DOCSLIB.ORG

Oil and Gas Resources As of Jan 1, 2014: OCS Report BOEM 2017-005

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Oil and Gas Resources As of Jan 1, 2014: OCS Report BOEM 2017-005 OCS Report BOEM 2017-005 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Gulf of Mexico OCS Region Office of Resource Evaluation ON COVER—Multibeam bathymetry map of the northern Gulf of Mexico with superimposed planning area boundaries. The bathymetric map is from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, National Centers for Environmental Information (formerly the National Geophysical Data Center). OCS Report BOEM 2017-005 Assessment of Technically and Economically Recoverable Hydrocarbon Resources of the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf as of January 1, 2014 Published by U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Gulf of Mexico OCS Region New Orleans Office of Resource Evaluation January 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... ii FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................................ iii TABLES .......................................................................................................................................................... iii ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................... iv INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 CENOZOIC GULF OF MEXICO ......................................................................................................................... 4 Cenozoic Assessment Units ................................................................................................................. 4 Geology ................................................................................................................................................ 8 Modern Shelf ................................................................................................................................... 8 Modern Slope .................................................................................................................................. 9 MESOZOIC GULF OF MEXICO ...................................................................................................................... 12 Mesozoic Plays ................................................................................................................................... 12 Geology .............................................................................................................................................. 12 Assessed Plays ................................................................................................................................... 14 Mesozoic Deep Shelf ...................................................................................................................... 14 Mesozoic Slope .............................................................................................................................. 15 Buried Hill ...................................................................................................................................... 17 Lower Tuscaloosa ........................................................................................................................... 19 Lower Cretaceous Clastic ............................................................................................................... 19 Andrew ........................................................................................................................................... 20 James ............................................................................................................................................. 21 Sligo ................................................................................................................................................ 22 Sunniland/South Florida Basin ....................................................................................................... 23 Florida Basement Clastic ................................................................................................................ 23 Cotton Valley Clastic ...................................................................................................................... 24 Smackover ...................................................................................................................................... 26 Norphlet ......................................................................................................................................... 27 Non-Assessed Plays ........................................................................................................................... 29 Knowles Carbonate ........................................................................................................................ 29 Tuscaloosa Marine Shale ............................................................................................................... 29 Expanded Jurassic .......................................................................................................................... 31 Pre-Salt Clastic ............................................................................................................................... 31 ii ASSESSMENT RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 32 Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Resources ............................................................................ 32 Undiscovered Economically Recoverable Resources ........................................................................ 36 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 38 GLOSSARY.................................................................................................................................................... 42 FIGURES Figure 1. Federal OCS waters of the Gulf of Mexico delineated by planning and protraction areas. ........ 2 Figure 2. Locations of the shelf and slope assessment units in the Gulf of Mexico OCS. .......................... 4 Figure 3. Geographic distribution of assessed Cenozoic pools by assessment unit. .................................. 