldbelt are located
although flexure began during the Early Oligocene within 4-way closure anticlinal crests with multiple
given the apparent thickening of the lower Maykop intra-Maykop turbidite targets (speculative play #2).
sequence towards to Greater Caucasus (Mityukov et All of these assume Maykop deep-water sand reservoirs
al., 2012; Baskakova and Nikishin, 2018). receiving charge from either the Maykop succession
Several play types are associated with the Shatsky itself or from the Kuma sequence underneath. The
Ridge and the Tuapse foldbelt (Fig. 12), and are all anticlinal crests closer to the leading edge of the
speculative with the exception of the Upper Jurassic Tuapse foldbelt have a bathymetric expression on
reef play (play #1). This play over the Shatsky Ridge the modern seafloor (Almendinger et al. 2011) and
has been known for some time (Tugolesov et al., 1986) therefore have a trap versus charge timing risk. Given
and many of the associated drilling targets had been the large number of anticlinal traps in the Tuapse
defined two decades ago (Afanasenkov et al., 2005, Trough, a deep-water “play opener” discovery would
2007). One of these, the Maria Prospect, was drilled have a major impact in the NE Black Sea. Riskier is
in 2018. Water depth at the site was 2109 m and the the sub-thrust play (speculative play #3), although it
final drilling depth was 5265 m. According to Rosneft, is proven in the southern onshore Rioni Basin (Tari
the well discovered a carbonate structure with a 300 and Simmons, 2018)
m thick gross reservoir interval which was fractured. Inverted structural traps (speculative play #4)
Two depositional models have been proposed for may be present over the Shatsky Ridge due to the
the reefs (Guo et al., 2011) and assume that they are reactivation of pre-existing Cretaceous (and Jurassic?)
composed principally of either deep-water siliceous syn-rift normal faults during the Eocene. Several
sponges or alternatively shallow-water corals (Guo regional-scale compressional episodes affected the entire
et al., 2011). Shallow-water carbonates would exhibit Black Sea during the Cenozoic (e.g. Stovba et al. 2009).
better primary reservoir qualities (Tari and Simmons, Finally, there are possibly stratigraphic traps within
2018). Regardless of the key reservoir quality issue, the Miocene-Pliocene sequence outboard from the
the play concept cartoon (Fig. 12) highlights how the Tuapse foldbelt (Fig. 12). These traps (speculative play
Cenozoic source rocks need to have onlapped the #5) located beneath the deep-water basin floor may
Shatsky Ridge with lateral migration required for a contain biogenic gas accumulations similarly to the
successful charge. The reef complexes are sealed by Domino play described by Tari and Simmons (2018)
Upper Cretaceous – Cenozoic pelagic muds. in the Western Black Sea Basin.

Tari plays.indd 229 19/06/2021 12:30:35

 230 Exploration plays in the Caucasus region

N KERCH PENINSULA S
MUD VOLCANOES KORENKOVSKA SUBBOTINA DISCOVERY

NES
BICO

SEEPS
QUAT
MESSIN ERN

GAS
ENE IAN? ARY
M IOC PLI
OC
EN
EN E E
OC
CENE MI
MIO DO
NC
OP ON
1 1 YK 1 E
MA
4
TA 3 2 SL
DEL ?
OP
CE KOP 2 EF
U EN 1 MAY
AN
S
SE Q
P
3 YK
O 3 KUM 1
MA A
DELTA 1 KUMA
SLOPE? EOCENE 3

? ?

AX
IA
NLAP
D OW

L
NE

SU
MA CE
KU EO

R
PAL

FA
E E

C
NE EN NS?
CE C FA
EO EO PE
SLO
E
CEN PALLAS HIGH
EO
PAL
US
EO
TAC RETACEOUS
CRE FT
C
NE T-R IFT POST-RI
CE POS SYN- 1 4-WAY ANTICLINE
EO RIFT
PAL CRE
TAC 2
SUB-UNCONFORMITY
EOU TRUNCATION
S
GRO
3 SUBTHRUST 3-WAY
T W TH NEO UPDIP PINCHOUT IN
RUS CO 4 PLIOCENE DON CONE
L TH MIA
B ASA NEOC JU N CLATIC FANS
OMIA RA
N SS
NOT TO SCALE! IC

Fig. 13. Play types of the offshore Kerch Peninsula, including those of the Subbotina discovery. For location see
Fig. 2. Compiled from various sources (Stovba et al., 2009, 2010, 2020; Kitchka et al. 2012;Vakarchuk et al., 2016;
Tari and Simmons, 2018).
To the NW, a foreland basin system along the
SW margin of the Greater Caucasus began to merge
with that of the Crimean orogenic belt (Fig. 1) in the
Late Miocene. Note that these two orogens evolved
independently before the Late Miocene, and their
separate structural heritages are reflected in differences
in their present-day strike, with a NW-SE trend for the
Greater Caucasus versus the typical ENE-WSW trend
for the Crimea (Starostenko et al., 2016; Sydorenko
et al., 2016). Regardless of the differing inherited
structural grain, they share the same post-rift Cenozoic
stratigraphy, especially the Paratethyan part i.e. from
the Oligocene onwards (e.g. Popov et al., 2010; 2019).
The SE-vergent Sudak thrust-fold belt (Tari,
2010; Tari and Simmons, 2018), located offshore
southeastern Crimea and the Kerch Peninsula, trends
ENE–WSW and extends onto the present-day shelf
towards the Strait of Kerch (Finetti et al., 1988;
Sheremet et al., 2016), bounding the Sorokin foredeep
basin from the north (Fig. 2). The thrust-fold belt has
so far been only lightly explored with one significant
discovery – the Subbotina oil field – compared to the
more mature onshore Crimea and the Kerch-Taman
peninsular region (Fig. 13). Reserves are poorly
constrained with an upper estimate of 700 MM brl oil
and 3.5 TCF gas (Boote et al., 2018). The Subbotina
oil discovery (Stovba et al., 2009; Gozhik et al., 2010;
Kitchka et al. 2012; Vakarchuk et al., 2016) was made
in 2005 on one of the anticlines of the Sudak foldbelt
drillable by a jack-up unit on the shelf (Fig. 13). Due
to its regional “play opener” character, it was defined
as a shallow-water (i.e. shelf) example of the generic
Subbotina play concept by Tari and Simmons (2018)
for the entire Black Sea.
The geometry of individual thrust imbricates of
the Sudak thrust-fold belt shows a south-vergent,
thin-skinned character, involving mostly Cenozoic
strata (Fig. 13) but probably also some of the Upper
Cretaceous sequence (Tari, 2010). The timing of
the onset of deformation in the foldbelt is difficult
to estimate, but is interpreted to coincide with the
Eocene or Oligocene initiation of uplift recorded in the
Crimean Highlands (Panek et al. 2009; Nikishin et al.,
2017; Sheremet et al., 2016, 2021). In the eastern part,
offshore Kerch segment, the Pliocene to Quaternary
sediments of the Don Cone appear to post-date most
of the Sudak thrusting (Fig. 13).
The primary and proven play in the area has 4-way
dip closure within thrusted anticlines with stacked
Oligocene to Lower Miocene (Maykop) deep-water
sandstones (play #1). The Subbotina discovery has
tested light oil from four different Maykop levels
(Stovba et al., 2009), but subsequent work, based on
two appraisal wells drilled, suggested the presence
of additional gas pay zones above (Vakarchuk et al.,
2016). Although no information is available about the
geochemical character of the oil or its possible source,
oils encountered in shallow mud-cored anticlines on

