USGS Professional Paper 1713 - USGS Publications Warehouse

Eocene Total Petroleum System—North and East of the Eocene West Side Fold Belt Assessment Unit of the San Joaquin Basin Province

1

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

Source Rocks Reservoir Rocks

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. Principally siliceous marine shale of the Kreyenhagen Formation and secondarily, shale of the Tumey formation of Atwill (1935). Mainly Paleocene to Miocene marine and nonmarine sandstones.

Migration Timing Primary Fields Secondary Fields Exploration Status Resource Potential

Up-dip through complex feeder 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 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. Lightly explored (0.1 well per square mile and 12 percent of all sections have at least one 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 associated 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 containing 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 Central 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. Geological 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 boundary 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, chapter 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. Vallecitos 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 classifies the Vallecitos oil field as part of the northernmost fold of the basin’s west side fold belt (see, for example, Rentschler, 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 barrels 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 Formation-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 Formation 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-generative 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 overlaps 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). Generation 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

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 accumulations 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 hydrocarbons are modeled to flow through the basin and beyond the calculation space (fig. 19.7).

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 elongated 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).

Reservoir Rocks

Exploration Status and Resource Potential

Known accumulations occur in the Paleocene to Eocene Lodo Formation, in the Eocene Domengine and Kreyenhagen Formations, and in Oligocene-Miocene Temblor Formationequivalent rocks such as the Olcese and Vedder Sands (fig. 19.4 and table 19.1). Miocene nonmarine sandstone of the Zilch formation of Loken (1959) and Miocene shallow water Santa Margarita Sandstone also serve as reservoir rocks, mostly toward the eastern edge of the AU. Continuous (unconventional) fractured 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 Margarita Sandstone in Deer Creek field, of 30 to 36 percent in reservoirs 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 Assessment Unit contains a large variety of trapping styles ranging from low-relief domes and anticlines with faulting and stratigraphic 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

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 Riverdale 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, suggesting 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 accumulations 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 Kreyenhagen 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 Vallecitos Syncline is highly structured with geographically and volumetrically restricted sections of sedimentary rocks, making this area unfavorable for significant future discoveries. Although regarded as highly unlikely, the possibility of fractured shale

4


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 petroleum 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 assessment unit is about 12 MMB. All assessment results and supporting documentation for the North and East of Eocene West Side Fold Belt Assessment 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 exploration 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.

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. 21952196. 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, Atwill, E.R., 1935, Oligocene Tumey Formation of California: p. 385-411. Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Hoffman, R.D., 1964, Geology of the northern San Joaquin Geologists, v. 19, no. 8, p. 1192-1204. Valley: Selected Papers Presented to San Joaquin Bartow, J.A., 1991, The Cenozoic evolution of the San Geological Society, v. 2, p. 30-45. Joaquin Valley, California: Washington, D. C., U.S. Kasline, F.E., 1942, Edison oil field, in Summary of Geological Survey Professional Paper 1501, 40 p. operations, California oil fields: San Francisco, Calif., Beyer, L.A., 1996, San Joaquin Basin Province, in Gautier, Annual Report of the State Oil and Gas Supervisor, v. 26, p. D.L., Dolton, G.L., Takahashi, K.I., and Varnes, K.L., eds., 12-18 [also available in California Division of Oil and Gas, 1995 National assessment of United States oil and gas Summary of Operations, 1915-1999: California Division resources—Results, methodology, and supporting data: U.S. of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-30, release 2. Resources, Publication No. CD-3, and at ftp://ftp.consrv. Bishop, C.C., 1970, Upper Cretaceous stratigraphy on the west ca.gov/pub/oil/Summary_of_Operations/1940/]. side of the Northern San Joaquin Valley, Stanislaus and San Kirby, J.M., 1943, Upper Cretaceous stratigraphy of the Joaquin counties, California: Sacramento, Calif., California west side of Sacramento Valley south of Willows, Glenn Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 104, 29 p. County, California: Bulletin of the American Association of Callaway, D.C., 1964, Distribution of uppermost Cretaceous Petroleum Geologists, v. 27, no. 3, p. 279-305. sands in the Sacramento-Northern San Joaquin Basin Loken, K.P., 1959, Gill Ranch gas field, in Summary of of California: Selected Papers Presented to San Joaquin operations, California oil fields: San Francisco, Calif., Geological Society, v. 2, p. 5-18. Annual Report of the State Oil and Gas Supervisor, v. 45, CDOGGR, 1998, California oil and gas fields: Sacramento, no. 1, p. 27-32 [also available in California Division of Oil

