Petroleum Systems Used to Determine the Assessment Units in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California

Home , Temblor Formation, Tulare Formation

Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California

Chapter 8 Petroleum Systems Used to Determine the Assessment Units in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California

By Leslie B. Magoon, Paul G. Lillis, and Kenneth E. Peters

Contents (table 8.1; Gautier and others, 2004; Hosford Scheirer, 2007). The petroleum pools in the province were allocated to each Introduction------1 petroleum system on the basis of (1) geochemical composi- Method------2 tion as described by Lillis and Magoon (this volume, chapter Petroleum System Name------2 9) and Lillis and others (this volume, chapter 10), (2) reservoir Petroleum System Map------2 rock nomenclature (fig 8.2;appendix 8.1 and appendix 8.2) as Petroleum System Stratigraphic Section------2 described by Hosford Scheirer and Magoon (this volume, chap- Petroleum System Cross Section------3 Burial History Chart------3 ter 5), and (3) the volume of oil and gas discovered for each Events Chart------3 petroleum system by system, flank, and trap type (tables 8.2, Table of Oil and Gas Volumes------3 8.3 and 8.4). For this assessment, each petroleum system was Regional Setting------3 determined, followed by the TPS from one or more petroleum San Joaquin(?) Petroleum System------4 systems. For example, the Miocene TPS includes two petro- Neogene Nonassociated Gas Total Petroleum System------5 McLure-Tulare(!) Petroleum System------5 leum systems, the McLure-Tulare(!) and Antelope-Stevens(!) Antelope-Stevens(!) Petroleum System------6 (notation described in Petroleum System Name section, below). Miocene Total Petroleum System------6 Magoon and Schmoker (2000) describe how the TPS is used in Tumey-Temblor(.) Petroleum System------7 this and the USGS world assessments. This chapter describes Kreyenhagen-Temblor(!) Petroleum System------7 the six petroleum systems used to make five total petroleum sys- Eocene Total Petroleum System------8 Eocene-Miocene Composite Total Petroleum System------8 tems in this San Joaquin Basin Province assessment. Moreno-Nortonville(.) Petroleum System------8 The figures and tables for each petroleum system and TPS Winters-Domengine Total Petroleum System------9 are as follows: (1) the San Joaquin(?) petroleum system or the Volumetric Estimate of Generated Petroleum------9 Neogene Nonassociated Gas TPS is a natural gas system in the Acknowledgments------11 southeast part of the province (figs. 8.3 through 8.8; table 8.5; References Cited------11 Figures------15 this volume, chapter 22); (2) the Miocene TPS (this volume, Tables------55 chapters 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17) includes the McLure-Tulare(!) Appendixes (.xls files) petroleum system north of the Bakersfield Arch (figs. 8.9 through 8.13; table 8.6), and the Antelope-Stevens(!) petroleum system south of the arch (figs. 8.14 through 8.18; table 8.7), and is summarized in figure 8.19; (3) the Eocene TPS (this Introduction volume, chapters 18 and 19) combines two petroleum systems, the Tumey-Temblor(.) covering much of the province (figs. 8.20 For the San Joaquin Basin Province in California (fig. 8.1), through 8.24; table 8.8) and the underlying Kreyenhagen-Tem- six petroleum systems were identified, mapped, and described blor(!) (figs. 8.25 through 8.29: table 8.9), and is summarized to provide the basis for the five total petroleum systems (TPS) in figure 8.30; (4) the Eocene-Miocene Composite TPS, formed and ten related assessment units (AU) used in the 2003 U.S. by combining the Miocene and Eocene TPS (this volume, chap- Geological Survey (USGS) National Oil and Gas Assessment ter 20); and (5) the Moreno-Nortonville(.) is both a petroleum 2 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California system and a TPS consisting mainly of natural gas in the north- according to the convention of Magoon and Dow (1994) and ern part of the province (figs. 8.31 through 8.36: table 8.10; this Magoon (2004). If the source rock and the reservoir rock are volume, chapter 21). Oil samples with geochemistry from sur- the same unit, then only one stratigraphic unit is used in the face seeps and wells used to map these petroleum systems are name, such as San Joaquin(?). The level of certainty indicates listed in table 8.11. Finally, the volume of oil and gas expelled the confidence that a particular oil or gas type originated from by each pod of active source rock was calculated and compared the presumed pod of active source rock. Three levels of cer- with the discovered hydrocarbons in each petroleum system tainty are: speculative (?), hypothetical (.), and known (!). (figs. 8.37 through 8.39; tables 8.12 and 8.13). Petroleum System Map Method A petroleum system map shows the geographic distribu- A petroleum system is the hydrocarbon fluid system tion and burial depth of the source rock unit, pod of active that occurs when the essential elements and processes work source rock, petroleum accumulations and seeps attributed to together to form oil and gas shows, seeps, or accumulations that pod, and geographic extent of the system (for example, (Magoon and Dow, 1994; Magoon, 2004). The essential ele- fig. 8.3). The location of the cross section and burial history ments include the source, reservoir, seal, and overburden chart, described below, are shown. The distribution and thick- rocks that work with the processes of trap formation and gen- ness of each source rock unit come from maps constructed eration-migration-accumulation that concentrate migrating using well control on regional cross sections and outcrop petroleum. How petroleum systems were identified, mapped, information, as described in Peters, Magoon, Valin, and Lillis and named in the San Joaquin Basin Province is described as (this volume, chapter 11). The richness of the source rock follows. units is derived from Rock-Eval pyrolysis and total organic Oil-to-oil and to a lesser extent, gas-to-gas, correlations carbon (TOC) data, also described in Peters, Magoon, Valin, based on geochemical parameters separate the oil and gas and Lillis (this volume, chapter 11). The pod of active source samples into distinctive groups. The oil groups are discussed rock is determined by modeling the burial history of the source in Lillis and Magoon (this volume, chapter 9) and the gas rock, as discussed in Peters, Magoon, Lampe, and others (this groups are discussed in Lillis and others (this volume, chapter volume, chapter 12). 10). These groups provide the basis for allocating the oil or The pod of active source rock is shown on the petroleum gas in a pool to one of five source-rock units: Antelope shale system map contoured as four zones of thermal maturity of Graham and Williams (1985; hereafter referred to as Ante- relative to vitrinite reflectance (%R ): <0.6%R is immature lope shale), McLure Shale Member of the Monterey Forma- o o or lacks petroleum expulsion; 0.6 to 0.9%Ro is mature and tion, Tumey formation of Atwill (1935; hereafter referred to expelled half of its petroleum; 0.9 to 1.2%R is mature and as Tumey formation), Kreyenhagen Formation, and Moreno o expelled the other half of its petroleum; and >1.2%Ro is over- Formation. The name, location, and fluid volume for the oil mature and the source rock is depleted. The map also shows or gas pools to which these petroleum accumulations are petroleum accumulations or pools as solid-colored polygons allocated came from information provided in appendix 8.1 by where geochemistry indicates that the oil and/or gas came publications of the California Department of Conservation, from the pod of active source rock; these polygons are out- Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (CDOGGR) lined but not colored where stratigraphic evidence merely (1998, 2001a, b). The reservoir rock names used to sort the suggests that the oil and gas came from the same pod of many producing horizons in appendix 8.2 are from Hosford active source rock. The locations of oil samples from seeps Scheirer and Magoon (this volume, chapter 5). The geographic and exploratory wells are included on some petroleum system distribution, present-day burial depth, and geochemical data maps. for each source rock are discussed by Peters, Magoon, Valin, and Lillis (this volume, chapter 11). The source rock distribution, thickness, and time of thermal maturity are discussed by Peters, Magoon, Lampe, and others (this volume, chapter 12). Petroleum System Stratigraphic Section Our chapter integrates information from chapters 9 through 12 using five figures and a table for each petroleum system as The stratigraphic section for the San Joaquin Basin described below. Province is described in Hosford Scheirer and Magoon (this volume, chapter 5). The petroleum system stratigraphic section shows the stratigraphic relation of each rock unit in the Petroleum System Name north, central, or south region of the basin (for example, fig. 8.4). The allocation of each producing zone to a reservoir rock The petroleum system name includes the source rock is listed in appendix 8.2. The reservoir rock units that contain and major reservoir rock followed by the level of certainty oil (green) or gas (red) in the petroleum system are shown, as (Magoon and Dow, 1994), such as McLure-Tulare(!). The well as the source rock that expelled the hydrocarbons. A rect- existence of petroleum is proof of a system, and it is named angle outlines the stratigraphic section of interest. Regional Setting 3

