This dataset contains oil and gas agreements cases derived from Legal Land Descriptions (LLD) contained in the US Bureau of Land Management's, BLM, Mineral and Land Record System(MLRS) and geocoded (mapped) using the Public Land Survey System (PLSS) derived from the most accurate survey data available through BLM Cadastral Survey workforce. Geospatial representations might be missing for some cases that can not be geocoded using the MLRS algorithm. Each case is given a data quality score based on how well it mapped. These can be lumped into seven groups to provide a simplified way to understand the scores.Group 1: Direct PLSS Match. Scores “0”, “1”, “2”, “3” should all have a match to the PLSS data. There are slight differences, but the primary expectation is that these match the PLSS.Group 2: Calculated PLSS Match. Scores “4”, “4.1”, “5”, “6”, “7” and “8” were generated through a process of creating the geometry that is not a direct capture from the PLSS. They represent a best guess based on the underlining PLSS Group 3 – Mapped to Section. Score of “8.1”, “8.2”, “8.3”, “9” and “10” are mapped to the Section.Group 4- Combination of mapped and unmapped areas. Score of 15 represents a case that has some portions that would map and other that do not.Group 5 – No NLSDB Geometry, Only Attributes. Scores “11”, “12”, “20”, “21” and “22” do not have a match to the PLSS and no geometry is in the NLSDB, and only attributes exist in the data. Group 6 – Mapped to County. Scores of “25” map to the County.Group 7 – Improved Geometry. Scores of “100” are cases that have had their geometry edited by BLM staff using ArcGIS Pro or MLRS bulk upload tool.

There are 487 onshore oil and gas fields in California encompassing 3,392 square miles of aggregated area. The California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) initiated a Regional Monitoring Program (RMP) in July 2015, intended to determine where and to what degree groundwater quality may be at potential risk to contamination related to oil and gas development activities including well stimulation, well integrity issues, produced water ponds, and underground injection. The first step in monitoring groundwater in and near oil and gas fields is to prioritize the 487 fields using consistent statewide analysis of available data that indicate potential risk of groundwater to oil and gas development. There were limited existing data on potential groundwater risk factors available for oil and gas fields across the state. During 2014-2016, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) extracted and compiled data from various sources, including the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). During 2014-2016, the depth to top of perforated intervals and depth to base of freshwater for oil and gas production wells in California were extracted from well records maintained by the DOGGR. Well records including geophysical logs, well history, well completion reports, and correspondences were viewed on DOGGR's Well Finder website at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/. This digital dataset contains 3,505 records for production wells, of which 2,964 wells have a recorded depth to top of perforated intervals and 1,494 wells have a recorded depth to base of freshwater. Wells were attributed with American Petroleum Institute (API) numbers, oil and gas field, and well location, well status and type, and nearest oil and gas field for wells that plotted outside field boundaries using the DOGGR All Wells geospatial data included in this data release. Wells were attributed with land surface elevations using the California National Elevation Dataset. Due to limited time and resources to analyze well records for the most recent well configuration, wells spatially distributed throughout the state and accounting for about 2 percent of the more than 185,000 production wells (new, active, idle, or plugged well status) were attributed with depth data.

The map was created by Meredith Watkins. View the original map hereThis map displays mineral deposits and energy resources such as oil and gas fields found in Canada. The mineral dataset is part of the "Map of Top 100 Exploration Projects 2011" and was obtained from Natural Resources Canada. Click here for more information on mineral data.The oil and gas fields data was obtained from AAPG Datapages and is part of Dr. M. K. Horn's "Giant oil and Gas Fields of the World" GIS project.Alberta Oil Sands data was obtained from the Government of Alberta - Oil Sands Information Portal - part of the Environment and Sustainable Resource Development.

This map shows the structural configuration on the top of the Cotton Valley Group in feet below sea level. The map was produced by calculating the difference between a datum at the land surface (either the kelly bushing elevation or the ground surface elevation) and the reported depth of the Cotton Valley Group. This resulted in 10,687 wells for which locations were available. After deleting the wells with obvious data problems, a total of 10,504 wells were used to generate the map. The data are provided as both lines and polygons, and the proprietary wells that penetrate the top of the Cotton Valley Group are graphically displayed as quarter-mile cells. The well information was initially retrieved from the IHS Energy Group, PI/Dwights PLUS Well Data on CD-ROM, which is a proprietary, commercial database containing information for most oil and gas wells in the U.S. Cells were developed as a graphic solution to overcome the problem of displaying proprietary PI/Dwights PLUS Wel ...