References Cited


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, 19151999: 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,

5

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


This page intentionally left blank


Figures

7

8


38˚N

38˚N miles 0

25

2003 Assessment Unit 1995 Play Boundaries

37˚N

37˚N

36˚N

36˚N

Pacific Ocean 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 Figure (purple line), and oil (green) and gas (red) fields in the basin. Gray shading19.1 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).

9

5S /

9E


0

10

7S /

7S /

14 E

10 E

miles

10 S/

S/

19

E

37°N

E 23 E

B VNS S/

S/

20

14

E

SJ

16

16

V

F S/

14

RC BSE

15

S/

12

E

12

S/

10

E

11

37°N

10 S/

9E

17 E

8S /

16 E

M

CN

CC

He

TA

C

R

FP

Ha

DCN

15

23 S/

22

S/

KC TL

22

36°N

E

E

21

S/

21

E

20

S/

14

E

We 36°N

DC

25

S/ 2 25

JW

25

S/ 1

S/ 2

7E

2E

J

8E

TB

Wa

S/ 25

E

28

S/

19

E

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 Figure 19.2City*, 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


Stockton Modesto Merced

N

Fresno

ield

Bakersf

~2

30

Ma

mi

les

10 15 20 25 30 35

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

~10 miles

alluvium/non-marine

5

0 ~10

es

mil

Kreyenhagen Formation, Famoso sd of 45 Edwards (1943)

40

50 55 60

Domengine Formation, Lodo Fm

70

Garzas Ss Mbr of Moreno Fm, Blewett sands*

75

Lathrop sand**

80

Forbes fm of Kirby (1943)

65

Ragged Valley silt*

Sawtooth shale*

Tracy sands*

Sacramento shale**

85 120 ~

Basement rocks

* 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.


SAN JOAQUIN BASIN PROVINCE

unnamed unnamed

unnamed unnamed

r Fm

and

unnamed

Famoso sand

unnamed

Famoso sand

unnamed

unnamed

ch

J

120 Ma

Ar

F

Pacific Ocean

160 Ma

ld

fie

rs

ke

Ba

M TE EM O C IG U HA D N TA PI IO , IN S

WW

N

Diablo Range uplift and basin subsidence

Ved der S DCN DC T South

T

Basement rocks

PH DD

UL

160 Ma

Walk e

unnamed

Fm. Va qu er

os

FA

undifferentiated Cretaceous marine and nonmarine strata

120 Ma

DR

SA

DEL. MOHNIAN REL. LUI. SAUCESIAN ZEMORRIAN NARIZIAN ULATSIAN PENUTIAN BULITIAN

PALEOCENE

YNEZIAN

36˚N

AS

Convergent margin and Sierran magmatism

E DR AN

?

35˚N

Basement rocks

A AD

ce in

CAMPANIAN

V NE

ov Pr

RA

ER

sin

Central

N

CENO.

SI

Ba

LATE

n

ui

North

aq

Jo

CRETACEOUS

25

n

37˚N

119˚W

miles 0

SA

EARLY

120˚W

rch

nA

ckto

Sto

S

RVS=Ragged Valley silt

undifferentiated Cretaceous marine and nonmarine strata

160 Ma

121˚W

38˚N

Panoche Fm

Forbes fm

?

undifferentiated Cretaceous

GE

Sacramento shale

Ragged Valley silt

Coast Range ophiolite/ Granitic basement Hiatus or loss by erosion

Sa

105

Brown Mtn ss Joaquin Ridge Ss Mbr

~ ~ ~~

AN

100

Lathrop sd

Potential nonmarine reservoir rock Marine coarse grained rock

TR

TUR.

Wheatville sd

Potential marine reservoir rock Nonmarine coarse grained rock Clay/shale/ mudstone/ biosiliceous Oil-prone source rock/ Gas-prone source rock

AS

CON.

