Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California Chapter 19 Eocene Total Petroleum System—North and East of the Eocene West Side Fold Belt Assessment Unit of the San Joaquin Basin Province By Donald L. Gautier and Allegra Hosford Scheirer Contents Summary---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Description--------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 Source Rocks---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Maturation and Migration-------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Reservoir Rocks------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Traps and Seals------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Exploration Status and Resource Potential------------------------------------------ 3 References Cited------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4 Figures------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7 Table-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19 Appendixes (.pdf files) Summary Boundaries Extent of Kreyenhagen Formation on the north; limit of Eocene Total Petroleum System on the east; north fank of Bakersfeld Arch on the south; San Andreas Fault, base of Moreno Formation in outcrop, and limit of structural deformation on the west; topographic surface to crystalline basement. Source Rocks Principally siliceous marine shale of the Kreyenhagen Formation and secondarily, shale of the Tumey formation of Atwill (1935). Reservoir Rocks Mainly Paleocene to Miocene marine and nonmarine sandstones. Migration Up-dip through complex feeder Timing Primary Fields systems. Early Pliocene oil generation and expulsion from the Kreyenhagen Formation and Tumey formation of Atwill (1935). Burrel, Burrel Southeast, Deer Creek, Helm, Jasmin, Raisin Secondary Fields City, Rio Bravo, Riverdale, San Joaquin, Tulare Lake, Vallecitos, Van Ness Slough, Wasco. Camden, Cantua Creek, Cantua Nueva, Deer Creek North, Five Points, Hanford, Jasmin West, Kettleman City, Terra Bella, Turk Anticline, Westhaven. Exploration Status Lightly explored (0.1 well per square mile and 12 percent of all sections have at least one Resource Potential exploratory well). Small accumulations in subtle traps mainly deep in the southwest part of the assessment unit. Description The North and East of Eocene West Side Fold Belt Assessment Unit (AU) of the Eocene Total Petroleum System of the San Joaquin Basin Province comprises all hydrocarbon accumulations within the geographic and stratigraphic limits of this confirmed AU. Oil and associ- ated gas accumulations occur in Paleocene through early-
Transcript
1 Eocene Total Petroleum System—North and East of the Eocene West Side Fold Belt Assessment Unit of the San Joaquin Basin Province
Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California
Chapter 19
Eocene Total Petroleum System—North and East of the Eocene West Side Fold Belt Assessment Unit of the San Joaquin Basin Province By Donald L. Gautier and Allegra Hosford Scheirer
Contents Summary----------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 Description--------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 Source Rocks---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Maturation and Migration-------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Reservoir Rocks------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Traps and Seals------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Exploration Status and Resource Potential------------------------------------------ 3 References Cited------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4 Figures------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 Table-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19 Appendixes (.pdf files)
Summary
Boundaries Extent of Kreyenhagen Formation on the north; limit of Eocene Total Petroleum System on the east; north flank of Bakersfield Arch on the south; San Andreas Fault, base of Moreno Formation in outcrop, and limit of structural deformation on the west; topographic surface to crystalline basement.
Source Rocks Principally siliceous marine shale of the Kreyenhagen Formation and secondarily, shale of the Tumey formation of Atwill (1935).
Reservoir Rocks Mainly Paleocene to Miocene marine and nonmarine sandstones.
Migration Up-dip through complex feeder
Timing
Primary Fields
systems. Early Pliocene oil generation and expulsion from the Kreyenhagen Formation and Tumey formation of Atwill (1935). Burrel, Burrel Southeast, Deer Creek, Helm, Jasmin, Raisin
Secondary Fields
City, Rio Bravo, Riverdale, San Joaquin, Tulare Lake, Vallecitos, Van Ness Slough, Wasco. Camden, Cantua Creek, Cantua Nueva, Deer Creek North, Five Points, Hanford, Jasmin West, Kettleman City, Terra Bella, Turk Anticline, Westhaven.
Exploration Status Lightly explored (0.1 well per square mile and 12 percent of all sections have at least one
Resource Potential exploratory well). Small accumulations in subtle traps mainly deep in the southwest part of the assessment unit.
Description The North and East of Eocene West Side Fold Belt
Assessment Unit (AU) of the Eocene Total Petroleum System of the San Joaquin Basin Province comprises all hydrocarbon accumulations within the geographic and stratigraphic limits of this confirmed AU. Oil and associ-ated gas accumulations occur in Paleocene through early-
2 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California
middle Miocene marine to nonmarine sandstones found on the comparatively stable northeast shelf of the basin. The assessment unit is located north and east of the thickest accumulation of Neogene sediments and the west side fold belt. The area enclosed by the AU has been affected by only mild deformation since Eocene time. Traps contain-ing known accumulations are mostly low-relief domes, anticlines, and up-dip basin margin traps with faulting and stratigraphic components.