7 Figure 4. Generalized physiographic map of the Gulf of Mexico area. ...................................................... 9 Figure 5. Mesozoic Deep Shelf Play area. ................................................................................................. 15 Figure 6. Mesozoic Slope Play area. .......................................................................................................... 17 Figure 7. Buried Hill Play area. .................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 8. Lower Tuscaloosa Play area. ...................................................................................................... 19 Figure 9. Lower Cretaceous Clastic Play area. .......................................................................................... 20 Figure 10. Andrew Play area. ...................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 11. James and Sligo Play area. ......................................................................................................... 23 Figure 12. Sunniland/South Florida Basin and Florida Basement Clastic Play area. ................................... 24 Figure 13. Cotton Valley Clastic Play area. .................................................................................................. 25 Figure 14. Smackover Play area. ................................................................................................................. 26 Figure 15. Norphlet Play area. .................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 16. Aeolian dune type change from shallow-water to deepwater Norphlet. ................................. 28 Figure 17. Knowles Carbonate Play area. ................................................................................................... 30 Figure 18. Tuscaloosa Marine Shale Play area. ........................................................................................... 30 Figure 19. Estimated discovered resources and UTRR of the Gulf of Mexico OCS. .................................... 32 Figure 20. Assessment units/plays ranked by mean-level UTRR. ............................................................... 33 Figure 21. Portions of UTRR that are economic under three price pairs for the Gulf of Mexico OCS. ....... 36 Figure 22. Portions of UTRR that are economic under three price pairs for each planning area. ............. 36 TABLES Table 1. BOEM resource classification. ......................................................................................................... 3 Table 2. Gulf of Mexico Cenozoic chronostratigraphy and corresponding biostratigraphy. ........................ 5 Table 3. Rock units in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico and South Florida Basin. ....................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Victoria County Station ESP, SSAR, Rev. 1
    Victoria County Station ESP Application Part 2 — Site Safety Analysis Report Subsection 2.5.1 Table of Contents Section Title Page 2.5 Geology, Seismology, and Geotechnical Engineering ........................................ 2.5.1-1 2.5.1 Basic Geologic and Seismic Information ........................................................ 2.5.1-3 2.5.1.1 Regional Geology ................................................................................. 2.5.1-4 2.5.1.2 Site Area Geology .............................................................................. 2.5.1-64 2.5.1.3 References ....................................................................................... 2.5.1-102 2.5.1-A Geophysical Cross Sections .....................................................................2.5.1-A-1 2.5.1-i Revision 1 Victoria County Station ESP Application Part 2 — Site Safety Analysis Report Subsection 2.5.1 List of Tables Number Title 2.5.1-1 Growth Faults within Site Vicinity 2.5.1-2 Summary of Meers Fault Characterizations from Existing Literature 2.5.1-3 Seismic Reflection Horizon Depths 2.5.1-4 Updip Fault Terminations and Horizon Offsets Observed in Seismic Lines 2.5.1-5 Active Wells Victoria County Station Site 2.5.1-ii Revision 1 Victoria County Station ESP Application Part 2 — Site Safety Analysis Report Subsection 2.5.1 List of Figures 2.5.1-1 Map of Physiographic Provinces 2.5.1-2a Regional Geologic Map (200-Mile Radius) 2.5.1-2b Explanation for Regional Geologic Map (200-Mile Radius) 2.5.1-3 Physiographic Map of Texas 2.5.1-4 Site
    [Show full text]
  • Middle Eocene Claiborne Group, United States Part of the Gulf of Mexico Basin
    Geologic Assessment of Undiscovered Conventional Oil and Gas Resources —Middle Eocene Claiborne Group, United States Part of the Gulf of Mexico Basin By Paul C. Hackley U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–1144 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2012 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Suggested citation: Hackley, P.C., 2012, Geologic assessment of undiscovered conventional oil and gas resources—Middle Eocene Claiborne Group, United States part of the Gulf of Mexico Basin: U.S. Geological Survey Open–File Report 2012–1144, 87 p., available only at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1144/. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. ii Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Acknowledgments
    [Show full text]
  • Do Gssps Render Dual Time-Rock/Time Classification and Nomenclature Redundant?
