Post on 30-Aug-2020
transcript
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
PETROLEUM GEOLOGY OF THE CENTRAL COASTAL BASINS ASSESSMENT PROVINCE, CALIFORNIA
FOR THE1987 NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF
UNDISCOVERED OIL AND GAS RESOURCES
by
Caroline M. Isaacs1
Open-File Report 89-450 D
This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
1U.S. Geological Survey345 Middlefield Road, MS 999Menlo Park, California 94025
1992
CONTENTS
Introduction...........................................................................^^^Province Location............................................................................................................................... 1Structural Setting................................................................................................................................ 1Stratigraphy..........................................................................................................................^Source rocks.............................................................^Burial history, thermal maturity, and timing of migration.........................................................21Hydrocarbon occurrence.................................................................................................................22
Geographic distribution..............................................................................................................22Stratigraphic and structural habitat of petroleum..................................................................23Basis for play definition........................................................................................................w^^
Neogene Play.....................................................................................................................................24Play defirn'tion....................................................Reservoirs.............................................................................................^^Traps and seals.............................................................................................................................24Oil characteristics..............................................._Depth of occurrence....................................................................................................................25Exploration status ........................................................................................................................37
History......................................................................................................................................37Future potential......................................................................................................................37
Acknowledgments...............................................^References .........................................................................................................................................44
Figures1. Index maps......................................................................................................................................4
A. Assessment province and play boundary .............................................................................4B. Isopachs of Tertiary sediment................................................................................................ 5C. Neogene basins of California margin (offshore) ................................................................6D. Major structural features........................................................................................................7
2. Interpretations of geologic history.............................................................................................. 8A. Terrane model for pre-Eocene California margin............................................................. 8B. Paleogeographic model of Eocene California margin....................................................... 9C. Plate tectonic model of Tertiary California margin......................................................... 10D. Evolution of Tertiary California margin (offshore)......................................................... 11
3. Cross-sectioris.........................................................................................................................^4. Stratigraphic columns and correlation charts......................................................................... 13
A. Pre-Neogene correlation chart............................................................................................ 13B. Map for pre-Neogene correlation chart............................................................................. 14C. Cuyama district Stratigraphic sections............................................................................... 15D. Salinas district Stratigraphic column................................................................................... 16E. Salinas district correlation chart.......................................................................................... 17F. La Honda district correlation chart..................................................................................... 18
CONTENTS - cont'd.
5. Neogene paleobathymetric histories........................................................................................ 19A. Cuyama district...................................................................................................................... 19B. Salinasdistrict.............................................................................................................^
6. Oil field maps...............................................................................................................................26A. Cuyama district ......................................................................................................................26B. Salinas district............................................................................................................^C. La Honda district...................................................................................................................28
7. Trap types .............................................................A. Structural trap, South Cuyama field...................................................................................29B. Structural trap, Russell Ranch field....................................................................................30C. Subthrust structural trap, Morales Canyon field ..............................................................31D. Combination trap, San Ardo field..................................................................................... 32E. Faulted anticlinal trap, King City field...............................................................................33F. Combination trap, Monroe Swell field...............................................................................34
8. Potential reservoir distribution, Salinas district......................................................................35A. Distribution of middle Miocene sandstone....................................................................... 35B. Distribution of upper Miocene sandstone .........................................................................36
Tables1. Field data for major fields (Nehring).......................................................................................392. Oil production and reserves for minor fields ..........................................................................403. Field data (California Division of Oil and Gas).....................................................................41
INTRODUCTION
This report presents a summary of the geology used as a basis for the U.S. Geological Survey's 1987 assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources in the Central Coastal Basins assessment province. The petroleum geology was taken for the most part from published sources, principally Baldwin (1971) and California Division of Oil and Gas (1974).
The assessment was made on a base level of discovered oil and gas resources (cumulative production plus proved reserves) from the Nehring data base as of 12/31/83 (NRG Associates, 1984) which includes only fields exceeding 1 MMBOE (million barrels oil equivalent). These production and reserve figures correspond to those in California Division of Oil and Gas (1984) which includes fields of all sizes. Reserve additions due to field development or new discoveries declared after 12/31/83 by the California Division of Oil and Gas were for assessment purposes regarded as undiscovered resources.
Total baseline resources in the assessment province through 1983 were 884 MMBOE. These included cumulative production of 665 MMbbl (million barrels) oil and condensate and 343 Bcf (billion cubic feet) gas, for a province total of 722 MMBOE (California Division of Oil and Gas, 1984). Proved reserves totalled 161 MMbbl oil and condensate, and 7 Bcf gas, together representing 162 MMBOE (California Division of Oil and Gas, 1984).
PROVINCE LOCATION
The Central Coastal Basins assessment province is located in central coastal California. As defined (Figure 1A), the province is bounded on the south by the Big Pine fault, on the northeast by the San Andreas fault, and on the west (offshore) by the western limit of state waters within 3 miles of shore from Monterey (at the south) to San Francisco (at the north). The southwest boundary of the assessment province generally follows the Sur-Nacimiento fault but north of 36°N excludes the approximate extent of exposed pre- Cretaceous metamorphic basement rocks.
Geologically speaking, the assessment province includes the Neogene Cuyama, Salinas, and La Honda Basins (Figure IB), together with slivers of the Neogene outer Santa Cruz and Bodega Basins in the offshore (Figure 1C).
STRUCTURAL SETTING
The Central Coastal Basins assessment province is bounded by two major northwest- southeast trending faults, the San Andreas and Sur-Nacimiento faults, and includes the onshore portion of the Salinian block together with adjacent nearshore areas (Figure ID). Basement rocks in the Salinian block consist of Cretaceous granites and metamorphic r
rocks distinct from the basement rocks of adjacent structural blocks to the east and west (Figure 2A).
The onshore part of the assessment province generally consists of low-lying areas of Neogene and younger deposits (including the Neogene Cuyama, Salinas, and La Honda Basins), located more or less between northwest-southeast trending mountains of the Coast Ranges that expose pre-Neogene strata and basement rocks. The offshore part of the assessment province lies at a complex tectonic juncture of the San Gregorio-Hosgri and Sur-Nacimiento fault systems (Figure ID) near the edges of the Neogene outer Santa Cruz and Bodega Basins (Figure 1C).
Prevailing views of the formation of west coast Neogene basins are based on modifications of Atwater's (1970) and Atwater and Molnar's (1973) plate tectonic model for the west coast of North America. In this model, Neogene basins were formed at a triple junction (between the North American, Pacific, and Farallon Plates) that migrated north and south from the vicinity of southern California between 29 Ma and present (Figure 2C). Various summaries address the formation of basins within this setting (e.g. Blake and others, 1978; Howell and others, 1980), and a diagrammatic representation of the development of the central California margin is given in Figure 2D. Cross-sections of the assessment province are shown in Figure 3.
The Miocene and younger structural style of the assessment province has generally been regarded as dominated by wrench tectonics and associated vertical strike-slip faulting (e.g., Howell and others, 1980). However, compressional tectonics and associated thrust and high-angle reverse faulting were more recently advocated as the dominant structural style in the development of nearby offshore areas (Crouch and others, 1984). Subsequent to the assessment, major anticlinal structures in the Cuyama district and adjacent areas in the southern Coast Ranges and Transverse Ranges have been related to fault-bend and fault-propagation folds in a Pliocene and younger fold and thrust belt (Davis and Namson, 1987; Namson and Davis, 1990).
STRATIGRAPHY
The Central Coastal Basins assessment province is included in the Salinian composite terrane of Vedder and others (1983). Basement rocks in this terrane consist of Cretaceous or older granitic rocks and (locally) high temperature metamorphic rocks (Vedder and others, 1983, and references therein). The overlying Upper Cretaceous and lowermost Paleocene strata for the most part are sequences of clastic marine sedimentary rocks (Pigeon Point, Locatelli, Merle, Dip Creek, Asuncion, and Pattiway Formations together with various other including unnamed strata; see Figure 4A). These sequences are overlain throughout the assessment province by an unconformity representing most of Paleocene time (Figure 4A; Vedder and others, 1983). According to Vedder and others' (1983) terrane model, pre-Eocene strata were deposited far distant from the present California margin and sutured to the North American craton about 40 Ma (Figure 2A).
During the Eocene, a series of marine basins developed along the California continental borderland (Figure 2B; Nilsen and Clarke, 1975). Included within the assessment province are the Sierra Madre, Northern Santa Lucia, Point Lobos, La Honda, and Point San Pedro basins (or parts thereof; Figure 2B). Strata deposited in these basins were largely submarine fan deposits represented by thick marine sequences for the most part composed of sandstone, conglomerate, and mudstone (Matilija Sandstone, Juncal Formation, Church Creek Formation, Reliz Canyon Formation, Pinecate Formation, San Juan Bautista Formation, Butano Sandstone, and various other including unnamed strata; see Figure 4A). Locally, mudstone is also predominant as in the Cozy Dell Shale in the southeastern part of the assessment area (Figure 4A) and the Two Bar Shale and Rices Mudstone in La Honda district (Figure 4F). The Oligocene to early Miocene period in the La Honda basin is represented by a marine sequence generally deposited at bathyal or even abyssal depths (Stanley, 1984; Figure 4F).
In the Cuyama and Salinas districts, by contrast, Eocene deposits are unconformably overlain by nonmarine conglomerates and sandstones of probable late Oligocene or early Miocene age including the Simmler, Caliente, and Plush Ranch Formations (Figure 4A) and Berry Formation (Figures 4D and 4E). These strata mark the beginning about 20 Ma of Neogene basin formation (Figure 2C) represented by a major episode of basin subsidence and filling in the Salinas district (Graham, 1976; Figure 5B) and two such episodes in the Cuyama district (Lagoe, 1987a, 1987b; Figure 5A). Strata deposited during these episodes include shallow - and, in the Cuyama basin, partly bathyal - marine deposits of sandstone and mudrock (early Miocene Vaqueros Formation), overlain by mainly bathyal fine-grained calcareous and biosiliceous mudrocks (late early to late Miocene Monterey Formation), in turn locally overlain by bathyal to neritic sandstones and mudrocks (late Miocene Santa Margarita Formation). In the Cuyama district, the Monterey Formation is very localized, interfmgers with inner shelf marine sandstones of the Branch Canyon Sandstone, and is partly coeval with nonmarine strata of the Caliente Formation (Lagoe, 1984,1987; Figure 4C). In the Salinas district, the Monterey Formation is generally much thicker (max, 8600 ft; see Figure 4D) and more widespread, but locally interfingers with marine shelf sandstones of the Tierra Redonda and Santa Margarita Formations (Figures 4D, 4E, and 5B). Overlying Pliocene and younger nonmarine strata include the Qatal and Morales Formations in the Cuyama district, and the Paso Robles Formation in the Salinas district.