Map boundaries of the assessment unit are shown in figures 19.1 and 19.2; this assessment unit replaces the Northeast Shelf of Neogene Basin play 1006, the East Cen-tral Basin and Slope North of Bakersfield Arch play 1010, and part of the West Side Fold Belt Sourced by Pre-middle Miocene Rocks play 1005 considered by the U.S. Geologi-cal Survey (USGS) in their 1995 National Assessment (Beyer, 1996). Stratigraphically, the AU includes rocks from the uppermost crystalline basement to the topographic surface. In the region of overlap with the Central Basin Monterey Diagenetic Traps Assessment Unit, the North and East of Eocene West Side Fold Belt AU extends from basement rocks to the top of the Temblor Formation (figs. 19.3 and 19.4). In map view, the northern boundary of the assessment unit corresponds to the northernmost extent of Eocene-age Kreyenhagen Formation. The northeast boundary is the eastern limit of possible oil reservoir rocks near the eastern edge of the basin. The southeast bound-ary corresponds to the pinch-out of Stevens sand of Eckis (1940) to the south, which approximately coincides with the northern flank of the Bakersfield Arch (fig. 19.1). The AU is bounded on the southwest by the limit of major west side structural deformation and to the northwest by the San Andreas Fault and the limit of hydrocarbon-prospective strata in the Coast Ranges.
As described by Gautier and others (this volume, chap-ter 2), existing oil fields in the San Joaquin Basin Province were assigned to assessment units based on the identified petroleum system and reservoir rocks in each field. Valleci-tos oil field in the extreme northwest corner of the basin was assigned to the Eocene Total Petroleum System, because oil analyses conducted for this San Joaquin Basin assessment indicate that Eocene oil charged the reservoir rocks (Lillis and Magoon, this volume, chapter 9). Some literature clas-sifies the Vallecitos oil field as part of the northernmost fold of the basin’s west side fold belt (see, for example, Rent-schler, 1985; Bartow, 1991), but because of the oil field’s spatial separation and differing trend from the west side fold belt, Vallecitos field was considered here to be within the North and East of Eocene West Side Fold Belt Assessment Unit rather than in the other assessment unit in the Eocene Total Petroleum System, the Eocene West Side Fold Belt.
Primary fields in the assessment unit are defined as those containing hydrocarbon resources greater than the USGS minimum threshold for assessment (0.5 million bar-rels of oil); secondary fields contain smaller volumes of oil but constitute a significant show of hydrocarbons.
Source Rocks This AU is classified as part of the Eocene Total Petroleum
System (Magoon and others, this volume, chapter 8). Most known oil accumulations within the AU are believed to have been sourced by shale of the Eocene Kreyenhagen Formation, which is thermally mature in the Buttonwillow depocenter located on the west side of the San Joaquin Basin (fig. 19.5) (Peters, Magoon, Lampe, and others, this volume, chapter 12). The Eocene Tumey formation of Atwill (1935), hereafter referred to as Tumey formation, may also have produced and expelled oil in this assessment unit, as evidenced particularly in the Deer Creek and Jasmin oil fields (Lillis and Magoon, this volume, chapter 8). For both source rocks, oil generation began in latest Miocene to earliest Pliocene time (Peters, Magoon, Lampe, and others, this volume, chapter 12).
Thermally mature biosiliceous shale of the Miocene Monterey Formation located on the basin’s west side and south of the Bakersfield Arch could, in principle, be a source for hydrocarbons within this AU. In particular, Monterey Forma-tion-derived oil may have charged reservoir rocks in the Rio Bravo field. Rio Bravo field is located just north of the Greeley field, where analyses of oil samples confirm a Monterey Forma-tion source (see fig. 9.12 in Lillis and Magoon, this volume, chapter 9). In the absence of oil samples from Rio Bravo field, the question of hydrocarbon source remains complicated, because reservoir rocks within that field occur in Olcese and Vedder Sands, which lie stratigraphically between the oil-gener-ative shales of the Kreyenhagen and Monterey Formations (figs. 19.4 and 19.6). Further, Rio Bravo field clearly is excluded from the Miocene Lower Bakersfield Arch Assessment Unit (Gautier, this volume, chapter 14) located immediately to the south of this AU because of the absence of Stevens sand of Eckis (1940). Rio Bravo field also does not belong to the Miocene Central Basin Monterey Diagenetic Traps Assessment Unit (Hosford Scheirer and others, this volume, chapter 17), which geographically over-laps with this AU but requires diagenetic trapping mechanisms within the quartz facies of the McLure Shale Member of the Monterey Formation. Until samples are collected and analyzed from Rio Bravo field, the source of hydrocarbons in the field remains speculative. To date, no Monterey Formation-derived oil has been identified within the assessment unit (Lillis and Magoon, this volume, chapter 9).
Maturation and Migration Oil generation in the Kreyenhagen Formation began about
5.5 Ma in the northern part of the pod of active source rock and about 4.2 Ma in the southern part of the pod (fig. 19.5; Peters, Magoon, Lampe, and others, this volume, chapter 12). Genera-tion ended about 3.6 Ma in the north but continues to the present day in the south. Due to the absence of sufficient samples of Tumey formation, no quantitative information is available on the timing of maturation and hydrocarbon generation for this source rock (Peters, Magoon, Lampe, and others, this volume,
3 Eocene Total Petroleum System—North and East of the Eocene West Side Fold Belt Assessment Unit of the San Joaquin Basin Province
chapter 12). Timing of generation is thus assumed to be the same for shales of the Tumey formation and Kreyenhagen Formation. Critical to the analysis of this AU is the fact that mature
source rocks are known to exist in the southwest corner of the assessment unit (fig. 19.5), implying relatively long and complex migration pathways from source rock to reservoir rock. The relatively small volume of discovered oil within this AU (table 19.1) implies that these pathways may also be leaky and the traps small. Further, the absence of known oil accu-mulations north of Raisin City field implies a lack of adequate migration, charge, traps, and/or seals in the northern third of the assessment unit. Petroleum system modeling by Peters, Magoon, Lampe, and others (this volume, chapter 12) indicates that effective seals appear to be missing from the eastern margin of the northern San Joaquin Basin, in that migrating hydrocar-bons are modeled to flow through the basin and beyond the calculation space (fig. 19.7).