    Do GSSPs render dual time-rock/time classification and nomenclature redundant? Ismael Ferrusquía-Villafranca1 Robert M. Easton2 and Donald E. Owen3 1Instituto de Geología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoacán, México, DF, MEX, 45100, e-mail: [email protected] 2Ontario Geological Survey, Precambrian Geoscience Section, 933 Ramsey Lake Road, B7064 Sudbury, Ontario P3E 6B5, e-mail: [email protected] 3Department of Geology, Lamar University, Beaumont, Texas 77710, e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT: The Geological Society of London Proposal for “…ending the distinction between the dual stratigraphic terminology of time-rock units (of chronostratigraphy) and geologic time units (of geochronology). The long held, but widely misunderstood distinc- tion between these two essentially parallel time scales has been rendered unnecessary by the adoption of the global stratotype sections and points (GSSP-golden spike) principle in defining intervals of geologic time within rock strata.” Our review of stratigraphic princi- ples, concepts, models and paradigms through history clearly shows that the GSL Proposal is flawed and if adopted will be of disservice to the stratigraphic community. We recommend the continued use of the dual stratigraphic terminology of chronostratigraphy and geochronology for the following reasons: (1) time-rock (chronostratigraphic) and geologic time (geochronologic) units are conceptually different; (2) the subtended time-rock’s unit space between its “golden spiked-marked”
    [Show full text]
  • The Geologic Time Scale Is the Eon
    Exploring Geologic Time Poster Illustrated Teacher's Guide #35-1145 Paper #35-1146 Laminated Background Geologic Time Scale Basics The history of the Earth covers a vast expanse of time, so scientists divide it into smaller sections that are associ- ated with particular events that have occurred in the past.The approximate time range of each time span is shown on the poster.The largest time span of the geologic time scale is the eon. It is an indefinitely long period of time that contains at least two eras. Geologic time is divided into two eons.The more ancient eon is called the Precambrian, and the more recent is the Phanerozoic. Each eon is subdivided into smaller spans called eras.The Precambrian eon is divided from most ancient into the Hadean era, Archean era, and Proterozoic era. See Figure 1. Precambrian Eon Proterozoic Era 2500 - 550 million years ago Archaean Era 3800 - 2500 million years ago Hadean Era 4600 - 3800 million years ago Figure 1. Eras of the Precambrian Eon Single-celled and simple multicelled organisms first developed during the Precambrian eon. There are many fos- sils from this time because the sea-dwelling creatures were trapped in sediments and preserved. The Phanerozoic eon is subdivided into three eras – the Paleozoic era, Mesozoic era, and Cenozoic era. An era is often divided into several smaller time spans called periods. For example, the Paleozoic era is divided into the Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous,and Permian periods. Paleozoic Era Permian Period 300 - 250 million years ago Carboniferous Period 350 - 300 million years ago Devonian Period 400 - 350 million years ago Silurian Period 450 - 400 million years ago Ordovician Period 500 - 450 million years ago Cambrian Period 550 - 500 million years ago Figure 2.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cenozoic Era - Nýlífsöld 65 MY-Present Jarðsaga 2 Ólafur Ingólfsson Origin of the Term: the Tertiary Tertiary System
    The Cenozoic Era - Nýlífsöld 65 MY-Present Jarðsaga 2 Ólafur Ingólfsson Origin of the Term: The Tertiary Tertiary System. [1760] Named by Giovanni Arduino Period as the uppermost part of his 65-1.8 MY three-fold subdivision of mountains in northern Italy. The Tertiary became a formal period and system when Lyell published his work describing further subdivisions of the Tertiary. The Tertiary Period is divided into five epochs (tímar): Paleocene (65-56 MY), Eocene (56-34 MY), Oligocene (34-24 MY), Miocene (24-5,3 MY), and Pliocene (5,3-1,8 MY). Confusing set of stratigraphic terms... More than 95% of the Cenozoic era belongs to the Tertiary period. During the 18th century the names Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary were given by Giovanni Arduino to successive rock strata, the Primary being the oldest, the Tertiary the more recent. In 1829 a fourth division, the Quaternary, was added by P. G. Desnoyers. These terms were later abandoned, the Primary becoming the Paleozoic Era, and the Secondary the Mesozoic. But Tertiary and Quaternary were retained for the two main stages of the Cenozoic. Attempts to replace the "Tertiary" with a more reasonable division of “Palaeogene” (early Tertiary) and “Neogene” (later Tertiary and Quaternary) have not been very successful. Stanley uses this division. The World at the K/T Boundary Paleocene plate tectonics During the Paleocene, the inland seas of the Cretaceous Period dry up, exposing large land areas in North America and Eurasia. Australia begins to separate from Antarctica, and Greenland splits from North America. A remnant Tethys Sea persists in the equatorial region.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is a Salt Dome? How Do They Form? 3/2/18, 4:06 PM What Is a Salt Dome?
    What is a Salt Dome? How do they form? 3/2/18, 4:06 PM What is a Salt Dome? » » Salt Domes Columns of salt that intrude through overlying sediment units. Middle Jurassic salt: This cross-section shows rocks of the East Texas Basin between the Oklahoma-Texas border (on the left) and the Gulf of Mexico coastline (on the right). The purple rock unit is the Middle Jurassic salt, a rock unit that has the ability to flow under pressure. The salt is overlain by thousands of feet of sediment which place enormous pressure on the surface of the salt and cause it to flow. At numerous locations the salt has intruded upwards into overlying sediments. This has produced small mounds or towering columns of salt that can be thousands of feet tall. The salt columns and smaller mounds are called "salt domes." USGS image [1]. https://geology.com/stories/13/salt-domes/ Page 1 of 12 What is a Salt Dome? How do they form? 3/2/18, 4:06 PM Salt Dome: Cartoon of a salt dome showing piercement through two rock units and deformation of the rock unit immediately above. Growth of the dome is accomplished by migration of salt into the dome from surrounding areas. The salt migrates into the dome because it is compressed by the weight of overlying sediments. What is a Salt Dome? A salt dome is a mound or column of salt that has intruded upwards into overlying sediments. Salt domes can form in a sedimentary basin where a thick layer of salt is overlain by younger sediments of significant thickness.
