The Layered Geology of Australia web map service is a seamless national coverage of Australia’s surface and subsurface geology. Geology concealed under younger cover units are mapped by effectively removing the overlying stratigraphy (Liu et al., 2015). This dataset is a layered product and comprises five chronostratigraphic time slices: Cenozoic, Mesozoic, Paleozoic, Neoproterozoic, and Pre-Neoproterozoic. As an example, the Mesozoic time slice (or layer) shows Mesozoic age geology that would be present if all Cenozoic units were removed. The Pre-Neoproterozoic time slice shows what would be visible if all Neoproterozoic, Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic units were removed. The Cenozoic time slice layer for the national dataset was extracted from Raymond et al., 2012. Surface Geology of Australia, 1:1 000 000 scale, 2012 edition. Geoscience Australia, Canberra.

Building on newly acquired airborne electromagnetic and seismic reflection data during the Exploring for the Future (EFTF) program, Geoscience Australia (GA) generated a cover model across the Northern Territory and Queensland, in the Tennant Creek – Mount Isa (TISA) area (Figure 1; between 13.5 and 24.5⁰ S of latitude and 131.5 and 145⁰ E of longitude) (Bonnardot et al., 2020). The cover model provides depth estimates to chronostratigraphic layers, including: Base Cenozoic, Base Mesozoic, Base Paleozoic and Base Neoproterozoic. The depth estimates are based on the interpretation, compilation and integration of borehole, solid geology, reflection seismic, and airborne electromagnetic data, as well as depth to magnetic source estimates. These depth estimates in metres below the surface (relative to the Australian Height Datum) are consistently stored as points in the Estimates of Geophysical and Geological Surfaces (EGGS) database (Matthews et al., 2020). The data points compiled in this data package were extracted from the EGGS database. Preferred depth estimates were selected to ensure regional data consistency and aid the gridding. Two sets of cover depth surfaces (Bonnardot et al., 2020) were generated using different approaches to map megasequence boundaries associated with the Era unconformities: 1) Standard interpolation using a minimum-curvature gridding algorithm that provides minimum misfit where data points exist, and 2) Machine learning approach (Uncover-ML, Wilford et al., 2020) that allows to learn about relationships between datasets and therefore can provide better depth estimates in areas of sparse data points distribution and assess uncertainties. This data package includes the depth estimates data points compiled and used for gridding each surface, for the Base Cenozoic, Base Mesozoic, Base Paleozoic and Base Neoproterozoic (Figure 1). To provide indicative trends between the depth data points, regional interpolated depth surface grids are also provided for the Base Cenozoic, Base Mesozoic, Base Paleozoic and Base Neoproterozoic. The grids were generated with a standard interpolation algorithm, i.e. minimum-curvature interpolation method. Refined gridding method will be necessary to take into account uncertainties between the various datasets and variable distances between the points. These surfaces provide a framework to assess the depth and possible spatial extent of resources, including basin-hosted mineral resources, basement-hosted mineral resources, hydrocarbons and groundwater, as well as an input to economic models of the viability of potential resource development.