Reservoir Rocks Known accumulations occur in the Paleocene to Eocene
Lodo Formation, in the Eocene Domengine and Kreyenhagen Formations, and in Oligocene-Miocene Temblor Formation-equivalent rocks such as the Olcese and Vedder Sands (fig. 19.4 and table 19.1). Miocene nonmarine sandstone of the Zilch for-mation of Loken (1959) and Miocene shallow water Santa Mar-garita Sandstone also serve as reservoir rocks, mostly toward the eastern edge of the AU. Continuous (unconventional) frac-tured shale reservoirs are possible, but their likelihood and sizes are unknown, and this class of potential hydrocarbon resources was not quantitatively assessed. Reservoir rocks in known fields have fair to good reservoir
quality, with average porosities of 34 percent in the Santa Mar-garita Sandstone in Deer Creek field, of 30 to 36 percent in res-ervoirs at several fields in the Zilch formation of Loken (1959), of 14 to 40 percent in Temblor Formation equivalent reservoirs, and of 12 to 33 percent in Eocene and Paleocene-aged reservoir rocks (CDOGGR, 1998). Known reservoirs span a large range of average production depths, varying from about 400 feet in the Kreyenhagen Formation at the Los Pinos Canyon area of Vallecitos field to 15,000 feet in the Kreyenhagen Formation at Wasco field. Productive sand thickness varies between 10 and 400 feet within the assessment unit (CDOGGR, 1998).
Traps and Seals The North and East of Eocene West Side Fold Belt Assess-
ment Unit contains a large variety of trapping styles ranging from low-relief domes and anticlines with faulting and strati-graphic components, such as at Rio Bravo (fig. 19.6), Vallecitos (fig. 19.8), and Helm (fig. 19.9) fields, to up-dip structural or stratigraphic traps near basin margins, such as at Deer Creek oil field (fig. 19.10). Diagenetic mechanisms may also create
hydrocarbon traps, particularly at depth in the southwestern part of the assessment unit (for example at Tulare Lake field, McCullough and Horton, 1993).
Structural elements of traps in this assessment unit probably formed prior to the late Miocene. In contrast to the large-offset faults that contribute to major oil accumulations on the basin’s west side (see for example, Tennyson, this volume, chapter 15 and chapter 18), faults within the central basin tend to have limited geographic extent and small offset (Bartow, 1991). For example, a structure contour map on the top of the oil zone within the Kreyenhagen Formation at Helm field shows at least eight faults with trends that are transverse to the elon-gated anticline (fig. 19.9), but these faults average only about one mile in length and displacements decrease gradually from 50 to 100 feet at the top of the Domengine Formation to nearly zero at the level of the McLure Shale Member of the Monterey Formation (Frame, 1950).
Exploration Status and Resource Potential Table 19.1 lists the 13 primary fields within the assessment
unit that have recoverable oil of more than 0.5 million barrels. Of these, Rio Bravo and Raisin City fields account for nearly two-thirds of the total recoverable oil, whereas Helm and River-dale fields account for an additional 22 percent of the total.
On the basis of the results of thermal maturity modeling (Peters, Magoon, Lampe, and others, this volume, chapter 12), Eocene-aged oil-prone source rocks are mature only in the southwest corner of the assessment unit, thereby necessitating long migration pathways from source to trap for much of the AU. This interpretation is consistent with the discovery of only dry gas accumulations in the northern area of the AU, sug-gesting that factors favorable to oil accumulation are probably absent north of Raisin City field. Throughout the middle and southeastern parts of the AU, the combination of inadequate volumes of locally mature source rocks, mostly thin reservoir units, and generally small traps make discovery of accumula-tions larger than 0.5 million barrels unlikely. In the southwestern portion of the AU, a few charged deep
reservoirs exist between the mature source rocks of the Kreyen-hagen Formation, Tumey formation, and Monterey Formation (fig. 19.5). The recently discovered Kettleman City and Tulare Lake fields are two examples of these deep accumulations (fig. 19.11); in both fields, reservoir rock depths exceed 12,500 feet and porosity averages less than 20 percent. Although reservoir quality and trapping mechanisms remain problematical in this part of the AU, a few more of these deep accumulations may be discovered. The embayment area to the west that includes the Valleci-
tos Syncline is highly structured with geographically and volu-metrically restricted sections of sedimentary rocks, making this area unfavorable for significant future discoveries. Although regarded as highly unlikely, the possibility of fractured shale
4 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California
reservoirs in this AU cannot be dismissed. Finally, other rocks such as the Famoso sand of Edwards (1943), located in the southeastern corner of the AU between Deer Creek and Tulare Creek fields, and the sands of the Lodo Formation in the central basin may prove prospective in the future.