Petroleum System Cross Section mation from several references (CDOGGR, 1998; 2001a; Hosford Scheirer and Magoon, this volume, chapter 5; Lillis The petroleum system cross section transects the pod of and Magoon, this volume, chapter 9; Lillis and others, this active source rock at its greatest burial depth, includes the volume, chapter 10). This table provides the basis for placing largest accumulations, and the geographic and stratigraphic each pool in the six petroleum systems (columns 1 and 2). extent of the system (for example, fig. 8.5). The cross section Columns 7, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are from the California oil and shows the petroleum window, or the thermal maturity of the gas field sheets (CDOGGR, 1998). Columns 6 and 8 are the source rock, and the fields or accumulations of oil (green) or authors’ assignments, and columns 9 and 10 are from appendix gas (red) along this transect in their proper stratigraphic inter- 8.2. The year 2000 production and reserve data in columns 15 val. This cross section is a present-day, two-dimensional (2D) through 20 originate from the Annual Report of the California extract from the San Joaquin Basin four-dimensional (4D) Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (CDOGGR, model as described by Peters, Magoon, Lampe, and others 2001a). The oil and gas sample numbers in columns 21 and 22 (this volume, chapter 12). The number of stratigraphic units are from Lillis and Magoon (this volume, chapter 9) and Lillis shown in the cross section are reduced from the more detailed and others (this volume, chapter 10), respectively. stratigraphic section to show more easily the relation of the The authors compiled the last column (23) of appendix accumulations to the pod of active source rock. 8.1 using the production information and geochemical results from the oil and gas samples. In this column, italic text indicates that the authors interpreted the source rock of the hydro- Burial History Chart carbons based on stratigraphic occurrence and location of the pool, whereas plain text indicates a confirmed source rock- hydrocarbon correlation. Where the source rock designation Using the rate of deposition and thickness of the overbur- is underlain by a colored rectangle, the oil or gas data were den rock, the burial history chart provides the temporal basis used to indicate its origin. Where only the gas sample number for the expulsion of petroleum from the source rock (for exam- (column 22) but not the source rock name (column 23) is ple, fig. 8.6). The chart represents a one-dimensional (1D) underlain by a colored rectangle, the source rock is based on burial and thermal history of the source rock from deposition the following criteria: (1) if the gas is thermogenic in origin to its greatest burial depth and is used to determine the time and oil also occurs in the pool, then the source rock is based and depth of thermal maturity of the source rock as it passes on stratigraphic occurrence and location of the pool; (2) if no through the petroleum window. The chart is a 1D extraction oil occurs in the pool, then no source rock can be designated, taken from the San Joaquin Basin 4D model as described by and the gas can only be classified as thermogenic or biogenic. Peters, Magoon, Lampe, and others (this volume, chapter 12); Tables 8.2 through 8.10 are extracted from appendix 8.1. the location of the extraction is shown on the corresponding The table of oil and gas volumes for each petroleum petroleum system map. The burial history chart also includes system is constructed by summing the pools with the same the reservoir and seal rocks. reservoir rock (tables 8.5 through 8.10). The sum of the reservoir rock volumes indicates the size of the petroleum system. The table also shows the complexity of migration paths and Events Chart reservoir rock that contains the majority of the petroleum. This reservoir rock is used in the petroleum system name. For An events chart summarizes the time for the deposition of a given petroleum system, the complexity of a migration path the essential elements, such as the source, reservoir, seal, and is considered simple when only one reservoir rock is charged overburden rocks, and the processes, such as the generation- with hydrocarbons, whereas it is considered as complex when migration-accumulation of petroleum and trap formation (for many reservoir rocks are charged, as is the case for all the San example, fig. 8.7; Magoon and Dow, 1994). Also included are Joaquin Basin petroleum systems. the preservation time and critical moment. The nomenclature and age of the rock units comes from Hosford Scheirer and Magoon (this volume, chapter 5), and is used according to the San Joaquin Basin 4D model from Peters, Magoon, Lampe, Regional Setting and others (this volume, chapter 12). The stratigraphic and structural histories of the San Joaquin Basin Province help to determine the evolution and occurrence of each petroleum system. The regional geology is Table of Oil and Gas Volumes detailed in other chapters and references therein and will not be repeated here (Gautier and others, this volume, chapter 2; Each petroleum system includes a table that summarizes Hosford Scheirer and Magoon, this volume, chapter 5; John- oil and gas volumes by reservoir rock. This and other tables son and Graham, this volume, chapter 6). Regional features come from appendix 8.1, which is a compilation of infor- that significantly influenced the occurrence of petroleum in 4 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California particular areas are summarized (fig. 8.1). The nomencla- stratigraphic traps on the east flank (7 percent). There are 99 ture for the two depocenters, Buttonwillow and Tejon, come more traps on the west flank (351 traps) than on the east flank from Ziegler and Spotts (1978). The importance of the Sierra (252 traps). In addition, the gas-to-oil ratio (GOR) is two times Nevada Batholith that both underlies and borders the east flank higher in the west flank traps (table 8.3). This pattern indicates of the basin cannot be underestimated—the batholith is the more favorable conditions to trap and retain petroleum on the sediment source for quartz-rich, good quality, reservoir rocks; west flank than the east flank of the San Joaquin Basin Prov- it provides a rigid container for sediments entering from the ince. east; and has low structural dip. It also acts as a buttress for the fold belt on the west flank where the largest oil fields are located. The bulk of the sedimentation in this basin occurred in San Joaquin(?) Petroleum System a forearc basin prior to the development of the San Andreas Fault in Miocene time. The pre-Miocene section thickens from The San Joaquin(?) is a small petroleum system with an the Stockton Arch in the northwest to the Tejon depocenter estimated ultimate recovery of 368 billion ft3 of microbial gas, in the southeast, and from the Sierra Nevada Batholith in the which represents 2 percent of the natural gas in this basin, northeast to the San Andreas Fault in the southwest. During or 0.3 percent of the petroleum (table 8.2). The geochemical this time the source rock, reservoir rock, and seal rock were parameters that indicate biogenic gas are dry hydrocarbn gas deposited for three petroleum systems. During Miocene time composition (100 percent methane) with a methane carbon the sedimentary thickness significantly increased in the But- isotopic composition less than -55 per mil (Lillis and others, tonwillow and Tejon depocenters and is the time of deposition this volume, chapter 10). Excluding the noncommercial Los for the source rock, reservoir rock, and seal rock for the two Lobos pool, all commercial gas pools are located on the basin largest petroleum systems. From Miocene time, tectonic activ- axis (Paloma gas pool), or the east flank (fig. 8.3, table 8.3). ity associated with movement along the San Andreas Fault Discovered gas pools include 23 structural and 5 stratigraphic created the fold belt on the southwest flank of the basin. From traps (appendix 8.1, table 8.4). Seal rock types are fine- Pliocene time, the greatest thickness of the overburden rock grained, low-permeability claystone, mudstone, and tightly was deposited for all six petroleum systems, especially in the cemented sandstone. Depths of discovered accumulations Buttonwillow and Tejon depocenters. range from less than 1,100 ft to 9,740 ft in the central basin Other areas and structural features referred to in this (appendix 8.1). Individual reservoir rocks are mostly less than chapter are as follows (and shown in fig. 8.1). The areas sur- 30 ft thick (appendix 8.1). rounding Chowchilla and Riverdale fields are dominated by Four accumulations in the Trico, Semitropic, Buttonwil- gas and oil fields, respectively. The Coalinga Nose is a promi- low, and Paloma fields have methane carbon isotopic composi- nent anticline that plunges to the southeast into the Buttonwil- tions typical of biogenic gas accumulations so are shown as low depocenter and is the focus for migrating petroleum in solid red in figure 8.3. The remaining accumulations are clas- several important oil fields along its axis. The Pleasant Valley sified as biogenic gas based on the lack of associated liquids Syncline plunges to the southeast into the Buttonwillow dep- and their occurrence in Pliocene and younger rock units (fig. ocenter where the overburden rock is sufficient to thermally 8.4; table 8.5). Eighty-four percent of this gas occurs in the mature source rocks. The petroleum generated in the syncline San Joaquin Formation (table 8.5). The biogenic gas is judged migrated updip into the Coalinga Nose to the northwest, and to originate from organic matter in thick Pliocene marine the fold belt to the southwest. mudstone and claystone that surrounds reservoir quality sand- The volume of oil and gas is markedly different on each stones (figs. 8.4 and 8.5). Rock-Eval pyrolysis and TOC data basin flank (table 8.3). The west flank traps accumulated 10.6 are lacking from this interval so the geographic extent of this billion barrels of oil (Gbo), which is almost three times the petroleum system is defined by its accumulations (figs. 8.3 and 4 Gbo in the east flank traps. Proportionally more gas was 8.5). trapped in the west flank traps (15.9 trillion cubic feet of gas, Occurrences of “dry gas” zones are reported (“dg” in tcfg) than the east flank traps (2.9 tcfg). Converting gas to bar- CDOGGR, 2001a) in some oil fields in the Pliocene section rels of oil equivalent using the relationship of 6,000 cubic feet outside the geographic extent of the San Joaquin(?) petroleum of gas per barrel of oil, there is still three times more petro- system, such as at Elk Hills and Buena Vista oil fields. Geo- leum in the west than in the east flank traps. The number of chemical analysis of three gas samples (samples 12, 28, and 29 pools or traps, and whether they trap hydrocarbons primarily in Lillis and others, this volume, chapter 10) from these zones structurally or stratigraphically, is given in table 8.4. The west indicate their origin is thermogenic rather than biogenic— flank is structurally more deformed than the east flank, sug- sample 12 is thermogenic and wet, sample 28 is thermogenic gesting that structural traps would be concentrated on the west and dry, and sample 29 is a mixture of thermogenic dry and flank and stratigraphic traps on the east flank. However, our biogenic gas. This thermal gas is interpreted to have migrated compilation of trap type (appendix 8.1) indicates that a simi- through the semipermeable seal rock of the underlying oil pool lar percentage of both trap types occurs on each flank, with into the overlying reservoir rock that may or may not contain slightly more structural traps on the west flank (9 percent) than some biogenic gas. Unless the gas accumulations were all McLure-Tulare(!) Petroleum System 5 biogenic or interpreted to be biogenic, we did not include them The crest of the Bakersfield Arch separates accumulations in this petroleum system. in the McLure-Tulare(!) petroleum system in the north from Trap development and gas charge is judged to have accumulations in the Antelope-Stevens(!) petroleum system occurred near the time of deposition based on the age of the in the south because of its persistence from Paleocene or late rocks involved and because microbes create methane at low Eocene time (MacPherson, 1978). Migrating oil and gas were temperatures (figs. 8.6 and 8.7). Biogenic or marsh gas forms unable to migrate across this crest. The McLure-Tulare(!) is from organic matter at low temperatures by microbial action defined as an oil-prone system because the GOR (692 ft3 gas at the surface to a depth of few thousand feet. Typically this per barrel of oil; table 8.2) of accumulations in the petroleum gas vents to the atmosphere, but under certain conditions it system is less than the 20,000 ft3 gas per barrel of oil criterion becomes trapped in sand lenses that become sealed by mud- defined by Klett and others (this volume,chapter 25). stone and buried to greater depths. Burial can improve seal The pod of active source rock for the McLure-Tulare(!) integrity and increase the pressure of the entrapped gas, set- petroleum system is coincident with the Buttonwillow dep- ting the stage for a commercial accumulation. Structural traps ocenter and the Pleasant Valley Syncline. Comparing the formed after middle Pliocene time. During this time, burial 14,000 ft burial depth contour of the source rock with the compacted fine-grained capping beds, gentle folds began to 0.6%Ro contour for vitrinite reflectance indicates that the form, and regional southwestward tilting occurred. The events northwest part of the pod has been uplifted by about 2,000 chart summarizes the deposition and timing of the essential ft (fig. 8.9). The largest accumulations are located near the elements of the petroleum system (fig. 8.7) deepest part of the source rock, or in excess of 22,000 ft. In decreasing volumes, the four largest fields are South Belridge (1,237 million barrels of oil; MMbo), Cymric, (471 MMbo), Neogene Nonassociated Gas Total Lost Hills located on the Coalinga Nose (425 MMbo), and McKittrick (271 MMbo). Except for Lost Hills field, these Petroleum System fields are southwest of the Coalinga Nose on the west flank of the basin, which contains almost 3 Gboe compared to the east The Neogene Nonassociated Gas Total Petroleum System flank, which contains about 13 million barrels of oil equivalent includes the San Joaquin(?) petroleum system and the prospec- (MMboe; table 8.3). On the west flank there are 70 structural tive Pliocene section that presently lacks discovered accumu- and 21 stratigraphic traps, in contrast to only 6 structural traps lations (fig. 8.8; table 8.1). The maximum extent and geologic on the east flank (table 8.4). Zumberge and others (2005) rational for the Neogene Nonassociated TPS, including the show that the oil at the west end of the Elk Hills field origi- Neogene Nonassociated Gas Assessment Unit (AU50100501), nated from the McLure Shale in the north. East flank strati- are discussed by Hosford Scheirer and Magoon (this volume, graphic traps are the result of a phase change in diatomaceous chapter 22) and the numeric and graphical data are discussed shale from non-reservoir opal-CT phase to a quartz phase by Klett and Le (this volume, chapter 28). reservoir-rock, as in the Rose and North Shafter oil fields (Sterling and others, 2003). The large number of reservoir rocks (8) involved in McLure-Tulare(!) Petroleum System moving petroleum from the pod of active source rock to traps indicates that migration paths are complex (figs. 8.10 and The McLure-Tulare(!) is a significant petroleum system 8.11; table 8.6). All petroleum is found in eight reservoir rocks with an estimated ultimate recovery of 2.9 billion barrels of oil that range in age from 33.5 Ma to as young as 0.6 Ma, but 91 equivalent (Gboe), which represents 16.4 percent of the oil and percent of the oil and gas is in reservoir rocks younger than gas in this basin (table 8.2). This petroleum system is located 6.5 Ma. Only 5.1 percent of the petroleum is contained in the north of the Bakersfield Arch and straddles the northwest-south- Stevens sand of Eckis (1940; hereafter referred to as Stevens east oriented basin axis (fig. 8.9). The source rock is the McLure sand) on the Bakersfield Arch. Most McLure petroleum is in Shale Member of the Monterey Formation, as described in the Tulare Formation (51 percent), which is followed by the Hosford Scheirer and Magoon (this volume, chapter 5, fig. 5.55) Reef Ridge Shale Member of the Monterey Formation (30.8 and whose source rock distribution and geochemical proper- percent). This pattern of petroleum occurrence suggests that ties are characterized for the Antelope shale in Peters, Magoon, the oil and gas were expelled from thermally mature McLure Valin, and Lillis (this volume, chapter 11). The McLure and Shale Member of the Monterey Formation source rock start- Antelope source rock names are used to the north and south of ing 5 Ma into the same unit (5.8 percent), and then into the the Bakersfield Arch, respectively, to distinguish two petroleum adjacent Reef Ridge Shale Member (fig. 8.12). However, due systems, each with their own pod of active source rock. The to inadequate seal rock, the oil and gas migrated through the reservoir rock name, Tulare, is used because 51 percent of the overlying units into the Tulare Formation (fig. 8.11). Petro- petroleum occurs in the Tulare Formation (table 8.6). The level leum contained in the remaining reservoir rocks is mostly of certainty is known, or (!), because there is a positive geo- shows of oil and gas. In the case of the Temblor, Rose, and chemical correlation between the oil and McLure Shale source North Shafter fields, the migration distance is more than about rock (Lillis and Magoon, this volume, chapter 9). 15 miles (25 km) (fig. 8.9). 6 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California