    [Show full text]
  • Crustacea: Thalassinidea, Brachyura) from Puerto Rico, United States Territory
    Bulletin of the Mizunami Fossil Museum, no. 34 (2008), p. 1–15, 6 figs., 1 table. © 2008, Mizunami Fossil Museum New Cretaceous and Cenozoic Decapoda (Crustacea: Thalassinidea, Brachyura) from Puerto Rico, United States Territory Carrie E. Schweitzer1, Jorge Velez-Juarbe2, Michael Martinez3, Angela Collmar Hull1, 4, Rodney M. Feldmann4, and Hernan Santos2 1)Department of Geology, Kent State University Stark Campus, 6000 Frank Ave. NW, North Canton, Ohio, 44720, USA <[email protected]> 2)Department of Geology, University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez Campus, P. O. Box 9017, Mayagüez, Puerto Rico, 00681 United States Territory <[email protected]> 3)College of Marine Science, University of South Florida, 140 7th Ave. South, St. Petersburg, Florida 33701, USA <[email protected]> 4)Department of Geology, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242, USA <[email protected]> Abstract A large number of recently collected specimens from Puerto Rico has yielded two new species including Palaeoxanthopsis tylotus and Eurytium granulosum, the oldest known occurrence of the latter genus. Cretaceous decapods are reported from Puerto Rico for the first time, and the Cretaceous fauna is similar to that of southern Mexico. Herein is included the first report of Pleistocene decapods from Puerto Rico, which were previously known from other Caribbean localities. The Pleistocene Cardisoma guanhumi is a freshwater crab of the family Gecarcinidae. The freshwater crab families have a poor fossil record; thus, the occurrence is noteworthy and may document dispersal of the crab by humans. Key words: Decapoda, Thalassinidea, Brachyura, Puerto Rico, Cretaceous, Paleogene, Neogene. Introduction than Eocene are not separated by these fault zones and even overlie parts of the fault zones in some areas (Jolly et al., 1998).
    [Show full text]
  • International Chronostratigraphic Chart
    INTERNATIONAL CHRONOSTRATIGRAPHIC CHART www.stratigraphy.org International Commission on Stratigraphy v 2015/01 numerical numerical numerical Eonothem numerical Series / Epoch Stage / Age Series / Epoch Stage / Age Series / Epoch Stage / Age Erathem / Era System / Period GSSP GSSP age (Ma) GSSP GSSA EonothemErathem / Eon System / Era / Period EonothemErathem / Eon System/ Era / Period age (Ma) EonothemErathem / Eon System/ Era / Period age (Ma) / Eon GSSP age (Ma) present ~ 145.0 358.9 ± 0.4 ~ 541.0 ±1.0 Holocene Ediacaran 0.0117 Tithonian Upper 152.1 ±0.9 Famennian ~ 635 0.126 Upper Kimmeridgian Neo- Cryogenian Middle 157.3 ±1.0 Upper proterozoic ~ 720 Pleistocene 0.781 372.2 ±1.6 Calabrian Oxfordian Tonian 1.80 163.5 ±1.0 Frasnian 1000 Callovian 166.1 ±1.2 Quaternary Gelasian 2.58 382.7 ±1.6 Stenian Bathonian 168.3 ±1.3 Piacenzian Middle Bajocian Givetian 1200 Pliocene 3.600 170.3 ±1.4 Middle 387.7 ±0.8 Meso- Zanclean Aalenian proterozoic Ectasian 5.333 174.1 ±1.0 Eifelian 1400 Messinian Jurassic 393.3 ±1.2 7.246 Toarcian Calymmian Tortonian 182.7 ±0.7 Emsian 1600 11.63 Pliensbachian Statherian Lower 407.6 ±2.6 Serravallian 13.82 190.8 ±1.0 Lower 1800 Miocene Pragian 410.8 ±2.8 Langhian Sinemurian Proterozoic Neogene 15.97 Orosirian 199.3 ±0.3 Lochkovian Paleo- Hettangian 2050 Burdigalian 201.3 ±0.2 419.2 ±3.2 proterozoic 20.44 Mesozoic Rhaetian Pridoli Rhyacian Aquitanian 423.0 ±2.3 23.03 ~ 208.5 Ludfordian 2300 Cenozoic Chattian Ludlow 425.6 ±0.9 Siderian 28.1 Gorstian Oligocene Upper Norian 427.4 ±0.5 2500 Rupelian Wenlock Homerian
    [Show full text]
  • Kimmeridgian (Late Jurassic) Cold-Water Idoceratids (Ammonoidea) from Southern Coahuila, Northeastern Mexico, Associated with Boreal Bivalves and Belemnites