This report, completed as part of Geoscience Australia’s Exploring for the Future Program National Groundwater Systems (NGS) Project, presents results of the second iteration of 3D geological and hydrogeological surfaces across eastern Australian basins. The NGS project is part of the Exploring for the Future (EFTF) program—an eight-year, $225 million Australian Government funded geoscience data and precompetitive information acquisition program. The program seeks to inform decision-making by government, community, and industry on the sustainable development of Australia's mineral, energy, and groundwater resources, including those to support the effective long-term management of GAB water resources. This work builds on the first iteration completed as part of the Great Artesian Basin Groundwater project. The datasets incorporate infills of data and knowledge gaps in the Great Artesian Basin (GAB), Lake Eyre Basin (LEB), Upper Darling Floodplain (UDF) and existing data in additional basins in eastern Australia. The study area extends from the offshore Gulf of Carpentaria in the north to the offshore Bight, Otway, and Gippsland basins in the South and from the western edge of the GAB in the west to the eastern Australian coastline to the east. The revisions are an update to the surface extents and thicknesses for 18 region-wide hydrogeological units produced by Vizy & Rollet, 2022. The second iteration of the 3D model surfaces further unifies geology across borders and provides the basis for a consistent hydrogeological framework at a basin-wide, and towards a national-wide, scale. The stratigraphic nomenclature used follows geological unit subdivisions applied: (1) in the Surat Cumulative Management Area (OGIA - Office of Groundwater Impact Assessment, 2019) to correlate time equivalent regional hydrogeological units in the GAB and other Jurassic and Cretaceous time equivalent basins in the study area and (2) in the LEB to correlate Cenozoic time equivalents in the study area. Triassic to Permian and older basins distribution and thicknesses are provided without any geological and hydrogeological unit sub-division. Such work helps to (1) reconcile legacy and contemporary regional studies under a common stratigraphic framework, (2) support the effective management of groundwater resources, and (3) provide a regional geological context for integrated resource assessments. The 18 hydrogeological units were constructed using legacy borehole data, 2D seismic and airborne electromagnetic (AEM) data that were compiled for the first iteration of the geological and hydrogeological surfaces under the GAB groundwater project (Vizy & Rollet, 2022a) with the addition of: • New data collected and QC’d from boreholes (including petroleum, CSG [Coal Seam Gas], stratigraphic, mineral and water boreholes) across Australia (Vizy & Rollet, 2023a) since the first iteration, including revised stratigraphic correlations filling data and knowledge gaps in the GAB, LEB, UDF region (Norton & Rollet, 2023) with revised palynological constraints (Hannaford & Rollet 2023), • Additional AEM interpretation since the first iteration in the GAB, particularly in the northern Surat (McPherson et al., 2022b), as well as in the LEB (Evans et al., in prep), in the southern Eromanga Basin (Wong et al., 2023) and in the UDF region (McPherson et al., 2022c), and • Additional 2D seismic interpretation in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Vizy & Rollet, 2023b) and in the western and central Eromanga Basin (Szczepaniak et al., 2023). These datasets were then analysed and interpreted in a common 3D domain using a consistent chronostratigraphic framework tied to the geological timescale of 2020, as defined by Hannaford et al. (2022). Confidence maps were also produced to highlight areas that need further investigation due to data gaps, in areas where better seismic depth conversion or improved well formation picks are required. New interpretations from the second iteration of the 18 surfaces include (1) new consistent and regionally continuous surfaces of Cenozoic down to Permian and older sediments beyond the extent of the GAB across eastern Australia, (2) revised extents and thicknesses of Jurassic and Cretaceous units in the GAB, including those based on distributed thickness, (3) revised extents and thicknesses of Cenozoic LEB units constrained by the underlying GAB 3D model surfaces geometry. These data constraints were not used in the model surfaces generated for the LEB detailed inventory (Evans et al., 2023), and (4) refinements of surfaces due to additional seismic and AEM interpretation used to infill data and knowledge gaps. Significant revisions include: • The use of additional seismic data to better constrain the base of the Poolowanna-Evergreen formations and equivalents and the top of Cadna-owie Formation and equivalents in the western and central Eromanga