In the La Honda district, early Miocene strata included in the Vaqueros Formation are bathyal turbidite sandstones overlain by locally varying strata (including in places the Monterey Formation, Santa Cruz Mudstone, etc.) deposited in periods interrupted by several episodes of uplift and erosion during the Miocene (Figure 4F). A thick Pliocene mudrock (Purisima Formation) locally caps the Neogene stratigraphic sequence in this area.
Many studies describe the detailed stratigraphy and structure in the assessment province. For the Cuyama district, included are Carman (1964), Hill and others (1958), Vedder and Repenning (1965, 1975), Vedder (1968, 1970), Vedder and others (1973), Bohannon (1975), and Dibblee (1982). For the Salinas district are Durham (1963, 1964,
San Francisco
Assessment province boundary
Pacific OceanSANTA MARIA
. BASINAssessment _ _ VENTURA BASIN
Province Assessment
Santa Barbara
Figure 1A. Location of the Central Coastal Basins assessment province and Neogene play boundary.
Figure IB. Tertiary isopach maps. Reprinted from Baldwin (1971) by permission.
Half Moon Bay
int Ano Nuevo
36° -
35° -
124
Figure 1C. Generalized boundaries of late Tertiary shelf and slope basins and locations of offshore exploratory wells on the central California continental margin (from McCulloch, 1989).
Figure ID. Major structural features onshore (left; reprinted from Baldwin, 1971, by permission) and offshore (right; from McCulloch, 1987, 1989). On right diagram, teeth are shown on up-thrown side of high-angle reverse faults or upper plate of thrust faults, and shaded offshore areas are late Tertiary basins. Abbreviations for faults (near the assessment province) are: SAP - San Andreas, SF - Sur, NF - Nacimiento, SNF - Sur-Nacimiento, SGF - San Gregorio, HF - Hosgri, SLBF - Santa Lucia Bank, PF - Pilarcitos. Structural highs: SCH - Santa Cruz, FH - Farallon. Blocks: PPB - Pigeon Point, ANB-Ano Nuevo.
8
SUTURED TERRANES
SUR-OBISPO COMPOSITE TERRANE
SALINIAN COMPOSITE TERRANE
50
40
30
20
10
-10
-20
SID Fr*Dcitco
B
40 80 120 TIME (myBP)
160
Figure 2A. Pre-Eocene geologic history of the Santa Maria and Santa Barbara-Ventura basins. (A) Terranes of Southern California and northern Baja California showing the Santa Lucia-Orocopia allochthon (diagonal lines) and the Baja Borderland allochthon (stippled pattern). From Howell and others (1987). (B) Proposed latitude trajectories of the allochthons (and their constituent terranes) shown in A. From Howell and others (1987). (C) Generalized pre-Eocene stratigraphic column for the Salinian composite terrane, and the Sur-Obispo composite terrane (including the San Simeon terrane and the Stanley Mountain terrane). Modified slightly from Vedder and others (1983).
PACIFIC
OCEAN CARLOCK (PRESENT TRACE)
PACIFIC OCEAN
50 100 MILES
50 100 KILOMETRES
Figure 2B. Generalized paleogeographic map of early Tertiary California, restored for offset along the present San Andreas fault. City abbreviations: SAC-Sacramento; SF-San Francisco; BAK-Bakersfield; MON-Monterey; LA-Los Angeles; SD-San Diego. From Nilsen and Clarke (1975).
Figu
re 2
C.
Sche
mat
ic m
odel
of
inte
ract
ion
of P
acif
ic F
aral
lon
and
Nor
th A
mer
ican
pl
ates
for
six
Ter
tiary
tim
e in
terv
als,
sho
win
g tim
e of
ini
tial
deve
lopm
ent,
loca
tion,
and
ge
nera
l sh
ape
of N
eoge
ne b
asin
s th
at f
orm
ed (
from
Bla
ke a
nd o
ther
s, 1
978;
bas
ed o
n A
twat
er a
nd M
olna
r, 19
73).
ER
, Eel
Riv
er b
asin
; PA
, Poi
nt A
rena
bas
in; B
, Bod
ega
basi
n;
SC,
Sant
a C
ruz
basi
n;
OSC
, O
uter
San
ta C
ruz
basi
n; S
M,
Sant
a M
aria
bas
in;
SCB
, So
uthe
rn C
alif
orni
a ba
sin;
SV
, Se
basi
an V
izca
ino
basi
n; T
B,
Tor
tuga
s ba
sin;
and
M,
Mag
dale
na b
orde
rlan
d.
r«r*
lM p
toM
[ J
Nw
tk A
nwrt
eM p
Mt«
W
S«
MM
tlM
t«
W
r«ta
tl««
ta M
M
N*r
th
rltf
f*
fwtt
11
LE-0
TRANSPRESSION LP-H (5-3Ma)
TRANSTENSION M-P
TRANSTENSION O-M («v23Ma)
Figure 2D. Diagrammatic representation of the development of the offshore central California margin (from McCulloch, 1989). K, Cretaceous; E, Eocene; O, Oligocene; M, Miocene, P, Pliocene; H, Holocene.
12
Son GregorioFoult
SHORE Half Moon-J-irp
Son Andreos Fault
Boon Iconics
SANTA CRUZ MOUNTAINSzo.ooo1
w
Son Andrtos Fault
SW
SALINAS VALLEY
20,000*
ES- Oil Sand PC - Pliocene Continental P - Pliocini
Upper MioceneMiddle MiocimLewar MioceneMid. Mio (or lower)ContinentalFroncitconPre (?) Franciscan Marble
UM- M.M LM MC K|f
IS NE
Nocimicnta Foult
F F 1 (Section bfMk)
Voltey
Cuyomo Whiterock Morales Thrust) /Thrust iThrust
C«ll*nll Ml. C«rra«
Son Andr*os Foult
FigureS. Cross sections in the Central Coastal Basins assessment province. A-B across northern Santa Cruz Mountains. C-D across Salinas Valley. E-F-F'-G across Cuyama basin area. Locations of the sections are shown in Figure IB. Reprinted from Baldwin (1971) by permission.
13
SALINIAN COMPOSITE TERRANE
TIME- ROCK UNITS
POINT RETES. POIN T SAN PEDRC. PIGEOK POINT, POU" LOB?'.
(Gallona;, 1977. ill et al.. 1977,
et al.. 19S9, INiM-Esfatia--, 19t5,
.tmon, 1978;
SANTA CRUZ MTNSSOUTMMfST Of SAK
ANDREAS FAULT
(Clarl and RletMn.1973. Green andClarl,. 1979, Cl*»-
ngs et al.. 1962,tonplon. 1966)
(Alien, 1946, Clart Rletaan, 1973,
and Schenck. I9?S, lloss. 1977)
13NORTHERN SANTA
LUCIA RANGE-INDIANSRANCH AREA
(GralMW, 1979, Ruetz. 1979. Ross, 1977)
LAKE NACIMIENTO
(Taliaferro, 1944; Durham, 1974, Novell »t !., 1977)
ISLA PAMZA RANGE, POZO SUMMIT TO
OWCIA MOUNTAIN
(Howl! et !., 1977, unpub. d*ta, 1980; Ross. 1977)
SOUTHEASTER* SItRRA NNNE MOUNTAINS
Madulce sjmcltne
Uedder. 1967. 1468; Vedder et <!.. 1973)
EASTERN CALIENTERMCt iocnncio
VALLEY
(C»HMn. 1*64; Mill 1., 19S8; tohtn-
non, 197S. Vtdoer nd Repemlnf. 197S)
HtSTtM SAN GAMICL MOUNTAINS
(Kooser, 1980, S*9«. 1975)
EVENTS
JFPOS FORMATION 900 r ss; nu-ine, 60
llo» bis«lt
ZAYANH SANDSTONE 550 r ss, sis, cs';
»AOUtRO$ FORMATION 400 P ss, Mrtne
UNNAMED RED BEDS 36S r breccit, cgl,
BUTANP SANDSTONE ?450; r ss, egl marine
PINECATE FORMATION 35 in ss, locil c;l,
urine
SAN JUAN BAUT ISTAFORMAT!OS
1525i m s», ill, urine
MAA/WNAACAWELO rORMA-JON,
>t. Reyes, ft. S«nPedro,400« m ss;c9',
»S.
LOCATEILI FORMATIO" r sis, SS,
y jrinj te
not 1n contact
PIGEO* PT rORMA'Il 330C if ss. sis, cgl,marine
not 1n contact
CHURCK CREEKFORMAT I OK
365: m ss, Ms, c
RELI2 CANYON FORMATION
VAOUEROS FORMATION740: is; wrine
SIMHLER FORMATION I8Si elji noiiMr-
VAOUCROS ronwiON230 * ss, subordin- <te cgl; ixrtne
CALIENTE FORMATION 100: ss; cgl. Ms; onurtne
VMMCROS FORMATION 71S: ss; Mrtne
CALIENTESIW.ER AND PLUSH RANCH FORMATIONS
900:, 91S. 1830: «.respectively.
»ASWCZ FORMAT IW 3800 m, egl. ss. suborittMte sis; noipurfne
II
UNNAMFD STRATA ItOO: ss, egl. Ms. Mrine
COZT DtlL'SHAL 36S Ms, subordin ate ss; Mrfne
WT1L1JA SANDSTONE 500: ss, lubordtn- te sis; Mrtne
JUNCAL FORMATION 7600; ss. Ms, oci! cgl; aartne
UNNAMED STRATA 670 sh. si; «*rtn«
MERLE FORMA^IOK 1S?5 r ss. Ms. Cll
DIP CREEK FORMATION IOC1 r ss. cgl. Ms;
UNNAMED STRATA 3400; * ss, Ms. cgl; Mrine
UNNAMED STRATA 0 n ss, cgl, Ms;
ASUNCION FORMATION ?300t ss. Ms, eg), *<rtne and non- inirinef)
base not exposed
PATTIUAT FORMATION 1070> m si. MS cgl; Mrtne
se not eiposed
SAN FRANCISOU1TOFORMATION
4000: I" SS, 09!, ds; Mrine
oclis, cMe'ly pe'utc scl'st and
(age uncertain)
netasediiiientar/ rocks, chie'lj Mr- ble, calc-nornfel s,
metasedimentar; rocks, quirtiofeUs- pathic gneiss, gri-v-
granttic rocks (age uncenam)
rnetasedlMntar; rocks; Mrble, schistose Inclusions 1fi granitic rtetii
granite east of Ozenj »iult (subsur face, age uncertain) Mesozoic and Precan-
brttn gnelsslc ilttc rocks
'Ȥ*
Mesototc plutomcand Pr«caM>ritngneissic rocks
a«
Figure 4A. Pre-Neogene correlation chart illustrating known and inferred Stratigraphic and structural discontinuities in the Salinian composite terrane. Stratigraphic units, maximum or aggregated thicknesses, and predominant rock types are shown for localities 10-18 shown in Figure 4B. From Vedder and others (1983); not all references given are included in this report.