The burial history chart for the McLure Shale source rock four largest fields are Midway-Sunset, (3,457 MMbo), Kern indicates that the onset of petroleum generation occurred 5 River on the Bakersfield Arch (2,078 MMbo), Elk Hills (1,239 Ma, peak generation or expulsion was at 3.5 Ma, and where MMbo), and Buena Vista (672 MMbo). Midway-Sunset, Elk buried in excess of 22,000 ft, the source rock was depleted Hills, and Buena Vista oil fields contain 47 percent of the oil by 1.5 Ma (fig. 8.12) at this location. According to Peters, in this petroleum system, indicating the most effective migra- Magoon, Valin, and Lillis (this volume, chapter 11), only tion path from the pod of active source rock to a trap is in a the lower portion of the McLure Shale Member of the Mon- northwesterly direction (appendix 8.1). There are 316 pools or terey Formation, which overlays the Temblor Formation, is traps in this system, with the west flank having about twice as the organic-rich interval. The Temblor Formation has many many structural compared to stratigraphic traps. The east flank sandstone units that could act as conduits for migrating petro- has about the same number of structural and stratigraphic traps leum from McLure Shale source rock (Hosford Scheirer and (table 8.4). Magoon, this volume, chapter 5, fig. 5.49). The events chart The large number of reservoir rocks (20) involved in indicates that the traps formed before and during migration of moving petroleum from the pod of active source rock to traps oil and gas (fig. 8.13). indicates complex migration paths (fig. 8.15; table 8.7). The 311 pools produce from reservoir rocks whose top depth ranges from 200 to 14,100 ft (appendix 8.1). All petroleum Antelope-Stevens(!) Petroleum System is found in reservoir rocks that range in age from 33.5 Ma to as young as 0.6 Ma, but if you include the “undesignated” The Antelope-Stevens(!) is a large petroleum system with reservoir rock, then 87 percent of the oil and gas are in res- an estimated ultimate recovery of 11.5 Gboe, which represents ervoir rocks younger than 9.5 Ma. Petroleum in the Stevens 64.8 percent of the oil and gas in this basin (table 8.2). This sand constitutes 29.3 percent followed by the Kern River petroleum system is located south of the Bakersfield Arch and Formation (18.1 percent), Etchegoin Formation (7.1 percent), straddles the east-west basin axis in the Tejon depocenter (figs. Chanac Formation (4.2 percent), Jewett Sand (3.9 percent) 8.1 and 8.14). The source rock name is the Antelope shale, as and Vedder Sand (3.9 percent). This pattern of petroleum specified in Hosford Scheirer and Magoon (this volume,chap - occurrence suggests that the oil and gas began expulsion from ter 5, fig. 5.56), and whose source rock distribution and geo- thermally mature Antelope shale source rock at 4 Ma into the chemical properties are described in Peters, Magoon, Valin, adjacent Stevens sand, where it migrated updip to the Kern and Lillis (this volume, chapter 11). The reservoir rock name, River oil field to the north and to the Buena Vista, Elk Hills, Stevens, is used because the highest percentage of the petro- and Midway-Sunset oil fields to the northwest (figs. 8.16 and leum occurs in the Stevens sand (29.3 percent, table 8.7). The 8.17). However, due to inadequate seal rock and erosion, the level of certainty is known, or (!), because there is a positive oil and gas seeped to the surface in many areas, only one of geochemical correlation between the oil and Antelope shale which was analyzed geochemically (fig. 8.14). Petroleum in source rock (Lillis and Magoon, this volume, chapter 9). The the remaining reservoir rocks is mostly shows of oil and gas. separation of the accumulations related to the Antelope-Ste- The petroleum system map suggests that migration distances vens(!) to the south from the McLure-Tulare(!) accumulations exceed 30 miles (50 km; fig 8.14). located to the north occurs at the crest of the Bakersfield Arch The burial history chart for the Antelope shale source because of the persistence of this structural high from Paleo- rock indicates that the onset of petroleum generation was at 4 cene or late Eocene time (MacPherson, 1978). The gas-to-oil Ma, peak generation or expulsion was at 2.5 Ma, and where ratio of 1,176 ft3 gas per barrel of oil is less than 20,000 ft3, buried in excess of 18,000 ft, it was depleted at 1.5 Ma (fig. indicating an oil-prone system (table 8.2). On the basis of oil- 8.17). According to Peters, Magoon, Valin, and Lillis (this to-oil comparisons in the Elk Hills Field, Zumberge and others volume, chapter 11), only the lower portion of the Antelope (2005) show that the oil at the east end of the field originated shale (overlaying the Temblor Formation) is the organic-rich from the Antelope shale to the south. interval. However, although the Temblor Formation may have The pod of active source rock coincides with the Tejon acted as a conduit for petroleum expelled from the Antelope depocenter. Comparing the 14,000 ft burial depth contour shale source rock, it is more likely that the Stevens sand, of the source rock with the 0.6%Ro contours for vitrinite which overlies the source rock, acted as the most effective car- reflectance indicates that the northwest part of the pod was rier bed (Hosford Scheirer and Magoon, this volume, chapter uplifted by 6,000 ft and the southeast by 10,000 ft. If 14,000 5, fig. 5.53). The events chart indicates that the traps formed ft of burial is required to create 0.6%Ro, then much of the before and during migration of oil and gas (fig. 8.18). Antelope pod was uplifted since maximum burial depth. This recent uplift is not reflected in the burial history chart so the very center of the depocenter is at maximum burial Miocene Total Petroleum System depth (fig. 8.17). Three of the four largest accumulations are located at the western extremity of the pod of active source The Miocene Total Petroleum System includes the rock, whereas the second largest field is located two-thirds of Antelope-Stevens(!) petroleum system south of the Bakers- the way up the Bakersfield Arch. In decreasing volumes, the field Arch and the McLure-Tulare(!) petroleum system north Kreyenhagen-Temblor(!) Petroleum System 7 of the arch (fig. 8.19; table 8.1). As discussed above, each uplifted since maximum burial depth (fig. 8.23). Kettleman petroleum system includes a pod of active source rock and North Dome field (436 MMbo) is updip on the Coalinga Nose associated petroleum accumulations. Within this TPS, most from the most mature part of the pod of active source rock and of the petroleum is in the Stevens sand and related sandstone is the largest oil field in this system, so it was fed by the most reservoir rocks from the north flank of the Bakersfield Arch effective migration path from source rock to trap (fig. 8.20; south into the Tejon depocenter. The Miocene TPS includes appendix 8.1). Two other relatively large oil fields, McKittrick five assessment units as follows: (1) Southeast Stable Shelf (39 MMbo) and McDonald Anticline (23 MMbo), are to the (AU50100401); (2) Lower Bakersfield Arch (AU50100402); west of the pod of active source rock. Long migration paths in (3) Miocene West Side Fold Belt (AU50100403); (4) South of excess of 30 miles (48 km) were required to charge Raisin City White Wolf Fault (AU50100404); and (5) Central Basin Mon- (39 MMbo) and Helm (20 MMbo) oil fields. There are 51 pools terey Diagenetic Traps (AU50100405). The geologic rationale or traps in this system, with the west and east flanks having for these assessment units are discussed in Gautier and Hos- similar numbers of structural and stratigraphic traps (table 8.4). ford Scheirer (this volume, chapter 13 and chapter 14), Ten- The large number of identified reservoir rocks (10) nyson (this volume, chapter 15 and chapter 16), and Hosford involved in moving petroleum from the pod of active source Scheirer and others (this volume, chapter 17); the numeric and rock to traps indicates that the migration paths are complex graphical support for all assessment units is discussed by Klett (fig. 8.21; table 8.8). The 58 pools produce from reservoir rocks and Le (this volume, chapter 28). whose top depth ranges from 200 to 13,000 ft (appendix 8.1). All of this petroleum occurs in reservoir rocks that range in age from 37 Ma to as young as 6.5 Ma, but 93.6 percent of the oil Tumey-Temblor(.) Petroleum System and gas are in reservoir rocks from 33 to 14 Ma. The Temblor Formation, Zilch formation of Loken (1959), and Vaqueros The Tumey-Temblor(.) is a significant petroleum system Formation contain 84.3 percent, 9.3 percent, and 3.7 percent, with an estimated ultimate recovery of 966 MMboe, which respectively, of the petroleum. This pattern of petroleum occur- represents 5.5 percent of the oil and gas in the basin (table rence suggests that the oil and gas began expulsion at 5.5 Ma 8.2). Except for a small portion of the pod of active source from thermally mature Tumey formation source rock into the rock south of the Bakersfield Arch, this petroleum system is overlying Vaqueros Formation, where it migrated up the Coal- chiefly located north of the arch (fig. 8.20). The source rock inga Nose to the Kettleman North Dome, Guijarral Hills, Pleas- name is the Tumey formation, as identified in Hosford Scheirer ant Valley, and finally East Coalinga Extension oil fields (figs. and Magoon (this volume, chapter 5, fig. 5.30) and the source 8.20 and 8.22). rock distribution and geochemical properties are described in The burial history chart for the Tumey formation source Peters, Magoon, Valin, and Lillis (this volume, chapter 11). rock indicates that the onset of petroleum generation occurred Because little information was available, the Tumey-Temblor(.) 5.5 Ma, peak generation or expulsion occurred 4.5 Ma, and was assumed to have the same geographic distribution as the where buried in excess of 25,000 ft, depletion occurred 3 Ma underlying Kreyenhagen Formation. The reservoir rock name, (fig. 8.23). The events chart indicates that traps formed before Temblor, is used because the highest percentage, or 84.3 per- and during migration of oil and gas (fig. 8.24). cent, of the petroleum occurs in the Temblor Formation (table 8.8). The level of certainty is hypothetical, or (.), because the oil-source rock correlation is tentative (Lillis and Magoon, this Kreyenhagen-Temblor(!) Petroleum volume, chapter 9). Unlike the overlying Miocene source rocks and the underlying Eocene Kreyenhagen Formation source System rock—for which correlation with produced oil was definite— all that can be said at this time regarding oil correlation with The Kreyenhagen-Temblor(!) is a significant petroleum the Tumey formation source rock is that both the source rock system with an estimated ultimate recovery of 2.3 Gboe, and the oil we assume to be associated with it are marine in which represents 12.9 percent of the oil and gas in this basin geochemical character. The Tumey oil type (ET) also occurs in (table 8.2). Except for a small portion of the pod of active separate accumulations from either the Kreyenhagen Formation source rock south of the Bakersfield Arch, this petroleum oil type (EK) or Miocene oil type (MM; Lillis and Magoon, system is chiefly located north of the arch (fig. 8.25).The this volume, chapter 9). The gas-to-oil ratio of 3,455 ft3 gas per source rock name is the Kreyenhagen Formation, as identified barrel of oil is less than 20,000 ft3 gas per barrel of oil, so is in Hosford Scheirer and Magoon (this volume, chapter 5, fig. interpreted as an oil-prone system (table 8.2). 5.27), and the source rock distribution and geochemical prop- The pod of active Tumey formation source rock coincides erties are described in Peters, Magoon, Valin, and Lillis (this with the Buttonwillow depocenter. Comparing the 14,000 ft volume, chapter 11). The lower portion of the Kreyenhagen burial depth contour of the source rock with the 0.6%Ro con- Formation contains the organic-rich interval. The reservoir tour for vitrinite reflectance indicates that the northwest part rock name, Temblor, is used because the highest percent- of the pod has been uplifted by 2,000 ft. If 14,000 ft of burial age, or 53.5 percent, of the petroleum occurs in the Temblor is required to create 0.6%Ro, then much of the Tumey pod was Formation (table 8.9). The level of certainty is known, or (!), 8 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California because there is a positive geochemical correlation between Eocene Total Petroleum System the oil and Kreyenhagen Formation source rock, as discussed by Lillis and Magoon (this volume, chapter 9). The gas-to-oil The Eocene Total Petroleum System includes two petro- 3 3 ratio of 1,700 ft gas per barrel of oil is less than 20,000 ft gas leum systems—the Tumey-Temblor(.) and Kreyenhagen- per barrel of oil, so is interpreted as an oil-prone system (table Temblor(!) (fig. 8.30; table 8.1). As discussed above, each 8.2). petroleum system includes a pod of active source rock and The pod of active source rock coincides with the But- associated accumulations. These oil types typically occur tonwillow depocenter. Comparing the 14,000 ft burial depth in different stratigraphic positions. The Tumey formation contour of the source rock with the 0.6%Ro contour for vitrin- is on top, the middle is a nonsource section or seal rock of ite reflectance indicates that the northwest part of the pod was Kreyenhagen Formation, and the bottom is the organic-rich uplifted by 1,000 ft (fig. 8.25). If 14,000 ft of burial is required Kreyenhagen Formation. Thus, the Tumey oil type is expelled to create 0.6%Ro, then much of the Kreyenhagen pod is very from the top and the Kreyenhagen oil type is expelled from close to maximum burial depth (fig. 8.28). Coalinga (970 the bottom of the source rock section. However, the Temblor MMbo) and East Extension Coalinga (508 MMbo) oil fields Formation is the most important reservoir rock for both petro- are updip on the Coalinga Nose from the most mature part of leum systems because a large volume of Kreyenhagen oil the pod of active source rock and are the largest oil fields in type moved up into the Temblor Formation through sandstone this system, indicating the most effective migration path from dikes at the south end of the Coalinga field. The Eocene TPS mature source rock to trap (appendix 8.1). Two other signifi- includes two assessment units—(1) Eocene West Side Fold cant oil fields, Belridge North (70 MMbo) and Belgian Anti- Belt (AU50100301), and (2) North and East of Eocene West cline (50 MMbo), are to the west of the pod. Long migration Side Fold Belt (AU50100302). The geologic rationale of these paths in excess of 30 miles (48 km) were required to charge assessment units is discussed in Tennyson (this volume, chap- Raisin City (4 MMbo) and Riverdale (7 MM bo) oil fields. ter 18) and Gautier and Hosford Scheirer (this volume, chapter There are 98 pools or traps in this system with similar num- 19), respectively; the numeric and graphical support are dis- bers of structural (48) and stratigraphic (40) traps on the west cussed by Klett and Le (this volume, chapter 28). flank (88) (table 8.4). The large number of identified reservoir rocks (14) involved in moving petroleum from the pod of active source rock to traps indicates that the migration paths are complex Eocene-Miocene Composite Total (fig. 8.26; table 8.9). The 99 pools produce from reservoir rocks whose top depth ranges from 80 ft in Vallecitos field Petroleum System to 18,300 ft in the Paloma field appendix( 8.1). All of this The Eocene-Miocene Composite Total Petroleum System petroleum occurs in reservoir rocks that range from 58.5 Ma is undifferentiated for the Deep-Fractured Pre-Monterey Assess- to 4.5 Ma. The Temblor Formation contains 53.5 percent of ment Unit (AU50100201) (table 8.1). The geologic rationale the petroleum followed by the Lodo Formation (36.6 percent). for this assessment unit is discussed by Tennyson and Hosford This pattern of petroleum occurrence suggests that the oil and Scheirer (this volume, chapter 20) and the numeric and graphical gas began expulsion from thermally mature Kreyenhagen support are discussed by Klett and Le (this volume, chapter 28). Formation source rock at 5.2 Ma into the underlying Domen- gine Formation, where it migrated up the Coalinga Nose to the East Coalinga Extension and Coalinga oil fields (figs. 8.25 and 8.27). The most important reservoir rock is the siliciclastic Moreno-Nortonville(.) Petroleum Burbank sand of Sullivan (1966) in the Temblor Formation in the Coalinga field, whose sandstone dikes at the south end of System the field act as a migration conduit to move the petroleum from below the Kreyenhagen Formation to above where the Tumey The Moreno-Nortonville(.) is a small gas-prone system with oil type is usually found (B. Bloeser, oral commun.). The Point an estimated ultimate recovery of 31 MMboe, which represents of Rocks Sandstone Member of the Kreyenhagen Formation 0.2 percent of the oil and gas in this basin (table 8.2). This petro- is interbedded in such a way that petroleum expelled from the leum system is the farthest north, stretching from Chowchilla gas source rock moved directly into the sandstone reservoir with a field on the north to further south than Oil City oil pool in the source rock seal, such as at Cymric and McKittrick oil fields, or Coalinga field (fig. 8.31). The source rock name is the Moreno to the outcrop such as seep B in figure 8.25. Formation as identified in Hosford Scheirer and Magoon (this The burial history chart for the Kreyenhagen source rock volume, chapter 5, fig. 5.17) and source rock distribution and shows that the onset of petroleum generation occurred 5.2 geochemical properties are described in Peters, Magoon, Valin, Ma, peak generation or expulsion occurred 4.5 Ma, and where and Lillis (this volume, chapter 11). The reservoir rock name, buried in excess of 26,000 ft, depletion occurred 3.5 Ma (fig. Nortonville sand of Frame (1950; hereafter referred to as Nor- 8.28). The events chart indicates that traps formed before and tonville sand), is used because the highest percentage, or 40.3 during migration of oil and gas (fig. 8.29). percent, of the petroleum occurs in this rock unit (fig. 8.32; Volumetric Estimate of Generated Petroleum 9 table 8.10). The Nortonville sand is in the basal part of the assessment unit is discussed by Hosford Scheirer and Magoon Kreyenhagen Formation (Frame, 1950). The level of certainty (this volume, chapter 21), and the numeric and graphical sup- is hypothetical, or (.), because previous correlation studies were port are discussed by Klett and Le (this volume, chapter 28). inconclusive, and we have been unable to find an oil-prone ther- Chapter 21 provides the rationale as to why the assessment of mally mature source rock sample to compare with the Oil City this unit assumed that the natural gas came from north of the oil sample (Lillis and Magoon, this volume, chapter 9; Peters, Stockton Arch. However, work since the assessment indicated Magoon, Valin, and Lillis, this volume, chapter 11; and Peters, that the discovered gas and minor oil originated from the Magoon, Lampe, and others, chapter 12). The gas-to-oil ratio of Moreno Formation in the San Joaquin Basin Province as dis- 1,156,797 ft3 gas per barrel of oil is more than 20,000 ft3 gas per cussed in the Moreno-Nortonville(.) above. barrel of oil, indicating a gas-prone system (table 8.2). The pod of active source rock for this petroleum system is located northwest of the Buttonwillow depocenter (fig. 8.31). Volumetric Estimate of Generated Comparing the 14,000 ft burial depth contour of the source rock with the 0.6%Ro contour for vitrinite reflectance indicates that Petroleum none of the pod corresponds with this burial depth. If 14,000 ft of burial is required to create 0.6%Ro, then much of the Moreno Estimates of the volume of petroleum generated from pod has been uplifted such that present-day burial depths cut thermally mature source rocks require information on the across lines of equal vitrinite reflectance (fig. 8.31). Oil City distribution, thickness, richness, and thermal maturity of each pool near Coalinga has an API gravity of 33 to 40 degrees, and source rock (Peters, Magoon, Valin, and Lillis, this volume, the Cheney Ranch gas field produced 118,000 barrels of 50.5 chapter 11) and how petroleum expulsion changes in accor- degrees API gravity oil. Both samples are relatively light crude dance with these four variables. The expulsion factor is the oil and represent small volumes (CDOGGR, 1998). The largest ratio of the grams of carbon expelled as petroleum from ther- gas field in this system is at Gill Ranch (93 billion cubic feet of mally mature source rock to the original total organic carbon gas; bcfg) followed by Chowchilla (25 bcfg) and Merrill Avenue (TOCo) in the immature source rock (Lewan and others, 1995; (20 bcfg). Of the 16 identified trap types, all three stratigraphic Peters and others, 2006). Two laboratory pyrolysis methods traps are on the west flank, whereas the others are structural traps used to determine expulsion factors include Rock-Eval pyroly- on the east flank (table 8.4). sis and hydrous pyrolysis. Seven reservoir rocks are involved in moving petroleum Rock-Eval pyrolysis data were used in calculations by from the pod of active source rock to traps, indicating complex Cooles and others (1986), Schmoker (1994), and Peters and migration paths (fig. 8.33; table 8.10). The 21 pools produce others (2006; these calculations are referred to herein as from reservoir rocks that range in depth from 700 to 9,300 feet “Cooles,” “Schmoker,” and “Peters” methods, respectively). deep (appendix 8.1). Reservoir rocks that contain gas and oil In Rock-Eval pyrolysis, approximately 100 mg of rock powder generated from the Moreno Formation range from 83.5 Ma to is heated from 300° to 600°C at 25°C/min under atmospheric as young as 14 Ma. Gas in the Nortonville sand constitutes 40.3 pressure and flowing inert carrier gas (Peters, 1986). The percent of the total known gas in the petroleum system, followed Cooles method assumes that some portion of the organic by the Panoche Formation (32.6 percent), Blewett sands of Hoff- carbon in each source-rock sample consists of inert material man (1964) (19 percent), and other reservoir rocks (table 8.10). that cannot be vaporized as volatile or cracked hydrocarbon The onset of petroleum generation started 37.5 Ma with products (S1 and S2, respectively; mg hydrocarbon/g rock) peak generation at 10 Ma and depletion of the source rock at 4 and that this inert organic carbon content remains constant as Ma (fig. 8.34). The small amount of expelled oil moved a short each source rock thermally matures. The Schmoker method distance into the Oil City pool and Cheney Ranch field, whereas assumes that expelled petroleum represents the difference the gas migrated a much longer distance to at least as far as the between the original hydrogen index and measured hydrogen Chowchilla field, a minimum of 35 miles (57 km). The events index (HIo and HI, respectively, in milligrams of hydrocarbon chart summarizes the deposition of the essential elements and the per gram TOC; mg HC/g TOC). The Peters method to deter- time over which the processes took place (fig. 8.35). This chart mine expulsion factors does not assume constant inert carbon indicates that this gas system is the oldest petroleum system in with thermal maturation. However, the amount of petroleum the basin and that traps formed before petroleum migrated. that can be expelled is constrained by the petroleum genera- tive potential of the starting organic matter (HIo), the extent of fractional conversion of the organic matter to pyrolyzate, and a mass-balance constraint based on the amount of carbon in the Winters-Domengine Total Petroleum pyrolyzed product (83.33 weight percent TOC). System Hydrous pyrolysis experiments by Lewan and others (2002; referred to herein as “Lewan” method) gave expul- The Winters-Domengine Total Petroleum System (fig. sion factors for oil at different thermal maturity levels for the 8.36) includes only the Northern Nonassociated Gas Assess- Devonian-Mississippian New Albany Shale source rock from ment Unit (AU50100101). The geologic rationale for this the Illinois Basin. This organic-rich source rock sample (14.34 10 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California weight percent TOC) contains thermally immature (Tmax = Expulsion factors (g Carbon/g TOC, fig. 8.37) were linked to 425°C, PI = 0.03), Type I (HIo = 604 mg HC/g TOC) organic these polygons in an attribute table according to the midpoint matter. Each hydrous pyrolysis experiment heated 300 g of for each of the measured hydrogen index maturity intervals. gravel-sized chips of New Albany Shale with 400 g of distilled For example, expulsion factors corresponding to a hydrogen water in 1 L pressure vessels for 72 hours at a constant tem- index of 150 mg HC/g TOC in figure 8.37 were linked to all perature in the range 270° to 365°C. polygons having measured hydrogen indices in the range 100 This chapter compares expulsion factors determined by to 200 mg HC/g TOC. The Arc/Info® polygons and their char- the three Rock-Eval pyrolysis methods with those determined acteristics were exported to an Excel spreadsheet for computa- using data from hydrous pyrolysis experiments by Lewan and tion of petroleum volumes using equation 8.1 and expulsion others (2002). We calculated the petroleum charge in barrels factors determined by the Rock-Eval pyrolysis (“Cooles,” supplied by the thermally mature Antelope shale, McLure “Peters,” and “Schmoker”) and hydrous pyrolysis (“Lewan”) Shale Member of the Monterey Formation, Kreyenhagen For- methods. mation, and Moreno Formation source rocks within the study Figure 8.37 shows expulsion factors calculated by the area using the following equation: Rock-Eval and hydrous pyrolysis methods (solid and open (8.1) symbols, respectively). The “Lewan HP” and “Lewan Actual” curves (open circles and open squares, respectively) are based Petroleum Charge = [(Area, m2)(Thickness, m)(Shale on twelve hydrous pyrolysis experiments on New Albany Density, g/cm3)(TOCo/100)(Expulsion Factor)(6.29 barrels/ Shale samples (Lewan and others, 2002). In the hydrous pyrol- m3)]/(Oil Density, g/cm3) ysis experiments, increased reactor temperatures resulted in hydrogen indices that progressively decreased from that of the The present-day thickness for each source rock (figs. 11.8 unheated sample (HIo = 604 mg HC/g TOC, expulsion factor to 11.10 in Peters, Magoon, Valin, and Lillis, this volume, = 0) to as low as 88 mg HC/g TOC (expulsion factor = 0.343). chapter 11) was converted to meters for the calculation. The “Lewan Actual” curve in figure 8.37 (open squares) For simplicity, we used a constant shale density of 2.5 g/ has expulsion factors that were corrected by multiplying the cm3, although we are aware that shale density increases with hydrous pyrolysis curve by 58.9 percent. The 58.9 percent burial depth (compaction) and decreases with increasing factor is based on data from a well-constrained catchment area TOC. Reconstruction of TOCo from measured TOC using within the Illinois Basin with no erosional or leakage losses the method in Peters and others (2005) was required in those of oil generated from the thermally mature New Albany Shale source rock intervals that were mature or spent (figs. 11.11 (Lewan and others, 2002). This area contained only 58.9 per- to 11.13 in Peters, Magoon, Valin, and Lillis, this volume, cent of the petroleum charge that was predicted on the basis of chapter 11). We assigned oil densities of 0.8984, 0.8762, and the hydrous pyrolysis experiments (open circles in fig. 8.37). 0.8448 g/cm3 in equation 8.1 assuming 26, 30, and 36 degrees Unlike the Antelope shale, McLure Shale Member of the API oil was expelled from the McLure-Antelope, Kreyenha- Monterey Formation, and Kreyenhagen Formation source gen, and Moreno source rocks, respectively. We calculated rocks, which contain mainly oil-prone type II kerogen, the expulsion factors using the three-step approach of Lewan and Moreno Formation source rock contains mainly oil and gas- others (1995; 2002), which determines (1) the fraction of TOC prone type II/III kerogen. We corrected the measured HI used that occurs as inert organic carbon, (2) the original immature to estimate expulsion efficiency in figure 8.37 by assuming TOC (TOCo), and (3) the amount of organic carbon expelled HIo of 300 mg HC/g TOC for the Moreno source rock rather from thermally mature source rock. The expulsion factor is the than the higher HI of 600 mg HC/g TOC assumed for the other ratio of the grams of carbon expelled from a thermally mature source rocks. This was accomplished by a linear interpolation source rock as petroleum compared to the TOCo of immature of HI values from 50 to 600 for type II compared to 50 to 300 source rock. Expulsion factors increase with decreasing hydro- mg HC/g TOC for the Moreno Formation, where HI400 = gen index of the maturing source rock (fig 8.37; see also fig. (1.3987*HI300) - 19.6172. 17 in Lewan and others, 2002). The large range in calculated volumes of petroleum charge The area term in equation 8.1 was determined by using within and between source rocks (fig. 8.39; table 8.13) reflects Arc/Info® (v. 8.1) to generate polygons by intersecting con- differences in calculated expulsion factors based on the Rock- toured line coverage of mapped thickness (figs. 8.38, 11.8 to Eval pyrolysis and hydrous pyrolysis methods (fig. 8.37). The 11.10), TOCo (figs. 11.11 to 11.13), and measured hydrogen “uncorrected” volume of expelled petroleum determined by the index (table 8.12 obtained from table 11.5 in Peters, Magoon, Rock-Eval pyrolysis method assumes that no threshold value of Valin, and Lillis, this volume, chapter 11) for each of the four TOC is required for expulsion (Lewan, 1987; Peters and others, source rocks. The polygons were constructed only within 2005), and the “corrected” volume assumes (1) a threshold thermally mature or spent regions of the distribution of each TOC value of 2.0 weight percent, and (2) 55 weight percent of source rock as determined by the 0.6% vitrinite reflectance the pyrolyzate consists of NSO-compounds (Behar and others, contour calculated from the 4-D model (Peters, Magoon, 1997) swept out of the rock by carrier gas. These NSO-com- Lampe, and others, this volume, chapter 12). Figure 8.38 is a pounds would otherwise cross-link to form pyrobitumen and schematic depiction of how these polygons were constructed. thus fail to contribute to expelled petroleum (table 8.13). The References Cited 11 volumes of expelled petroleum determined by hydrous pyrolysis closed systems—Determination of kinetic parameters and (“HP”) were corrected using a factor of 0.5 as recommended stoichiometric coefficients for oil and gas generation: by Lewan and others (1995; 2002) and are actual calculated Organic Geochemistry, v. 26, no. 5-6, p. 321-339. volumes (table 8.13). In all cases, calculated volumes decrease Bishop, C.C., 1970, Upper Cretaceous stratigraphy on the west from left to right in table 8.13. side of the Northern San Joaquin Valley, Stanislaus and San The richness of the source rock, the size and thermal Joaquin Counties, California: Sacramento, Calif., California maturity of the pod of active source rock, the distance of Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 104, 29 p. the migration path, trap size, leakage, and loss are some of Callaway, D.C., 1964, Distribution of uppermost Cretaceous the factors that affect the efficiency of these four petroleum sands in the Sacramento-Northern San Joaquin Basin of systems. The generation-accumulation efficiency (GAE) was California: Selected Papers Presented to San Joaquin calculated for each of the “corrected” volumes for each pod Geological Society, v. 2, p. 5-18. of active source rock (Magoon and Valin, 1994). The in-place CDOGGR, 1998, California oil and gas fields: Sacramento, barrel of oil equivalent was calculated assuming that the Calif., California Department of Conservation, Division of estimated ultimate recoverable oil equivalent represents 25 Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources Publication No. CD-1, percent of the oil and gas in the accumulation—a GAE of 20 1472 p. percent indicates that for every 100 barrels of oil-equivalent CDOGGR, 2001a, 2000 Annual Report of the State Oil and generated, 20 reached the trap. In these four pods of active Gas Supervisor: Sacramento, Calif., California Department source rock the efficiencies range from a low of 0.8 percent of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal to an unlikely high of 97.7 percent. Because actual efficiency Resources, Publication No. PR06, 255 p. [also available at cannot be corroborated by another method, the discussion ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/annual_reports/2000/]. of absolute numbers is meaningless, but relative efficiencies CDOGGR, 2001b, Oil, gas, and geothemal fields in California: can be subjectively evaluated relative to other geologic fac- California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, tors. Assuming most accumulations have been discovered Gas, and Geothermal Resources, scale 1:1,500,000 [also in this province, then the relative migration efficiencies available at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/maps/Map_S-1. can be ranked as follows—Antelope-Stevens(!)>McLure- pdf]. Tulare(!)>Kreyenhagen-Temblor(!)>Moreno-Nortenville(.). Cole, F., Magoon, L.B., Hodgson, S.F., Lillis, P., and Stanley, The most efficient petroleum system, the Antelope-Stevens(!), R.G., 1999, Natural oil and gas seeps in California: U.S. has the Stevens sand interbedded with the source rock, so its Geological Survey [http://seeps.wr.usgs.gov]. efficiency is expected. The other three petroleum systems have Cooles, G.P., Mackenzie, A.S., and Quigley, T.M., 1986, greater distances of migration from source rock to trap. The Calculation of petroleum masses generated and expelled least efficient system, the Moreno-Nortonville(.), involves gas from source rocks: Organic Geochemistry, v. 10, p. 235- that may dissipate more during migration, or alternatively, the 245. entire system may be underexplored. 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- Acknowledgments 2196. Edwards, E.C., 1943, Kern Front area of the Kern River oil The authors acknowledge Ian Kaplan, George Clay- field, in Jenkins, O.P., ed., Geologic formations and pool, Zenon Valin, Keith Kvenvolden, Elisabeth Rowen, economic development of the oil and gas fields of Tom Lorenson, and the numerous field operators who helped California: San Francisco, Calif., State of California, acquire oil and gas samples. We thank Occidental Oil Com- Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines pany and Chevron Oil Company for providing oil samples Bulletin No. 118, p. 571-574. from their archives. We also acknowledge Ron Hill and Tony Frame, R.G., 1950, Helm oil field, in Summary of operations, Reid for reviewing an early draft of this paper, and Wally California oil fields: San Francisco, Calif., Annual Report of Dow, Debra Higley, and Tony Reid, all of whom reviewed the the State Oil and Gas Supervisor, v. 36, no. 1, p. 5-14 [also most recent draft. 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. References Cited ca.gov/pub/oil/Summary_of_Operations/1950/]. Gautier, D.L., Hosford Scheirer, A., Tennyson, M.E., Peters, Atwill, E.R., 1935, Oligocene Tumey Formation of California: K.E., Magoon, L.B., Lillis, P.G., Charpentier, R.R., Cook, Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum T.A., French, C.D., Klett, T.R., Pollastro, R.M., and Schenk, Geologists, v. 19, no. 8, p. 1192-1204. C.J., 2004, Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Behar, F., Vandenbroucke, M., Tang, Y., Marquis, F., and Resources of the San Joaquin Basin Province of California, Espitalie, J., 1997, Thermal cracking of kerogen in open and 2003: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-2004-0343 12 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California