Garzas Ss

Gas reservoir rock

Oil reservoir rock

CO

SANT.

Arroyo Hondo Sh Mbr

San Carlos sd

Starkey sands

ed unnam B=Buttonbed Ss Mbr PH=Pyramid Hill Sd Mbr KR=Kern River Fm

Canoas Slts Mbr

Lodo Fm

RVS Sawtooth shale

Kreyenhagen Formation Point of Rocks Ss Mbr

is

95

Gatchell sd

Blewett sds

PH

Tumey formation

Yokut Ss

Domengine Fm

Cantua Ss Mbr

Tracy sds

Jewett Sand

Freeman Silt

Oceanic sand

Kreyenhagen Formation

Domengine Fm

Nozu sd Olcese Sand

Wygal Ss Mbr

Tumey formation


Round Mtn Silt

Cymric Shale Mbr

ax

90

unnamed

San ta Marg ari Ss ta

Fruitvale shale

Rio Bravo sd

sin

85

Agua Ss

Bed

ba

80

McDonald Sh Mbr

KR

Carneros Ss Mbr

Leda sd

Panoche Fm

75

Etchegoin Fm Reef Ridge Sh Mbr Antelope sh Stevens sd

Devilwater Sh Mbr/Gould Sh

Mbr, undiff

B Media Sh Mbr

Zilch fm

Moreno Fm

70

Santa Margarita Ss

Zilch fm

Moreno Fm

65

McLure Shale Mbr

Temblor Fm

Flat slab subduction and Laramide orogeny

55

60

Subduction and Triple junction magmatism migration

NEOGENE MIOCENE OLIGOCENE EOCENE PALEOGENE

50

Santa Margarita

Ss

Tulare Fm San Joaquin Fm

c na ha m C F

45

unnamed

REF.

35

40

Etchegoin Fm Reef Ridge Sh Mbr

East

Alluvium

basin axis

Sh Mbr

30

unnamed San Joaquin Fm

SOUTH

West

Santos

25

East

Alluvium

basin axis

Temblor Fm

20

CENTRAL

West

Monterey Fm

15

East

Monterey Fm

10

Alluvium

unnamed

PLIO.

5

NORTH

West basin axis

Transpression

PLEIS.

MAASTRICH. CHENEYIAN

0

MegaSYSTEM SERIES sequences

nd STAGE (2 order)

ALBIAN

Ma

Basement rocks

120 Ma

110

Figure 19.4. San Joaquin Basin Province stratigraphy showing hydrocarbon reservoir rocks and potential hydrocarbon Figure 19.4 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).

11

12

B

38°N miles 0

miles 25

0

25

37°N

36°N

35°N

Pod of active source rock, Tumey formation

Pod of active source rock, Kreyenhagen Formation

Oil from Tumey formation source rock

Oil from Kreyenhagen Fm source rock

Oil suspected from Tumey formation source rock

Oil suspected from Kreyenhagen Fm source rock

121°W

120°W

119°W

121°W

120°W

119°W

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.


A


Rio Bravo Oil Field _

+ -11300

_

+

-11200 -11100

T 28S R25 E

-11000

-1090

00 13 0 -1 120 0 -1 110 -1

0

-1080

0

-1

-1

00

00

27

80

0

-10

00

08

-1

_

-10

50

+

10

09

7 -10

50 -108 00 -109

28

85

0

1 mile

A

B

-10

-10

950

-10

90

85

0

0

_

+

10

-11

15

-10

0

00

85

0

34

1 mile

10

0

33

-1

50

95

10

0 -1

-1

-11

35

_

0

3

+

T 29S R25 E

2

FORMATION Etchegoin Formation Tumey fm*

5000

5000

5000

5000

B

5000

5000

I 1 and I 2 sands** I 5 a nd I 6 sa nd s **

J sand** K sand** 7000

7000

7000

7000

7000

7000

9000

9000

9000

9000

9000

9000

11000

11000

iv.

upper Olcese Sand equ

Olcese Sand equiv. 11000

Rio Bravo sand of Osborn sand**

11000

Noble (1940) Vedder Sand

Helbling sand**

contoured horizon Vedder Sand

Rio Bravo sa nd of Osborn sand **

11000

Noble (194

0)

Helbling sand**

13000

TejonFm or KreyenhagenFm

Basement rocks

PLIOCENE MIOCENE LATE JURASSIC (?) EOCENE OLIGOCENE

A

Freeman Round Fruitvale shale Reef Ridge SiltMountain of Miller and Sh Mbr of Vedder Sand Monterey Jewett Sd Silt Bloom (1939) Fm

SERIES

Contours on top of Rio Bravo sand of Noble (1940)

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.