14
38
I23 C
50 100 KM
36'
121
[13)
36°-
SALINIAN COMPOSITE TERRANE
I2I C
SUR-OBISPO COMPOSITE TERRANE 34<
Figure 4B. Location of stratigraphic columns in pre-Neogene correlation chart (Figure 4A). From Vedder and others (1983).
15
AiiOTT CANYON
PADRONES CANYON
' NONMAMINE NOCKS
' 'INNER SHELF SANDSTONE
kmI I OUTER SHELF SILTY SANDSTONE I I AND SILTSTONE
NW
WhiterockBluffShale
Santa Marganla Branch Canyon Undifferentiated
Saltos Shale
on
. ' Caliente
. Formation
Branch iTj^ Canyon ^<^Sandstone * -
Painted Rock Sandstone
Figure 4C. Summary Miocene stratigraphic section of southeast Caliente area (above); from Lagoe (1984) after Clifton (1981). Summary Neogene stratigraphic section beneath Cuyama Valley (below) from Lagoe (1984). For the pre-Neogene section in this area, see Figure 4A.
16
Cumulative maximum thickness, m feet
1000'
2000 -
3000 -
4000-
5000-
6000-
7000-
8000-
9000 -
10.000-
11.000-
12.000-
13.000-
14,000-
15.000-
16.000-
[QUATERNARY
| TERTIARY
PRE-TERTIARY
Recent
Pteisl
7
PIlO
|
Oligc
ocene
cene
*
icene
Eocene
Stratigraphic unit
AlluviumOlder alluvium
Paso Robtes Formation
Regionalunconformity(?)
Unnamed formation
Gradational
Monterey Shale
Gradational and
interfingenng contact
Vaqueros Formation
Reliz Canyon Formation
UNCONFORMITY
contact
Sandholdt
Gradationalcontact
Upper member
Interfingeringcontact
Lower member
Gradationalcontact
Upper member
Middle memberLower member
Basement complex
Generalized hthotogy
* 6 o o
0 ° o o -D 0 00
ocooVo".0
X X X X X
,,___",-
X X X X X
~\~^~
T. tTVTL
x~x"Vx5X X X^l-T.
TTOLxTx1. X.X.X.T.
X\ X X X.
xTx x"x"xX. X.X.X.X
X X V X X
x~x. x~x~x
L X V T.-Tx -u v x -vX X X. V X X X X 1- Xx x x"x?x
X~ X~T-~
x x Cx~x
r-J-i-^r
-------
00
0 0 <
0 0 « «
e o o <
-_-_-_-.
* y*'* K
*'"^' fs'*'
< XKXXX J
k>:xS:x *^ x ' v«'<
v * ^' N K
Sand and gravelSandy gravel and sandy silt
Conglomerate, rounded pebbles of porcelaneous rock and chert m matrix of fine to coarse sand and abun dant silt, generally calcareous;
Sandstone, yellowish-gray and very pale orange, poorly sorted, poorly bedded, generally calcareous;
Mudstone. very pale orange and yellowish-gray, massive.
Sandstone, very fine grained, yellowish-gray, massive, conchoidal fracture, ncncalcareous:
Sandstone, medium- to coarse-grained, yellowish- gray and yellowish-brown, mainly noncalcareous;
. Mudstone. sittstone. and claystone. yellowish-gray and / \ very pale orange, mainly noncalcareous: minor porce- / \ lamte and diatomrte. /
Porcelaneous mudstone and shate. chiefly light olive-gray and yellowish-gray, hackly fracture;
Porcelanite. pale yellowish-brown to white, hard, massive, fractured:
Mudstone and shale, chiefly very pale orange or yellowish- gray, massive to thin bedded, noncalcareous;
Carbonate beds and concretions, grayish-orange, pale yellowish-orange, and pale yellowish-brown, hard, dense.
Shale, chiefly very pale orange, light olive-gray, and gray ish-orange, hard calcareous:
Also contains porcelaneous shale, sittstone. sandstone, chert, and carbonate beds
Sandstone, arkosic. yellowish-gray, pale yellowish-brown, and pale-olive, fine- to coarse-grained, calcareous, fossiliferous:
Sfltstone. pale yellowish-brown, massive, hackly fracture.
Sandstone, arkosic. conglomeratic, yellowish-gray and grayish-orange, medium- to coarse-grained, locally cross-stratified, chiefly calcareous:
Local bads and lenses of conglomerate.
Sandstone, arkosic. yellowish-gray, light olive-gray, and pete-olive, medium- to coarse-grimed, chiefly calcare ous.
/Sittstone. kght olive-gray, mainly noncalcareous. hackly \ ' fracture, ellipsoidal calcareous concretions, fossilif-
erous
Sandstone, arkosic. kght olive-gray, fine- to coarse- \ grained, mainly noncalcareous. /
Schist, gneiss, hornblendite. crystalline limestone; cut by veins and dikes of quartz, aplrte, and pegmatite, and intruded by granodKXite.
Thickness
Approximate maximum m feet
60
1400
1000
6600
2000
2000
1100
1500
350
.180^
i 8
I
Near King City
Near mouth of Thompson Canyon
Northeast corner Reliz Canyon quadrangle
In subsurface in sec. 4, T. 20 S., R.7E.
In sec. 31. T. 19 S. R.6E
In sec 26. T.20 S.. R 6E
In sec 31. T20 S . R. 7 E,
In sec. 21. T. 20 S.. R.6E.
Near SW cor sec. y 21. T. 20 S.. R. 6E. ̂ do ^
Remarks
Base marked in most places by hard conglomerate with Opaline matrix. Nonma- nne.
Marine
Marine. Absent east of Salinas River. Contains sandstone in subsurface near margin of hills west of Salinas River.
Marine
Marine
Probably nonmarine
Probably marme
Marine
EXPLANATION
Siliceous shale Calcareous shale
Porcelaneous rocks Carbonate beds and concretions
JOOOOOOGJ |OOPOOPI
Conglomerate
Figure 4D. Stratigraphic column in the Reliz Canyon area. From Durham (1963).
17
WEST OF JOLON-RINCONADA FAULT ZONE EAST OF JOLON-RINCONADA FAULT ZONE
Paso Robles Formation (Pliocene and Pleistocene( ?))
Paso Robles Formation (Pliocene and Pleistocene!?))
Pancho Rico Formation (Pliocene)
Pancho Rico Formation (Pliocene) t (Overlies basement complex in northeastern part of map area).
Santa Margarita Formation (Miocene!
Buttle Member of Monterey Formation (Miocene)
Hamas Member of Montarey Formation (Miocene)Sandhokft Membai of Monterey Formation
<Miootrw)Tierra Radonda
Formation (Miocene
Vaqueros Formation (Miocene)
Santa Margarita Formation (Miocene)
Sandholdt Member of Monterey F Tierra Radonda Formation (Miocene)
Vaqueros Formation (Miocene)
Berry Formation (Oligocenei?))
'Buttle Member of Monterey Formation (Miocene)
Mames Member of Monteray Formation(M40CMW)
Unnamed formation (Cretaceous and Pateocene)
Reliz Canyon Formation (Eocene)
Basement complex (Pre-Tartiary)
SW SHELL LABARERE 27* 350 *
BEND IN Y SECTION
GENERALIZED LAND SURFACE SAN ARDO OIL FIELD
ENE ft PLEISTOCENE
ggPKllDOLE MIOCENE St. * COL (TMM. TMN)
SALINIAN BASEMENT
2000 4000 FT.
Figure 4E. Lateral relations (above) among formations in the southern Salinas Valley; from Durham (1974). Geologic cross-section (below) in the San Ardo oil field area; reprinted from Graham (1976) by permission (in part after Colvin, 1963).
BA
UTI
STA
A
RE
A.
15km
S
OU
THE
AS
T
PIG
EO
NP
OIN
TB
LOC
K
TIM
E S
CA
LE
(MY
)
OE
NE
RA
LIZE
D
ST
RA
TIO
RA
PH
IC
CO
LU
MN
S:
Mal
us b
ound
ary
""**
" (
unco
nlor
mily
)
hiat
us
P P MIOCENE § EOCENE i o
3
-20
-40
-90
ME
RC
eD*V
OU
NO
ER
Ml
t*
P*3N
O
f Q
l**
It
R »
WH
IS
HIL
LF
OR
*ni
i» H.:r
»
t FM
S
KE
1
IAT mf IO
N [HF
RA
NC
ISC
AN
A
SS
EM
BLA
GE
MO
NT
E&
EY
n I
Tp
» Y
OU
NG
ER
VA
QU
ER
OS
tt)
FOR
MA
TIO
N
7
SA
LIN
IAN
B
AS
EM
EN
T
Tp* Y
OU
NG
ER
Tsc?
Tm
TW
08
AR
SH
BU
TAN
O
SA
ND
STO
NE
Tp*Y
OU
NG
ER
Tsm
» T
sc
mnn
TW
06A
R S
H.
BU
TAN
O
SA
ND
STO
NE
BA
SE
ME
NT
UN
KN
OW
N
Tp»
YO
UN
GE
R
Tlo
* Tm
mm
.ZA
YA
NTE
fn S
S.
BU
TAN
O
SA
ND
STO
NE
LOC
ATE
LLI
FM
mum
SA
LIN
IAN
B
AS
EM
EN
T
Tp* Y
OU
NG
ER
VO
WR
ED
PW
Wm
JM a
c C
r- -,
C R
X »
E
OS
* M
E
FM
?rx
o:
BA
N J
UA
N
BA
UT
IST
A
FO
RM
AT
ION
GA
BB
RO
Figu
re 4
F.
Rep
rese
ntat
ive
stra
tigra
phic
col
umns
in
the
La
Hon
da b
asin
are
a (s
ectio
n 1
is ou
tsid
e th
e as
sess
men
t pro
vinc
e).
Tp,
Puris
ima
Form
atio
n; T
sc, S
anta
Cru
z M
udst
one;
Tsm
, Sa
nta
Mar
gari
ta S
ands
tone
; Tm
, Mon
tere
y Fo
rmat
ion,
Tlo
, Lom
pico
San
dsto
ne; T
la, L
ambe
rt S
hale
; Tvl
and
Tvc
, Vaq
uero
s Sa
ndst
one;
Tz,
Za
yant
e Sa
ndst
one;
Tm
b, M
inde
go B
asal
t, Ts
r, R
ices
Mud
ston
e. R
epri
nted
from
Sta
nley
(198
4) b
y pe
rmis
sion
.