[also available at URL http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2004/3043/]. Geothermal Resources, Publication No. CD-3, and at ftp:// Goudkoff, P.P., 1943, Correlation of oil field formations on ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/Summary_of_Operations/1959/]. west side of San Joaquin Valley, in Jenkins, O.P., ed., MacPherson, B.A., 1978, Sedimentation and trapping Geologic formations and economic development of the oil mechanism in upper Miocene Stevens and older turbidite and gas fields of California: San Francisco, Calif., State of fans of southeastern San Joaquin Valley, California: California, Department of Natural Resources, Division of American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. Mines Bulletin No. 118, p. 247-252. 62, p. 2243-2274. Graham, S.A., and Williams, L.A., 1985, Tectonic, Magoon, L.B., 2004, Petroleum system—Nature’s distribution depositional, and diagenetic history of Monterey Formation system of oil and gas, in Cleveland, C., and Ayres, R.U., (Miocene), central San Joaquin Basin, California: American eds., Encyclopedia of Energy: Amsterdam, Elsevier Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 69, no. 3, Academic Press, p. 823-836. p. 385-411. Magoon, L.B., and Dow, W.G., 1994, The petroleum system, Hoffman, R.D., 1964, Geology of the northern San Joaquin in Magoon, L.B., and Dow, W.G., eds., The petroleum Valley: Selected Papers Presented to San Joaquin system—From source to trap: Tulsa, Okla., American Geological Society, v. 2, p. 30-45. Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 60, p. 3-24. Hosford Scheirer, A., ed., 2007, Petroleum systems and Magoon, L.B., and Schmoker, J.W., 2000, The total petroleum geologic assessment of oil and gas in the San Joaquin Basin system—The natural fluid network that constrains the Province, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional assessment unit, in U.S. Geological Survey World Energy Paper 1713 [available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1713/]. Assessment Team, ed., U.S. Geological Survey world Kasline, F.E., 1942, Edison oil field, in Summary of petroleum assessment 2000—Description and results: U.S. operations, California oil fields: San Francisco, Calif., Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-60. Annual Report of the State Oil and Gas Supervisor, v. 26, p. Magoon, L.B., and Valin, Z.C., 1994, Overview of petroleum 12-18 [also available in California Division of Oil and Gas, system case studies, in Magoon, L.B., and Dow, W.G., eds., Summary of Operations, 1915-1999: California Division of The petroleum system—From source to trap: Tulsa, Okla., Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 60, Resources, Publication No. CD-3, and at ftp://ftp.consrv. p. 251-260. ca.gov/pub/oil/Summary_of_Operations/1940/]. McMasters, J.H., 1948, Oceanic sand [abs.]: Bulletin of the Kirby, J.M., 1943, Upper Cretaceous stratigraphy of the west American Association of Petroleum Geologists, v. 32, no. side of Sacramento Valley south of Willows, Glenn County, 12, p. 2320. California: Bulletin of the American Association of Miller, R.H., and Bloom, C.V., 1939, Mountain View oil field, Petroleum Geologists, v. 27, no. 3, p. 279-305. in Summary of operations, California oil fields: San Klemme, H.D., 1994, Petroleum systems of the world Francisco, Calif., Annual Report of the State Oil and Gas involving Upper Jurassic source rocks, in Magoon, L.B., Supervisor, v. 22, no. 4, p. 5-36 [also available in California and Dow, W.G., eds., The petroleum system—From source Division of Oil and Gas, Summary of Operations, 1915- to trap: Tulsa, Okla., American Association of Petroleum 1999: California Division of Conservation, Division of Oil, Geologists Memoir 60, p. 51-72. Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Publication No. CD-3, and Lewan, M.D., 1987, Petrographic study of primary petroleum at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/Summary_of_ migration in the Woodford Shale and related rock units, in Operations/1937/]. Doligez, B., ed., Migration of hydrocarbons in sedimentary Noble, E.B., 1940, Rio Bravo oil field, Kern County, basins: Paris, Éditions Technip, p. 113-130. California: Bulletin of the American Association of Lewan, M.D., Comer, J.B., Hamilton-Smith, T., Hasenmueller, Petroleum Geologists, v. 24, no. 7, p. 1330-1333. N.R., Guthrie, J.M., Hatch, J.R., Gautier, D.L., and Frankie, Peters, K.E., 1986, Guidelines for evaluating petroleum source W.T., 1995, Feasibility study of material-balance assessment rock using programmed pyrolysis: American Association of of petroleum from the New Albany Shale in the Illinois Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 70, p. 318-329. Basin: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2137, 31 p. Peters, K.E., Magoon, L.B., Bird, K.J., Valin, Z.C., and Keller, Lewan, M.D., Henry, M.E., Higley, D.K., and Pitman, J.K., M.A., 2006, North Slope, Alaska—Source rock distribution, 2002, Material-balance assessment of the New Albany- richness, thermal maturity, and petroleum charge: American Chesterian petroleum system of the Illinois basin: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 90, p. 1-31. Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 86, p. 745- Peters, K.E., Walters, C.C., and Moldowan, J.M., 2005, The 777. biomarker guide: Cambridge, U.K., Cambridge University Loken, K.P., 1959, Gill Ranch gas field, in Summary of Press, 1155 p. operations, California oil fields: San Francisco, Calif., Schmoker, J.W., 1994, Volumetric calculation of hydrocarbons Annual Report of the State Oil and Gas Supervisor, v. 45, generated, in Magoon, L.B., and Dow, W.G., eds., The no. 1, p. 27-32 [also available in California Division of Oil petroleum system—From source to trap: Tulsa, Okla., and Gas, Summary of Operations, 1915-1999: California American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 60, Division of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and p. 323-326. References Cited 13