Basin, and the extent and thicknesses of the GAB units and Cenozoic Karumba Basin in the Gulf of Carpentaria, • The use of AEM interpretations to refine the geometry of outcropping units in the northern Surat Basin and the basement surface underneath the UDF region, and • A continuous 3D geological surface of base Cenozoic sediments across eastern Australia including additional constraints for the Lake Eyre Basin (borehole stratigraphy review), Murray Basin (AEM interpretation) and Karumba Basin (seismic interpretation). These revisions to the 18 geological and hydrogeological surfaces will help improve our understanding on the 3D spatial distribution of aquifers and aquitards across eastern Australia, from the groundwater recharge areas to the deep confined aquifers. These data compilations and information brought to a common national standard help improve hydrogeological conceptualisation of groundwater systems across multiple jurisdictions to assist water managers to support responsible groundwater management and secure groundwater into the future. These 3D geological and hydrogeological modelled surfaces also provide a tool for consistent data integration from multiple datasets. These modelled surfaces bring together variable data quality and coverage from different databases across state and territory jurisdictions. Data integration at various scale is important to assess potential impact of different water users and climate change. The 3D modelled surfaces can be used as a consistent framework to map current groundwater knowledge at a national scale and help highlight critical groundwater areas for long-term monitoring of potential impacts on local communities and Groundwater Dependant Ecosystems. The distribution and confidence on data points used in the current iteration of the modelled surfaces highlight where data poor areas may need further data acquisition or additional interpretation to increase confidence in the aquifers and aquitards geometry. The second iteration of surfaces highlights where further improvements can be made, notably for areas in the offshore Gulf of Carpentaria with further seismic interpretation to better constrain the base of the Aptian marine incursion (to better constrain the shape and offshore extent of the main aquifers). Inclusion of more recent studies in the offshore southern and eastern margins of Australia will improve the resolution and confidence of the surfaces, up to the edge of the Australian continental shelf. Revision of the borehole stratigraphy will need to continue where more recent data and understanding exist to improve confidence in the aquifer and aquitard geometry and provide better constraints for AEM and seismic interpretation, such as in the onshore Carpentaria, Clarence-Moreton, Sydney, Murray-Darling basins. Similarly adding new seismic and AEM interpretation recently acquired and reprocessed, such as in the eastern Eromanga Basin over the Galilee Basin, would improve confidence in the surfaces in this area. Also, additional age constraints in formations that span large periods of time would help provide greater confidence to formation sub-divisions that are time equivalent to known geological units that correlate to major aquifers and aquitards in adjacent basins, such as within the Late Jurassic‒Early Cretaceous in the Eromanga and Carpentaria basins. Finally, incorporating major faults and structures would provide greater definition of the geological and hydrogeological surfaces to inform with greater confidence fluid flow pathways in the study area. This report is associated with a data package including (Appendix A – Supplementary material): • Nineteen geological and hydrogeological surfaces from the Base Permo-Carboniferous, Top Permian, Base Jurassic, Base Cenozoic to the surface (Table 1.1), • Twenty-one geological and hydrogeological unit thickness maps from the top crystalline basement to the surface (Figure 3.1 to Figure 3.21), • The formation picks and constraining data points (i.e., from boreholes, seismic, AEM and outcrops) compiled and used for gridding each surface (Table 2.7). Detailed explanation of methodology and processing is described in the associated report (Vizy & Rollet, 2023).