00
19
MIDDLE CENOZOIC SEQUENCE CUYAMA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
MOR- ALES
SANT ARGAR
BRANCH CANYON
MONTEREY
VAQUEROS
il
OCffl
PAINTED ROCK
0* 0<
-o
X
««>V^^^V^
SELECTED
FORAMINIFERA
FTJ " - "
^ftfirt
NO VERTICAL
SCALE
Figure 5A. Paleobathymetry of middle Cenozoic rocks beneath Cuyama Valley, showing two distinct episodes of basin subsidence and filling. Paleobathymetric abbreviations: NM-nonmarine; IN-inner neritic; ON-outer neritic; UB-upper bathyal; MB-upper middle bathyal; LB-lower middle bathyal. Reprinted from Lagoe (1987a).
20
TIME 5
GENERAL AGE STAGE FORMATION LITHOLOGY1
50
ZUl
8s
aX
i
EOCENE
z <*Z 1°
I 5Z ui
0
LUIS.
RELIZ.
So
g2ULATISI/
PENUT.
Ulac
|
ccSvtUl
1Z
If
5
VAQUEROS
BERRY
zRELIZ CY
THEROCKS
LUCIA
SALINIAN BASEMENT
22.5'-'
PALEOBATHYMETRY1 (METERS)
SEDIMENTATION RATEA PALEOTECTONICS2
(METERS/M. YRS.) TIME
0 190t 3000 _____ , (FT7M.YRS.)
3000 8000 1 PtOTTED B¥ THICKNESS(FT.)_______2 PLOTTED BY ESTIMATED APE RANGE
Figure 5B. Tertiary paleobathymetry (above) in the Reliz Canyon area and middle Miocene paleogeography (below) in the Salinas basin. Modified slightly from Graham (1976) and reprinted by permission.
21
1965, 1966, 1968a, 1968b, 1970, 1974), Durham and Addicott (1964, 1965), Graham (1976, 1979a, 1979b), and Ruetz (1979). For the Santa Cruz Mountains or La Honda district are Alien (1946), Cummings and others (1962), Clark and Reitman (1973), Greene and Clark (1979), and Stanley (1984). For adjacent offshore areas are Hoskins and Griffiths (1971) and McCulloch (1987, 1989). A more complete bibliography for the southern part of the area is given by Heilbrunn-Tomson (1988).
SOURCE ROCKS
The Central Coastal Basins assessment province contains a variety of potential source rocks from Cretaceous to Pliocene in age. At the time of the assessment, little research was available except data on the Monterey Formation which was generally presumed to be the principal source rock in the two major petroleum-producing districts (Salinas and Cuyama).
The main source-rock study available was Kablanow (1986) who evaluated subsurface Monterey samples (mainly cuttings) from 8 wells in the central part of the Salinas Basin. Samples yielded TOC (total organic carbon) values in the range 0.8-5.5% (av 2.6%), with the organic matter generally type II or intermediate type II-III (as shown by elemental composition). Similar values of TOC (average lithotype values in the range 0.2-4.6%) and kerogen types were documented by Mertz (1984) for mainly surface samples from the lower part of the Monterey Formation (Sandholdt Member) in the area. A few samples of Eocene Juncal Formation in the mountains along the western boundary of the assessment province near the Cuyama district had TOC in the range 0.4-6.8% and type HI kerogens (interpreted from Rock-Eval pyrolysis) (Frizzell and Claypool, 1983).
Subsequent to the assessment, several source-rock studies were published or presented for the Cuyama basin. These generally concluded that the most probable major petroleum source in the Cuyama district is not the Monterey Formation but the early Miocene Soda Lake Shale Member of the Vaqueros Formation (Kornacki, 1988; Lillis, 1988; Lundell and Gordon, 1988), a unit sedimentologically similar to and more or less coeval with the Rincon Shale of the Ventura basin (Lagoe, 1987a).
BURIAL HISTORY, THERMAL MATURITY, AND TIMING OF MIGRATION
Because the major source rocks in the assessment province are Miocene in age, Neogene and especially late Neogene burial histories are of principal importance in evaluating oil generation and migration histories. Each district in the province has somewhat different characteristic burial histories. In the Cuyama district, the thickness of pre-upper Miocene Tertiary sediments in places exceeds 8000 ft (Figure IB) but younger strata were not rapidly deposited and are not today particularly thick, nowhere exceeding more than about 2000 ft (Figure IB). In the Salinas district, by contrast, upper Miocene and younger strata are as much as 8000 ft thick (Figure IB; Baldwin, 1971) and the
22
Monterey Formation as a whole in places exceeds 13,000 ft in thickness (Kablanow, 1986). In the Santa Cruz Mountain district, episodes of uplift and erosion occurred during parts of middle and late Miocene time (Stanley, 1984), and upper Miocene and younger strata exceed 4000 ft thickness mainly in the Half Moon Basin (Baldwin, 1971; Figure IB) which is filled for the most part with Pliocene sandstone and mudrocks of the Purisima Formation (Baldwin, 1971; Figure 3).
The only thermal maturation model available at the time of the assessment was Kablanow's (1986) study of the Monterey Formation in the central part of the Salinas basin. This study contains much valuable data on maturation of Monterey organic matter, including subsurface values for extractable hydrocarbon, some chromatographic parameters, and Rock-Eval pyrolysis corrected by extraction. (This latter correction adjusts for the heavy hydrocarbons and nitrogen-sulfur-oxygen compounds abundant in Monterey bitumen; see Kruge, 1983; Orr, 1983; Kablanow, 1986; Petersen and Hickey, 1987). By these criteria, mature (oil-generating) organic matter was considered to be present below 4500 ft (1.4 km) present-day depths in the center of the Salinas Trough (Kablanow, 1986).
Kablanow's (1986) study also addressed the history of oil generation and migration in the area. According to his model, in the lower part of the Monterey Formation in the central basin trough, sulfur-rich kerogen would have generated oil from about 8 to 6 Ma (in the temperature range 100-135 °C) with expulsion at 6000 ft of burial, and sulfur-poor kerogen would have generated oil from 5 Ma to the present (at temperatures exceeding 125 °C) with expulsion at 8000 ft. However, these conclusions are sensitive to many assumptions, for example assumptions regarding paleo heat flows (assumed to be high in the early Miocene, based on Hall's 1981 tectonic model of the Coast Ranges), thermal conductivity patterns in diatomaceous rocks (not well-known), present-day temperature gradients (not measured in equilibrium), etc. Other major unknowns were (1) whether the source kerogen is in fact sulfur-rich, sulfur-poor, or some combination; and (2) whether the heavy oils in the area are early-generated primary oils or biodegraded "normal" oils. (For a summary on early generation in the Monterey Formation, see Petersen and Hickey, 1987; Isaacs and Petersen, 1987.) Because of these uncertainties, models of the history of oil generation and migration were not considered sufficiently conclusive to be of particular value at the time of the assessment.
HYDROCARBON OCCURRENCE
Geographic Distribution
Discovered oil and gas resources (cumulative production plus proved reserves through 1983) in the assessment province total 884 MMBOE, including 826 MMbbl oil (93% of total province resources). Most resources are in the Salinas district with 545 MMBOE (62% of total province resources) and Cuyama district with 338 MMBOE oil (38% of total province resources), but most gas resources (»80% of province gas resources) are in the
23
Cuyama district. Additional resources of about 1.7 MMBOE oil («0.2% of total province resources) are located in the La Honda district.
Of total resources in the Salinas district, the vast majority (>99%) are in the Main area of the giant San Ardo field with remaining resources scattered among 9 other small fields or field areas (Tables 1-3). Resources in the Cuyama district are largely in the Main area of the South Cuyama field with 258 MMBOE (76% of the district total) and the Main area of the Russell Ranch field with 77 MMBOE (23% of the district total); another 3 MMbbl oil («1% of the district total) is scattered among 7 small fields and field areas (Tables 1-3).
Stratigraphic and structural habitat of petroleum
Most hydrocarbons in the Central Coastal Basins assessment province accumulated in permeable Miocene sandstones. In the Cuyama district, most oil is produced from shelfal marine sandstones of the Vaqueros Formation, principally the Dibblee sand of the Painted Rock Sandstone Member and the Colgrove sand of the Soda Lake Shale Member (Figure 4C; Table 3). Minor oil and gas are also produced from nonmarine sandstones in the Pliocene Morales Formation («1 MMbbl oil), the shelfal Miocene sandstones of the Branch Canyon Sandstone («1.5 MMbbl oil) and Santa Margarita Formation («2.5 MMbbl oil), and possibly the Soda Lake Shale Member of the Vaqueros Formation («1.4 MMbbl oil) (Table 3; Conservation Committee of California Oil and Gas Producers, 1986). Traps in the Cuyama district are mainly structural - complexly faulted anticlines, homoclines, and noses (Table 3; Figure 7A-7C). Some small traps are in subthrust structures sealed by overlying impermeable shale (Figure 7C).
In the Salinas district, the vast majority of oil is produced from the San Ardo field, where reservoirs are upper Miocene sandstones in the Monterey Formation (California Division of Oil and Gas, 1991) or Santa Margarita Formation (Durham, 1974) which intertongue with fine-grained rocks near the Miocene shoreline along the eastern edge of the Salinas Trough (Baldwin, 1971; Durham, 1974; Figure 4E). Several other smaller oil fields also produce from the "basinward shale edge" of upper Miocene Monterey-Santa Margarita sandstones, and one field (the King City field) produces from the "basinward shale edge" of middle Miocene Monterey-Tierra Redonda sandstones (Baldwin, 1971; Durham, 1974). Traps in the Salinas district are mainly Stratigraphic or combination stratigraphic-structural traps (Figures 7D-7F).
Basis for play definition
A variety of more or less stratigraphically defined plays were early considered for the Central Coastal basins assessment province. These included fractured reservoirs in the Monterey Formation (a speculative play); Miocene-Pliocene sandstones of the Monterey Formation together with subjacent and superjacent strata; sandstone reservoirs of the Vaqueros Formation (the main reservoir in Cuyama district, a speculative play for the Salinas district); nonmarine sandstones of the Simmler, Caliente and other Formations (a speculative play); Eocene sandstones of various formations (the main reservoir in the La
24
Honda district, a speculative play in other districts); Cretaceous sandstones and basement rocks (a speculative play); etc.
Because of the small number of fields (7 major fields as classed by the Nehring data base; see Table 1), however, and because reservoirs in all major discovered fields are Miocene-Pliocene sandstones, all fields in the assessment area were grouped together in a single play termed the Neogene play.
NEOCENE PLAY
Play Definition
The Neogene play is characterized by oil accumulations in Neogene sandstone reservoirs, trapped in structural, stratigraphic, and combination structural-stratigraphic traps. The play includes the entire area of significant subsurface extent of Neogene strata together with adjacent federal waters, an area approximately 275 miles long and 10-35 miles wide (Figure 1A).