13

14


38°N

38°N

miles 0

25

37°N

37°N

36°N

36°N

35°N

35°N

121°W

120°W

119°W

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.

15


Vallecitos Oil Field 1 mile

T 16 S R10 E

+ 24

T 16 S R11 E

Griswold Canyon19Area

T 16 S R12 E 20

+_

0

-1000

00 -400

31

33

+2

000 +10 00 0

Ashurst Area

-10

34

00

+200 0 35

00

+

-3

00

0

0

-3

-5

00

5

0 4

20

36

21

Contours on top of San Carlos sand of Wilkinson (1960) 30

29

truncation of San Carlos sand of

Wilkinson (1960)

+30

00

-2

+ _

Cen Are tral a

19

25

26

Franco Area

32

6

_

FORMATION MEMBER & ZONE

28

_

31

Silver Creek Area

+400 +200 0

+200 0 -200 33

32

T 17 S R12 E

00

-4

0

3

00

2

11

1

6

5

12

7

8

13

18

17

4

0

-50

00

9

8

7

10

Los Pinos Canyon Area T 17 S R11 E (abd)

9

alluvium

15

16

17

Etchegoin Formation

-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 14 0 +1000 +3000

16

+2000

Contours on top of Kreyenhagen Formation

Etchegoin Formation

4000

5000

A

rst shu

sd* 6000

Temblor Formation Kreyenhagen Formation

1000

s tS ku Yo

Car lo

n atio

3000

1000

San

orm nF

Lodo Formation

goi n atio

Martinez Fm

1000

1000

2000

F

A

EOCENE

he Etc

n rizo ho

Moreno Formation

rm

San Carlos sd*

r Fo

Cerros Shale

Member

blo

Cantua Sandstone Member

red tou con

Tem

PALEOCENE

Ground Surface

E Yokut

Sandstone

Arroyo Hondo Shale Member

Franco Area

Central Area

Los Pinos Canyon Area

Ca Sh Mrroyo H Ce b rro of ntu Fmr of Loondo Lo a S do of s S do s M Lo ha do le Fm br Fm Mb r

Domengine Formation

Ca Yok ntu ut S Ce s aS r r s sd os sM * Sh br Mb o Kr r o f Lod ey fL Mo od o Fm A enh ren oF rro a oF M y ge br o H n m m of o Fm Lo nd do o S Fm h

Temblor Formation Kreyenhagen Formation Ashurst sand*

LATE CRETACEOUS

+

-5000

E

HOLOCENE, MIOCENE PLIOCENE PLEISTOCENE SERIES

0

Truncation of top of Kreyenhangen Formation

24

Cedar Flat Area

-30 0 -40 0 00

0 -10-200 00 0

23

+_

_+

22

+_

36 +1000 0

-30

+_

_ +

Pimental Canyon

Area-gas (abd)

+10 0 00 +1000 35

00 0 29 -10 0 -20 0 00

30

21

_

_+

+10

-2000 25

26

+ _ +_

-100

+

+10 00 0

18

_

1 mile

23

13

F

14

Yokut

Sandstone

Arroyo Hondo

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.