Tari plays.indd 230 19/06/2021 12:30:35

 G.Tari et al.
the Kerch and Taman Peninsulas nearby has been typed
to the Lutetian – Bartonian Kuma Formation (Boote et
al., 2018). Many anticlines in the foldbelt were mapped
on vintage 2D seismic data with typical map-view
dimensions of 4 × 12 km. Their average 4-way dip
closure is 20-40 km2 (Tari, 2010). The intra-Maykop
strata in some cases are truncated at a prominent
unconformity at the base of the Pliocene which
could be the Messinian (intra-Pontian) unconformity
(speculative play #2). Since the thrusts within the Sudak
foldbelt have a low-angle dip (20-30o) in its frontal part
(Fig. 13), there is a sub-thrust play (speculative play #3)
associated with the Maykop sequence.
Finally, there are potential stratigraphic traps
within the Pliocene clastic sequence post-dating the
Sudak foldbelt at its eastern end (speculative play #4).
The inception of the palaeo-Don created a Pliocene
depocentre south of the Kerch Strait. The extra
overburden may have triggered a biogenic petroleum
system, which is evidenced by shallow biogenic gas,
mud diapirism and numerous gas flares in the water
column emanating from the seabed in the Don Cone
area (Römer et al., 2012, 2020).
DISCUSSION
Structurally, there are useful analogues for the Great
Caucasus Basin from other large-scale, inverted rift
systems in the broader Caucasus region such as the
Absheron Ridge and the Kopet Dagh located along
strike to the SE. Another partially inverted analogue
rift basin is the Donbas Basin to the north. These
inverted basins have exploration plays which share
some similarities with those described in this paper.
All these thrust-fold belts and their flanks towards
the adjacent foreland basin systems are affected by
ongoing collision between the Arabian and Eurasian
Plates, and the late uplift and unroofing likely reduced
the number of existing petroleum accumulations by
breaching the traps and dispersing any entrapped
hydrocarbons. In this regard, the broader Greater
Caucasus has analogues in exhumed basin systems
such as those in NW Europe (Doré et al., 2002), and
shares some characteristics of the exploration risk
profiles associated with them.
In general, the large number of very diverse traps
shown in this overview should be explored by the
systematic use of modern technology by obtaining
better seismic imaging, either acquiring long-offset
2D seismic or 3D seismic data sets. Given the mature
nature of some of the petroleum provinces described
above, a willingness to target deeper and riskier
plays and to define potential stratigraphic trapping
configurations is key to future exploration successes
in the broader Greater Caucasus region. On the other
hand there are many underexplored areas around the
Tari plays.indd 231
231
Greater Caucasus, especially along the Black Sea
segment on its southern flank.
In terms of advantaged hydrocarbons (sensu Davies
and Simmons, in press), the underexplored Eastern
Black Sea (Fig. 2) with its biogenic gas plays in the
Pliocene and Miocene (Figs 10-13) is probably the
most promising petroleum province. The full potential
of the proven biogenic “Domino play” in the Romanian
Black Sea (Tari and Simmons, 2018) was highlighted
by the recent large-scale gas discoveries (10+ trillion
cubic feet) made in the Turkish sector of the Western
Black Sea reported in mid-2020 (Daily Sabah, 2020).
Given their size, almost pure methane content and
relatively shallow depth beneath the seafloor, these
plays are possibly the lowest carbon-intensity in
the entire Black Sea in terms of exploration and
production. The speculative biogenic gas plays in the
Eastern Black Sea (Figs 10-13) are considered as high-
grade plays from a cost and sustainability perspective.
CONCLUSIONS
The broader Greater Caucasus region hosts a wide
variety of petroleum play types. These plays and the
corresponding oil and gas fields are located along
the flanks of the inverted thrust-fold belt and the
adjacent foreland basin systems. While there are
several proven source rocks in the region capable of
generating hydrocarbons given the large supra-source
stratigraphic thickness in most basin segments, the
structural and/or stratigraphic nature of the potential
traps shows significant variation in the established
petroleum provinces.
The eleven play type diagrams compiled across six
previously-defined petroleum provinces in the Greater
Caucasus region summarize the current exploration
understanding of both conventional plays at existing
discoveries and potential new play targets which
remain untested. The degree of exploration maturity
is highly variable among the various basin segments,
the Black Sea offshore in Russia and Georgia being
the least explored to-date despite a large number of
conceptual plays.
Due to ongoing collision between the Arabian
and Eurasian Plates, the internal and peripheral parts
of the Caucasus thrust-fold belt are experiencing
positive inversion with surface uplift and exhumation.
As in other exhumed basins, the petroleum systems
may show a common set of characteristics such
as the presence of relatively small, remigrated oil
accumulations, two-phase accumulations, residual oil
columns, biodegraded oils and underfilled traps. This is
in contrast to the deep foreland basin systems on both
sides of the Greater Caucasus where subsidence is still
ongoing. However, even in these basins, the effects of
the collisional process are significant and may have
19/06/2021 12:30:35
 232 Exploration plays in the Caucasus region
resulted in the formation of late stratigraphic traps in
the Cenozoic foredeep succession due to differential
up-tilt of the basin margin facing the orogen.
For all the plays, both conventional and speculative,
a proper understanding of the hydrocarbon kitchen
effectiveness and the post-charge trap modification is