The USGS assessment of the potential for future petro-leum discoveries in this assessment unit reflects the complex migration pathways, great distances from thermally mature source rocks, and the relatively advanced state of exploratory drilling in the area. We anticipate that future discoveries will be comparatively small and sparse, reflecting the continuation of the discovery history of the last few decades. Specifically, we predict that the number of undiscovered oil accumulations greater than the minimum-considered size of 0.5 million barrels (MMB) in the assessment unit ranges between one and ten, but this distribution is highly skewed as the most likely number of accumulations left to be found is estimated as two. The sizes of these accumulations range from 0.5 MMB to 30 MMB, with a median size of about four MMB. Accordingly, the estimated mean volume of potential additions to reserves in this assess-ment unit is about 12 MMB.
All assessment results and supporting documentation for the North and East of Eocene West Side Fold Belt Assess-ment Unit of the San Joaquin Basin Province are available in files c100302.pdf (data form for conventional assessment unit), d100302.pdf (summary of discovery history), em100302. pdf (probabilistic estimates), g100302.pdf (graphs of explora-tion and discovery data for grown volumes), and k100302.pdf (graphs of exploration and discovery data for known volumes). Klett and Le (this volume, chapter 28) summarize the contents of these files.
References Cited
Atwill, E.R., 1935, Oligocene Tumey Formation of California: Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, v. 19, no. 8, p. 1192-1204. Bartow, J.A., 1991, The Cenozoic evolution of the San Joaquin Valley, California: Washington, D. C., U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1501, 40 p. Beyer, L.A., 1996, San Joaquin Basin Province, in Gautier, D.L., Dolton, G.L., Takahashi, K.I., and Varnes, K.L., eds., 1995 National assessment of United States oil and gas resources—Results, methodology, and supporting data: U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-30, release 2. Bishop, C.C., 1970, Upper Cretaceous stratigraphy on the west side of the Northern San Joaquin Valley, Stanislaus and San Joaquin counties, California: Sacramento, Calif., California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 104, 29 p. Callaway, D.C., 1964, Distribution of uppermost Cretaceous sands in the Sacramento-Northern San Joaquin Basin of California: Selected Papers Presented to San Joaquin Geological Society, v. 2, p. 5-18. CDOGGR, 1998, California oil and gas fields: Sacramento,
Calif., California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Publication No. CD-1, 1472 p. CDOGGR, 2003, 2002 Annual Report of the State Oil and Gas Supervisor: Sacramento, Calif., California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Publication No. PR06, 263 p. [also available at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/annual_reports/2002/]. Eckis, R., 1940, The Stevens sand, southern San Joaquin Valley, California [abs.]: Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, v. 24, no. 12, p. 2195-2196. Edwards, E.C., 1943, Kern Front area of the Kern River oil field, in Jenkins, O.P., ed., Geologic formations and economic development of the oil and gas fields of California: San Francisco, Calif., State of California, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines Bulletin No. 118, p. 571-574. Frame, R.G., 1950, Helm oil field, in Summary of operations, California oil fields: San Francisco, Calif., Annual Report of the State Oil and Gas Supervisor, v. 36, no. 1, p. 5-14 [also available in California Division of Oil and Gas, Summary of Operations, 1915-1999: California Division of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Publication No. CD-3, and at ftp://ftp.consrv. ca.gov/pub/oil/Summary_of_Operations/1950/]. Goudkoff, P.P., 1943, Correlation of oil field formations on west side of San Joaquin Valley, in Jenkins, O.P., ed., Geologic formations and economic development of the oil and gas fields of California: San Francisco, Calif., State of California, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines Bulletin No. 118, p. 247-252. Graham, S.A., and Williams, L.A., 1985, Tectonic, depositional, and diagenetic history of Monterey Formation (Miocene), central San Joaquin Basin, California: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 69, no. 3, p. 385-411. Hoffman, R.D., 1964, Geology of the northern San Joaquin Valley: Selected Papers Presented to San Joaquin Geological Society, v. 2, p. 30-45. Kasline, F.E., 1942, Edison oil field, in Summary of operations, California oil fields: San Francisco, Calif., Annual Report of the State Oil and Gas Supervisor, v. 26, p. 12-18 [also available in California Division of Oil and Gas, Summary of Operations, 1915-1999: California Division of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Publication No. CD-3, and at ftp://ftp.consrv. ca.gov/pub/oil/Summary_of_Operations/1940/]. Kirby, J.M., 1943, Upper Cretaceous stratigraphy of the west side of Sacramento Valley south of Willows, Glenn County, California: Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, v. 27, no. 3, p. 279-305. Loken, K.P., 1959, Gill Ranch gas field, in Summary of operations, California oil fields: San Francisco, Calif., Annual Report of the State Oil and Gas Supervisor, v. 45, no. 1, p. 27-32 [also available in California Division of Oil
5 Eocene Total Petroleum System—North and East of the Eocene West Side Fold Belt Assessment Unit of the San Joaquin Basin Province