The top of the Upper Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone is present in the subsurface throughout the Uinta and Piceance basins of UT and CO and is easily recognized in the subsurface from geophysical well logs. This digital data release captures in digital form the results of two previously published contoured subsurface maps that were constructed on the top of Dakota Sandstone datum; one of the studies also included a map constructed on the top of the overlying Mancos Shale. A structure contour map of the top of the Dakota Sandstone was constructed as part of a U.S. Geological Survey Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the Uinta-Piceance Province, Utah and Colorado (Roberts, 2003). This surface, constructed using data from oil and gas wells, from digital geologic maps of Utah and Colorado, and from thicknesses of overlying stratigraphic units, depicts the overall configuration of major structural trends of the present-day Uinta and Piceance basins and was used to ...

This dataset shows depth contours to the top of the Mesaverde Group within the Southwestern Wyoming Province, southwestern Wyoming, northeastern Utah, and northwestern Colorado

Texas is by far the largest oil-producing state in the United States. In 2023, Texas produced a total of over two billion barrels. In a distant second place is New Mexico, which produced 667.5 million barrels in the same year. Virginia is the smallest producing state in the country, at five thousand barrels. Macro perspective of U.S. oil production The U.S. oil production totaled some 16.6 million barrels of oil per day, or a total annual oil production of 711 million metric tons. As the largest oil producer in the U.S., it is not surprising that Texas is home to the most productive U.S. oil basin, the Permian. The Permian has routinely accounted for at least 50 percent of total onshore production. Regional distribution of U.S. oil production A total of 32 of the 50 U.S. states produce oil. There are five regional divisions for oil production in the U.S., known as the Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts (PADD). These five regional divisions of the allocation of fuels derived from petroleum products were established in the U.S. during the Second World War and they are still used today for data collection purposes. In line with the fact that Texas is by far the largest U.S. oil producing state, PADD 3 (Gulf Coast) is also the largest oil producing PADD, as it also includes the federal offshore region in the Gulf of Mexico. There are around 711 operational oil and gas rigs in the country as of May 2023

This map shows the structural configuration of the top of the Travis Peak or Hosston Formations in feet below sea level. The map was produced by calculating the difference between a datum at the land surface (either the Kelly bushing elevation or the ground surface elevation) and the reported depth of the Travis Peak or Hosston. This resulted in 18,941 wells for which locations were available. After deleting the wells with obvious data problems, a total of 18,933 wells were used for the map. The data are provided as both lines and polygons, and the proprietary wells that penetrate the top of the Travis Peak or Hosston Formations are graphically displayed as quarter-mile cells. The well information was initially retrieved from the IHS Energy Group, PI/Dwights PLUS Well Data on CD-ROM, which is a proprietary, commercial database containing information for most oil and gas wells in the U.S. Cells were developed as a graphic solution to overcome the problem of displaying proprietary PI/Dwights PLUS Well Data. No proprietary data are displayed or included in the cell maps. The data from PI/Dwights PLUS Well Data are current as of April 2001.

This dataset shows depth contours to the top of the Frontier Formation within the Southwestern Wyoming Province, southwestern Wyoming, northeastern Utah, and northwestern Colorado.

Within the BLM, Other Agreements include Compensatory Royalty Agreements, Gas Storage Agreements and Development Contracts. Compensatory Royalty Agreements are agreements accommodating royalty paid in lieu of drilling a well which would otherwise be required under the terms and conditions of a lease where there is no lease. Gas Storage Agreements are authorized to allow Federal lands to be used to store natural gas during periods of excess production, whether produced from Federal or other lands, so that supplies will be available to meet peak demands. Development Contracts are Federal contracts designed to promote timely and full operations in areas where special development incentive and acreage-relief treatment is required if reserves are to be developed. Under such a contract, the holder is freed from the application of acreage limitation restrictions for a specified period of time conditioned on meeting certain diligence requirements as specified in the contract. Each polygon represents a record that was matched from the Legacy Rehost 2000 case recordation database (LR2000) to the Public Lands Survey System (PLSS) geospatial polygon dataset. This map service displays a product that best represents locations for oil and gas active other agreements managed by the BLM.