critically important. Future hydrocarbon discoveries
associated with the play types identified in this paper
will require better pre-drill subsurface definition using
modern geophysical and geological data sets.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful to GOG for the access to various
vintage 2D reflection data in the Kartli Basin.
Discussions about the regional geology of the Caucasus
region with Viktor Alania, Didier Arbouille, Alex
Janiashvili, Colin Jones, Mohammad Fallah, Alexander
Lapadat, Jon Moser, Wolfgang Nachtmann, Akif
Narimanov, Niko Nibladze, Anatoly Nikishin, Paolo
Pace, Andrew Robinson, Artem Sanishvili, Zsolt
Schleder, Mike Simmons, Konstantin Sobornov, Giorgi
Tatishvili and Steven Vincent were very helpful. We
thank Steven Vincent (CASP) and Mike Simmons
(Halliburton) for detailed and constructive reviews
of a previous version of the paper. Insightful and
helpful comments by Alexander Kitchka, Tina Meskhi,
Anatoly Nikishin and Konstantin Sobornov are also
gratefully acknowledged. Peter Pernegr masterfully
turned hand-drawn cartoons into digital art which is
much appreciated.
REFERENCES
ABDULLAEV, T.I., FALT, L.M., AKHUNDOV, A., VAN GRAAS,
G.W., KVAMME, T., FLOLO, L.H., MEHMANDAROV, K.,
NARIMANOV, A.A., OLSEN, T.S., SELJESKOG, G. and
SKONTORP, O., 1998. A reservoir model for the main
Pliocene reservoirs of the Bahar Field in the Caspian Sea,
Azerbaijan. Petroleum Geoscience 4, 259-270.
ABRAMS, M.A. and NARIMANOV, A.A., 1997. Geochemical
evaluation of hydrocarbons and their potential sources
in the western South Caspian depression, Republic of
Azerbaijan. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 14, 451-468.
ADAMIA, S. A., 1991. The Caucasian Oil and Gas Province.
In: Hydrocarbon prospects in Eastern Europe and USSR.
Occasional Publications, Earth Sciences and Resources Institute,
New Series, 7, 53-74.
ADAMIA, S., ALANIA, V., CHABUKIANI, A., CHICHUA, G.,
ENUKIDZE, O. and SADRADZE, N., 2010. Evolution of the
Late Cenozoic basins of Georgia (SW Caucasus): a review.
In: Sosson, M., Kaymakci, N., Stephenson, R. A., Bergerat, F.
and Starostenko,V. (Eds), Sedimentary Basin Tectonics from
the Black Sea and Caucasus to the Arabian Platform. Geol.
Soc. Lond., Spec. Publ. 340, 239-259.
ADAMIA, S. A., ALANIA, V., CHABUKIANI, A., KUTELIA, Z.
and SADRADZE, N., 2011. Great Caucasus (Cavcasioni): A
long-lived north-Tethyan back-arc basin. Turkish Journ. Earth
Sciences, 20, 611-628. https://doi.org/10.3906/yer-1005-12
ADAMIA, S. A., AKHVLEDIANI, K.T., KILASONIA,V. M., NAIRN,
A.E.M., PAPAVA, D. and PATTON, D.K., 1992, Geology
of the Republic of Georgia: a review. International Geology
Tari plays.indd 232
Review, 34 (5), 447-476.
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., 2015.
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. Geol. Soc.
Lond., Spec. Publ., 428, 11-40.
AFANASENKOV, A.P., NIKISHIN, A.M. and OBUKHOV, A.N.,
2005.The system of Late Jurassic carbonate buildups in the
northern Shatsky swell (Black Sea). Doklady Earth Sciences,
403, 696-699.
AFANASENKOV, A.P., NIKISHIN A.M. and OBUKHOV A.N.,
2007. Geology of the Eastern Black Sea. Moscow, Scientific
World, 198 pp. In Russian, with English summary.
AGHAYEVA, V., SACHSENHOFER, R.F., VAN BAAK, C.G.C.,
BECHTEL,A., HOYLE,T. M., SHIYANOVA, N., and VINCENT,
S.J., 2021. New geochemical insights into Cenozoic source
rocks in Azerbaijan: implications for petroleum systems in
the South Caspian region. Journal of Petroleum Geology 44,
3, 349-384 this issue.
ALANIA, V., BERIDZE, T., ENUKIDZE, O., LEBANIDZE, Z.,
RAZMADZE, A., SADRADZE, N. and TEVZADZE, N.,
2020a. Structure of frontal part of the eastern Achara-
Trialeti fold-and-thrust belt using seismic profile, Georgia.
Bull. Georg. Nat. Acad. Sci. 14, 62-66.
ALANIA,V., ENUKIDZE, O., SADRADZE, N., BOICHENKO, G.,
SADRADZE, G., CHABUKIANI, A., KIRIA, T., KVAVADZE,
N. and GVENTSADZE, A., 2020b. 3D structural model of
the Bitsmendi anticline using seismic profiles, Georgia. Bull.
Georg. Nat. Acad. Sci. 14, 61-67.
ALANIA, V., BERIDZE, M., ENUKIDZE, O., CHAGELISHVILI,
R., LEBANIDZE, Z., MAQADZE, D., RAZMADZE, A.,
SADRADZE, N. and TEVZADZE, N., 2021. The Geometry
of the Two Orogens Convergence and Collision Zones in
Central Georgia: New Data from Seismic Reflection Profiles.
In: Bonali, F.L.,  Pasquaré M.F., Tsereteli, N. (Eds.), Building
Knowledge for Geohazard Assessment and Management in
the Caucasus and other Orogenic Regions, NATO Science
for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security,
73-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-2046-3_6
ASTAKHOV, S.M., MOSYAKIN, YU.A. and MOSYAKIN, A.YU.
2015. Petroleum potential prospects of the Oxford-
Neocomian reef deposits within the southern edge of the
West Kuban trough. Part 2. Historical and genetic modelling
of petroleum potential prospects of new selected objects].
Neftegazovaya Geologiya. Teoriya I Praktika, 10, 4.
AVDEEV, B. and NIEMI, N. A., 2011. Rapid Pliocene exhumation
of the central greater Caucasus constrained by low-
temperature thermochronometry. Tectonics, 30, TC2009.
https://doi.org/ 10.1029/2010TC002808
BANKS, C.J., ROBINSON, A.G. and WILLIAMS, M.P., 1997.
Structure and regional tectonics of the Achara-Trialet Fold
Belt and adjcaent Rioni and Kartli Foreland Basins, Republic
of Georgia. In: Robinson A.G. (Ed.), Regional and petroleum
geology of the Black Sea and surrounding regions. AAPG
Memoir, 68, 331-346.
BARRIER, E. and VRIELYNCK, B., 2008. Palaeotectonic maps
of the Middle East Middle East Basins Evolution Programme
2003-2007. Contributors: Bergerat, F., Brunet, M.-F., Mosar,
J., Poisson,A. and Sosson, M. Commission for the Geological
Map of the World (CGMW/CCGM)/UNESCO (http://www.
ccgm.org). Atlas of 14 maps, scale 1/18 500000.
BARRIER, E.,VRIELYNCK, B., BROUILLET, J.F., and BRUNET M.F.