and Gas, Summary of Operations, 1915-1999: California Division of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Publication No. CD-3, and at ftp:// ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/Summary_of_Operations/1959/]. McCullough, P.T., and Horton, R.A., Jr., 1993, Diagenesis and porosity development in Temblor Formation sandstones at Tulare Lake Field, San Joaquin Basin, California: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 77, no. 4, p. 708. McMasters, J.H., 1948, Oceanic sand [abs.]: Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, v. 32, no. 12, p. 2320. Miller, R.H., and Bloom, C.V., 1939, Mountain View oil field, in Summary of operations, California oil fields: San Francisco, Calif., Annual Report of the State Oil and Gas Supervisor, v. 22, no. 4, p. 5-36 [also available in California Division of Oil and Gas, Summary of Operations, 1915-1999: California Division of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Publication No. CD-3, and at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/Summary_of_ Operations/1937/]. Noble, E.B., 1940, Rio Bravo oil field, Kern County, California: Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, v. 24, no. 7, p. 1330-1333. Rentschler, M.S., 1985, Structurally controlled Neogene sedimentation in the Vallecitos Syncline, in Graham, S.A., ed., Geology of the Temblor Formation, western San Joaquin Basin, California: Los Angeles, Pacific Section,
Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, v. 44, p. 87-96. Sullivan, J.C., 1963, Guijarral Hills oil field, in Summary of operations, California oil fields: San Francisco, Calif., Annual Report of the State Oil and Gas Supervisor, v. 48, no. 2, p. 37-51 [also available in California Division of Oil and Gas, Summary of Operations, 1915-1999: California Division of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Publication No. CD-3, and at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/Summary_of_ Operations/1962/]. Sullivan, J.C., and Weddle, J.R., 1960, Rio Bravo oil field, in Summary of operations, California oil fields: San Francisco, Calif., Annual Report of the State Oil and Gas Supervisor, v. 46, no. 1, p. 27-38 [also available in California Division of Oil and Gas, Summary of Operations, 1915-1999: California Division of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Publication No. CD-3, and at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/Summary_of_ Operations/1960/]. Wilkinson, E.R., 1960, Vallecitos field, in Summary of operations, California oil fields: San Francisco, Calif., Annual Report of the State Oil and Gas Supervisor, v. 45, no. 2, p. 17-33 [also available in California Division of Oil and Gas, Summary of Operations, 1915-1999: California Division of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Publication No. CD-3, and at ftp:// ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/Summary_of_Operations/1959/].
6 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California
This page intentionally leftblank
7 Eocene Total Petroleum System—North and East of the Eocene West Side Fold Belt Assessment Unit of the San Joaquin Basin Province
Figures
Figure 19.1
8 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California
38˚N
Pacific Ocean
1995 Play Boundaries 2003 Assessment Unit
0 25
miles
38˚N
37˚N 37˚N
36˚N 36˚N
35˚N 35˚N
121˚W 120˚W 119˚W
Figure 19.1. Map of the San Joaquin Basin, illustrating San Joaquin Basin Province boundary (bold line), county boundaries (thin gray line), North and East of Eocene West Side Fold Belt Assessment Unit boundary (blue line), corresponding play boundaries from previous USGS assessment (purple line), and oil (green) and gas (red) fields in the basin. Gray shading shows the location of the Bakersfield Arch, which is mapped on the basement surface in a three-dimensional geologic model of the basin (Hosford Scheirer, this volume, chapter 7).
Eocene Total Petroleum System—North and East of the Eocene West Side Fold Belt Assessment Unit of the San Joaquin Basin Province
miles
0 10
M
37°N 37°N
F RC BSE
SJ B VNSV
CN CHe RCC TA FP Ha
E41/S We
DCN
36°N DC 36°NKC TL
TB
J
JW
Wa
RB
121°W 120°W 119°W
Figure 19.2. Detailed map of North and East of Eocene West Side Fold Belt Assessment Unit. The blue line indicates the geographic limits of the AU. Oil fields in the AU are colored green. Fields outside the AU are outlined in black. Filled circles represent 1,543 wells drilled for petroleum within the AU between 1909 and 2001. Well locations are from the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, and are available in databases at ftp://ftp.conserv.ca.gov/pub/oil/maps/dist4 and ftp://ftp.conserv.ca.gov/pub/oil/maps/dist5. Township and range grid is indicated for scale and location; scattered labels are relative to the Mount Diablo baseline and meridian. Gray shading shows the location of the Bakersfield Arch. Cities of Merced (M) and Fresno (F) are denoted with filled squares. Primary and secondary (*) oil field labels are: B=Burrel, BSE=Burrel Southeast, C=Camden*, CC=Cantua Creek*, CN=Cantua Nueva*, DC=Deer Creek, DCN=Deer Creek North*, FP=Five Points*, Ha=Hanford*, He=Helm, J=Jasmin, JW=Jasmin West*, KC=Kettleman City*, RC=Raisin City, RB=Rio Bravo, R=Riverdale, SJ=San Joaquin, TB=Terra Bella*, TL=Tulare Lake, TA=Turk Anticline*, V=Vallecitos, VNS=Van Ness Slough, Wa=Wasco, and We=Westhaven*.
10 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California
Ragged Valley silt* Sawtooth shale*
Sacramento shale**
* of Hoffman (1964) ** of Callaway (1964)
Figure 19.3. Three-dimensional stratigraphic model of the North and East of Eocene West Side Fold Belt Assessment Unit extracted from the EarthVision® model of the basin by Hosford Scheirer (this volume, chapter 7). The bounding polygonal block illustrates the model space within which the EarthVision® model is constructed. The major stratigraphic units within the assessment unit are listed; see figure 19.4 for stratigraphic relationships between the units. Formation names in italics are informal. Oil fields (green) are draped on the topographic surface. The San Joaquin Basin Province boundary (bold line), assessment unit boundary (dashed line), and city names and locations float above the model. View is from 10° west of south at a 30° inclination angle. Vertical exaggeration is 4. Fm, Formation; fm, formation; Mbr, Member; sd, sand; Ss, Sandstone. EarthVision is a registered trademark (Marca Registrada) of Dynamic Graphics, Inc., Alameda, Calif.