This dataset consists of an Excel spreadsheet representing an expert elicitation process of determining priority research areas for the decommissioning of ocean-based oil and gas structures. Further description of this process is provided in the 'Offshore decommissioning horizon scan: Research priorities to support decision-making activities for oil and gas infrastructure' paper by Sarah Watson et. al. 2023 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163015.

A global horizon scan was undertaken, eliciting input from an interdisciplinary cohort of 35 global experts to develop the top ten priority research needs to further inform decommissioning decisions and advance our understanding of their potential impacts. The resulting highest research priorities included: (1) an assessment of impacts of contaminants and their acceptable environmental limits to reduce potential for ecological harm; (2) defining risk and acceptability thresholds in policy/governance; (3) characterising liability issues of ongoing costs and responsibility; and (4) quantification of impacts to ecosystem services. The remaining top ten priorities included: (5) quantifying ecological connectivity; (6) assessing marine life productivity; (7) determining feasibility of infrastructure re-use; (8) identification of stakeholder views and values; (9) quantification of greenhouse gas emissions; and (10) developing a transdisciplinary decommissioning decision-making process.

Methods: We used a horizon-scan process with leading global experts on the decommissioning of offshore O&G infrastructure (excluded from the scope was P&A of subsea wells), from across a range of fields (science/academia; industry; and policy-making) and technical disciplines (environmental; societal, technical, economic; and policy/governance). Experts were selected based on their: publications on the topic; extent of relevant work (within academia, industry, or a relevant competent authority); or substantial involvement (e.g., chair) of an international industry association specialising in decommissioning. The aim of the expert selection process was to ensure representation across all geographical regions, fields of work, and technical disciplines, as applicable to offshore decommissioning activities

Based on these criteria, an invitation to participate was sent to identified experts (n = 65), from which n = 35 responded, providing: a list of the most important questions/research areas on decommissioning in their view, and a completed experience matrix, indicating offshore O&G decommissioning-related experience by geographical region(s), field(s) of work, and technical discipline(s).

The full list of collated questions (n = 257; from the 35 experts' responses; S-Table 3) were categorised into five disciplinary areas, 15 topics, and 38 sub-topics, grouped according to similarity by the project team leaders (SW, DM, EC, PM; S-Table 2). Categorised responses were subsequently presented to experts at an online workshop, where further discussion on the transdisciplinary nature of the topic, and how best to address within future research, was facilitated (S-Tables 2,3). Following the workshop, the experts voted (n = 32), providing their opinion of the most important sub-topics needing to be addressed by future research to fill critical knowledge gaps (S-Table 4). At this point, due to conflicting time commitments, three withdrew from the vote with their self-identified expertise representing East Asian Seas, South Pacific, and Global regions, and spanning all fields of work and technical disciplines. All votes were collated, and the sub-topics were ordered based on total numbers of votes (S-Table 5), which formed the consensus for the top ten research priorities.

Limitations: Note: This dataset does not contain a mapping between the experts and the original questions that they voted for, but instead a mapping between the expert and the sub-topic of questions that they voted for. This dataset does not list the final prioritised set of questions. These are listed in the associated paper (Watson et al., 2023). The goal of the voting was to determine the final priority sub topics, not a ranking of the highest priority collated questions. As a result the final priority questions are based on the priority sub-topics and an amalgamation of the prioritised questions within that sub-topic.

Data format: This dataset consists of 6 sheets with the following tables:

• ST-1:
• Background of Experts by Geographical Region (G - Global, EAS - East Asian Seas (COBSEA), including NW Australia, NEA - North-east Atlantic (OSPAR Convention), NEP - North-east Pacific (Antigua Convention) including USA-California & Non-arctic Alaska, SP - South Pacific (Nouméa Convention) including SE Australia & New Zealand)
• Background of Experts by Field of Work (S - Science/Academia, I - Industry, P - Policy)

• Background of Experts by Technical Discipline (EN - Environmental, SO – Societal (including safety of others), TE – Technical (including safety of workers), EC - Economic, PO - Policy/Governance)

• ST-2: Categorisation of the collated questions organised into 15 topics and 38 subtopics.