Reservoirs
Throughout the assessment province, the major reservoir lithology is sandstone. In the Cuyama district, most oil is reservoired in sandstone of the Vaqueros Formation (Table 1) having porosity in the range 25-30% and permeabilities in the hundreds of millidarcies (NRG Associates, 1984). Even higher porosities (39-41%) are reported for the reservoirs of the San Ardo field in the Salinas district. Reservoirs in the La Honda district include a variety of sandstone horizons ranging from Eocene to Pliocene in age. According to Baldwin (1971), poor reservoir quality in this area is the major reason for its small cumulative production and overall resource potential.
Traps and seals
In the Cuyama district, traps are mostly structural. Two field areas account for most hydrocarbon resources: (1) the Main area of the South Cuyama field (the largest field in the district), where the trap is a faulted anticline (Figure 7A), and (2) the Main area of the Russell Ranch field, where the trap is a faulted homocline (Figure 7B). Traps in other smaller fields in the district are homoclines (Southeast area of the South Cuyama field and Cuyama Central field), faulted anticlinal noses (Southeast area of Russell Ranch field and Taylor Canyon field), and a faulted asymmetrical anticline (Morales Canyon field). Some traps (as in the Clayton area of the Morales Canyon field, Figure 7C) are in subthrust reservoirs. Throughout the area, the main seal is the fine-grained strata of the Monterey Formation.
In the Salinas district, the major trap (in the San Ardo field) is an anticlinal structure combined with intertonguing sandstones (reservoir) and shale (seal). Other smaller traps
25
in the district include permeability barriers on anticlinal folds (Monroe Swell field), lenticular sands on a dome (Doud 3-1-32 area of the King City field), and sand overlap onto basement (Me Cool Ranch field).
In the La Honda district, traps are mainly structural and include an anticlinal- homoclinal trap (Half Moon Bay field), nose (La Honda field), faulted nose (Oil Creek field), and a fold on the flank of a steeply inclined monocline (Moody Gulch field).
Oil Characteristics
Oil in the assessment province differs markedly between districts. In the Cuyama district, oil is generally light with API gravities in the range 26-46°. In the Salinas district, oil is generally heavy with API gravities in the range 10-19°; though included in the assessment as conventional oil resource, these heavy oils would by usual definition be classed as unconventional.
At the time of the assessment, no organic geochemical studies of the oils or oil-source correlation studies were published or otherwise available for the assessment province and the main source-rock was assumed to be the Monterey Formation throughout the area. Analogies with oil generation in the better-known Santa Maria, Ventura, and Los Angeles basins (Petersen and Hickey, 1984, 1987; Orr, 1986) suggested that the good-quality high- gravity oils of the Cuyama district were plausibly related to the clay-rich character of the Monterey Formation in that area (as speculated by Orr, 1986, for the Barham Ranch field in the Santa Maria basin). By similar analogy, the heavy oil characteristic of the Salinas basin was plausibly related either to biodegradation or to generation of primary heavy oil as in the Santa Maria basin (for a summary, see Isaacs and Petersen, 1987), but information was not available to distinguish between these possibilities.
Subsequent to the assessment, as mentioned above, studies suggested that oils in the Cuyama district derived from the Soda Lake Shale Member of the Vaqueros Formation (Kornacki, 1988; Lillis, 1988; Lundell and Gordon, 1988). The Soda Lake Shale Member is actually very similar lithologically to most strata included in the Monterey Formation in the Cuyama district, especially the Saltos Shale.
Depth of Occurrence
The depth to the top of oil reservoir horizons is moderate, being on average less than 6000 ft in all fields (as listed in the Nehring data base) with an average depth of about 3000 ft. Average reservoir thickness ranges from about 70 ft to about 600 ft, with an overall average of about 250 ft (by field; Table 1). Reservoirs in the Salinas basin are shallower (field averages 2000-2400 ft, Table 1; pool average 710-3200 ft, Table 3) than in the Cuyama basin, where the deepest average field depth (in the Cuyama Central field) is 7360 ft (Table 3).
«»L
OP
EZ
C
AN
YO
N
O>
RIS
ER
ISE
R2
0E
R2IE
R2
2E
RO
E
(Abd
)
>RR
OY
O
GR
AN
OE
O
B
I S
P
^M
OR
AL
ES
C
AN
YO
N
CU
YA
MA
SISQ
UO
C
RA
NC
H°
SA
NT
AN
OR
TH
WE
H
AR
RIS
C
AN
(A
bd
)B
AR
BA
RA
JE
SU
S*
MA
RIA
PA
CIF
IC
AU
MO
S
JB
AR
HA
MR
^N
CH
LA
S V
AR
AS
CA
NY
ON
(A
bd)
I P
OIN
T
I I
^fL
AS
CK
UC
E5
"»
CO
NC
EP
TIO
N
Re
FU
G*
CO
V E
GA
SiA
kd)
\
/ A
i rr
DiA
">
v^
* -
^ ~
^^
v».
-
IND
EX
MA
P B
i-^-»
w»«
»»
V C
ON
CE
PTI
ON
7
OFF
SH
OR
E (
Abd
)N
AP
LE
S
OF
FS
HO
RE
G
AS
(A
bd
)T
__^
-^^
(A
bd) / -
OF
FS
HO
RE
O
FFS
HO
RE
GA
S
A c
rA
ALEG
RIA
OFFS
HORE
CA
LIE
NT
EOF
FSHO
RE G
ASS
OU
TH
E
LWO
OO
O
FF
SH
OR
E
CO
AL
OIL
PO
INT
O
FF
SH
OR
E (
Abd
)
Figu
re 6
A.
Oil
field
s in
the
Cuy
ama
dist
rict a
nd a
djac
ent
area
s.
From
Cal
iforn
ia
Div
isio
n of
Oil
and
Gas
(199
1).
27
INDEX MAP A
2.4
MONTEREV
K
Figure 6B. Oil fields in the Salinas district. From California Division of Oil and Gas (1991).
28
MAP CNORTH CALIFORNIA
CALE IN MILES
Figure 6C. Oil fields in the La Honda district and adjacent areas. From California Division of Oil and Gas (1982).
TION R27W TION R26W
3O29
CONTOURS ON TOP OF DIBBLEE SAND
Figure 7A. Cross section and contour map of the Main area of the South Cuyama oil field (Cuyama district), showing the faulted anticlinal trap. From California Division of Oil and Gas (1991).
23
TUN R27W
30
KRIES
ttLOCENE-PLEIS
PLIOCENE
klzkl oOX
i
ki
? O
FORMATIONMEMBER ZONE
ALLUVIUM TERRACE DEPOSITS
MORALES
SANTA MAR«ARITA
MONTEREY
i3$
w
o
E2
1
8 (ID
O
COLOROVE
30
SOUTHEAST AREA
CONTOURS ON TOP OF MAIN DlBBLEE SAND
Figure 7B. Cross section and contour map of the Main area of the Russell Ranch oil field (Cuyama district), showing the faulted homoclinal trap. From California Division of Oil and Gas (1991).
TUN R28W GOVERNMENT 18 AREA
V\\v\\ x<' \ . X\\\\v\\\\v \\
\ \CONTOURS ON TOP OF CRETACEOUS
31
UNDIFF MARINE STRATA (CRETACEOUS)
Figure 1C. Cross section and contour map of the Morales Canyon oil field (Cuyama district), a faulted asymmetrical anticline. Note the reservoirs in deep subthrust positions. From California Division of Oil and Gas (1991).
32
CONTOURS ON TOP OF LOMBARD! OIL SAND OR EQUIVALENT
Ul
TERTIARY
JURASSIC
enUl
EUlen
JO
1.
I
I
FORMATIONTYPICAL ELECTRIC
LOG
PASO ROBLES
PANCHO ' RICO
SANTAMARGARlTt
MONTEREY
LOMIUCI to
GRANITIC BASEMENT
|K
^P
GRANITIC BASEMENT
Figure 7D. Cross section and contour map of the Main area of the San Ardo oil field (Salinas district), showing the anticlinal trap with stratigraphic variations. From California Division of Oil and Gas (1991).
MID
DLE
8 U
PP
ER
MIO
CE
NE
MO
NT
ER
EY
\
N \*
^S%
NsX
HO
LO
ALL
UV
SE
RIE
S
FOR
MA
TIO
N
CD
CM
555
jfei
'/ 4
I ///
//,
5|?
^7/',
1/1$$^^^^^
8 / i
Wfr
Wki
9t D
1 ' ~
a ^'
H
^g-
-^B
§<o
.-
g E
~i
S^l|gi8
«' 8
-||a
a I
3 ?
(B ^ 3
- 5
-o
fi? 5
9
K ^ h
ri E
02
& I'
pI±
I P
O
v>
TO
?*O
O
FORMATION AND
ZONE
COMPOSITEELECTRIC
LOG
PASO ROBLES
PANCHO RICO
SANTA ftMRGARTTA
44
MONTEREY
DOUD i
BEEOY
BERRY
25
CONTOURS ON TOP Of DOUD SAND
34
Figure 7F. Cross section and contour map of the Monroe Swell oil field (Salinas district). The trap in this field is due to permeability barriers on the anticlinal fold. From California Division of Oil and Gas (1991).
35121 C 30' 121 00
30
Upper Reliz Canyon jSandholdtiUndh) j
\
Tierra Redonda Formation and Sand holdt Member ofMonterey Forma tion, undifferentiated
7"tm, out'crops(Ttm), approximate subsurface extent.
Includes sandy beds of the Tierra Redonda Formation where stippled
Rocks younger than the undifferentiated unit on rocks older than the unit
Outcrops of rocks older than the undifferentiated unit
«»*»*%**JUUV
IsopachShowing estimated thickness of Tierra
Redonda Formation and Sandholdt Member ofMonterey Formation, un differentiated. Interval 1,000 feet
(g M 3248
Fossil locality Fauna listed in text
Mf1455
10I
MM191 M3814 M3813
2C MILESI
10 20 KILOMETERS
Figure 8A, Distribution of the Tierra Redonda Formation and the lower part of the Monterey Formation (Sandholdt Member) undifferentiated. Stippled areas indicate sandy beds in the Tierra Redonda Formation. From Durham (1974).
36121"30'
121 00
EXPLANATION
Santa Margarita Formation and Buttle and Hames Members of Monterey Formation, undifferentiated
Tsm. outcrops(Tsm). approximate subsurface extent.
Includes sandy beds of the Santa Margarita Formation where stippled
Rocks younger than the undifferentiated unit on rocks older than the unit
Outcrops of rocks older than the undifferentiated unit
5000
IsopachsShow estimated thickness of Santa
Margarita Formation and Buttle and Hames Members of Monterey Formation, undifferentiated. In terval 1,000 feet
@M4072
Fossil locality Fauna listed in text
M4072
M3954 120° 30'
M1969 M4008
35" 30
10I_
20 MILESIr
10\
20 KILOMETERS
Figure 8B. Distribution of the Santa Margarita Formation and the upper part of the Monterey Formation (Hames and Buttle Members) undifferentiated in the southern Salinas Valley. Stippled areas indicate sandy beds in the Santa Margarita Formation. From Durham (1974).