Sterling, R., Grau, A., Kidney, R., Ganong, B., Pendleton, P., Wilkinson, E.R., 1960, Vallecitos field, in Summary of Drennan, L., and Bosse, A., 2003, The North Shafter and operations, California oil fields: San Francisco, Calif., Rose oil fields—A seismically defined, diagenetic Annual Report of the State Oil and Gas Supervisor, v. 45, stratigraphic trap in the Miocene McLure Shale, San no. 2, p. 17-33 [also available in California Division of Oil Joaquin Basin, CA [abs.]: Annual Meeting Expanded and Gas, Summary of Operations, 1915-1999: California Abstracts—American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Division of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and v. 12, p. 163. Geothermal Resources, Publication No. CD-3, and at ftp:// Sullivan, J.C., 1963, Guijarral Hills oil field, in Summary of ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/Summary_of_Operations/1959/]. operations, California oil fields: San Francisco, Calif., Williams, R.N., Jr., 1938, Recent developments in the North Annual Report of the State Oil and Gas Supervisor, v. 48, Belridge oil field, in Summary of operations, California oil no. 2, p. 37-51 [also available in California Division of Oil fields: San Francisco, Calif., Annual Report of the State Oil and Gas, Summary of Operations, 1915-1999: California and Gas Supervisor, v. 21, no. 4, p. 5-16 [also available in Division of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and California Division of Oil and Gas, Summary of Operations, Geothermal Resources, Publication No. CD-3, and at ftp:// 1915-1999: California Division of Conservation, Division ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/Summary_of_Operations/1962/]. of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Publication No. Sullivan, J.C., 1966, Kettleman North Dome oil field, in CD-3, and at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/Summary_of_ Summary of operations, California oil fields: Sacramento, Operations/1936/]. Calif., Annual Report of the State Oil and Gas Supervisor, v. Zieglar, D.L., and Spotts, J.H., 1978, Reservoir and source-bed 52, no. 1, p. 6-21 [also available in California Division of history of Great Valley, California: American Association of Oil and Gas, Summary of Operations, 1915-1999: Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 62, p. 813-826. California Division of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, Zumberge, J.E., Russell, J.A., and Reid, S.A., 2005, Charging and Geothermal Resources, Publication No. CD-3, and at of Elk Hills reservoirs as determined by oil geochemistry: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/Summary_of_ American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. Operations/1966/]. 89, no. 10, p. 1347-1371. 14 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California