    REVISTA MEXICANA DE CIENCIAS GEOLÓGICAS Kimmeridgian cold-water idoceratids associated with Boreal bivalvesv. 32, núm. and 1, 2015, belemnites p. 11-20 Kimmeridgian (Late Jurassic) cold-water idoceratids (Ammonoidea) from southern Coahuila, northeastern Mexico, associated with Boreal bivalves and belemnites Patrick Zell* and Wolfgang Stinnesbeck Institute for Earth Sciences, Heidelberg University, Im Neuenheimer Feld 234, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany. *[email protected] ABSTRACT et al., 2001; Chumakov et al., 2014) was followed by a cool period during the late Oxfordian-early Kimmeridgian (e.g., Jenkyns et al., Here we present two early Kimmeridgian faunal assemblages 2002; Weissert and Erba, 2004) and a long-term gradual warming composed of the ammonite Idoceras (Idoceras pinonense n. sp. and trend towards the Jurassic-Cretaceous boundary (e.g., Abbink et al., I. inflatum Burckhardt, 1906), Boreal belemnites Cylindroteuthis 2001; Lécuyer et al., 2003; Gröcke et al., 2003; Zakharov et al., 2014). cuspidata Sachs and Nalnjaeva, 1964 and Cylindroteuthis ex. gr. Palynological data suggest that the latest Jurassic was also marked by jacutica Sachs and Nalnjaeva, 1964, as well as the Boreal bivalve Buchia significant fluctuations in paleotemperature and climate (e.g., Abbink concentrica (J. de C. Sowerby, 1827). The assemblages were discovered et al., 2001). in inner- to outer shelf sediments of the lower La Casita Formation Upper Jurassic-Lower Cretaceous marine associations contain- at Puerto Piñones, southern Coahuila, and suggest that some taxa of ing both Tethyan and Boreal elements [e.g. ammonites, belemnites Idoceras inhabited cold-water environments. (Cylindroteuthis) and bivalves (Buchia)], were described from numer- ous localities of the Western Cordillera belt from Alaska to California Key words: La Casita Formation, Kimmeridgian, idoceratid ammonites, (e.g., Jeletzky, 1965), while Boreal (Buchia) and even southern high Boreal bivalves, Boreal belemnites.
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT Magnetic Investigation of the Continental-Oceanic Crustal
    ABSTRACT Magnetic Investigation of the Continental-Oceanic Crustal Boundary; Northern Gulf of Mexico Mark Speckien, M.S. Mentor: John A. Dunbar, Ph.D. Current mapping of magnetic intensity data shows that the Gulf Coast magnetic anomaly is not one anomaly but two distinct anomalies, with one portion trending parallel to the margin before curving northward through central Texas, and then northeastward into the Balcones Fault Zone along the eastern trace of the Ouachita Deformation Front, and the other following the coastline into Louisiana. Multiple profiles perpendicular to the geologic strike of the anomalies lead to the interpretation of these anomalies as the superposition of a normal rifting feature and a pre-existing crustal feature remnant of a complex tectonic history in the region. The location of the pre-existing feature and the rift anomaly suggest pre-rifting lithosphere conditions influenced the rifting process as seen in other passive rifting models. Magnetic Investigation of the Continental-Oceanic Crustal Boundary; Northern Gulf of Mexico by Mark Speckien, B.S. A Thesis Approved by the Geology Department ___________________________________ Steven G. Driese, Ph.D., Chairperson Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Baylor University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Approved by the Thesis Committee ___________________________________ John A. Dunbar, Ph.D., Chairperson ___________________________________ Vincent S. Cronin, Ph.D. ___________________________________ Dwight P. Russell, Ph.D. Accepted by the Graduate School August 2012 ___________________________________ J. Larry Lyon, Ph.D., Dean Page bearing signatures is kept on file in the Graduate School. Copyright © 2012 by Mark Speckien All rights reserved TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Time – Part I - Practice Questions and Answers Revised October 2007