Bakersfield
Stockton
Fresno
Merced
Modesto
N
5
10
15
20
25
35
40
30
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85 120 ~
Ma alluvium/non-marine
San Joaquin Fm Etchegoin Fm
Santa Margarita Ss, Monterey Fm Temblor Fm,
Zilch fm of Loken (1959), Olcese Sand,
Rio Bravo sand of Noble (1940), Vedder Sand, Vaqueros Fm
Canoas Slts Mbr Yokut B=Buttonbed Ss MbrDomengine Fm Domengine Fm Ss PH=Pyramid Hill Sd Mbr
KR=Kern River Fm
unna
med
un
nam
edArroyo Hondo Sh MbrGatchell sd Cantua Ss Mbr Oil reservoir rock Gas reservoir rock
Potential marine Potential nonmarineLodo Fm reservoir rock reservoir rock
YNE-
BU
LI-
MA
AST
RIC
H.
CA
MPA
NIA
N
TIA
NZI
AN
Nonmarine coarse grained Marine coarse
rock grained rockSan Carlos sd Coast RangeClay/shale/ ~
~ ~~
ophiolite/biosiliceousmudstone/
Granitic basement Oil-prone source
rock/Hiatus or loss by
erosion
CH
ENEY
IAN
Gas-prone sourcerock
Garzas Ss Wheatville sd undifferentiated M
oreno Fm
Panoche Fm
Cretaceous 121˚W 120˚W 119˚W
Moreno Fm
38˚N miles
0 25
North
Central
DCNDR
PH SouthT DD
Blewett sds Starkey sands Tracy sds RVS Brown Mtn ss Sawtooth shale Ragged Valley silt
37˚NJoaquin Ridge Ss MbrLathrop sd Sacramento shale Panoche Fm
Con
verg
ent m
argi
n an
dSi
erra
n m
agm
atis
m Forbes fm
?SANT.
CON.
TUR.
CEN
O.
ALB
IAN
?RVS=Ragged Valley silt 36˚N DC
Jundifferentiated Cretaceous
marine and nonmarine strata undifferentiated Cretaceous marine and nonmarine strata Pacific
Ocean 35˚N
160 Ma 120 Ma 160 Ma 120 Ma 160 Ma 120 Ma Basement rocks Basement rocks Basement rocks
110
Figure 19.4. San Joaquin Basin Province stratigraphy showing hydrocarbon reservoir rocks and potential hydrocarbon source rocks. See Hosford Scheirer and Magoon (this volume, chapter 5) for complete explanation of the figure. Stratigraphic relationships on the west side of southern San Joaquin Basin are masked with transparency to indicate that the southwest margin does not strictly fall within the assessment unit. Formation names in italics are informal and are defined as follows (in approximate age order): Forbes formation of Kirby (1943), Sacramento shale and Lathrop sand of Callaway (1964), Sawtooth shale and Tracy sands of Hoffman (1964), Brown Mountain sandstone of Bishop (1970), Ragged Valley silt, Starkey sands, and Blewett sands of Hoffman (1964), Wheatville sand of Callaway (1964), San Carlos sand of Wilkinson (1960), Gatchell sand of Goudkoff (1943), Oceanic sand of McMasters (1948), Leda sand of Sullivan (1963), Tumey formation of Atwill (1935), Famoso sand of Edwards (1943), Rio Bravo sand of Noble (1940), Nozu sand of Kasline (1942), Zilch formation of Loken (1959), Stevens sand of Eckis (1940), Fruitvale shale of Miller and Bloom (1939), and Antelope shale of Graham and Williams (1985).
Figure 19.5. Location of North and East of Eocene West Side Fold Belt Assessment Unit (blue line) with respect to the pods of active source rock of the Tumey formation (A) and Kreyenhagen Formation (B) of the Eocene Total Petroleum System as mapped by Peters, Magoon, Lampe, and others (this volume, chapter 12). Because of a lack of geochemical data, the pod of active source rock for the Tumey formation is assumed to be the same as the pod of active source rock for the Kreyenhagen Formation. The bold line is the San Joaquin Basin Province boundary and thin gray lines are county boundaries. Gray shading shows the location of the Bakersfield Arch. See Magoon and others (this volume, chapter 8) for details of oil field assignment to petroleum systems based on geochemical analyses. Italics denote informal geologic name.
13 Eocene Total Petroleum System—North and East of the Eocene West Side Fold Belt Assessment Unit of the San Joaquin Basin Province
Rio Bravo Oil Field
_
PLIO
CEN
E SE
RIES
MIO
CEN
EO
LIG
OC
ENE
Bas
emen
tro
cks
Ved
der
San
d
Frui
tval
e sh
ale
of M
iller
and
Bloo
m (1
939)
Et
cheg
oin
Fo
rmat
ion
FO
RMAT
ION
LATE
JUR
ASS
IC (?