• ST-3: List of the 257 questions collated from 35 experts, along with the ID of the expert who posed the question.

• ST-4: Summary of votes by experts, broken down into the topics and subtopics. Each expert was given a total weight of 10 votes. The scores of each expert were normalised to 10 votes, so those that prioritised more than 10 questions were down weighted (to a total of 10) and those with less questions were up weighted (to a total of 10).

• ST-5: Ranking of the issues/opportunities showing the number of votes received by each sub-topic and their associated priority ranking.

• ST-6: Characterisation of the experts that voted for each final priorities research sub-topic, indicating their, field of work, technical discipline and region.

References: Watson, S. M., McLean, D. L., Balcom, B. J., Birchenough, S. N. R., Brand, A. M., Camprasse, E. C. M., Claisse, J. T., Coolen, J. W. P., Cresswell, T., Fokkema, B., Gourvenec, S., Henry, L.-A., Hewitt, C. L., Love, M. S., MacIntosh, A. E., Marnane, M., McKinley, E., Micallef, S., Morgan, D., … Macreadie, P. I. (2023). Offshore decommissioning horizon scan: Research priorities to support decision-making activities for oil and gas infrastructure. Science of The Total Environment, 878, 163015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163015

Location of the data: This dataset is primarily hosted as a supplemental table in Watson et al., 2023. A copy of this dataset is filed in the eAtlas enduring data repository at: data\custodian\2021-2022-NESP-MaC-1\1.19_Decomissioning-oil-gas-infrastructure\data\original

​​​​​​​​The Geologic Energy Management Division's (CalGEM) online mapping application Well Finder presents California’s oil and gas industry information from the geographic perspective. You can find and locate oil and gas wells and other types of related facilities throughout the state. Search by address, latitude/longitude, unique well number (also known as “API”), Public Land Survey System (PLSS) township/range/section, or by oil and gas field names. Dig deeper into individual well records. Explore where permits have been issued for oil and gas operations. Investigate wells by their type of use, such as oil and gas producers versus injectors.

Well Finder is a tool CalGEM provides to improve informational transparency. Readily available data contributes to better health and environmental safeguards--fundamentals of the CalGEM mission. Data can help inform California's efforts to achieve the twin goals of mitigating climate change and a net-zero footprint.

Well Finder interfaces with CalGEM’s online Well Statewide Tracking and Reporting System (WellSTAR) database and is updated nightly.

Base Data - Name/Brand - Address - Geocoordinates - Opening Hours - Phone - ...

25+ Fuel Types - Super E5 - Super 98 - Diesel - AdBlue - LPG - CNG - ...

60+ Services and Characteristics - Car Wash - Shop - Restaurant - Toilet - ATM - Toll - ...

300+ Payment Options - Cash - Visa - MasterCard - Fuel Cards - ...

Xavvy is the leading source for gas station location and petrol price data worldwide, specializing in data quality and enrichment. We provide high-quality POI data for gas stations across all European countries, integrated with energy data, places data, automotive data, commodity data, market research data, oil and gas data, and brand data.

Our gas station location data is delivered country by country, with customizable information levels. We offer one-time or regular data delivery, push or pull services, and any data format to meet customer needs.

Our data answers critical questions such as the total number of stations per country or region, market share distribution, and optimal locations for new gas stations, charging stations, or hydrogen dispensers. This information provides a solid foundation for in-depth analyses, enabling various industries to gain valuable insights into the fuel market and its trends. Our data supports strategic decisions in business development, competitive approaches, and expansion.

Additionally, our data enhances the consistency and quality of existing datasets. Users can easily map data to check for accuracy and correct errors.

With over 200 sources, including governments, petroleum companies, fuel card providers, and crowd sourcing, Xavvy offers comprehensive information. Alongside base data like name/brand, address, geo-coordinates, and opening hours, we provide detailed insights into available fuel types, accessibility, special services, and payment options for each station.