(Contributors: Angiolini L., Kaveh F., Poisson A., Pourteau
A., Plunder A., Robertson A., Shekawat R., Sosson M. and
Zanchi, A.), 2018. Paleotectonic Reconstruction of the
Central Tethyan Realm.Tectonono-Sedimentary-Palinspastic
maps from Late Permian to Pliocene. CCGM/ CGMW, Paris,
http://www.ccgm.org.Atlas of 20 maps (scale: 1/15 000 000).
19/06/2021 12:30:35
 G.Tari et al.
BASKAKOVA, G.V. and NIKISHIN, A.M., 2018. The geological
history of the Kerch-Taman area based on a reconstructed
regional balanced section. Moscow Univ. Geol. Bull. 73, 416-422.
BGR (Bundesanstalt fur Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe),
2005.The 1:5 Million Geological Map of Europe and adjacent
area (IGME 5000). BGR Hannover.
BLACKBOURN, G. A., 2013. Jurassic reservoir systems of the
Central Caspian. GEO ExPro, 10, 22-26.
BLACKBOURN GEOCONSULTING, 2008. Hydrocarbon
Geology of the North Caucasus Area, Blackbourn
Geoconsulting non-proprietary study (2nd edition).
BLACKBOURN GEOCONSULTING, 2010. Review of the
Petroleum Geology of the’Older’ Basins of Azerbaijan,
Blackbourn Geoconsulting non-proprietary study.
BLACKBOURN, G., TEVZADZE, N., JANIASHVILI, A.,
ENUKIDZE, O. and ALANIA, V., 2021. South Caucasus
palaeogeography and prospectivity: elements of petroleum
systems from the Black Sea to the Caspian. Journal of
Petroleum Geology, 44, 3, 237-258 this issue.
BOOTE, D.R.D, SACHSENHOFER, R.F., TARI, G. and
ARBOUILLE, D., 2018. Petroleum Provinces of the
Paratethyan Region. Journal of Petroleum Geology 41, 247-
297. doi:10.1111/jpg.12703
BRUNET, M-F., KOROTAEV, M.V., ERSHOV, A.V. and NIKISHIN,
A.N., 2003. The South Caspian Basin: a review of its
evolution from subsidence modelling. Sedimentary Geology,
156, 119-148.
BURYAKOVSKY, L., AMINZADEH, F. and CHILINGARIAN,
G.V., 2001. Petroleum geology of the South Caspian Basin.
Elsevier, 442 pp.
DAILY SABAH, 2020. https://www.dailysabah.com/business/
energy/turkey-finds-320-bcm-of-natural-gas-in-black-sea-
erdogan-announces. Last accessed on June 16, 2021.
DAVIES, A. and SIMMONS, M.D., 2021 in press. Demand for
‘advantaged’ hydrocarbons during the 21st century energy
transition. Energy Strategy Reviews, 35, in press.
DECELLES, P.G. and GILES, K.A., 1996. Foreland basin systems.
Basin Research, 8, 105-123.
DORÉ, A. G., CORCORAN, D.V. and SCOTCHMAN, I.C., 2002.
Prediction of the hydrocarbon system in exhumed basins,
and application to the NW European margin. In: Doré, A. G.
et al. (Eds), Exhumation of the North Atlantic Margin:Timing,
Mechanisms and Implications for Petroleum Exploration.
Geol. Soc. Lond., Spec. Publ., 196, 401-429.
DEMBICKI JR, H., 2020. Reducing the risk of finding a working
petroleum system using SAR imaging, sea surface slick
sampling, and geophysical seafloor characterization: An
example from the eastern Black Sea basin, offshore Georgia.
Marine and Petroleum Geology, 115, 104276.
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. et al. (Eds), South Caspian to Central
Iran Basins. Geol. Soc. Lond., Spec. Publ. 312, 219-240.
ERSHOV, A. V., BRUNET, M. F., KOROTAEV, M. V., NIKISHIN, A.
M., and BOLOTOV, S. N., 1999. Late Cenozoic burial history
and dynamics of the Northern Caucasus molasse basin:
Implications for foreland basin modelling. Tectonophysics, 313,
219–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1951(99)00197-3
ERSHOV,A.V., BRUNET, M-F., NIKISHIN,A.N., BOLOTOV, S.N.,
NAZAREVICH, B.P. and KOROTAEV, M.V., 2003. Northern
Caucasus basin: thermal history and synthesis of subsidence
models. Sedimentary Geology, 156, 95-118.
FEYZULLAYEV, A.A., GULIYEV I. S. and TAGIYEV M. F., 2001.
Source potential of the Mesozoic-Cenozoic rocks in the
South Caspian Basin and their role in forming the oil-
accumulations in the Lower Pliocene reservoirs. Petroleum
Geoscience, 7, 409-417.
FINETTI, I., BRICCHI, G., DEL BEN, A. and PIPAN, M., 1988.
Geophysical study of the Black Sea area. Bollettino di Geofisica
Tari plays.indd 233
233
Teoretica e Applicata, 30, 197-324.
FORTE, A. M., COWGILL, E., BERNARDIN, T., KREYLOS, O.,
and HAMANN, B., 2010. Late Cenozoic deformation of the
Kura fold-thrust belt, southern Greater Caucasus. Geol. Soc.
Am. Bull., 122, 465-486. https://doi.org/10.1130/b26464.1
GAVRILOV, Yu. O., 2018.Architecture of the Southern Marginal
Zone of the Upper Jurassic–Valanginian Carbonate Platform
of the Northeastern Caucasus (Dagestan, Shakhdag Massif).
Lithology and Mineral Resources, 53, 460-472.
GAVRILOV,Yu. O., 2020. Geochemical Features of the Jurassic
Terrigenous Sedimentary Complex of the Greater
Caucasus.Lithology and Mineral Resources, 55, 496-511.
GAVRILOV,Yu.O., SHCHEPETOVA, E.V., SHCHERBININA, E.A.,
GOLOVANOVA, O.V., NEDUMOV, R.I. and POKROVSKY,
B.G., 2017. Sedimentary environments and geochemistry
of Upper Eocene and Lower Oligocene rocks in the
northeastern Caucasus. Lithology and Mineral Resources,
52, 447-466.
GAVRILOV, Yu., NEDUMOV, R., SHCHEPETOVA, E.
SHCHERBININA, E.,KOZLOVA, O., GOLOVANOVA, O.,
and POKROVSKY, B., 2021. Stratigraphy, sedimentology and
geochemistry of the Oligocene – Lower Miocene Maikop
Group in Dagestan, NE Caucasus, Journal of Petroleum
Geology, 44, 3, 385-412, this issue.
GLUMOV, I.F., GULEV, V.L., SENIN, B.V., and KARNAUKHOV,
S.M. 2014a. Regional geology and oil and gas potential of
the Black Sea deep-water depression and adjacent shelf
zones, part 2. Moscow: Nedra, 279 p.
GLUMOV, I.F., GULEV, V.L., KARNAUKHOV, S.M. and SENIN,
B.V., 2014b. Regional geology and oil and gas potential of
the Black Sea deep-water depression and adjacent shelf
zones, part 2. Moscow: Nedra, 181 p.
GOLONKA, J., 2007. Geodynamic evolution of the South
Caspian Basin, in P. O. Yilmaz and G. H. Isaksen, editors,
Oil and gas of the Greater Caspian area. AAPG Studies in
Geology, 55, 17-41.
GOODWIN, N.R.J., ABDULLAYEV, N., JAVADOVA, A., VOLK,
H. and RILEY, G., 2020. Diamondoids and basin modelling