    Geologic Time – Part I - Practice Questions and Answers Revised October 2007 1. The study of the spatial and temporal relationships between bodies of rock is called ____________________. 2. The geological time scale is the ____________ framework in which geologists view Earth history. 3. Both _________________ and absolute scales are included in the geological time scale. 4. Beds represent a depositional event. They are _________ 1 cm in thickness. 5. Laminations are similar to beds but are ___________ 1 cm in thickness. 6. The idea that most beds are laid down horizontally or nearly so is called the (a) Principle of Original Continuity (b) Principle of Fossil Succession (c) Principle of Cross-Cutting Relationships (d) Principle of Original Horizontality (e) Principle of Superposition 7. The idea that beds extend laterally in three dimensions until they thin to zero thickness is called the (a) Principle of Cross-Cutting Relationships (b) Principle of Original Horizontality (c) Principle of Original Continuity (d) Principle of Fossil Succession (e) Principle of Superposition 8. The idea that younger beds are deposited on top of older beds is called the (a) Principle of Original Horizontality (b) Principle of Fossil Succession (c) Principle of Cross-Cutting Relationships (d) Principle of Original Continuity (e) Principle of Superposition 9. The idea that a dike transecting bedding must be younger than the bedding it crosses is called the (a) Principle of Original Horizontality (b) Principle of Original Continuity (c) Principle of Fossil Succession (d) Principle of Cross-Cutting Relationships (e) Principle of Superposition 10. The idea that fossil content will change upward within a formation is called the (a) Principle of Cross-Cutting Relationships (b) Principle of Original Horizontality (c) Principle of Fossil Succession (d) Principle of Original Continuity (e) Principle of Superposition 11.
    [Show full text]
  • GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE V
    GSA GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE v. 4.0 CENOZOIC MESOZOIC PALEOZOIC PRECAMBRIAN MAGNETIC MAGNETIC BDY. AGE POLARITY PICKS AGE POLARITY PICKS AGE PICKS AGE . N PERIOD EPOCH AGE PERIOD EPOCH AGE PERIOD EPOCH AGE EON ERA PERIOD AGES (Ma) (Ma) (Ma) (Ma) (Ma) (Ma) (Ma) HIST HIST. ANOM. (Ma) ANOM. CHRON. CHRO HOLOCENE 1 C1 QUATER- 0.01 30 C30 66.0 541 CALABRIAN NARY PLEISTOCENE* 1.8 31 C31 MAASTRICHTIAN 252 2 C2 GELASIAN 70 CHANGHSINGIAN EDIACARAN 2.6 Lopin- 254 32 C32 72.1 635 2A C2A PIACENZIAN WUCHIAPINGIAN PLIOCENE 3.6 gian 33 260 260 3 ZANCLEAN CAPITANIAN NEOPRO- 5 C3 CAMPANIAN Guada- 265 750 CRYOGENIAN 5.3 80 C33 WORDIAN TEROZOIC 3A MESSINIAN LATE lupian 269 C3A 83.6 ROADIAN 272 850 7.2 SANTONIAN 4 KUNGURIAN C4 86.3 279 TONIAN CONIACIAN 280 4A Cisura- C4A TORTONIAN 90 89.8 1000 1000 PERMIAN ARTINSKIAN 10 5 TURONIAN lian C5 93.9 290 SAKMARIAN STENIAN 11.6 CENOMANIAN 296 SERRAVALLIAN 34 C34 ASSELIAN 299 5A 100 100 300 GZHELIAN 1200 C5A 13.8 LATE 304 KASIMOVIAN 307 1250 MESOPRO- 15 LANGHIAN ECTASIAN 5B C5B ALBIAN MIDDLE MOSCOVIAN 16.0 TEROZOIC 5C C5C 110 VANIAN 315 PENNSYL- 1400 EARLY 5D C5D MIOCENE 113 320 BASHKIRIAN 323 5E C5E NEOGENE BURDIGALIAN SERPUKHOVIAN 1500 CALYMMIAN 6 C6 APTIAN LATE 20 120 331 6A C6A 20.4 EARLY 1600 M0r 126 6B C6B AQUITANIAN M1 340 MIDDLE VISEAN MISSIS- M3 BARREMIAN SIPPIAN STATHERIAN C6C 23.0 6C 130 M5 CRETACEOUS 131 347 1750 HAUTERIVIAN 7 C7 CARBONIFEROUS EARLY TOURNAISIAN 1800 M10 134 25 7A C7A 359 8 C8 CHATTIAN VALANGINIAN M12 360 140 M14 139 FAMENNIAN OROSIRIAN 9 C9 M16 28.1 M18 BERRIASIAN 2000 PROTEROZOIC 10 C10 LATE
    [Show full text]