<div>The Lake Eyre surface water catchment covers around 1,200,000 km2 of central Australia, about one-sixth of the entire continent. It is one of the largest endorheic river basins in the world and contains iconic arid streams such as the Diamantina, Finke and Georgina rivers, and Cooper Creek. The Lake Eyre region supports diverse native fauna and flora, including nationally significant groundwater-dependent ecosystems such as springs and wetlands which are important cultural sites for Aboriginal Australians.</div><div><br></div><div>Much of the Lake Eyre catchment is underlain by the geological Lake Eyre Basin (LEB). The LEB includes major sedimentary depocentres such as the Tirari and Callabonna sub-basins which have been active sites of deposition throughout the Cenozoic. The stratigraphy of the LEB is dominated by the Eyre, Namba and Etadunna formations, as well as overlying Pliocene to Quaternary sediments.</div><div><br></div><div>The National Groundwater Systems Project, part of Geoscience Australia's Exploring for the Future Program (https://www.eftf.ga.gov.au/), is transforming our understanding of the nation's major aquifer systems. With an initial focus on the Lake Eyre Basin, we have applied an integrated geoscience systems approach to model the basin's regional stratigraphy and geological architecture. This analysis has significantly improved understanding of the extent and thickness of the main stratigraphic units, leading to new insights into the conceptualisation of aquifer systems in the LEB.</div><div><br></div><div>Developing the new understanding of the LEB involved compilation and standardisation of data acquired from thousands of petroleum, minerals and groundwater bores. This enabled consistent stratigraphic analysis of the major geological surfaces across all state and territory boundaries. In places, the new borehole dataset was integrated with biostratigraphic and petrophysical data, as well as airborne electromagnetic (AEM) data acquired through AusAEM (https://www.eftf.ga.gov.au/ausaem). The analysis and integration of diverse geoscience datasets helped to better constrain the key stratigraphic horizons and improved our overall confidence in the geological interpretations.</div><div><br></div><div>The new geological modelling of the LEB has highlighted the diverse sedimentary history of the basin and provided insights into the influence of geological structures on modern groundwater flow systems. Our work has refined the margins of the key depocentres of the Callabonna and Tirari sub-basins, and shown that their sediment sequences are up to 400 m thick. We have also revised maximum thickness estimates for the main units of the Eyre Formation (185 m), Namba Formation (265 m) and Etadunna Formation (180 m).</div><div><br></div><div>The geometry, distribution and thickness of sediments in the LEB is influenced by geological structures. Many structural features at or near surface are related to deeper structures that can be traced into the underlying Eromanga and Cooper basins. The occurrence of neotectonic features, coupled with insights from geomorphological studies, implies that structural deformation continues to influence the evolution of the basin. Structures also affect the hydrogeology of the LEB, particularly by compartmentalising groundwater flow systems in some areas. For example, the shallow groundwater system of the Cooper Creek floodplain is likely segregated from groundwater in the nearby Callabonna Sub-basin due to structural highs in the underlying Eromanga Basin.</div><div> Abstract submitted and presented at the 2023 Australian Earth Science Convention (AESC), Perth WA (https://2023.aegc.com.au/)

<p>The Solid Geology of the North Australian Craton 1:1M scale dataset 1st edition (2020) is a seamless chronostratigraphic solid geology dataset of the North Australian Craton that covers north of Western Australia, Northern Territory and north-west Queensland. The data maps stratigraphic units concealed under cover by effectively removing the overlying cover (Liu et al., 2015). This dataset comprises five chronostratigraphic time slices, namely: Cenozoic, Mesozoic, Paleozoic, Neoproterozoic, and Pre-Neoproterozoic. As an example, the Mesozoic time slice (or layer) shows Mesozoic age geology that would be present if all Cenozoic units were removed. The Pre-Neoproterozoic time slice shows what would be visible if all Neoproterozoic, Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic units were removed. <p>Geological units are represented as polygon and line geometries and, are attributed with information regarding stratigraphic nomenclature and hierarchy, age, lithology, and primary data source. The datasets also contains geological contacts, structural features, such as faults and shears, and miscellaneous supporting lines like crater impacts or structural grain within stratigraphic units. <p>This is the second staged release of Geoscience Australia's national time based solid geology mapping program commenced under the Federal Government’s Exploring for the Future program. The Cenozoic time slice layer was extracted from Raymond, O.L., Liu, S., Gallagher, R., Highet, L.M., Zhang, W., 2012. Surface Geology of Australia, 1:1 000 000 scale, 2012 edition [Digital Dataset]. Geoscience Australia, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. http://www.ga.gov.au and retains the data schema of that dataset. For this layer’s metadata, refer to https://pid.geoscience.gov.au/dataset/ga/74619 <p>NOTE: Specialised Geographic Information System (GIS) software is required to view this data.