reveal one of the world´s deepest petroleum systems, South
Caspian Basin, Azerbaijan. Journal of Petroleum Geology, 43,
133-150.
GOZHIK, P.F., MASLUN, N.V., BOICISKHY, Z.I., IVANIK,
M.M. and KHLUSHINA, G.V. 2010. Regional Cenozoic
stratigraphy of the Pre-Kerch shelf and the Eastern Black Sea
Basin. Geological Journal of the National Academy of Sciences of
Ukraine, 1, 7-41 [in Ukrainian with English abstract].
GREEN, T., ABDULLAYEV, N., HOSSACK, J., RILEY, G. and
ROBERTS, A. M., 2009. Sedimentation and subsidence in the
South Caspian Basin, Azerbaijan. In: Brunet M-F., Wilmsen
M. and Granath J.W. (Eds), South Caspian to Central Iran
Basins. Geol. Soc. Lond., Spec. Publ., 312, 241-260.
GRYNBERG, M.E., PAPAVA, D., SHENGELIA, M.,TAKAISHVILI,
A., NANADZE, A. and PATTON, D.K., 1993. Petrophysical
characteristics of the Middle Eocene laumontite tuff
reservoir, Samgori Field, Republic of Georgia. Journal of
Petroleum Geology, 16, 313-322.
GULIYEV, I. S., MAMEDOV, P.Z., FEYZULLAYEV, A.A.,
HUSEYNOV, D.A., KADIROV, F.A., ALIYEVA, E.H-M. and
TAGIYEV, M.F., 2003. Hydrocarbon systems of the South
Caspian Basin. In: Guliyev, I. S. (Ed.), Institute of Geology,
Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences, Baku, Nafta-Press, 206 p.
GUO, L., VINCENT, S. J., and LAVRISHCHEV, V., 2011. Upper
Jurassic reefs from the Russian western Caucasus,
implications for the eastern Black Sea. Turkish Journal of
Earth Sciences, 20, 629-653.
GUSMEO, T., CAVAZZA, W., ALANIA, V.M., ENUKIDZE, O.V.,
ZATTIN, M. and CORRADO, S., 2021. Structural inversion
of back-arc basins - The Neogene Adjara-Trialeti fold-and-
thrust belt (SW Georgia) as a far-field effect of the Arabia-
Eurasia collision. Tectonophysics, 803, 228702
19/06/2021 12:30:35
 234 Exploration plays in the Caucasus region
HÄSSIG, M., MORITZ, R., ULIANOV, A., POPKHADZE, N.,
GALOYAN, G. and ENUKIDZE, O., 2020. Jurassic to
Cenozoic magmatic and geodynamic evolution of the
Eastern Pontides and Caucasus belts, and their relationship
with the Eastern Black Sea Basin opening. Tectonics, 39,
p.e2020TC006336.
ISAKSEN, G.H., ALIYEV, A. and BARBOZA S.A., 2007. Regional
evaluation of source rock quality in Azerbaijan from
geochemistry of organic-rich rocks in mud-volcano ejecta.
In: Yilmaz P.O. and Isaksen G.H. (Eds), Oil and gas of the
Greater Caspian area. AAPG Studies in Geology, 55, 51-64.
JACKSON, J., 1992. Partitioning of strike-slip and convergent
motion between Eurasia and Arabia in eastern Turkey and
the Caucasus. Journal of Geophysical Research, 97(B9), 12,
471–12,479.
KLOSTERMAN, M. J., ABRAMS, M. A., ALESKEROV, E.,
ABDULLAYEV, E., GUSEINOV, A. N. and NARIMONOV, A.
A., 1997. Hydrocarbon systems of the Evlak-Agdzhabedi
Depression, Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan Society of Petroleum
Geologist Bulletin, 1, 89-118.
KAZMIN, V. G. and TIKHONOVA, N. F. , 2006. Late Cretaceous
- Eocene marginal seas in the Black Sea - Caspian region:
Paleotectonic reconstructions. Geotectonics, 40, 169-182.
KITCHKA, A., KHARCHENKO, M.V., VAKARCHUK, S.G. and
DOVZHOK, T.E., 2012. Sedimentary architecture and
reservoir rocks origin of the Maykop Formation challenge
exploration in the Black Sea. In: 74th EAGE Conference and
Exhibition Incorporating EUROPEC 2012.
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 Vestn.
Mosk. Univ. Ser. 4. Geologiya, 4, 5-12 [in Russian].
LOMIZE, M. G. and PANOV D. I., 2001.The initial non-magmatic
phase of subduction along the Crimean-Caucasian Tethyan
margin. Geotektonika, 4, 78-92. [in Russian].
LORDKIPANIDZE, M. B., MELIKSETIAN, B. and DJARBASHIAN,
R., 1989. Mesozoic-Cenozoic magmatic evolution of
the Pontian–Crimean–Caucasian region. In: M. Rakús, J.
Dercourt and A. E. M. Nairn (Eds), Evolution of the northern
margin of Tethys: The results of IGCP project 198. Paris:
Mémoires de la Société Géologique de France, Nouvelle Série,
154, 103-124.
LUCKOW, C.J., 2003. New Vibroseis data and interpretations
from the Shebsh oil and gas field, southwestern Russia. MSc
thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 75 p.
MARININ, A.V. and SAINTOT, A., 2012. Comparison of methods
to reconstruct paleostress regimes in the NW Greater
Caucasus fold and thrust belt. C. R. Geosci., 344, 181-190.
MAYER, J., SACHSENHOFER, R.F., UNGUREANU, C. and
TARI, G., 2018. Charge and Migration in the Black Sea
area and surroundings – Insights from oil and source rock
geochemistry. Journal of Petroleum Geology, 41, 337-350.
McCANN, T., CHALOT-PRAT, F. and SAINTOT, A., 2010. The
Early Mesozoic evolution of the Western Greater Caucasus
(Russia):Triassic–Jurassic sedimentary and magmatic history.
In: Sosson, M., Kaymakci, N., Stephenson, R.A., Bergerat, F.
and Starostenko,V. (Eds), Sedimentary Basin Tectonics from
the Black Sea and Caucasus to the Arabian Platform. Geol.
Soc. Lond., Spec. Publ. 340, 181-238, https://doi.org/10.1144/
SP340.10
MEISNER,A., KRYLOV, O. and NEMCOK, M., 2009. Development
and structural architecture of the Eastern Black Sea. The
Leading Edge, 28, 1046-1055.
MITYUKOV, A.V., NIKISHIN, A. M., ALMENDINGER, O. A. et
al., 2012. A sedimentation model of the Maikop deposits of
the Tuapse Basin in the Black Sea according to the results of
2D and 3D seismic surveys and field works in the Western
Caucasus and Crimea. Moscow Univ. Geol. Bull., 67, 81-92.
MORARIU, D. and NOUAL, V., 2009. Cretaceus play - new
Tari plays.indd 234
exploration potential in the Eastern Georgia. Neftegazovaya
Geologiya. Teoriya i Praktika, 4, http://www.ngtp.ru/
rub/4/22_2009.pdf
MOSAR, J., KANGARLI, T., BOCHUD, M., GLASMACHER,
U.A., RAST, A., BRUNET, M-F. and SOSSON, M., 2010.
Cenozoic–Recent tectonics and uplift in the Greater
Caucasus: a perspective from Azerbaijan. In: Sosson, M.,
Kaymakci, N., Stephenson, R.A., Bergerat, F. and Starostenko,
V. (Eds), Sedimentary Basin Tectonics from the Black Sea