) EOCE
NE
Free
man
Silt
-Je
wet
t Sd
Ro
un
dM
ou
nta
inSi
lt
Ree
f Rid
ge
Sh M
br o
fM
on
tere
yFm
Tumey fm*
TejonFm or
KreyenhagenFm
A B5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000
7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000
9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000
11000 11000
13000
11000 11000 11000 Rio Bravo sand of Noble (1940)
Olcese Sand equiv.
Osborn sand** Vedder Sand
Helbling sand**
upper Olcese Sand equiv.
Rio Bravo sand of Noble (1940)
contoured horizon
K sand**
J sand**
I1 and I2 sands** I5 a nd I 6 sa nd s **
Vedder Sand
Helbling sand**
Osborn sand**
1 mile
-11000
-10900
-10800
-10750-10800
-10850
-10850
-10900
-10850
-10850
-10900
-10950
-10950-11000
-11050-11100-11150
-11100-11200
-11300
-11300
-11200
-11100-11000-10900 -10800
A B
27
3433
28
3
35
2
T 28S R25 E
T 29S R25 E
++ _ _
+
+ _
+ _
Contours on top of Rio Bravo sand of Noble (1940)
1 mile
JANUARY 1983
* of Atwill (1935), ** of Sullivan and Weddle (1960)
Figure 19.6. Figure of the Rio Bravo oil field, illustrating the asymmetrical dome structure of the field. Green shading (underlying township-range grid) denotes reported 1998 limits of productive sand units within the field. All depths are in feet. Formations in italics denote informal geologic names. Informal units not previously defined include the I1, I2, I5, I6, J, K, Helbling, and Osborn sands of Sullivan and Weddle (1960). Township-range grid in figures 19.6 and 19.8 through 19.11 is relative to the Mount Diablo baseline and meridian; one mile by one mile sections within the township-range grid are numbered in italics. See figure 19.2 for location of field. Figure modified from CDOGGR (1998). Fm, Formation; fm, formation; Mbr, Member; Sd, Sand; Sh, Shale; equiv., equivalent.
14 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California
38°N
37°N
36°N
35°N
0 25
miles
121°W 120°W 119°W
38°N
37°N
36°N
35°N
Figure 19.7. Pathways (blue line) of migrating hydrocarbons at the top of the Point of Rocks Sandstone Member of the Kreyenhagen Formation derived from a four-dimensional petroleum system model of the San Joaquin Basin (Peters, Magoon, Lampe, and others, this volume, chapter 12). Underlying shading schematically illustrates depth to the top of the Point of Rocks Sandstone; cool colors are relatively deeper than warm colors. Oil and gas fields are outlined in black and the AU boundary is shown in purple. Note the absence of hydrocarbon accumulations on the eastern margin of the San Joaquin Basin.
Eocene Total Petroleum System—North and East of the Eocene West Side Fold Belt Assessment Unit of the San Joaquin Basin Province
Vallecitos Oil Field 1 mile
T 16 S R10 E
13 18 T 16 S R11 E
Griswold T 16 S R12 ECanyon Area
19
1 mile 23 24 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21
Cedar Flat Contours on top ofArea San Carlos sand of Wilkinson (1960)26 25 2930 28 26 25 30 29
Pimental CanyonArea-gas (abd)
truncation ofFranco Area Silver Creek AreaAshurst Area San Carlos sand of
Wilkinson (1960)
35 33 _
3435 36 31 36 3132 33 32
T 17 S R12 E
4 Truncation of top
5 3 62 1of Kreyenhangen 6 5 4
Formation FORMATION
MEMBER & ZONE 7
8 9
Los Pinos
T 17 S R11 E Canyon Area (abd)
alluvium E
HO
LOCE
NE,
LATE
SERI
ESPA
LEO
CEN
E EO
CEN
E M
IOC
ENE
PLIO
CEN
E PL
EIST
OCE
NE
CRE
TAC
EOU
S
10 11 12 7 8 9
15 14 1316 18 1717 16 0
Etchegoin Formation
Contours on top of Kreyenhagen Formation
Temblor Formation
Kreyenhagen Formation Ashurst sand*
Domengine Formation
Los Pinos Canyon Area Central Area Franco Area
E Ground Surface F Yokut
Sandstone 1000 100010001000
Arroyo Hondo 2000 EtchegoinShale Formation
Member
Cantua
3000
Mar
tin
ez F
m
Lod
o F
orm
atio
n
4000
Sandstone Member 5000
Temblor 6000 Formation
Cerros Shale Member
KreyenhagenSan Carlos sd* Formation
Yokut Sandstone
Arroyo HondoMoreno Formation Shale Member
of Lodo Formation
Panoche Formation
* of Wilkinson (1960)
Figure 19.8. Figure of the Vallecitos oil field, illustrating the synclinal structure of the region. Green shading (underlying township-range grid) denotes reported 1998 limits of productive sand units within the field. All depths are in feet. Formations in italics denote informal geologic names. Informal units not previously defined include the Ashurst sand and San Carlos sand of Wilkinson (1960). See figure 19.2 for location of field. Figure modified from CDOGGR (1998). Fm, Formation; Mbr, Member; Sh, Shale; sd, sand; Ss, Sandstone; abd, abandoned.