37
Exploration status
History
Earliest discoveries in the assessment province were in the La Honda district, where oil was discovered in the small Half Moon Bay field (with cumulative oil production through 1983 of 0.05 Mbbl) in about 1890 and in the Moody Gulch field (0.1 Mbbl) in 1898.
Further discoveries were not made until the late 1940s and early 1950s. In the Salinas district, these were (with cumulative oil production through 1983) the small North area (0.3 MMbbl) of the San Ardo field, 1947; the Main area of the San Ardo field (376.0 MMbbl), 1948; the Biaggi area (< 0.0005 MMbbl) of the Paris Valley field, 1948; and the Monroe Swell Field (0.2 MMbbl), 1949. In the Cuyama district, discoveries began with the Main area of Russell Ranch field (66.8 MMbbl) in 1948. All subsequent area and field discoveries in this district were made within 3 years: Main area of South Cuyama field (215.1 MMbbl), 1949; Clayton area of Morales Canyon field (1.0 MMbbl), 1950; Government 18 area of Morales Canyon field (1.4 MMbbl), 1950; Taylor Canyon field (0.5 MMbbl), 1950; Cuyama Central field (0.03 MMbbl), 1951; and Southeast area of South Cuyama field (0.1 MMbbl), 1951.
During the mid-late 1950s, minor discoveries were made in the La Honda district: Oil Creek field (0.2 MMbbl), 1955; Main area (0.8 MMbbl) of La Honda field, 1956; and South area (0.5 MMbbl) of La Honda field, 1959. Exploration in the Salinas district during the 1950's and 1960's also resulted in some small discoveries: Main area (0.1 MMbbl) of Paris Valley field, 1958; Doud area (1.8 MMbbl) of King City field, 1959; Kent-Basham area (0.1 MMbbl) of King City field, 1961; Lynch Canyon field (0.1 MMbbl), 1962; Quinado Canyon field (0.01 MMbbl), 1963; Doud 3-1-32 area of King City field (0.002 MMbbl), 1963; and McCool Ranch field (0.1 MMbbl), 1964.
During the 1970's and early 1980's, discoveries made in the Cuyama district were the East area of the South Cuyama field (1975) and a new gas pool in the Southeast area of South Cuyama field (1981). In the Salinas district was discovered the E sand pool in the McCool Ranch field (1981).
Future potential
Future resource potential in the assessment province seems likely to be fair to good, mainly in the less well-explored parts of the Salinas and Cuyama districts, with discovery of another giant field in the Salinas district the most promising possibility. Baldwin (1971) placed remaining potential new reserves at 2.5 Bbbl for the assessment province as a whole, 2 Bbbl for the Salinas district.
In terms of future potential, important features of the Salinas district include proven oil generation in significant quantities, a wide areal extent of thick subsurface sequences of Neogene sedimentary rocks likely to represent oil sources, and trap types (stratigraphic variations on slight structural highs) that are difficult to identify. However, future reserves would probably be difficult to find due to the difficulty of interpreting the complexities of
38
stratigraphy and structure concealing potential traps (Baldwin, 1971). Suggested exploration targets have included sandstone traps in the Vaqueros Formation on Miocene- Pliocene structures westward of the Neogene basin center (Baldwin, 1971) and the underexplored margins of basement highs where Miocene sandstones are present (Durham, 1974; Figures 8A, 8B). Fractured reservoirs or diagenetic traps within the Monterey Formation may also have future potential. A number of prospect wells were drilled during the 1980s, notably in the deep Hames Valley area with fractured-reservoir and diagenetic-trap potential, but results had not been announced at the time of the assessment.
In the Cuyama district, potential prospects seem most likely to be similar to existing fields but in deeper locations that have been difficult to identify, for example deep traps in concealed subthrust sandstone reservoirs. However, reservoir quality (sandstone permeability) may be a limiting factor in more deeply buried strata. Baldwin (1971) also suggested that uplifted areas northeast and southwest of the central overthrust graben were underexplored.
Future potential in the La Honda district seems generally poor and further drilling unlikely to produce significant new reserves, based on the long history of exploration resulting in only minor discoveries. Offshore prospects in the assessment province are likewise not highly promising, based on the paucity of discovered resources in adjacent onshore areas.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many people contributed knowledge and counsel on the geology of the assessment province. I particularly thank William Bazeley formerly of Arco Oil and Gas Corporation (Bakersfield, California); Margaret Keller, Larry Beyer, Kenneth Bird, Rick Stanley, and Jack Vedder - all with the U.S. Geological Survey (Menlo Park, California); Dave Griggs and the late Frank Webster, both formerly with the Minerals Management Service (Los Angeles, California); Neil F. Petersen of Worldwide Geosciences (Houston, Texas); Ray Kablanow formerly with the University of Wyoming (Laramie, Wyoming); and Cathy Rigsby formerly of Sohio (San Francisco, California), now of Long Beach State University (Long Beach, California). For permission to reprint figures, I acknowledge and thank the American Association of Petroleum Geologists; Stephan A. Graham of Stanford University (Stanford, California); Martin B. Lagoe of the University of Texas (Austin, Texas); and Richard G. Stanley now of the U.S. Geological Survey (Menlo Park, California). Lynn Tennyson of the U.S. Geological Survey (Denver, Colorado) and Kenneth J. Bird reviewed preliminary versions of this report.
Tabl
e 1.
Oil
field
dat
a fo
r the
Cen
tral C
oast
al B
asin
s as
sess
men
t pro
vinc
e, b
ased
on
Neh
ring
data
bas
e th
roug
h 19
83 (N
RG
Ass
ocia
tes,
198
4).
BA
SIN
Fiel
dTr
ap ty
peFo
rmat
ion
Aver
age
Dep
th to
to
p (ft
)
Aver
age
Thic
knes
s (ft
)
Aver
age
API
Gra
vity
Dis
c'y
Year
Cum
ulat
ive
prod
'n +
res
erve
sO
il (M
Mbb
l)N
GL
(MM
bbl)
Gas
(B
cf)
CU
YA
MA
BA
SIN
Sout
h C
uyam
a -
Mai
n ar
eaM
oral
es C
anyo
n -
Cla
yton
are
aM
oral
es C
anyo
n -
Gov
nt 1
8 ar
eaR
usse
ll R
anch
- M
ain
area
Rus
sell
Ran
ch - S
outh
east
are
a
Stru
ctur
alS
truct
ural
Com
bina
tion
Stru
ctur
alS
truct
ural
Vaqu
eros
Mor
ales
Vaqu
eros
Vaqu
eros
Vaqu
eros
3600
1900
5800
2800
3600
520
100
400
600 70
33 31 38 37 39
1949
1950
1950
1948
1952
220.
01.
01.
467
.3 0.7
9.9 - -
2.0
0.1
215.
60
.5 1.3
46
.8 3.1
SA
LIN
AS
BA
SIN
San
Ardo
King
City
- D
oud
area
Com
bina
tion
Stru
ctur
al
Lom
bard
yM
onte
rey
Mon
tere
y
2000
2400
2000
150
120
100
11 13 16
1947
1959
525.
0
2.0
- -
71.4 0.1
AV
ER
AG
E30
1325
827
1951
TO
TA
L11
781
72 12
48 339
Tabl
e 2.
C
umul
ativ
e pr
oduc
tion
+ re
serv
es in
sm
all f
ield
s no
t inc
lude
d in
the
Neh
ring
data
bas
e (N
RG
Ass
ocia
tes,
198
4).
Bas
ed o
n C
alifo
rnia
Div
isio
n of
O
il an
d G
as (
1984
,198
6),
see
also
Tab
le 3
.
BA
SIN
Fie
ldC
umul
ativ
e pr
oduc
tion
+ re
serv
esO
il (M
Mbb
l)G
as
(Bcf
)
CU
YA
MA
BA
SIN
Tayl
or C
anyo
nS
outh
Cuy
ama
- S
outh
east
are
aS
outh
Cuy
ama
- Ea
st a
rea
(abd
)C
uyam
a -
Cen
tral a
rea
(abd
)
0.49
0.11
0.04
0.03
0.14
0.93
0.03
0.01
SA
UN
AS
BA
SIN
McC
ool R
anch
San
Ard
o -
Nor
th a
rea
Mon
roe
Sw
ell
Par
ris V
alle
yLy
nch
Can
yon
Kin
g C
ity - K
ent-B
asha
m a
rea
Qui
nado
Can
yon
Kin
g C
ity - D
oud
3-1
-32
area
0.35
0.31
0.27
0.14
*
0.12
0.11
0.01
0.00
2
<0.
001 -
0.00
3<
0.00
1<
0.00
1<
0.00
10.
003 -
LA H
ON
DA
BA
SIN
La H
onda
- M
ain
area
La H
onda
- S
outh
are
aO
il C
reek
Moo
dy G
ulch
(ab
d)H
alf M
oon
Bay
0.80
0.52
0.19
0.10
0.05
0.11
0.04
0.08
0.04
0.02
[TO
TA
L3.
639
1.40
6
Res
erve
s no
t inc
lude
d.
Tabl
e 3.
O
il fie
ld d
ata
for C
entra
l Coa
stal
Bas
ins
asse
ssm
ent p
rovi
nce
(from
Cal
iforn
ia D
ivis
ion
of O
il an
d G
as,
1974
,198
4).
BA
SIN F
IELD AR
EA
Poo
l
Poo
l D
isc'
y D
ate
Cum
ulat
ive
prod
uctio
nO
il (M
Mbb
l)G
as
(Bcf
)
Trap
Typ
eA
vera
ge
Res
ervo
ir D
epth
(ft
)
Ave
rage
R
eser
voir
Thic
knes
s (ft
)
Pool
AP
I gr
avity
CU
YA
MA
BA
SIN
SO
UT
H C
UY
AM
AM
AIN
AR
EA
52-1
Gas
(San
ta M
arga
rD
ibbl
ee (
Vaq
uero
s)C
olgr
ove
(Vaq
uero
s)S
OU
TH
EA
ST
AR
EA
Col
grov
e (V
aque
ros)
RU
SS
ELL
RA
NC
HM
AIN
AR
EA
San
ta M
arga
rita
Dib
blee
(Vaq
uero
s)G
riggs
-Dib
blee
(Vaq
uer
Col
grov
e (V
aque
ros)
SO
UT
HE
AS
T A
RE
AD
ibbl
ee (
Vaq
uero
s)M
OR
ALE
S C
AN
YO
NC
LAY
TO
N A
RE
A (
abd)
Cla
yton
(Mor
ales
)G
OV
ER
NM
EN
T 1
8 A
RE
AG
over
nmen
t 18
(Vaq
uer
TA
YLO
R C
AN
YO
NQ
uail
Can
yon
sand
(Vaq
CU
YA
MA
CE
NT
RA
LB
ranc
h C
anyo
n
1953
1949
1950
1951
1948
1948
1949
1949
1952
1950
1950
1950
1951
215.