and Caucasus to the Arabian Platform. Geol. Soc. Lond., Spec.
Publ., 340, 261-280.
MOSYAKIN, A. Yu., MOSYAKIN, Yu. A., MOLLAYEV, Z.KH. and
CHIRKOV, N. M., 2010. New ideas about the tectonic
structure of southern edge of the West Kuban Trough.
Geology of Oil and Gas, 8, 8-15 (in Russian).
MOSYAKIN, Yu. A., ASTAKHOV, S.M. and MOSYAKIN, A.Yu.,
2015. Petroleum potential prospects of the Oxford-
Neocomian reef deposits within the southern edge of the
West Kuban trough. Part 1. New objects distinguishing.
Neftegazovaya Geologiya. Teoriya i Praktika, 10.
NARIMANOV, A.A., AKPEROV, N.A. and ABDULLAEV, T.I.,
1998. The Bahar oil and gas-condensate field in the South
Caspian Basin. Petroleum Geoscience, 4, 253-258.
NEMČOK, M., GLONTI, B., YUKLER, A. and MARTON, B.,
2013. Development history of the foreland plate trapped
between two converging orogens; Kura Valley, Georgia, case
study. In: M. Nemčok, A. Mora and J. W. Cosgrove (Eds),
Thick-Skin-Dominated Orogens: From Initial Inversion to
Full Accretion. Geol. Soc. Lond., Spec. Publ., 377, 159-188.
NIKISHIN, A. M., CLOETINGH, S., BRUNET, M.-F.,
STEPHENSON, R. A., BOLOTOV, S. N. and ERSHOV, A. V.,
1998. Scythian platform, Caucasus and Black Sea region:
Mesozoic-Cenozoic tectonic history and dynamics. In: S.
Crasquin-Soleau and E. Barrier (Eds), Peri-Tethys memoir
3: Stratigraphy and evolution of Peri-Tethyan platforms.
Mémoires du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle Paris, 177,
163-176.
NIKISHIN A. M., ZIEGLER P. A., PANOV D. I., NAZAREVICH
B. P., BRUNET M. F., STEPHENSON R. A.,BOLOTOV S. N.,
KOROTAEV M. V., and TIKHOMIROV P. I., 2001. Mesozoic
and Cainozoic evolution of the Scythian Platform-Black
Sea-Caucasus domain. In: Peri-Tethys Memoir 6: Peri-Tethyan
Rift ⁄ Wrench Basins and Passive Margins. Paris: Memoires
du Museum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, 186, 295-346.
NIKISHIN, A.M., ERSHOV, A.V. and NIKISHIN, V.A., 2010.
Geological history of Western Caucasus and adjacent
foredeeps based on analysis of the regional balanced section.
Doklady Earth Sciences, 430, 155-157.
NIKISHIN, A. M., ZIEGLER, P. A., BOLOTOV, S. N., and FOKIN,
P. A., 2012. Late Palaeozoic to Cenozoic evolution of the
Black Sea-southern eastern European region: A view from
the Russian platform. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences, 21(5),
571–634. https://doi.org/10.3906/yer-1005-22
NIKISHIN, A. M., OKAY, A. I., TÜYSÜZ, O., DEMIRER, A.,
AMELIN, N., and PETROV, E. 2015a. The Black Sea basins
structure and history: New model based on new deep
penetration regional seismic data. Part 1: Basins structure
and fill. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 59, 638-655.
NIKISHIN, A. M., OKAY, A., TÜYSÜZ, O., DEMIRER, A.,
WANNIER, M., AMELIN, N., and PETROV, E. 2015b. The
Black Sea basins structure and history: New model based
on new deep penetration regional seismic data. Part 2:
Tectonic history and paleogeography. Marine and Petroleum
Geology, 59, 656-670.
NIKISHIN, A. M., WANNIER, M., ALEKSEEV, A. S., ALMEN-
DINGER, O.A., FOKIN, P.A., GABDULLIN, R.R., KHUDOLEY,
A.K., KOPAEVICH, L. F., MITYUKOV, A.V., PETROV, E.I. and
RUBTSOVA, E.V., 2017. Mesozoic to Recent geological
history of southern Crimea and the Eastern Black Sea
region. In: Sosson, M., Stephenson, R.A. and Adamia, S. A.
19/06/2021 12:30:36
 G.Tari et al.
(Eds), Tectonic Evolution of the Eastern Black Sea and
Caucasus. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ., 428, 241-264.
OBLASOV, N.V., GONCHAROV, I.V., DERDUGA, A.V. and
KUNITSYNA, I.V., 2020. Genetic Types of Crude Oil in the
Eastern Part of the Crimea–Caucasus Area. Geochemistry
International, 58, 1278-1298.
PANEK, T., DANIŠÍK, M., HRADECKÝ, J. and FRISCH, W. 2009.
Morpho-tectonic evolution of the Crimean mountains
(Ukraine) as constrained by apatite fission track data. Terra
Nova, 21, 271–278.
PAPE, T., BAHR, A. , RETHEMEYER, J., KESSLER, J. D.,
SAHLING, H., HINRICHS, K., KLAPP, S. A., REEBURGH,
W. S. and BOHRMANN., B., 2010. Molecular and isotopic
partitioning of low-molecular-weight hydrocarbons during
migration and gas hydrate precipitation in deposits of a
high-flux seepage site. Chemical Geology, 269, 350-363.
PAPE, T., BLUMENBERG, M., REITZ, A., SCHEEDER, G.,
SCHMIDT, M., HAECKEL, M., BLINOVA, V. N., IVANOV,
M.K., SAHLING, H., WALLMANN, K. and BOHRMANN,
G., 2021. Oil and gas seepage offshore Georgia (Black
Sea) – Geochemical evidences for a Paleogene-Neogene
hydrocarbon source rock. Marine and Petroleum Geology,
128, 104995.
PATTON, D.K., 1993. Samgori Field, Republic of Georgia: critical
review of island-arc oil and gas. Journal of Petroleum Geology,
16, 153-168.
PHILIP, H., CISTERNAS, A., GVISHIANI, A. and GORSHKOV, A.
1989. The Caucasus: an actual example of the initial stage
of continental collision. Tectonophysics, 161, 1-21.
POPOV, S.V., ANTIPOV, M.P., ZASTROZHNOV, A.S., KURINA,
E.E. and PINCHUK,T.N., 2010. Sea-level fluctuations on the
northern shelf of the eastern Paratethys in the Oligocene-
Neogene. Stratigr. Geol. Correl., 18, 200-224.
POPOV, S.V., ROSTOVTSEVA,Y.V., PINCHUK,T.N., PATINA, I.S.
and GONCHAROVA, I.A., 2019. Oligocene to Neogene
paleogeography and depositional environments of the
Euxinian part of Paratethys in Crimean-Caucasian junction.
Marine and Petroleum Geology, 103, 163-175.
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. Journal of Petroleum Geology, 41, 367-392.
REITZ, A., PAPE, T. et al., 2011. Sources of fluids and gases
expelled at cold seeps offshore Georgia, eastern Black Sea.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 75, 3250-3268.
ROBINSON, A.G., 2019. Inverted Palaeogene rifts in Central
Georgia: a link between the Eastern Black Sea and South
Caspian. Abstr., AAPG Europe GTW, Batumi, Georgia, p. 22.
ROBINSON, A. G., GRIFFITH, E. T., GARDINER, A.R. and
HOME, A.K., 1997. Petroleum geology of the Georgian