High data quality is crucial for delivering an excellent customer experience, especially when displaying gas station information on maps or applications. We continuously enhance our processing procedures to improve data quality through:

• Regular quality controls (e.g., monitoring dashboards)
• Geocoding systems to correct and specify coordinates
• Cleaning and standardizing datasets
• Considering current developments and mergers
• Expanding data sources to compare different datasets

Explore our other data offerings and gain valuable market insights on gas stations directly from the experts!

This isopach map shows the thickness of the interval from the top of the Travis Peak or Hosston Formations to the top of the Cotton Valley Group. The map was produced by first subtracting the values of the top of the Travis Peak or Hosston from those of the top of the Cotton Valley Group. This resulted in a data set of 8,585 values for which locations were available. After deleting the wells with obvious data problems, a total of 8414 wells were used to generate the map. The data are provided as both lines and polygons, and the proprietary wells that penetrate this interval are graphically displayed as quarter-mile cells.

The well information was initially retrieved from the IHS Energy Group, PI/Dwights PLUS Well Data on CD-ROM, which is a proprietary, commercial database containing information for most oil and gas wells in the U.S. Cells were developed as a graphic solution to overcome the problem of displaying proprietary PI/Dwights PLUS Well Data. No proprietary data are displayed or included in the cell maps. The data from PI/Dwights PLUS Well Data are current as of April 2001.

Mapping Resources on energy infrastructure and potential implemented as part of the North American Cooperation on Energy Information (NACEI) between the Department of Energy of the United States of America, the Department of Natural Resources of Canada, and the Ministry of Energy of the United Mexican States. Natural Gas Processing Plants: Facilities designed to recover natural gas liquids from a stream of natural gas. These facilities control the quality of the natural gas to be marketed. Refineries: Facilities that separate and convert crude oil or other feedstock into liquid petroleum products, including upgraders and asphalt refineries. Liquefied Natural Gas Terminals: Natural gas onshore facilities used to receive, unload, load, store, gasify, liquefy, process and transport by ship, natural gas that is imported from a foreign country, exported to a foreign country, or for interior commerce. Power Plants, 100 MW or more: Stations containing prime movers, electric generators, and auxiliary equipment for converting mechanical, chemical, and/or fission energy into electric energy with an installed capacity of 100 megawatts or more. Renewable Power Plants, 1 MW or more: Stations containing prime movers, electric generators, and auxiliary equipment for converting mechanical, chemical into electric energy with an installed capacity of 1 Megawatt or more generated from renewable energy, including biomass, hydroelectric, pumped-storage hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, and wind. Natural Gas Underground Storage: Sub-surface facilities used for storing natural gas. The facilities are usually hollowed-out salt domes, geological reservoirs (depleted oil or gas field) or water bearing sands (called aquifers) topped by an impermeable cap rock. Border Crossings: Electric transmission lines, liquids pipelines and gas pipelines. Solar Resource, NSRDB PSM Global Horizontal Irradiance (GHI): Average of the hourly Global Horizontal Irradiance (GHI) over 17 years (1998-2014). Data extracted from the National Solar Radiation Database (NSRDB) developed using the Physical Solar Model (PSM) by National Renewable Energy Laboratory ("NREL"), Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE"). Solar Resource, NSRDB PSM Direct Normal Irradiance (DNI): Average of the hourly Direct Normal Irradiance (DNI) over 17 years (1998-2014). Data extracted from the National Solar Radiation Database (NSRDB) developed using the Physical Solar Model (PSM) by National Renewable Energy Laboratory ("NREL"), Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE"). The participating Agencies and Institutions shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described and/or contained herein. These data and related graphics, if available, are not legal documents and are not intended to be used as such. The information contained in these data is dynamic and may change over time and may differ from other official information. The Agencies and Institutions participants give no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the California State Water Resources Control Board compiled and analyzed data for the purpose of mapping groundwater salinity in selected oil and gas fields in California. The data for the Fruitvale and Rosedale Ranch oil fields include well construction data, digitized borehole geophysical data, geochemical analyses of water samples from oil and gas wells and groundwater wells, geological formation depths, and the groundwater total dissolved solids (TDS) calculations used in an accompanying manuscript. These data have been compiled from many sources and span several decades. The well construction data includes attributes such as the date drilling began (spud date), well depth, the depth of top producing perforation, and borehole orientation. These data have been in archived scanned pages in raster format on the Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) website. Similarly, the borehole geophysical data, measured by oil companies, has been archived in raster format. This project has converted the borehole geophysical data from selected oil and gas wells into a computer readable numerical format. The geochemical analyses have also been archived in scanned formats, but now have been compiled into numerical datasets in additional data releases by Metzger and others (2018) and Gans and others (2018). All of the data compiled and analyzed are part of the California State Water Resources Control Board's Program of Regional Monitoring of Water Quality in Areas of Oil and Gas Production and the USGS California Oil, Gas, and Groundwater (COGG) program.