This page intentionally left blank 15

Figures 8.1–8.39 16 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California

121°30’ 121°00’ 120°30’ 120°00’ 119°30’ 119°00’ 118°30’ 38°00’

10 0 10 20 30 40 MILES Stockton Arch 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

Index Map California 37°30’

North

San Joaquin Sierra Nevada BatholithBasin Province N X Chowchilla 37°00’

basin axis

Vallecitos 36°30’ Riverdale

Coalinga Nose Central

X 36°00’ Pleasant Valley Syncline Explanation Fold Belt South Oil field San Andreas Fault

Gas field Buttonwillow Depocenter Bakersfield Arch 35°30’

Elk Hills Mountain View Buena Vista Tejon Midway-Sunset X X N Depocenter D U

35°00’ White Wolf Fault

Figure 8.1. Index map of the San Joaquin Basin Province divided into the north, central, and south subregions (three shades of gray). Thin brown lines are county boundaries. Oil and gas fields are shown in green and red colored polygons, respectively. Inset shows location of study area in California. Figures 17

SAN JOAQUIN BASIN PROVINCE

SYSTEM Mega- NORTH CENTRAL SOUTH SERIES sequences West East West East West East Ma (2nd order) STAGE basin axis Alluvium basin axis Alluvium basin axis Alluvium 0 PLEIS. unnamed Tulare Fm San Joaquin Fm PLIO. San Joaquin Fm unnamed

5 unnamed Etchegoin Fm unnamed Etchegoin Fm Trans-

pression Reef Ridge Sh Mbr Reef Ridge Sh Mbr Monterey Fm Chanac

DEL. Antelope sh KR Santa Margarita Santa Margarita Stevens sd Fm Ss McLure Shale Mbr Ss Santa

Monterey Fm Margarita 10 Fruitvale shale Ss McDonald Sh Mbr MOHNIAN unnamed

NEOGENE Devilwater Sh Round Mtn Silt LUI.

Mbr/Gould Sh unnamed 15 Temblor Fm Mbr, undiff migration Nozu sd MIOCENE B REL. Triple junction Triple Media Sh Mbr Olcese Zilch fm Sand Zilch fm Carneros

Ss Mbr Temblor Fm 20 Santos Jewett SAUCESIAN Freeman Sand Silt

Agua SsMbr Sh PH 25 . Bed Rio Bravo sd

Vaqueros Fm unnamed Walker Fm

30 Subduction and magmatism Wygal Ss Mbr Vedder Sand ZEMORRIAN OLIGOCENE Cymric Shale Mbr REF. Leda sd 35 Tumey formation Tumey formation Oceanic sand

40 Kreyenhagen Formation Kreyenhagen Formation Point of Rocks Ss unnamed unnamed Mbr sand Famoso

EOCENE Kreyenhagen Formation 45 Famoso sand Famoso subsidence unnamed unnamed Diablo Range Diablo Canoas Slts Mbr unnamed uplift and basin basin and uplift Domengine Fm Domengine Fm Yokut B=Buttonbed Ss Mbr Ss PH=Pyramid Hill Sd Mbr KR=Kern River Fm 50 Arroyo Hondo Sh Mbr Gatchell sd PALEOGENE Cantua Ss Mbr Oil reservoir rock Gas reservoir rock unnamed

PENUTIAN ULATSIAN NARIZIAN Potential marine Potential nonmarine reservoir rock 55 Lodo Fm reservoir rock Nonmarine Marine coarse

TIAN coarse grained BULI- grained rock rock

orogeny San Carlos sd Clay/shale/ ~ ~ Coast Range mudstone/ ~ ~ ophiolite/

and Laramide Granitic basement ZIAN

YNE- biosiliceous 60 Oil-prone source Hiatus or loss by rock/ erosion Gas-prone source rock Garzas Ss

Flat slab subduction Wheatville sd Moreno Fm PALEOCENE undifferentiated

Moreno Fm Cretaceous 65 CHENEYIAN 121˚W 120˚W 119˚W 38˚N miles unnamed Stockton Arch basin axis San Joaquin0 Basin 25Province Blewett sds

MAASTRICH. Starkey sands 70 COAST RANGES Tracy sds RVS Brown Mtn ss North Sawtooth shale Ragged Valley silt SIERRA NEVADA

Panoche Fm 37˚N 75 Lathrop sd Joaquin Ridge Ss Mbr Sacramento shale Panoche Fm

80 LATE

CAMPANIAN Forbes fm SAN ANDREAS FAULT Central SANT. ? 85 ? DCN CON. RVS=Ragged Valley silt 36˚N DR DC T PH South 90 undifferentiated Cretaceous DD J TUR. Bakersfield Arch marine and nonmarine strata

CRETACEOUS undifferentiated Cretaceous 95 marine and nonmarine strata Pacific Ocean WWF CENO. 35˚N 100 SAN EMIGDIO,TECHAPI MOUNTAINS Sierran magmatism Sierran 160 Ma 120 Ma 160 Ma 120 Ma 160 Ma 120 Ma

105 and margin Convergent EARLY

ALBIAN Basement rocks Basement rocks Basement rocks 110

Figure 8.2. 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. 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). 18 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California

121°30’ 121°00’ 120°30’ 120°00’ 119°30’ 119°00’ 118°30’ 38°00’

10 0 10 20 30 40 MILES

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

Index Map California 37°30’

North San Joaquin Basin Province N X 37°00’

basin axis

1000

36°30’

X 2000 A Central 0 South Dudley Ridge 36°00’ Harvester San Joaquin(?) Trico, NW Petroleum System Trico A’ Cross section A 0 1000 Semitropic, NW South Relevant stratigraphic section Shafter, SE Geographic extent Semitropic 35°30’ of petroleum system Garrison City * Rio Bravo Biogenic gas Buttonwillow Field Bowerbank (geochemical data) 0 Strand Biogenic gas Canal 3000 Field (no geochemical data) A’ 6000 Burial history N chart location Coles Levee, N. Paloma 6000* Burial depth to 35°00’ San Joaquin Formation Los Lobos CI, 1,000 ft

Figure 8.3. San Joaquin(?) petroleum system map showing the present-day burial depth of the speculative source rock—the San Joaquin Formation (brown contours)—as well as location of cross section A-A’, location(*) of burial history chart, and a red dashed line indicating the geographic extent of the system. Gas accumulations in this petroleum system are shown in red; solid polygons indicate biogenic gas accumulations based on geochemical analysis, whereas outlines indicate suspected biogenic accumulations from stratigraphic proximity. In this and in all other geographic maps, the three geographic regions illustrated in the stratigraphy chart (such as fig. 8.2) are shown in shades of gray. CI, contour interval. Figures 19

San Joaquin(?) Petroleum System Stratigraphic Section

5 unnamed Etchegoin Fm unnamed Etchegoin Fm Trans-

pression Reef Ridge Sh Mbr Reef Ridge Sh Mbr Monterey Fm Chanac

DEL. Antelope sh KR Santa Margarita Santa Margarita Stevens sd Fm Ss McLure Shale Mbr Ss Santa

Monterey Fm Margarita 10 Fruitvale shale Ss McDonald Sh Mbr MOHNIAN unnamed

NEOGENE Devilwater Sh Round Mtn Silt LUI.

Mbr/Gould Sh unnamed 15 Temblor Fm Mbr, undiff migration Nozu sd MIOCENE B REL. Triple junction Triple Media Sh Mbr Olcese Zilch fm Sand Zilch fm Carneros

Ss Mbr Temblor Fm 20 Santos Jewett SAUCESIAN Freeman Sand Silt

Agua SsMbr Sh PH 25 . Bed Rio Bravo sd

Vaqueros Fm unnamed Walker Fm

30 Subduction and magmatism Wygal Ss Mbr Vedder Sand ZEMORRIAN OLIGOCENE Cymric Shale Mbr REF. Leda sd 35 Tumey formation Tumey formation Oceanic sand

40 Kreyenhagen Formation Kreyenhagen Formation Point of Rocks Ss unnamed unnamed Mbr sand Famoso

PENUTIAN ULATSIAN NARIZIAN Potential marine Potential nonmarine reservoir rock 55 Lodo Fm reservoir rock Nonmarine Marine coarse

TIAN coarse grained BULI- grained rock rock

orogeny San Carlos sd Clay/shale/ ~ ~ Coast Range mudstone/ ~ ~ ophiolite/

and Laramide Granitic basement ZIAN

YNE- biosiliceous 60 Oil-prone source Hiatus or loss by rock/ erosion Gas-prone source rock Garzas Ss

Flat slab subduction Wheatville sd Moreno Fm PALEOCENE undifferentiated

Moreno Fm Cretaceous 65 CHENEYIAN 121˚W 120˚W 119˚W 38˚N miles unnamed Stockton Arch basin axis San Joaquin0 Basin 25Province Blewett sds

MAASTRICH. Starkey sands 70 COAST RANGES Tracy sds RVS Brown Mtn ss North Sawtooth shale Ragged Valley silt SIERRA NEVADA

Panoche Fm 37˚N 75 Lathrop sd Joaquin Ridge Ss Mbr Sacramento shale Panoche Fm

80 LATE

CAMPANIAN Forbes fm SAN ANDREAS FAULT Central SANT. ? 85 ? DCN CON. RVS=Ragged Valley silt 36˚N DR DC T PH South 90 undifferentiated Cretaceous DD J TUR. Bakersfield Arch marine and nonmarine strata

105 and margin Convergent EARLY

ALBIAN Basement rocks Basement rocks Basement rocks 110

Figure 8.4. Stratigraphic column shown in figure 8.2, but with gas reservoir rocks for the San Joaquin(?) petroleum system (red outline) shown on the south region of the stratigraphic section. 20 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California

Geographic extent of San Joaquin(?) A Petroleum System A’ North South Burial history Trico Semitropic Buttonwillow Field Field Field 0 Tulare Formation * ? ? ? ? 5 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? San Joaquin Fm Etchegoin Formation * 10 pre-Temblor Formation Antelope shale Temblor Formation* Explanation

Depth (x1,000 ft) 15

Gas field Antelope shale Questionable ? ? source rock basement rock 20 Petroleum 0.6 %Ro Window 0.9 %R o Scale (oil + gas) 1.2 %R o 0 5 25 *Antelope shale of Graham and Williams (1985) 10 15 20 km Present Day

Figure 8.5. Cross section A-A’ showing geographic extent of the San Joaquin(?) petroleum system, the location of the burial history chart (vertical line; location also shown on map in fig. 8.3 and chart shown in fig. 8.6), the questionable source rock interval for the biogenic gas (open stars), and the stratigraphic unit that contains the gas accumulations in known fields (red blobs). Stratigraphic depth contours and vitrinite reflectance contours (%Ro) are derived from the San Joaquin Basin model of Peters, Magoon, Lampe, and others (this volume, chapter 12). Formation names in italics are informal. Fm, Formation. Figures 21

San Joaquin(?) Petroleum System Burial History Chart ESSENTIAL Cenozoic GEOLOGIC ELEMENTS Tertiary Q TIME SCALE

Paleogene Neogene Pleist.

Paleocene Eocene Oligocene Miocene Plio. Rock unit 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Source rock Reservoir rock Seal rock Overburden rock 0 ? Tulare Formation 1 ? ?

? 3 5 San Joaquin Formation

10 4

Etchegoin 15 Formation Depth (x1,000 ft)

Antelope shale* 20 Explanation Temblor Formation

Burial lines pre-Temblor Formation ? ? ? ? Uncertain source rock 25 Petroleum 0.6 %Ro

Window 0.9 %Ro

(oil + gas) 1.2 %Ro Pod of active basement rock 30 source rock *Antelope shale of Graham and Williams (1985)

Figure 8.6. Burial history chart for the San Joaquin(?) petroleum system shows that the speculative source rock interval, the San Joaquin For- mation, is immature for petroleum generation; only the Antelope shale has a pod of active source rock (yellow shading). The numbers overlying yellow rectangles in the reservoir rock column refer to the reservoir rock numbers in table 8.5 and appendix 8.2. If relevant, in this and all other burial history charts, gray rectangles indicate source rocks, yellow rectangles indicate reservoir rocks, purple rectangles indicate seal rocks, and orange rectangles indicate overburden rocks. Note that there is no overburden in this system. Formation names in italics are informal.