Fold and Thrust belt and Foreland Basins. In: Robinson A.G.
(Ed.), Regional and petroleum geology of the Black Sea and
surrounding regions. AAPG Memoir, 68, 347-367.
RÖMER, M., SAHLING, H., PAPE, T., BAHR, A., FESEKER,
T., WINTERSTELLER, P. and BOHRMANN, G., 2012.
Geological control and magnitude of methane ebullition
from a high-flux seep area in the Black Sea - the Kerch seep
area. Marine Geology, 319, 57-74.
RÖMER, M., SAHLING, H., FERREIRA, C.D.S. and BOHRMANN,
G., 2020. Methane gas emissions of the Black Sea - mapping
from the Crimean continental margin to the Kerch
Peninsula slope. Geo-Marine Letters, 40, 467-480.
SACHSENHOFER, R.F., POPOV, S.V., BECHTEL, A., CORIC, S.,
FRANCU, J., GRATZER, R., GRUNERT, P., KOTARBA, M.,
MAYER, J., PUPP, M., RUPPRECHT, B.J. and VINCENT, S.J.,
2017. Oligocene and Lower Miocene source rocks in the
Paratethys: Palaeogeographic and stratigraphic controls.
In: Simmons M.D., Tari G. and Okay A.I. (Eds), Petroleum
Geology of the Black Sea. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 464,
267-306, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP464.1
Tari plays.indd 235
235
SACHSENHOFER, R.F., POPOV, S.V., CORIC, S., MAYER, J.,
MISCH, D., MORTON, M.T., PUPP, M. and TARI, G., 2018.
Paratethyan petroleum source rocks: An overview. Journal
of Petroleum Geology, 41, 219-246.
SACHSENHOFER,R.F.,BECHTEL, A., GRATZER, R., ENUKIDZE,
O., JANIASHVILI, A., NACHTMANN, W., SANISHVILI,
A., TEVZADZE, N. and YUKLER, M. A., 2021. Petroleum
systems in the Rioni and Kura Basins of Georgia. Journal of
Petroleum Geology, 44, 3, 287-316 this issue.
SAINTOT, A. and ANGELIER, J., 2002. Tectonic paleostress
fields and structural evolution of the NW Caucasus fold-
and-thrust belt from Late Cretaceous to Quaternary.
Tectonophysics, 357, 1-31 doi:10.1016/j.crte.2012.01.004
SAINTOT, A., BRUNET, M.-F., YAKOVLEV, F., SÉBRIER, M.,
STEPHENSON, R., ERSHOV, A., CHALOT-PRAT, F. and
McCANN, T., 2006. The Mesozoic-Cenozoic tectonic
evolution of the Greater Caucasus. In: D. Gee and R.
Stephenson (Eds), European Lithosphere Dynamics.
Geol. Soc. London Mem., 32, 277-289, doi:10.1144/GSL.
MEM.2006.032.01.16.
SHEREMET, Y., SOSSON, M., RATZOV, G., SYDORENKO, G.,
VOITSITSKIY, Z., YEGOROVA, T. and MUROVSKAYA, A.
2016.An offshore-onland transect across the north-eastern
Black Sea basin (Crimean margin): Evidence of Paleocene
to Pliocene two-stage compression. Tectonophysics, 688,
84-100.
SHEREMET, Y., SOSSON, M., MUROVSKAYA, A. and
GOBARNEKO, V., 2021. Palaeo-stress regimes and
structural framework during the Mesozoic-Cenozoic
tectonic evolution of the Crimean Mountains (the northern
margin of the Black Sea). Journal of Asian Earth Sciences,
211, 104704.
SOBORNOV, K.O., 1990, Thrust structure and oil and gas
potential of the Southern Dagestan. Moscow University
Geology Bull., series 4, 1, 22-29.
SOBORNOV, K. 1994. Structure and petroleum potential of
the Dagestan thrust belt, Northeastern Caucasus, Russia.
Bull. Canadian Petroleum Geology, 42, 352-364.
SOBORNOV, K.O., 1996. Lateral variations in structural styles
of tectonic wedging in the northeastern Caucasus, Russia.
Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, 44, 385-399.
SOBORNOV, K., 2020. Structure and development of wedge-
shaped thrusts in the southern flank of the Terek-Caspian
Foredeep, Russia. Search and Discovery Article #30654
SOBORNOV, K.O., 2021. Structure and evolution of the Terek-
Caspian fold-and-thrust belt: new insight from regional
seismic data. Journal of Petroleum Geology, 44, 3, 259-286
this issue.
SOKOLOV, B.A., KORCHAGINA, YU. I., MIRZOEV, D.A.,
SERGEEVA, V.N., SOBORNOV, K.O. and FADEEVA, N.P.,
1990. Petroleum generation and accumulation in the Eastern
Pre-Caucasus: Moscow, Nauka, 206 pp (in Russian).
STAROSTENKO, V.I., RUSAKOV, O.M., SHNYUKOV, E.F.,
KOBOLEV, V.P. and KUTAS, R.I., 2010. Methane in the
northern Black Sea: characterization of its geomorphological
and geological environments. In: Sosson, M., Kaymakci, N.,
Stephenson, R.A., Bergerat, F. and Starostenko, V. (Eds),
Sedimentary Basin Tectonics from the Black Sea and
Caucasus to the Arabian Platform. Geol. Soc. Lond., Spec.
Publ., 340, 57-75.
STAROSTENKO, V., JANIK, T., STEPHENSON, R., GRYN,
D., RUSAKOV, O., CZUBA, W., ŚRODA, P., GRAD, M.,
GUTERCH, A., FLUH, E. and THYBO, H., 2016. DOBRE-2
WARR profile: the Earth’s upper crust across Crimea
between the Azov Massif and the northeastern Black Sea. In:
Sosson, M., Stephenson, R.A. and Adamia, S.A. (Eds),Tectonic
Evolution of the Eastern Black Sea and Caucasus. Geol. Soc.
London Spec. Publ. 428, 199-220. doi: 10.1144/SP428.11.
STOVBA, S., KHRIACHTCHEVSKAIA, O. and POPADYUK, I.,
2009. Hydrocarbon bearing areas in the eastern part of
19/06/2021 12:30:36
 236 Exploration plays in the Caucasus region
the Ukrainian Black Sea. The Leading Edge, 28, 1042-1045.
STOVBA, S., POPADYUK, I. and KHRIACHTCHEVSKAIA, O.,
2010. Discovery of Subbotina field as evidence of large
hydrocarbon potential of the eastern part of the Ukrainian
Black Sea. AAPG Search and Discovery Article #90109
(presented at AAPG European Region Annual Conference,
October 17-19, 2010 Kiev, Ukraine).
STOVBA, S.M., POPADYUK, I.V., FENOTA, P.O. and
KHRIACHTCHEVSKAIA, O.I., 2020. Geological structure
and tectonic evolution of the Ukrainian sector of the Black
Sea. Geofizicheskiy Zhurnal, 42, 53-106.
SYDORENKO, G., STEPHENSON, R., YEGOROVA, T.,
STAROSTENKO,V.,TOLKUNOV,A., JANIK,T., MAJDANSKI,
M., VOITSITSKIY, Z., RUSAKOV, O. and OMELCHENKO,
V., 2016. Geological structure of the northern part of
the Eastern Black Sea from regional seismic reflection
data including the DOBRE-2 CDP profile. In: Sosson, M.,
Stephenson, R.A. and Adamia, S.A. (Eds),Tectonic Evolution
of the Eastern Black Sea and Caucasus. Geol. Soc. Lond., Spec.
Publ. 428 (http://doi.org/10.1144/SP428.15)
TARI, G. 2010. Exploration country focus: Ukraine. AAPG