Santa Margarita Sandstone

-7,9 50

29

32

5,500

28 -7, 900 33 T16S R17E

-7, 27 900

-7 ,75 0

34

3

McLure Sh Mbr

26 -8 -7, ,000 -7, 850 800

36 -7, 750

-7, -7,80 85 0 0

1

31

-8,0 00 -7,8 00

A 11

B

-7,7 50

-7 -7, -7,80,750 850 0 T17S R17E T17S R18E

17

3

4

-7,-7,90 -7 80 0 ,95 0 0

7

18

-7, -7,9 80 00 0 -7, 80 0 -7 -7,9,8050 0

–+

MAIN AREA

10

–+

-7,90 0

21

EOCENE OLIGOCENE

Zilch formation of Loken (1959)

-7,9 50 -8,000

Contours on top Kreyenhagen Formation oil zone

13

– + + – 24 -8, 8,000 050

25

1 mile

19 –

+

30

29

SOUTHEAST AREA 28

27

33

34

T17S R19E

36

31

32

1 mile

6,500

-7, 9 22 50

– +

50 -7,9 0 ,90 -7

MIOCENE

T16S R18E

0 ,95 -7 0 0 ,85 ,95 -7 -7 ,900 -7

6,000

12

– +

–+

FORMATION TYPICAL & ELECTRIC MEMBER LOG

Monterey Fm

SERIES

Helm Oil Field

7,000

7,500


A

B

Domengine Fm

Moreno Fm

Wheatville sand* shale of Moreno Fm

8,000

5,500

5,500

5,500

Santa Margarita Sandstone

5,500

McLure Shale Member of Monterey Fm 6,000 8,500

Zilch formation of Loken (1959) 6,500 9,000 7,000 11,000

LATE CRETACEOUS

16

Panoche Formation

7,500 11,500

Kreyenhagen Formation Domengine Fm Wheatville sand* shale of Moreno Fm

12,000

Panoche Formation

* of Callaway (1964) DECEMBER 1994

contoured horizon

8,000

Moreno

Formati

on

8,500

NOTE: PALEOCENE PRODUCTIVE INTERVAL TOO THIN TO SHOW

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.


Deer Creek Oil Field 1 mile

1 mile

22

21 -5 00 -40 0

-80

-70

0

0

-6 00

B

-30 0

T 22 S R 27 E

-200

27

28

33

Contours on D electric log marker

T 23 S R 27 E 4

B

A

Pliocene

Miocene

Kern River FormationChanac Formation (undifferentiated)

rita Marga Santaandstone ) S alent (? equiv

ured

to con

D

tric elec

log

mar

ker

on horiz

weathered granitic basement rocks Late Jurassic (?)

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).

17

18


A

Kettleman City Oil Field

B

Tulare Lake Oil Field

T 22 S R 19 E

A

31

32

33

34

6

5

4

3

4

B

A

-10,910 -1

-10

8

9

10

18

17

16

15

,920

-10

0,9 50

,93

0

40

0,9

-1

0

,97

-10

7

T 22 S R 20 E

0

,96

-10

9

B

19

MEMBER McLure Shale Mbr

Contours on top of Temblor Formation

McLure Shale Member of Monterey Formation contoured

horizon

Temblor Formation

Temblor Formation

contoured horizon Salyer sand of CDOGGR (1998)

Kreyenhagen Vaqueros Formation Fm

SERIES MIOCENE E OLIGOCEN

EOCENE

Reef Ridge FOR Temblor Formation Monterey Shale Formation Member MATION

Contours on top of Salyer sand of CDOGGR (1998)

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.

Figure 19.11


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]

Recoverable Oil through 2002 (MMB)

Percent of Total

Number of Producing Wells in 2002

Largest Pool (MMB)

Rio Bravo

117.0

47.7

14

Rio Bravo-Main Vedder-Osborn (109.6)

Raisin City

43.6

17.8

45

Zilch (38.7)

Helm

32.4

13.2

18

Riverdale

22.1

9.0

11

Tulare Lake

7.1

2.9

4

Boswell (1.9)

Vallecitos

5.5

2.2

19

Domengine-Yokut (3.6)

Wasco

5.1

2.1

1

unspecified (5.1)

Jasmin

4.0

1.6

35

Cantleberry (3.8)

Deer Creek

3.3

1.4

59

Burrel

1.8

0.7

1

San Joaquin

1.2

0.5

2

Burrel, SE

1.2

0.5

0

Van Ness Slough

0.7

0.3

3

245.0

99.9

212

Field

Total

Miocene (Zilch) (20.3) Miocene (Zilch) (14.9)

Santa Margarita (2.6) Miocene (Zilch) (1.8) Eocene (1.2) Miocene (Zilch) (1.2) Miocene (Zilch) (0.6)

19