Pleist., Pleistocene; Plio., Pliocene; Q, Quaternary; %Ro, percent vitrinite reflectance. 22 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California

San Joaquin(?) Petroleum System Events Chart

Mesozoic Cenozoic GEOLOGIC Cretaceous Tertiary Q TIME Early Late Paleogene Neogene SCALE Paleocene Maastrichtian Oligocene Cenomanian Pliocene Miocene Pleistocene Campanian Eocene Coniacian Santonian Turonian Albian

PETROLEUM

105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 30354045 25 20 1015 5 0 SYSTEM EVENTS Garzas Ss Mbr of Moreno Fm Sacramento shale of Callaway (1964) Sacramento shale sand of Domengine Formation Point of Rocks Ss **** Tulare Formation Kreyenhagen Formation Kreyenhagen Kreyenhagen Formation Kreyenhagen of Callaway (1964) Domengine San Joaquin Formation San Joaquin Moreno Formation Etchegoin Formation Etchegoin Forbes formation Temblor Formation sand of Temblor Fm sand of Temblor ** Antelope shale Tumey formation *** of Kirby (1943) weathered basement Lathrop sand Stevens sand * basement Hiatus

Formation ROCK UNIT

*Stevens sand of Eckis (1940) **Antelope shale of Graham and Williams (1985) ? SOURCE ROCK 1 ***Tumey formation of Atwill (1935) 3 ****Point of Rocks Sandstone Member of the Kreyenhagen Formation 4 RESERVOIR ROCK SEAL ROCK OVERBURDEN ROCK structural and stratigraphic TRAP FORMATION

biogenic gas GENERATION-MIGRATION-ACCUMULATION PRESERVATION CRITICAL MOMENT

Figure 8.7. Events chart for the San Joaquin(?) petroleum system shows the timing of the essential elements, processes, and critical moment (see Magoon and Dow, 1994, for more information). In this system, petroleum generation-migration-accumulation is microbial, rather than thermal, in origin as in the other petroleum systems. The numbers on the lines in the reservoir rock item refer to the reservoir numbers in table 8.5; the relative thickness of the lines is proportional to the volume of gas in known pools. If relevant, in this and all other events charts, gray rectangles indicate source rocks, purple rectangles indicate seal rocks, orange rectangles indicate overburden rocks, and blue rectangles indicate traps. Formation names in italics are informal. Fm, Formation; Mbr, Member; Q, Quaternary; Ss, Sandstone. Figures 23

121°30’ 121°00’ 120°30’ 120°00’ 119°30’ 119°00’ 118°30’ 38°00’

10 0 10 20 30 40 MILES

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

Index Map California 37°30’

North San Joaquin Basin Province N X 37°00’

basin axis

36°30’

X Central

Dudley Ridge 36°00’ South Neogene Harvester Nonassociated Gas Trico, NW Total Petroleum System Trico Geographic extent of total petroleum Semitropic, NW system Shafter, SE Geographic extent of petroleum system 35°30’ Semitropic Biogenic gas Garrison City Field Rio Bravo (geochemical data) Buttonwillow Bowerbank Strand Biogenic gas Field (no geochemical data) Canal X N Coles Levee, N. Paloma

35°00’ Los Lobos

Figure 8.8. Neogene Nonassociated Gas Total Petroleum System map shows the area beyond the geographic extent of the San Joaquin(?) petroleum system, shown by the dashed red line, where undiscovered biogenic gas accumulations may be found. As in figure 8.3, gas accumulations in this petroleum system are shown in red; solid polygons indicate biogenic gas accumulations based on geochemical analysis, whereas outlines indicate suspected biogenic accumulations from stratigraphic proximity. 24 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California

121°30’ 121°00’ 120°30’ 120°00’ 119°30’ 119°00’ 118°30’ 38°00’

10 0 10 20 30 40 MILES

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

Index Map California 37°30’

North San Joaquin Basin Province N X 37°00’

basin axis

Central 36°30’

2000 X 6000

10,000

6000 2000 36°00’ McLure-Tulare(!) Petroleum System 14,000 B’ 18,000 South B Cross section Lost Hills, NW Relevant stratigraphic South Lost Hills section Devil’s Den Semitropic Rose Geographic extent Blackwells Corner * of petroleum system 2 1 Wasco Beer Nose Shafter Bakersfield Arch 3 Shafter, North Well 35°30’ Oil from McLure Antelope Hills Cal Canal 18,000 B’ Field Shale* source rock 3 4 Jerry Slough McDonald Anticline 22,000 Oil suspected from Belridge, North Cymric Field McLure Shale* 5 Bowerbank 10,000 6000 Pacificsource rock Chico-Martinez Belridge, South 2000 Burial history 14,000 Oceanchart location Elk Hills Temblor Hills Railroad Gap * McKittrick B X Source rock outline N 18,000 6000 Burial depth to source rock 35°00’ CI, 4,000 ft <0.6 0.6-0.9 Pod of active 0.9-1.2 source rock >1.2 (in %Ro) *McLure Shale Member of the Monterey Formation

Figure 8.9. The McLure-Tulare(!) petroleum system map shows the present-day burial depth of the known source rock—the McLure Shale Member of the Monterey Formation (brown contours)—as well as the extent of the source rock thought to have good source rock qualities (such as facies, hydrogen index, and total organic carbon; gray line), location of cross section B-B’, location(*) of burial history chart, and a purple dashed line indicating the geographic extent of the system. Petroleum accumulations in this system are shown in purple; solid polygons indicate accumulations based on geochemical analysis, whereas outlines indicate

suspected accumulations based on stratigraphic proximity. CI, contour interval; %Ro, percent vitrinite reflectance. Figures 25

McLure-Tulare(!) Petroleum System Stratigraphic Section

5 unnamed Etchegoin Fm unnamed Etchegoin Fm Trans-

pression Reef Ridge Sh Mbr Reef Ridge Sh Mbr Monterey Fm Chanac

DEL. Antelope sh KR Santa Margarita Santa Margarita Stevens sd Fm Ss McLure Shale Mbr Ss Santa

Monterey Fm Margarita 10 Fruitvale shale Ss McDonald Sh Mbr MOHNIAN unnamed

NEOGENE Devilwater Sh Round Mtn Silt LUI.

Mbr/Gould Sh unnamed 15 Temblor Fm Mbr, undiff migration Nozu sd MIOCENE B REL. Triple junction Triple Media Sh Mbr Olcese Zilch fm Sand Zilch fm Carneros

Ss Mbr Temblor Fm 20 Santos Jewett SAUCESIAN Freeman Sand Silt

Agua SsMbr Sh PH 25 . Bed Rio Bravo sd

Vaqueros Fm unnamed Walker Fm

30 Subduction and magmatism Wygal Ss Mbr Vedder Sand ZEMORRIAN OLIGOCENE Cymric Shale Mbr REF. Leda sd 35 Tumey formation Tumey formation Oceanic sand

40 Kreyenhagen Formation Kreyenhagen Formation Point of Rocks Ss unnamed unnamed Mbr sand Famoso

PENUTIAN ULATSIAN NARIZIAN Potential marine Potential nonmarine reservoir rock 55 Lodo Fm reservoir rock Nonmarine Marine coarse

TIAN coarse grained BULI- grained rock rock

orogeny San Carlos sd Clay/shale/ ~ ~ Coast Range mudstone/ ~ ~ ophiolite/

and Laramide Granitic basement ZIAN

YNE- biosiliceous 60 Oil-prone source Hiatus or loss by rock/ erosion Gas-prone source rock Garzas Ss

Flat slab subduction Wheatville sd Moreno Fm PALEOCENE undifferentiated

Moreno Fm Cretaceous 65 CHENEYIAN 121˚W 120˚W 119˚W 38˚N miles unnamed Stockton Arch basin axis San Joaquin0 Basin 25Province Blewett sds

MAASTRICH. Starkey sands 70 COAST RANGES Tracy sds RVS Brown Mtn ss North Sawtooth shale Ragged Valley silt SIERRA NEVADA

Panoche Fm 37˚N 75 Lathrop sd Joaquin Ridge Ss Mbr Sacramento shale Panoche Fm

80 LATE

CAMPANIAN Forbes fm SAN ANDREAS FAULT Central SANT. ? 85 ? DCN CON. RVS=Ragged Valley silt 36˚N DR DC T PH South 90 undifferentiated Cretaceous DD J TUR. Bakersfield Arch marine and nonmarine strata

105 and margin Convergent EARLY

ALBIAN Basement rocks Basement rocks Basement rocks 110 Figure 8.10. Stratigraphic column shown in figure 8.2, but with petroleum source rock and reservoir rocks for the McLure-Tulare(!) petroleum system (purple outline) on the central and south regions of the stratigraphic section. 26 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California

Geographic extent of McLure-Tulare(!) B petroleum system B’ West East Burial Cymric Belridge history North Field South Lost Hills Semitropic Shafter Field Field Field Field 0 * Tulare Formation San Joaquin Fm 5 Etchegoin Fm

Etchegoin Fm basement rock 10 pre-Temblor Fm rocks

Temblor Fm * Explanation pre-Temblor rocks Oil field

Depth (x1,000 ft) 15 pre-Temblor Fm rocks Source rock McLure Shale Petroleum 0.6 %Ro 20 Window 0.9 %Ro Present Day (oil + gas) 1.2 %Ro Scale 0 *McLure Shale Member Pod of active 25 5 10 15 20 km of the Monterey Fm source rock

Figure 8.11. Cross section B-B’ showing geographic extent of the McLure-Tulare(!) petroleum system, the location of the burial history chart (vertical line; location also shown on map in fig. 8.9 and chart shown in fig. 8.12), the McLure Shale source rock interval (circle-bar pattern), the petroleum window, pod of active source rock (warm shading), and the stratigraphic units that contains the petroleum accumulations in known fields (green blobs). Stratigraphic depth contours and vitrinite reflectance contours (%Ro) are derived from the San Joaquin Basin model of Peters, Magoon, Lampe, and others (this volume, chapter 12). Fm, Formation. Figures 27

McLure-Tulare(!) Petroleum System Burial History Chart ESSENTIAL Cenozoic GEOLOGIC ELEMENTS Tertiary Q TIME SCALE

Paleogene Neogene Pleist.

Paleocene Eocene Oligocene Miocene Plio. Rock unit 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Source rock Reservoir rock Seal rock Overburden rock 0 Tulare Formation 1

San Joaquin 3 5 Formation

10 4 Etchegoin Formation

15 Onset of 7 Depth (x1,000 ft) petroleum generation 5 Ma at 17,800 ft 10 McLure Shale Member of 20 Explanation Peak generation Monterey Formation 5 3.5 Ma at 21,800 ft Burial lines 12 Minor generation Source rock 17 1.5 Ma at 22,400 ft Temblor Formation 25 Petroleum 0.6 %Ro

Window 0.9 %Ro

(oil + gas) 1.2 %Ro pre-Temblor Formation Pod of active 30 source rock basement rock

Figure 8.12. Burial history chart for the McLure-Tulare(!) petroleum system shows the onset of petroleum generation at 5 Ma, peak generation at 3.5 Ma, and source rock depletion at 1.5 Ma. The pod of active source rock is indicated by warm shading. The numbers overlying yellow rectangles in the reservoir rock column refer to the reservoir rock numbers in table 8.6 and appendix 8.2. Pleist., Pleistocene; Plio., Pliocene; Q,

Quaternary; %Ro, percent vitrinite reflectance. 28 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California

McLure-Tulare(!) Petroleum System Events Chart

PETROLEUM

Formation ROCK UNIT

*Stevens sand of Eckis (1940) **Antelope shale of Graham and Williams (1985) SOURCE ROCK ***Tumey formation of Atwill (1935) 3 1 ****Point of Rocks Sandstone Member of the Kreyenhagen Formation 5 4 10 12 7 RESERVOIR ROCK 17 SEAL ROCK OVERBURDEN ROCK stratigraphic structural TRAP FORMATION ION- LATIO N GENERATION-MIGRAT ACCUMU PRESERVATIO N CRITICAL MOMENT

Figure 8.13. Events chart for the McLure-Tulare(!) petroleum system shows the timing of the essential elements and processes of this petroleum system. Note that trap development occurred before and during petroleum migration. The numbers on the lines in the reservoir rock item refer to the reservoir numbers in table 8.6; the relative thickness of the lines is proportional to the volume of gas (red) or oil (green) in known pools. Formation names in italics are informal. Fm, Formation; Mbr, Member; Q, Quaternary; Ss, Sandstone. Figures 29

121°30’ 121°00’ 120°30’ 120°00’ 119°30’ 119°00’ 118°30’ 38°00’

10 0 10 20 30 40 MILES

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

Index Map California 37°30’

North San Joaquin Basin Province N X 37°00’

basin axis

Central 36°30’