European Region Newsletter, 5, 4-6.
TARI, G., FLINCH, J. F., and SOTO, J. I., 2017. Petroleum Systems
and Play Types Associated With Permo-Triassic Salt in
Europe, North Africa and the Atlantic Region. In: Soto, J.
I., Flinch, J. and Tari, G. (Eds), Permo-Triassic Salt Provinces
of Europe, North Africa and the Atlantic Margins, Elsevier,
pp. 129-156.
TARI, G.C. and SIMMONS, M.D., 2018. History of Deepwater
Exploration in the Black Sea and an Overview of Deepwater
Petroleum Play Types. In: Simmons M.D.,Tari G.C. and Okay
A.I. (Eds), Petroleum Geology of the Black Sea. Geol. Soc.
Lond., Spec. Publ., 464, 439-475.
TARI, G., VAKHANIA, D., TATISHVILI, G., MIKELADZE, V.,
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. Geol. Soc. Lond., Spec. Publ. 464,
403-438.
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 volcaniclastic reservoir rocks in the Kartli
Basin, Georgia: a fractured reservoir sequence. Journal of
Petroleum Geology, 44, 3, 413-424, this issue.
TIBALDI, A., ALANIA, V., BONALI, F. L., ENUKIDZE, O.,
TSERETELI, N., KVAVADZE, N., and VARAZANASHVILI, O.
2017. Active inversion tectonics, simple shear folding and
back-thrusting at Rioni Basin. Georgia. Journal of Structural
Geology, 96, 35-53.
TUGOLESOV, D. A., GORSHKOV, A. S. et al., 1985. Tectonics
of the Mesozoic Sediments of the Black Sea Basin. Nedra,
Moscow (in Russian).
ULMISHEK, G., 2001. Petroleum Geology and Resources of the
Middle Caspian Basin, Former Soviet Union. U.S. Geological
Survey Bulletin 2201–AU.S. Department of the Interior and
U.S. Geological Survey.
VAKARCHUK S., KHARCHENKO M., BEZKHYZHKO O.,
SHEVCHENKO O., KUZMENKO P., BASHKIROV G.,
ISHCHENKO I. and KITCHKA, A., 2016.The discovery of
the Subbotin oilfield offshore Ukraine: Geological challenges
and exploration lessons. Petroleum Systems of Alpine-
Mediterranean Fold Belts and Basins, AAPG European
Region Conference & Exhibition, Bucharest 19-20 May,
2016, 32-33.
VERNIK, L., 1990.A new type of reservoir rock in volcaniclastic
sequences. AAPG Bull., 74, 830-836.
VEZZOLI, G., GARZANTI, E., VINCENT, S. J., ANDÒ, S.,
CARTER, A. and RESENTINI, A., 2014. Tracking sediment
Tari plays.indd 236
provenance and erosional evolution of the western Greater
Caucasus. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 39, 1101-
1114. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3567
VEZZOLI, G., GARZANTI, E., LIMONTA, M. and RADEFF, G.,
2020. Focused erosion at the core of the Greater Caucasus:
Sediment generation and dispersal from Mt. Elbrus to the
Caspian Sea. Earth-Science Reviews, 200, 102987.
VINCENT, S. J. and KAYE, M. N. D., 2017. Source rock evaluation
of Middle Eocene-Early Miocene mudstones from the NE
margin of the Black Sea. In: Simmons, M. D., Tari, G. C. and
Okay, A. I. (Eds), Petroleum Geology of the Black Sea. Geol.
Soc. Lond., Spec. Publ., 464, 329-363.
VINCENT, S. J., MORTON, A.C., CARTER, A., GIBBS, S. and
BARABADZE, T.G., 2007. Oligocene uplift of the Western
Greater Caucasus: an effect of initial Arabia-Eurasia collision.
Terra Nova, 19, 160-166.
VINCENT, S. J., MORTON, A.C., HYDEN, F. and FANNING,
M., 2013. Insights from petrography, mineralogy and U–Pb
zircon geochronology into the provenance and reservoir
potential of Cenozoic siliciclastic depositional systems
supplying the northern margin of the Eastern Black Sea.
Marine and Petroleum Geology, 45, 331-348.
VINCENT, S. J., HYDEN, F. and BRAHAM, W., 2014. Along-
strike variations in the composition of sandstones derived
from the uplifting western Greater Caucasus: causes and
implications for reservoir quality prediction in the Eastern
Black Sea. In: R. A. Scott et al. (Eds), Sediment Provenance
Studies in Hydrocarbon Exploration and Production. Geol.
Soc. Lond., Spec. Publ., 386, 111-127.
VINCENT, S. J., BRAHAM,W., LAVRISHCHEV,V.A., MAYNARD,
J.R. and HARLAND, M., 2016. The formation and inversion
of the western Greater Caucasus Basin and the uplift of
the western Greater Caucasus: Implications for the wider
Black Sea region. Tectonics,35, 2948-2962.
VINCENT, S.J., SAINTOT, A., MOSAR, J., OKAY, A.I. and
NIKISHIN, A.M., 2018a. Comment on “Relict basin closure
and crustal shortening budgets during continental collision:
An example from Caucasus sediment provenance” by
Cowgill et al. (2016). Tectonics, 37, 1006-1016.
VINCENT, S.J., GUO, L., FLECKER, R., BOUDAGHER-FADEL,
M.K., ELLAM, R.M. and KANDEMIR, R., 2018b. Age
constraints on intra-formational unconformities in Upper
Jurassic-Lower Cretaceous carbonates in northeast Turkey;
geodynamic and hydrocarbon implications. Marine and
Petroleum Geology, 91, 639-657.
VINCENT, S.J., SOMIN, M.L., CARTER, A., VEZZOLI, G., FOX,
M. and VAUTRAVERS, B., 2020.Testing models of Cenozoic
exhumation in the Western Greater Caucasus. Tectonics, 39,
p.e2018TC005451.
YAKOVLEV, F. and SOROKIN, A., 2018. Preliminary estimate
of realness of geodynamic models of Greater Caucasus
development with different shortening of structure by use
of calculations of their theoretical volumes of eroded rocks.
EGU Geophysical Abstracts, 20, EGU2018-5972.
YANDARBIEV, N. Sh., FADEEVA, N.P., KOZLOVA, E.V. and
NAUMCHEV, Yu. V., 2017a. Khadum Formation of Pre-
Caucasus region as potential source of oil shales: geology
and geochemistry. Georesources, Special issue, Part 2, 208-
226. DOI: http://doi.org/10.18599/grs.19.21 (in Russian).
YANDARBIEV, N. Sh., KOZLOVA, E. V., FADEEVA, N.P., KRYL-
OV, O.V. and NAUMCHEV,Yu.V., 2017b. Geochemistry of
hydrocarbons of the Terek-Caspian trough. Georesources,
Special issue, part 2, 227-239. DOI: http://doi.org/10.18599/
grs.19.22 (in Russian).
YANDARBIEV, N. Sh., SACHSENHOFER, R.F., AJUABA,
S., BECHTEL, A. and YANDARBIEVA, D. N., 2021.
Geochemistry of oils in the Terek-Caspian Foredeep and
Prikumsk Swell NE Caucasus, Southern Russia. Journal of
Petroleum Geology, 44, 3, 317-348, this issue.
19/06/2021 12:30:36