William A. Rouse
United States Geological Survey
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by William A. Rouse.
AAPG Bulletin | 2014
William A. Rouse; Stanley T. Paxton; John C. Mars; Bryant Fulk
Wireline logs were used to document the stratigraphic framework of Upper Devonian–Mississippian strata in the Arkoma Basin, and maps of high-gamma ray (HGR) log response were used to analyze the spatial distribution of potential source rocks in the Woodford–Chattanooga and Fayetteville–Caney shale-gas systems. The Woodford–Chattanooga shale is a transgressive deposit that accumulated on an arid continental margin influenced by marine upwelling and minimal sediment influx. A broad HGR depocenter along the southwestern margin of the basin includes two areas of higher accommodation containing the thickest HGR concentrations. Basin-wide patterns of HGR likely reflect broad tectonic influence on accommodation. The proportion of chert in the formation increases eastward and southward, likely reflecting latitudinal and bathymetric influence on the accumulation of siliceous ooze. The Lower Mississippian Burlington sequence, which lies between the two shale-gas systems, comprises carbonate ramp and distal shale deposits. Proximal ramp facies form an apron around the southern flank of the Ozark uplift and grade radially basinward into distal facies. An Upper Mississippian succession in the east includes lowstand deposits of the Batesville delta, which onlap the relict Burlington ramp. Basinwide, the succession includes the transgressive Fayetteville–Caney shale overlain by regressive deposits of the proximal Pitkin Limestone and distal upper Fayetteville (Arkansas) and “false” Caney (Oklahoma) shale. The HGR shale is concentrated in an area of intermediate accommodation on the western margin of the Mississippi Embayment and just basinward of the Pitkin Limestone pinchout in Arkansas, and in an area of relatively high accommodation in Oklahoma.
AAPG Bulletin | 2018
Katherine J. Whidden; Julie A. Dumoulin; William A. Rouse
The Triassic Shublik Formation and the Triassic–Jurassic Otuk Formation are partially age-equivalent lithostratigraphic units that were deposited in the Arctic Alaska Basin (AAB). The Shublik Formation represents proximal deposition within the basin, with episodic siliciclastic input, whereas the Otuk Formation was deposited in the distal part of the basin, with significant intervals of mudstone and chert. Both the Shublik and Otuk Formations have significant intervals of organic-rich mudstone, and the Shublik is a major source rock for northern Alaska hydrocarbon accumulations such as Prudhoe Bay. The revised stratigraphic framework presented herein, based on the integration of lithostratigraphy and biostratigraphy, correlates intervals within these two formations, as well as the Ivishak Formation and the Karen Creek and Sag River Sandstones (which underlie and overlie the Shublik). This stratigraphic framework provides a basis for comparison of proximal and distal parts of the AAB through the Triassic, thus allowing for a more robust understanding of the spatial and temporal variability of lithology and organic richness within this basin. Five transgressive–regressive sequences are defined in the Shublik, based on lithostratigraphy and better age constraints provided by the revised stratigraphic framework. These sequences are age-correlative and recognized in other Arctic basins, implying that they have regional, and perhaps global, significance.
Fact Sheet | 2012
William A. Rouse; Christopher P. Garrity; Katherine J. Whidden; Julie A. Dumoulin; Christopher J. Schenk; Ronald R. Charpentier; Troy A. Cook; Stephanie B. Gaswirth; Mark A. Kirschbaum; Richard M. Pollastro
Fact Sheet | 2010
James L. Coleman; Robert C. Milici; Christopher P. Garrity; William A. Rouse; Bryant Fulk; Stanley T. Paxton; Marvin M. Abbott; John L. Mars; Troy A. Cook; Christopher J. Schenk; Ronald R. Charpentier; Timothy R. Klett; Richard M. Pollastro; Geoffrey S. Ellis
Scientific Investigations Report | 2012
William A. Rouse
OTC Arctic Technology Conference | 2012
William A. Rouse; Christopher P. Garrity
Fact Sheet | 2011
Richard G. Stanley; Ronald R. Charpentier; Troy A. Cook; Timothy R. Klett; Kristen A. Lewis; Paul G. Lillis; Philip H. Nelson; Jeffrey D. Phillips; Richard M. Pollastro; Christopher J. Potter; William A. Rouse; Richard W. Saltus; Christopher J. Schenk; Anjana K. Shah; Zenon C. Valin
Fact Sheet | 2018
Paul C. Hackley; Catherine B. Enomoto; Brett J. Valentine; William A. Rouse; Celeste D. Lohr; Frank T. Dulong; Javin J. Hatcherian; Sean T. Brennan; William H. Craddock; Thomas M. Finn; Stephanie B. Gaswirth; Phuong A. Le; Heidi M. Leathers-Miller; Kristen R. Marra; Tracey J. Mercier; Stanley T. Paxton; Katherine J. Whidden; Cheryl A. Woodall; Christopher J. Schenk
Fact Sheet | 2018
Catherine B. Enomoto; Michael H. Trippi; Debra K. Higley; William A. Rouse; Frank T. Dulong; Timothy R. Klett; Tracey J. Mercier; Michael E. Brownfield; Heidi M. Leathers-Miller; Thomas M. Finn; Kristen R. Marra; Phuong A. Le; Cheryl A. Woodall; Christopher J. Schenk
Fact Sheet | 2017
Richard O. Lease; Christopher J. Schenk; Tracey J. Mercier; William A. Rouse; Palma J. Jarboe; Katherine J. Whidden; Christopher P. Garrity; Kristen A. Lewis; Samuel Heller; William H. Craddock; Timothy R. Klett; Phuong A. Le; Rebecca Smith; Marilyn E. Tennyson; Stephanie B. Gaswirth; Cheryl A. Woodall; Michael E. Brownfield; Heidi M. Leathers-Miller; Thomas M. Finn