1
0.1
66.8
66.1 0.6
2.4
1.0
221.
2
0.03
46.9
43.8 3.1
1.8
0.5
1.4
0.5
0.03
1.3
0.1
0.01
Faul
ted
antic
line
Faul
ted
hom
oclin
e
Faul
ted
hom
oclin
e
Faul
ted
antic
linal
nos
e
Faul
ted
asym
met
rical
ant
iclin
e
Faul
ted
nose
Faul
ted
hom
oclin
e
1830
3600
4300
5840
2500
2800
4300
3500
3600
1900
5800
5620
7360
3540
012
0 50
200
350
150
100
70 100
400
200 20
26 33 33 37 25 34 3835-4
0 39 31 38 38 46
BA
SIN F
IELD AR
EA
Poo
l
Poo
l D
isc'
y D
ate
Cum
ulat
ive
prod
uctio
nO
il (M
Mbb
l)G
as
(Bcf
)
Tra
p Ty
peA
vera
ge
Res
ervo
ir D
epth
(ft
)
Ave
rage
R
eser
voir
Thic
knes
s (ft
)
Poo
l A
PI
grav
ity
SA
UN
AS
BA
SIN
SA
N A
RD
OM
AIN
AR
EA
Lom
bard
! (M
onte
rey)
Aur
igna
c (M
onte
rey)
NO
RT
H A
RE
ALo
mba
rd! (
Mon
tere
y)K
ING
CIT
YD
OU
D A
RE
ATh
orup
(M
onte
rey)
DO
UD
3-1
-3
2 A
RE
AT
horu
p (M
onte
rey)
KE
NT
-BA
SH
AM
AR
EA
Thor
up (
Mon
tere
y)M
cCO
OL
RA
NC
HLo
mba
rd!
(Mon
tere
y)M
ON
RO
E S
WE
LL44
(M
onte
rey)
Dou
d (M
onte
rey)
Bee
dy (
Mon
tere
y)P
AR
IS V
ALL
EY
BIA
GG
I A
RE
AB
asal
Ans
berr
y (M
onte
reM
AIN
AR
EA
Bas
al A
nsbe
rry
(Mon
tere
LYN
CH
CA
NY
ON
Lani
gan
(Mon
tere
y)Q
UIN
AD
O C
AN
YO
NG
ambo
a-K
elly
(Mon
tere
1948
1948
1947
1959
1963
1961
1964
1960
1959
1949
1948
1958
1962
1963
376.
037
5.7
0.31 1.
91.
8
0.00
2
0.11
0.13
0.24
0.13
<0.0
005
0.13
0.13
0.01
71.4
71.4
0.06
0.06
<0.
001
<0.
001
<0.
001
0.00
3
<0.
001
<0.
001
0.00
3
Ant
iclin
e
Faul
ted
dom
e
San
d le
ns o
n a
dom
e
Faul
ted
nose
San
ds o
verla
p on
to b
asem
ent
Per
mea
bilit
y ba
rrie
rs o
nan
ticlin
al fo
ld
Ant
iclin
e
Faul
ted
antic
line
Dom
e on
bas
emen
t hig
h
Faul
ted
nose
2000
2400
2100
2000
1860
2450
2150
2000
2900
3200
1090 710
1800
2035
150
120
40 100 30 65 30 200
200
150 70 80 55 60
11 13 10 16 13 17 12 19 19 17 13 12 10 19
BA
SIN F
IELD AR
EA
Poo
l
Pool
D
isc'
y D
ate
Cum
ulat
ive
prod
uctio
nO
il (M
Mbb
l)G
as
(Bcf
)
Trap
Typ
eA
vera
ge
Res
ervo
ir D
epth
(ft
)
Ave
rage
R
eser
voir
Thic
knes
s (ft
)
Pool
AP
I gr
avity
LA H
ON
DA
BA
SIN
LA H
ON
DA
MA
IN A
RE
AU
pper
Cos
ta (B
utan
o)Lo
wer
Cos
ta (B
utan
o)S
OU
TH
AR
EA
Bur
nsO
IL C
RE
EK
Tony
(But
ano)
Cos
ta (B
utan
o)M
OO
DY
GU
LCH
(ab
d)Sa
n Lo
renz
oH
ALF
MO
ON
BA
Y (
abd)
Pur
isim
a
1956
1959
1955
1898
C8
18
90
1.3
0.79
0.50
0.18
0.10
0.05
0.15
0.11
0.04
0.08
0.04
0.02
Ant
iclin
e
Nos
e (?
)
Faul
ted
nose
Fold
on
flank
of s
teep
ly in
clin
edm
onoc
line
Ant
iclin
e an
d ho
moc
line,
acc
umul
ain
upd
ip le
nses
.
1660
1800
1400
1860
2090 80
0[io
n80
0
45 30
60-1
80 55 120 40
40 40 17 41 41 45 45
44
REFERENCES
Alien, J. A., 1946, Geology of the San Juan Bautista quadrangle, California: CaliforniaDivision of Mines and Geology Bulletin 133, p. 5-76.
Atwater, T., 1970, Implications of plate tectonics for the Cenozoic tectonic evolution ofNorth America: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 81, p. 3513-3535.
Atwater, T., and Molnar, P., 1973, Relative motion of the Pacific and North Americanplates deduced from sea-floor spreading in the Atlantic, Indian, and South PacificOceans: Stanford University Publications in the Geological Sciences, v. 13, p. 136-148.
Baldwin, T. A., 1971, Petroleum potential of California Central Coast Ranges, in Cram, I.H., ed., Future Petroleum Provinces of the United States - Their Geology and Potential:American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 15, v. 1, p. 309-315.
Blake, M. C, Jr., Campbell, R. H., Dibblee, T. W., Jr., Howell, D. G., Nilsen, T. H.,Normark, W. R., Vedder, J. G., and Silver, E. A., 1978, Neogene basin formation inrelation to plate-tectonic evolution of San Andreas fault system, California: AmericanAssociation of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 62, p. 344-372.
Bohannon, R. G., 1975, Mid-Tertiary conglomerates and their bearing on Tranverse Rangetectonics, southern California, in San Andreas fault in southern California: CaliforniaDivision of Mines and Geology, Special Report 118, p. 75-82.
California Division of Oil and Gas, 1974, California Oil and Gas Fields, South, CentralCoastal, and Offshore California: California Division of Oil and Gas Report TR12, v. 2,unpaginated.
California Division of Oil and Gas, 1982, California Oil and Gas Fields, Northern California:California Division of Oil and Gas Report TRIO, v. 3, unpaginated.
California Division of Oil and Gas, 1984, 69th Annual Report of the State Oil & GasSupervisor 1983: California Department of Conservation Division of Oil and Gas,Publication PR06, 147 p.
California Division of Oil and Gas, 1986, 71st Annual Report of the State Oil & GasSupervisor 1985: California Department of Conservation Division of Oil and Gas,Publication PR06, 157 p.
California Division of Oil and Gas, 1991, California Oil and Gas Fields: CaliforniaDepartment of Conservation Division of Oil and Gas, Publication TR12, v. n(Southern, Central Coastal, and Offshore California), 3rd edition, 689 p.
Carman, M. F. Jr., 1964, Geology of the Lockwood Valley area, Kern and VenturaCounties, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 81,62P-
Colvin, R. G., 1963, San Ardo oil field, Monterey County, California, in Guidebook to theGeology of Salinas Valley and the San Andreas Fault: Pacific Section American Association of Petroleum Geologists-Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Annual Spring Field Trip, p. 57-59.
Conservation Committee of California Oil and Gas Producers, 1986, California Crude Oil Production 1960-1985: Conservation Committee of California Oil and Gas Producers, Los Angeles, California, 149 p.
45
Clark, J. G, and Reitman, J. D., 1973, Oligocene stratigraphy, tectonics, andpaleogeography southwest of the San Andreas fault, Santa Cruz Mountains andGabilan Range, California Coast Ranges: U.S. Geological Survey Professional paper783,18 p.
Clifton, H. E., 1981, Progradational sequences in Miocene shoreline deposits, southernCaliente Range, California: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 51, p. 165-184.
Crouch, J. 1C, Bachman, S. B., and Shay, J. T., 1984, Post-Miocene compressional tectonics along the central California margin, in Crouch, J. 1C, and Bachman, S. B., eds, Tectonics and Sedimentation along the California Margin: Pacific Section Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Book 38, p. 37-54.
Cummings, J. G, Touring, R. M., and Brabb, E. E., 1962, Geology of the northern SantaCruz Mountains, California, in Geologic guide to the Gas and Oil Fields of NorthernCalifornia: California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 181, p. 179-220.
Davis, T. L., and Namson, J. S., eds., 1987, Structural Evolution of the Western TransverseRanges: Pacific Section Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Book48A, 156 p.
Dibblee, T. W. Jr., 1982, Geology of the Alamo Mountain, Frazier Mountain, LockwoodValley, Mount Pinos, and Cuyama Badland Areas, Southern California in Fife, D. L.,and Minch, J. A., eds., Geology and Mineral Wealth of the California Transverse Ranges:South Coast Geological Society Publication, p. 57-77. (Reprinted in Davis, T. L., andNamson, J. S., eds., 1987, Structural Evolution of the Western Transverse Ranges: PacificSection Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Book 48A, p. 55-75.)
Durham, D. L., 1963, Geology of the Reliz Canyon, Thompson Canyon, and San LucasQuadrangles, Monterey County, California: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1141-Q,41 p.
Durham, D. L., 1964, Geology of the Cosio Knob and Espinosa Canyon quadrangles,Monterey County, California: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1161-H, 29 p.
Durham, D. L., 1965, Geology of the Jolon and Williams Hill quadrangles, MontereyCounty, California: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1181-Q, 27 p.
Durham, D. L., 1966, Geology of the Hames Valley, Wunpost, and Velleton quadrangles,Monterey County, California: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1221-B, 53 p.
Durham, D. L., 1968a, Geology of the Tierra Redonda Mountain and Bradley quadrangles,Monterey County, California: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1255,60 p.
Durham, D. L., 1968b, Geologic map of the Adelaida quadrangle, San Luis Obispo County,California: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-768, scale 1:24,000.
Durham, D. L., 1970, Geology of the Sycamore Flat and Paraiso Springs quadrangles,Monterey County, California: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1285,34 p.