16 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California
NOTE: PALEOCENE PRODUCTIVE INTERVAL TOO THIN TO SHOW
Contours on topKreyenhagen Formation
oil zone
3
10
24
29 28 27
36 31 32 33 34
19
+
+
+
+
++
+
+
– –
–
–
––
– –
SERI
ES FORMATION&
MEMBER
TYPICALELECTRIC
LOG
SantaMargaritaSandstone
KreyenhagenFormation
shale ofMoreno
Fm
PanocheFormation
Mor
eno
Fm
Domengine Fm
OLIG
OCEN
EEO
CEN
ELA
TE C
RETA
CEOU
S
Zilchformationof Loken
(1959)
MIO
CEN
E
McLureSh Mbr
Santa MargaritaSandstone
Mon
tere
y Fm
Wheatvillesand*
5,500
6,000
6,500
7,000
7,500
8,000 5,500 5,500 5,500
6,000
6,500
7,000
7,500
8,000
8,500
5,500
8,500
9,000
11,00011,500
12,000
DECEMBER 1994
A B
McLure Shale Member of Monterey Fm
Zilch formation of Loken (1959)
Kreyenhagen FormationDomengine Fm
Wheatville sand*shale of Moreno Fm
Panoche Formation
contoured horizon
Moreno Formation
T17S R19E
SOUTHEAST AREA
MAIN AREA
T17S R17E
T16S R18E
T17S R18E
T16S R17E
29 28 27 26
32 33 34 36 31
3 1 4
71211
18 17 13
25 30
2221
-7,950
-7,900
-7,750
-7,850
-7,800
-7,800
-7,800-7,900-7,950
-7,950
-7,950
-7,950
-7,950
-7,950
-7,900
-7,900
-7,900
-7,900-7,900
-7,800
-7,800
-7,750
-7,800
-7,750
-7,750
-7,850
-8,000
-7,850
-7,850
-8,000
-8,050
-8,000
-7,800
-7,850
-8,000
-7,900
* of Callaway (1964)
Helm Oil Field
A
B
1mile
1m
ile
Figure 19.9. Figure of the Helm oil field, illustrating anticlinal trapping mechanism in the assessment unit. Green shading (underlying township-range grid) denotes reported 1998 limits of productive sand units within the field. All depths are in feet. Formations in italics denote informal geologic names. See figure 19.2 for location of field. Figure modified from CDOGGR (1998). Fm, Formation; Mbr, Member; Sh, Shale.
17 Eocene Total Petroleum System—North and East of the Eocene West Side Fold Belt Assessment Unit of the San Joaquin Basin Province
Deer Creek Oil Field
1 mile
T 22 S R 27 E
T 23 S R 27 E
Contours on D electric log marker
28 27
33
4
2221
B
-300
-400
-500
-600
-700
-800
-200
1 mile
Pliocene
Miocene
Kern River Formation-Chanac Formation (undifferentiated)
contoured horizon
D electric log marker
weathered granitic basement rocks Late Jurassic (?)
B A
Santa Margarita
Sandstone
equivalent (?)
Figure 19.10. Figure of the Deer Creek oil field, illustrating stratigraphic trapping mechanism near the eastern basin margin. Green shading (underlying township-range grid) denotes reported 1998 limits of productive sand units within the field. All depths are in feet. See figure 19.2 for location of field. Figure modified from CDOGGR (1998).
Figure 19.11
18 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California
A Kettleman City Oil Field B Tulare Lake Oil Field
T 22 S R 19 E
A
B
4
9
McLure Shale Member of Monterey Formation
Temblor Formation
contoured horizon Salyer sand of CDOGGR (1998)
SERI
ES
FOR
MAT
ION
MEM
BER
MIO
CEN
EO
LIG
OC
ENE
EOC
ENE
contoured horizon
-10,970
-10,960
-10,950
-10,940
-10,930
-10,920
-10,910
Contours on top of Temblor Formation
TemblorFormation
Vaq
uer
os
Fm
McL
ure
Sh
ale
Mb
r
Mo
nte
rey
Form
atio
n
Tem
blo
r Fo
rmat
ion
Kre
yen
hag
enFo
rmat
ion
R
eef R
idg
eSh
ale
Mem
ber
19
18 17 16 15
7 8 9 10
6 5 4 3
34333231
T 22 S R 20 E
Contours on top of Salyer sand of CDOGGR (1998)
A B
Figure 19.11. Figure of the Kettleman City (A) and Tulare Lake (B) oil fields, illustrating characteristics of two of the most recently discovered fields within the southwest portion of the assessment unit. All depths are in feet. Formations in italics denote informal geologic names. Informal units not previously defined include the Salyer sand of CDOGGR (1998). See figure 19.2 for location of fields. Figure modified from CDOGGR (1998). Fm, Formation; Mbr, Member.
19 Eocene Total Petroleum System—North and East of the Eocene West Side Fold Belt Assessment Unit of the San Joaquin Basin Province
Table 19.1. Production statistics for primary fields in the North and East of Eocene West Side Fold Belt Assessment Unit.
[Recoverable oil is the sum of cumulative production and estimated proved reserves. Data source is CDOGGR (2003). MMB, millions of barrels. Primary fields are defined as those with recoverable oil equal to or greater than 0.5 MMB. Fields with zero producing wells are abandoned. Largest pool is cumulative production only. Pool designations follow naming conventions of the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources]
Field Recoverable Oil through
2002 (MMB)
Percent of Total
Number of Producing
Wells in 2002
Largest Pool (MMB)
Rio Bravo-Main Rio Bravo 117.0 47.7 14 Vedder-Osborn