In 2023, the majority of oil worldwide was produced in the Middle East, which accounted for around 31.5 percent of the global output that year. Home to large hydrocarbon reserves, many of the world’s largest petrostates are located here. North America was the second largest oil producer, followed by the Commonwealth of Independent States. Global crude oil production In 2022, global oil production stood at almost 94 million barrels per day. Amongst the various crude oil producing countries in the world, the United States came in first, accounting for nearly 19 percent of global oil production in 2022. In comparison, Algeria was in the last position accounting for only 1.6 percent of the global oil production. Global oil companies In 2022, Saudi Aramco, a state-owned petroleum and natural gas company in Saudi Arabia was one of the top oil companies in terms of daily crude oil production, with a daily production volume of nearly 13.6 million barrels per day. In contrast, Sinopec, a Chinese oil company, which largely focuses on refining, reported a daily production of 769,000 barrels. Due in part to its position as refining leader, Sinopec claimed the highest revenue among global oil and gas companies, reaching nearly 373 billion U.S. dollars in 2023.

The lower Paleogene Wilcox Group crops out around the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico Basin and is a major coal-bearing unit and a primary oil and gas producer in the lower Paleogene section of the Gulf Coast region. The outcrop distribution of the Wilcox Group and other coal-bearing strata of the Gulf Coast region was compiled as part of a U.S. Geological Survey National Coal Assessment (Warwick and others, 1997). A structure contour map of the top of the Wilcox Group was constructed as part of a U.S. Geological Survey Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas of the northern Gulf of Mexico coastal region (Warwick, 2017). This surface, mainly constructed using data from oil and gas wells, depicts the overall configuration of the Wilcox Group near the outcrop belt, within the Mississippi Embayment, and near the present-day coastline where the Wilcox Group crosses over the Lower Cretaceous shelf margin in the subsurface. The structure contour map of the top of the Wilcox Group was used to help define the thermal maturity of a specific source-rock interval as part of the oil and gas assessment. This digital data release captures in digital form the mapped outcrop distribution and structural configuration of the Wilcox Group from the previously published U.S. Geological Survey assessment-related studies of the Gulf Coast region (Warwick and others, 1997; Warwick, 2017). Both the geologic map polygons and structure contours were digitized and attributed as GIS data sets so that these data could be used in digital form as part of U.S. Geological Survey and other studies of the region.

This digital data release contains geospatial geologic and paleontological data of the 1° x2 °, 1:250,000 Limon quadrangle covering eastern Colorado and western Kansas. The dataset is a digital reproduction of previously published U.S. Geological Survey field mapping which illustrates the spatial configuration of primarily Quaternary surficial units overlying upper Miocene, Oligocene, Paleocene, and Upper Cretaceous bedrock (Sharps, 1980). This quadrangle contains numerous outcrop of the Ogallala Formation, which is a prolific freshwater aquifer throughout the broader great plains. A structure contour map of the top of the Dakota Sandstone are included, which was constructed using selected oil and gas well logs (Sharps, 1980). The Dakota Sandstone is a productive hydrocarbon reservoir within the Limon quadrangle, and the broader Denver-Julesburg Basin. Point data for Mesozoic invertebrate fossil collection localities are depicted on the map, depicted with either Denver or Washingt ...