Durham, D. L., 1974, Geology of the Southern Salinas Valley Area, California: U.S.Geological Survey Professional paper 819, 111 p.
Durham, D. L., and Addicott, W. O., 1964, Upper Miocene and Pliocene marinestratigraphy in southern Salinas Valley, California: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin1194-E,7p.
46
Durham, D. L., and Addicott, W. O., 1965, Pancho Rico Formation, Salinas Valley, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 524-A, 22 p.
Frizzell, V. A. Jr., Claypool, G. E., 1983, Petroleum potential map of Mesozoic and Cenozoic rocks in roadless areas and the Santa Lucia Wilderness in the Los Padres National Forest, Southwestern California: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1655-D (Map 1:250,000 with text 18 p.).
Graham, S. A., 1976, Tertiary sedimentary tectonics of the central Salinian block of California: unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.
Graham, S. A., 1979a, Tertiary paleotectonics and paleogeography of the Salinian block, in Armentrout, J. M., Cole, M. R., and Terbest, H. Jr., eds., Cenozoic paleogeography of western United States: Pacific Section Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Symposium 3, p. 45-52.
Graham, S. A., 1979b, Tertiary stratigraphy and depositional environments near Indians Ranch, Monterey County, California, in Graham, S. A., ed., Tertiary and Quaternary Geology of the Salinas Valley and Santa Lucia Range, Monterey County, California, Pacific Section Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Field Guide 4, p. 3-12.
Greene, H. G., and Clark, J. G, 1979, Neogene paleogeography of the Monterey Bay area, California, in Armentrout, J. M., Cole, M. R., and TerBest, H. Jr., eds., Cenozoic Paleogeography of of Western United States: Pacific Section Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Symposium 3, p. 277-296.
Hall, C. A., Jr., 1981, San Luis Obispo transform fault and middle Miocene rotation of the western Transverse Range, California: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 86, p. 1015- 1031.
Heilbrunn-Tomson, J., 1988, A bibliography of the Santa Maria Province and Vicinity, south central coastal California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 88-509, 108P-
Hill, M. L., Carlson, S. A., and Dibblee, T. W. Jr., 1958, Stratigraphy of Cuyama Valley-Caliente Range area, California: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 42, p. 453-470.
Hoskins, E. G., and Griffiths, J. R., 1971, Hydrocarbon potential of northern and central California offshore, in Cram, I. H., ed., Future Petroleum Provinces of the United States - Their Geology and Potential: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 15, v. 1, p. 212-228.
Howell, D. G., et al., 1977, Review of Cretaceous geology, Salinian and Nacimiento blocks, Coast Ranges of central California, in Howell, D. G., Vedder, J. G., and McCougall, K., eds., Cretaceous Geology of the California Coast Ranges, west of the San Andreas Fault: Pacific Section Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Field Guide 2, p. 1-46.
Howell, D. G., Crouch, J. K., Greene, H. G., McCulloch, D. S., and Vedder, J. G., 1980, Basin development along the late Mesozoic and Cainozoic California margin: a plate tectonic margin of subduction, oblique subduction and transform tectonics in Ballance,
47
P. F., and Reading, H. G., eds., Sedimentation in Oblique-slip Mobile Zones: International Association of Sedimentologists Special Publication 4, p. 43-62.
Howell, D. G., Champion, D. E., and Vedder, J. G., 1987, Terrane accretion, crustal kinematics, and basin evolution, southern California, in Ingersoll, R. V. and Ernst, W. G., eds., Cenozoic Basin Development of Coastal California: Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, p. 242-258.
Isaacs, C. M., and Petersen, N. F., 1987, Petroleum in the Miocene Monterey Formation, California, U.S.A., in Hein, J. R., ed., Siliceous Sedimentary Rock-Hosted Ores and Petroleum: Van Nostrand-Reinhold, New York, New York, p. 83-116.
Kablanow, R. I. II, 1986, Influence of the thermal and depositional histories on diagenesis and hydrocarbon maturation in the Monterey Formation - Huasna, Pismo, and Salinas Basins, California: unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wyoming (Laramie, Wyoming), 264 p.
Kablanow, R. I. II, and Surdam, R. C., 1984, Diagenesis and hydrocarbon generation in the Monterey Formation, Huasna Basin, California, in Surdam, R. C., ed., Stratigraphic, Tectonic, Thermal and Diagenetic Histories of the Monterey Formation, Pismo and Huasna Basin, California: Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Field Trip Guidebook No. 2, p. 53-68.
Kornacki, A. S., 1988, Provenance of oil in Southern Cuyama Basin, California [abs.]: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 72, p. 207.
Kruge, M. A., 1983, Diagenesis of Miocene biogenic sediments in Lost Hills oil field, San Joaquin basin, California, in Isaacs, C. M., and Garrison, R. E., eds., Petroleum Generation and Occurrence in the Miocene Monterey Formation, California: Pacific Section Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Book 33, p. 39-51.
Lagoe, M. B., 1984, Paleogeography of Monterey Formation, Cuyama Basin, California: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 68, p. 610-627.
Lagoe, M. B., 1985, Depositional environments in the Monterey Formation, Cuyama Basin, California: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 96, p. 1296-1312.
Lagoe, M. B., 1987a, Middle Cenozoic basin development, Cuyama Basin, California, in Ingersoll, R. V. and Ernst, W. G., eds., Cenozoic Basin Development of Coastal California: Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, p. 172-206.
Lagoe, M. B., 1987b, Middle Cenozoic unconformity-bounded Stratigraphic units in the Cuyama and southern San Joaquin basins, California: Record of eustatic and tectonic events in active margin basins, in Ross, C. A., and others, eds., Timing and Depositional History of Eustatic Sequences: Constraints on Seismic Stratigraphy: Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research, Special Publication 24, p. 15-32.
Lillis, P. G., 1988, Correlation and characterization of oils using biological markers, Cuyama basin, California, in Bazeley, W. J. M., ed., Tertiary Tectonics and Sedimentation in the Cuyama Basin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventwra Counties, California'. Pacific Section Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Book 59, p. 39-48.
48
Link, M. H., and Nilsen, T. H., 1980, The Rocks Sandstone, an Eocene sand-rich deep-seafan deposit, northern Santa Lucia Range, California: Journal of SedimentaryPetrology, v. 50, p. 583-601.
Lundell, L. L., and Gordon, S. A., 1988, Origin of Cuyama basin oils, in Bazeley, W. J. M.,ed., Tertiary Tectonics and Sedimentation in the Cuyama Basin, San Luis Obispo, SantaBarbara, and Ventura Counties, California: Pacific Section Society of EconomicPaleontologists and Mineralogists Book 59, p. 29-37.
McCulloch, D. S., 1987, Regional geology and hydrocarbon potential of offshore centralCalifornia, in Scholl, D. W., Grantz, A., and Vedder, J. G., eds., Geology and resourcepotential of the continental margin of western North America and adjacent ocean basins -Beaufort Sea to Baja California: Circum-Pacific Council for Energy and MineralResources, v. 6, p. 353-401.
McCulloch, D. S., 1989, Evolution of the offshore central California margin, in Winterer, E.L., Hussong, D. M., and Decker, R. W., eds., The Eastern Pacific Ocean and Hawaii:Geological Society of America, The Geology of North America, v. N, p. 439-469.
Mertz, K. A. Jr., 1984, Origin and depositional history of the Sandholdt Member, MioceneMonterey Formation, Santa Lucia Range, California: unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,University of California Santa Cruz, 295 p.
Namson, J., and Davis, T. L., 1990, Late Cenozoic fold and thrust belt of the southernCoast Ranges and Santa Maria Basin, California: American Association of PetroleumGeologists Bulletin, v. 74, p. 467-492.
Nilsen, T. H., and Clarke, S. H. Jr., 1975, Sedimentation and tectonics in the early Tertiarycontinental borderland of central California: U.S. Geological Survey Professionalpaper 925, 64 p.
NRG Associates, 1984, The Significant Oil and Gas Fields of the United States Data Base:Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Orr, W. L., 1983, Comments on pyrolytic hydrocarbon yields in source rock evaluation, inBjoroy, M., Albrecht, G, Cornig, G, deGroot, K., Eglinton, G., and Spears, G., eds.,Advances in Organic Geochemistry 1981: John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, p. 775-787.
Orr, W. L., 1986, Kerogen/asphaltene/sulfur relationships in sulfur-rich Monterey oils:Organic Geochemistry, v. 10, p. 499-516.
Petersen, N. F., and Hickey, P. J., 1984, California Plio-Miocene oils: Evidence of earlygeneration, in Meyer, R. F., ed., Exploration for Heavy Crude Oil and Bitumen:American Association of Petroleum Geologists Research Conference, October 28-November 2, Santa Maria, California, Preprints, v. 2.
Petersen, N. F., and Hickey, P. J., 1987, California Plio-Miocene oils: Evidence of earlygeneration, in Meyer, R. F., ed., Exploration for Heavy Crude Oil and Natural Bitumen:American Association of Petroleum Geologists Studies in Geology 25, p. 351-359.
Ruetz, J. W., 1979, Paleocene submarine fan deposits of the Indians Ranch area, MontereyCounty, California, in Tertiary and Quaternary Geology of the Salinas Valley and SantaLucia Range, Monterey County, California: Pacific Section Society of EconomicPaleontologists and Mineralogists Field Guide 4, p. 13-24.
49
Stanley, R. G., 1984, Middle Tertiary sedimentation and tectonics of the La Honda basin,central California: unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California SantaCruz, 471 p.
Vedder, J. G., 1968, Geologic map of Fox Mountain quadrangle, Santa Barbara County,California: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map 1-547,scale 1:24,000.
Vedder, J. G., 1970, Geologic map of the Wells Ranch and Elkhorn Hills quadrangles, SanLuis Obispo and Kern Counties, California, showing juxtaposed Cenozoic rock alongthe San Andreas fault: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic InvestigationsMap 1-585, scale 1:24,000.
Vedder, J. G., and Repenning, C. A., 1965, Geologic map of the southeastern CalienteRange, San Luis Obispo County, California: U.S. Geological Survey Oil and GasInvestigations Map OM-217, scale 1:24,000.
Vedder, J. G., and Repenning, C. A., 1975, Geologic map of the Cuyama and New Cuyamaquadrangles, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties, California: U.S.Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map 1-876, scale 1:24,000.
Vedder, J. G., Dibblee, T. W. Jr., and Brown, R. D. Jr., 1973, Geologic map of the upperMono Creek-Pine Mountain area, California: U.S. Geological Survey MiscellaneousGeologic Investigations Map 1-752, scale 1:24,000.
Vedder, J. G., Howell, D. G., and McLean, H., 1983, Stratigraphy, sedimentation, andtectonic accretion of exotic terranes, southern Coast Ranges, California: AmericanAssociation of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 34, p. 471-496.