There is a growing recognition that lithospheric structure places first-order controls on the distribution of resources within the upper crust. While this structure is increasingly imaged using geophysical techniques, there is a paucity of geological constraints on its morphology and temporal evolution. Cenozoic intraplate volcanic rocks along Australia’s eastern seaboard provide a significant opportunity to constrain mantle conditions at the time of their emplacement and thereby benchmark geophysical constraints. This volcanic activity is subdivided into two types: age-progressive provinces generated by the passage of mantle plumes beneath the plate; and age-independent provinces, which may arise from edge-driven convection at a lithospheric step. In this study, we collected and analysed 78 igneous rock samples from both types of volcanoes across Queensland. We combined these analyses with previous studies to create and augment a comprehensive database of Australian Cenozoic volcanism. Geochemical modelling techniques were used to estimate mantle temperatures and lithospheric thicknesses beneath each province. Our results show that melting occurred at depths of 45–70 km across eastern Australia. Mantle temperatures are inferred to be ~50–100 °C higher beneath age-progressive provinces than beneath age-independent provinces. These results agree with geophysical observations used to aid resource assessments and indicate that upper mantle temperatures have varied over Cenozoic times. <b>Citation:</b> Ball, P.W., Czarnota, K., White, N.J. and Champion, D.C. 2020. Exploiting Cenozoic volcanic activity to quantify upper mantle structure beneath eastern Australia. In: Czarnota, K., Roach, I., Abbott, S., Haynes, M., Kositcin, N., Ray, A. and Slatter, E. (eds.) Exploring for the Future: Extended Abstracts, Geoscience Australia, Canberra, 1–4.

The Solid Geology of the North Australian Craton web service delivers a seamless chronostratigraphic solid geology dataset of the North Australian Craton that covers north of Western Australia, Northern Territory and north-west Queensland. The data maps stratigraphic units concealed under cover by effectively removing the overlying cover (Liu et al., 2015). This dataset comprises five chronostratigraphic time slices, namely: Cenozoic, Mesozoic, Paleozoic, Neoproterozoic, and Pre-Neoproterozoic.

<p>Geoscience Australia completed a regional assessment of the geological carbon dioxide (CO2) storage potential and petroleum prospectivity of the Browse Basin, offshore northwest Australia. This dual-purpose basin analysis study provided a new understanding of the basin’s Cretaceous succession based on new information regarding basin evolution, sequence stratigraphy, structural architecture and petroleum systems. The basin’s tectonostratigraphic framework was updated, and the integration of revised and recalibrated biostratigraphic data with well log and seismic interpretations has enabled an improved understanding of variations in depositional facies and the spatial distribution of reservoir, seal, and source rock sections. The outputs include models and maps of environments of deposition, play fairways, common risk element maps for regional-scale assessment of CO2 storage potential and petroleum systems model (Abbott et al., 2016; Edwards et al., 2015, 2016; Grosjean et al., 2015; Palu et al., 2017a and b; Rollet et al., 2016b, 2017a,b, 2018).<p> <p>This data pack includes 12 Cretaceous and Cenozoic horizons, and the regional fault maps produced from this study. This interpretation is based on data from 60 wells (Table 1) and 26 regional 2D and 3D seismic reflection surveys (Table 2) (Rollet et al., 2016a). Surfaces were converted from TWT to depth and integrated in a 3D geological model as input into a petroleum systems model (Palu et al., 2017a, b). <p>Data layers include: <p>12 regional depth surface grids and arcmap files generated for key Cretaceous and Cenozoic horizons (Figure 1; Table 3): K10.0_SB (late Tithonian), K20.0_SB (Valanginian), K30.0_SB (Late Hauterivian), K40.0_SB (Aptian), K50.0_SB (Late Cenomanian), K60.0_SB (Early Campanian), K65.0_SB (Maastrichtian), T10.0_SB (Base Cenozoic), T24.0_SB (Ypresian), T30.0_SB (Rupelian), T33.0_SB (Aquitanian) and water bottom based on bathymetry after Whiteway (2009), <p>2 fault population shapefiles (Figure 2): polygon envelop of shallow faults that formed during the Cenozoic collision between Australia and Asia, and horizon fault boundaries of deep regional faults that were formed through the Permian to Cretaceous.

The Murray Basin is a saucer-shaped basin with flat-lying Cenozoic sediments up to approximately 600 m thickness (Brown and Stephenson, 1991). Constraints on the thickness of the Murray Basin have been compiled from: drillholes, reflection seismic profile interpretations, refraction seismic profiles and depth to magnetic basement estimates (Target_type.pdf). Target depths were sourced from Geoscience Australia, the national Groundwater Information System database (Http://www.bom.gov.au/water/groundwater/ngis/), the Geological Survey of Victoria (http://earthresources.vic.gov.au/earth-resources/geology-of-victoria/geological-survey-of-victoria) and the Geological Survey of South Australia (http://www.minerals.statedevelopment.sa.gov.au/geoscience/geological_survey). In addition, some of the magnetic depth estimates used data from McLean (2010). To constrain the thickness of Cenozoic cover where sediments were either absent or very thin we generated shallow-depth values in areas with post-Cenozoic geology and high topographic relief. In all, 5436 depth estimates were compiled (Target_depths.xlsx). The input datasets have been used to generate two predictive models of the thickness of Cenozoic sediments within the Murray Basin. The first model uses kriging of the depth estimates to generate a gridded surface using a local-area linear variogram model as a means of interpolating between constraints (Murray_Basin_kriging_Cenozoic_thickness.pdf; Murray_Basin_krig.tif -floating value grid). The second model uses a machine-learning approach where correlations between 17 supplementary datasets and 5436 depth estimates are used to derive a predictive model. We used a supervised learning algorithm known as Gaussian Process (GP) to generate the integrated predictive model. Gaussian Process is a non-parametric probabilistic approach to learning. It uses kernel functions to measure the similarity between points and predict values not seen from the training data (see Read_Me_GP.rtf). The supplementary datasets used in the model are listed in Table 1 and model variable settings can be found in read_me.rtf (Murray_Basin_GP_Cenozoic_thickness.pdf; Murray_Basin_GP_model.tif -floating value grid). Both approaches delineate the overall structure, geometry and thickness of the Murray Basin. The advantage of the machine learning approach is that it learns relationships between the depth and supplementary datasets which allow predictions in areas with limited constraints. References Brown, C. M. and Stephenson, A. E., 1991, Geology of the Murray Basin, southeastern Australia, Canberra, Bureau of Mineral Resources Bulletin 235, 430 p. McLean, M.A., 2010. Depth to Palaeozoic basement of the Gold Undercover region from borehole and magnetic data. GeoScience Victoria Gold Undercover Report 21. Department of Primary Industries, Victoria. Table 1. Supplementary input datasets used in predictive estimation of Murray Basin thickness, utilising a machine learning method Covariates* Description 1 Latitude Gridded latitude values 2 Longitude Gridded longitude values 3 Elevation Terrain elevation – 90m shuttle DEM 4 Distance from bedrock Euclidean distance from outcrop geology units older than Cenozoic 5 Gravity Terrain and isostatic corrected Bouguer gravity 6 Gravity 1228 Upward continued gravity at 1228 metres 7 Gravity 2407 Upward continued gravity at 2407 metres 8 Gravity 6605 Upward continued gravity at 6605 metres 9 Gravity 18124 Upward continued gravity at 18124 metres 10 Gravity 35524 Upward continued gravity at 35524 metres 11 Gravity 49734 Upward continued gravity at 49734 metres 12 Gravity 97479 Upward continued gravity at 97479 metres 13 Gravity – 1k Isostatically corrected gravity subtracted from upward continued gravity at 1000 metres 14 Magnetics 5km Upward continued magnetic anomaly grid at 5 km 15 Magnetic 10km Upward continued magnetic anomaly grid at 10 km 16 Magnetic 5-10km Upward continued 5km magnetic anomaly grid subtracted from upward continued 10 km magnetic anomaly grid 17 Magnetic basement Depth to magnetic basement using the tilt method. *Primary datasets including gravity, magnetics and surface geology sourced from Geoscience Australia http://www.ga.gov.au/data-pubs/maps Elevation dataset used the 3 second (~90m) Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) digital elevation model. https://pid.geoscience.gov.au/dataset/ga/72760.

The Cenozoic alkaline and related igneous rocks of Australia web map service depicts the spatial representation of the alkaline and related rocks of Cenozoic age.