2000 X 6000

10,000

6000 2000 36°00’ South Antelope-Stevens(!) 14,000 Petroleum System C’ Cross section Stockdale C Bellevue Poso Creek Rosedale Ranch Kern Front Stratigraphic Rosedale Kern River South section Seventh Standard Dyer Creek English Colony 18,000 Geographic extent Greeley Mount Poso of petroleum system Rio Bravo Bellevue, W Bakersfield Arch A McClung Round Mountain Seep X Calders Corner 35°30’ Oil from Antelope Strand Kern Bluff Field shale* source rock Goosloo Canal C’ Ten Section 18,000 Fruit- Ant Hill Oil suspected from Coles Levee, N vale 6000 Edison, NE Field Antelope shale* Coles Levee, S Union Ave source rock Elk Hills Edison Pacific Asphalto 10,000 2000Kernsumner OceanBurial history Buena VistaC Mtn. View chart location Canfield Rnch Lakeside * Paloma 14,000 Source rock outline N Midway-Sunset Rio Viejo Lakeside, S Gonyer Anticline 18,000 6000 Comanche Burial depth to Capitola Park A Pt source rock X 35°00’ Cienaga Canyon Tejon Hills CI, 4,000 ft Yowlumne * Tejon Flats <0.6 Los Labos Valpredo 0.6-0.9 Pod of active Tejon Pioneer Tejon North 0.9-1.2 source rock San Emigdio *Antelope shale of Graham Eagle Rest Wheeler Ridge >1.2 (in %Ro) White Pleito and Williams (1985) San Emigdio Creek Landslide San Emidio Nose Wolf Los Padres

Figure 8.14. The Antelope-Stevens(!) petroleum system map shows the present-day burial depth of the known source rock—the Antelope shale (brown contours)—as well as the extent of the source rock thought to have good source rock qualities (such as facies, hydrogen index, and total organic carbon; gray line), location of cross section C-C’, location(*) of burial history chart, and a purple dashed line indicating the geographic extent of the system. Petroleum accumulations in this system are shown in purple; solid polygons indicate accumulations based on geochemical analysis, whereas outlines indicate suspected accumulations based on stratigraphic proximity. Seep location is from Cole and others (1999). CI, contour interval; %Ro, percent vitrinite reflectance. 30 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California

Antelope-Stevens(!) Petroleum System Stratigraphic Section

5 unnamed Etchegoin Fm unnamed Etchegoin Fm Trans-

pression Reef Ridge Sh Mbr Reef Ridge Sh Mbr Monterey Fm Chanac

DEL. Antelope sh KR Santa Margarita Santa Margarita Stevens sd Fm Ss McLure Shale Mbr Ss Santa

Monterey Fm Margarita 10 Fruitvale shale Ss McDonald Sh Mbr MOHNIAN unnamed

NEOGENE Devilwater Sh Round Mtn Silt LUI.

Mbr/Gould Sh unnamed 15 Temblor Fm Mbr, undiff migration Nozu sd MIOCENE B REL. Triple junction Triple Media Sh Mbr Olcese Zilch fm Sand Zilch fm Carneros

Ss Mbr Temblor Fm 20 Santos Jewett SAUCESIAN Freeman Sand Silt

Agua SsMbr Sh PH 25 . Bed Rio Bravo sd

Vaqueros Fm unnamed Walker Fm

30 Subduction and magmatism Wygal Ss Mbr Vedder Sand ZEMORRIAN OLIGOCENE Cymric Shale Mbr REF. Leda sd 35 Tumey formation Tumey formation Oceanic sand

40 Kreyenhagen Formation Kreyenhagen Formation Point of Rocks Ss unnamed unnamed Mbr sand Famoso

PENUTIAN ULATSIAN NARIZIAN Potential marine Potential nonmarine reservoir rock 55 Lodo Fm reservoir rock Nonmarine Marine coarse

TIAN coarse grained BULI- grained rock rock

orogeny San Carlos sd Clay/shale/ ~ ~ Coast Range mudstone/ ~ ~ ophiolite/

and Laramide Granitic basement ZIAN

YNE- biosiliceous 60 Oil-prone source Hiatus or loss by rock/ erosion Gas-prone source rock Garzas Ss

Flat slab subduction Wheatville sd Moreno Fm PALEOCENE undifferentiated

Moreno Fm Cretaceous 65 CHENEYIAN 121˚W 120˚W 119˚W 38˚N miles unnamed Stockton Arch basin axis San Joaquin0 Basin 25Province Blewett sds

MAASTRICH. Starkey sands 70 COAST RANGES Tracy sds RVS Brown Mtn ss North Sawtooth shale Ragged Valley silt SIERRA NEVADA

Panoche Fm 37˚N 75 Lathrop sd Joaquin Ridge Ss Mbr Sacramento shale Panoche Fm

80 LATE

CAMPANIAN Forbes fm SAN ANDREAS FAULT Central SANT. ? 85 ? DCN CON. RVS=Ragged Valley silt 36˚N DR DC T PH South 90 undifferentiated Cretaceous DD J TUR. Bakersfield Arch marine and nonmarine strata

105 and margin Convergent EARLY

ALBIAN Basement rocks Basement rocks Basement rocks 110

Figure 8.15. Stratigraphic column shown in figure 8.2, but with petroleum source rock and reservoir rocks for the Antelope-Stevens(!) petroleum system (purple outline) on the south region of the stratigraphic section. Figures 31

Geographic extent of Antelope-Stevens(!) C Petroleum System C’ West bend in section East

Midway-Sunset Burial Field Edison Buena Vista history Field Ant Hill Field Yowlumne San Emidio Mountain Field Nose Field View Field Field 0 * Tulare Formation 5 San Joaquin Antelope shale* Formation

10 * basement rock Etchegoin Fm Temblor Fm Explanation Antelope shale Depth (x1,000 ft) 15 Oil field pre-Temblor Fm rocks Source rock Petroleum 0.6 %R 20 o Scale Window 0.9 %Ro pre-Temblor Fm rocks 0 (oil + gas) basement rock 5 10 15 20 km 1.2 %Ro Pod of active 25 *Antelope shale of Graham and Williams (1985) Present Day source rock

Figure 8.16. Cross section C-C’ showing geographic extent of the Antelope-Stevens(!) petroleum system, the location of the burial history chart (vertical line; location also shown on map in fig. 8.14 and chart shown in fig. 8.17), the Antelope shale source rock interval (circle-bar pattern), the petroleum window, pod of active source rock (warm shading), and the stratigraphic units that contain the petroleum accumulations in known fields (purple blobs). Stratigraphic depth contours and vitrinite reflectance contours (%Ro) are derived from the San Joaquin Basin model of Peters, Magoon, Lampe, and others (this volume, chapter 12). Fm, Formation.

32 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California

Overburden rock Overburden

Seal rock Seal Reservoir rock Reservoir

3 4 7 1 2 8 Source rock Source 6 33 12 ELEMENTS ESSENTIAL Rock unit Formation San Joaquin Temblor Formation Temblor basement rock Antelope shale of Graham and Williams (1985) Tulare Formation Tulare GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE Etchegoin Formation 0

Pleist. Q Pliocene 5 Minor generation 1.5 Ma at 18,000 ft Peak generation 2.5 Ma at 17,000 ft Onset of 10 4 Ma at 14,000 ft petroleum generation , percent vitrinite reflectance. o Neogene Tertiary Miocene Cenozoic 15 Antelope-Stevens(!) Petroleum System Burial History System Chart Petroleum Antelope-Stevens(!) o o o Pod of active of Pod sourcerock 0.6 %R0.6 %R0.9 %R1.2 Buriallines Sourcerock 20 Explanation Window (oil + gas) Petroleum Oligocene 25

0 5 Depth (x1,000 ft) (x1,000 Depth 25 30 10 15 20 Figure 8.17. Burial history chart for the Antelope-Stevens(!) petroleum system shows onset of generation at 4 Ma, peak gener ation 2.5 and source rock The numbers overlying yellow rectangles in the reservoir rock column refer to depletion at 1.5 Ma. The pod of active source rock is indicated by warm shading. numbers in table 8.7 and appendix 8.2 . Pleist., Pleistocene; Q, Quaternary; %R

Figures 33 ACCUMULATION

PETROLEUM MIGRATION- SYSTEMEVENTS SCALE TIME

GEOLOGIC ROCK UNIT RESERVOIR ROCK GENERATION-

OVERBURDEN ROCK PRESERVATION CRITICAL MOMENT SOURCE ROCK SEAL ROCK TRAP FORMATION 0 Q Pleistocene Tulare Formation 1 3 4 Pliocene San Joaquin Formation 2 5

Etchegoin Formation 7 Stevens sand* 8 9 10 structural 1015 Antelope shale** 6 Miocene 11 Neogene

sand of Temblor Fm 14 20 15 12 25 Temblor Formation Oligocene 17 30354045 Cenozoic Tertiary Tumey formation*** Kreyenhagen Formation Point of Rocks Ss****

Eocene Kreyenhagen Formation 28 & 29 stratigraphic Paleogene

50 sand of Domengine Formation

55 Domengine Formation

Paleocene 60 Garzas Ss Mbr of Moreno Fm 65 Maastrichtian Moreno Formation 70

Antelope-Stevens(!) Petroleum System Events Chart Lathrop sand

75 of Callaway (1964) Campanian Sacramento shale of Callaway (1964)

80 Forbes formation of Kirby (1943) Late

Santonian 85 Coniacian Mesozoic Turonian 90 Cretaceous

95 Hiatus Cenomanian 100

Albian Point of Rocks Sandstone Member of the Kreyenhagen Formation 105 Early weathered basement * Stevens sand of Eckis (1940) ** Antelope shale of Graham and Williams (1985) Atwill (1935) formation of *** Tumey ****

basement Figure 8.18. Events chart for the Antelope-Stevens(!) petroleum system shows time of deposition essential elements and process es this system. Note that trap development occurred before and during petroleum migration. The numbers on the lines in reservoir rock item refer to r eservoir table 8.7; relative thickness of Member; Q, Quaternary; Ss, Sandstone. Formation names in italics are informal. Fm, Formation; Mbr, lines is proportional to the volume of gas (red) or oil (green) in known pools. 34 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California

121°30’ 121°00’ 120°30’ 120°00’ 119°30’ 119°00’ 118°30’ 38°00’

10 0 10 20 30 40 MILES

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

Index Map California 37°30’

North San Joaquin Basin Province N X 37°00’

basin axis

Central 36°30’

36°00’ South

Miocene Total Petroleum System Geographic extent of total petroleum system 35°30’ Geographic extent of petroleum system Well PacificOil from Miocene Field Oceansource rock Field Oil suspected from N Miocene source rock 35°00’ Location of pods of active source rock Source rock outline

Figure 8.19. Miocene Total Petroleum System map combines the McLure-Tulare(!) and the Antelope-Stevens(!) petroleum systems for the purposes of assessment. Oil accumulations in this petroleum system are shown in purple; solid polygons indicate oil accumulations based on geochemical analysis, whereas outlines indicate suspected accumulations from stratigraphic proximity. Warm shading indicates location of pods of active source rock for the two systems. Figures 35

121°30’ 121°00’ 120°30’ 120°00’ 119°30’ 119°00’ 118°30’ 38°00’

10 0 10 20 30 40 MILES

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

Index Map California 2000 37°30’ North

San Joaquin Basin Province N X 37°00’

basin axis 2000

2000

6000 Raisin City Central 2000 Burrel, SE Burrel 36°30’ Van Ness Slough Cantua Nueva 2000 Helm10,000 Camden 1 RiverdaleX D Hanford Pleasant Valley Coalinga E Extension2000 2 Coalinga Westhaven Guijarral Hills 6000 14,000 Kettleman North Dome Tulare Lake Deer Creek, N 36°00’ Tumey-Temblor(.) 10,000 Kreyenhagen Kettleman City Deer Creek Petroleum System 18,000 Terra Bella 2000 D’ Cross section D Jasmin Central Relevant stratigraphic section 3 Devils Den * Jasmin, W Geographic extent 4 2000 2000 of petroleum system Bakersfield Arch 3 35°30’ Well McDonald Anticline Oil from Tumey fm* 2000 Field 6000 source rock East Temblor 22,000 Oil suspected from Field McKittrick 10,000 PacificTumey fm* source Temblor Ranch 5 rock South Ocean 14,000 Burial history 6000 14,000 chart location 6 * Source rock outline N 6000 10,000 Burial depth to D’ 18,000 35°00’ source rock CI, 4,000 ft <0.6 0.6-0.9 Pod of active 0.9-1.2 source rock >1.2 (in %Ro) *Tumey formation of Atwill (1935)

Figure 8.20. Tumey-Temblor(.) petroleum system map shows the present-day burial depth of the hypothetical source rock—the Tumey formation of Atwell (1935; brown contours)—as well as the extent of the source rock thought to have good source rock qualities (such as facies, hydrogen index, and total organic carbon; gray line), location of cross section D-D’, location(*) of burial history chart, and a blue dashed line indicating the geographic extent of the system. Petroleum accumulations in this system are shown in blue; solid polygons indicate accumulations based on geochemical analysis, whereas outlines indicate suspected accumulations based on stratigraphic proximity. CI, contour interval; fm, formation; %Ro, percent vitrinite reflectance. 36 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California

Tumey-Temblor(.) Petroleum System Stratigraphic Section

5 unnamed Etchegoin Fm unnamed Etchegoin Fm Trans-

pression Reef Ridge Sh Mbr Reef Ridge Sh Mbr Monterey Fm Chanac

DEL. Antelope sh KR Santa Margarita Santa Margarita Stevens sd Fm Ss McLure Shale Mbr Ss Santa

Monterey Fm Margarita 10 Fruitvale shale Ss McDonald Sh Mbr MOHNIAN unnamed

NEOGENE Devilwater Sh Round Mtn Silt LUI.

Mbr/Gould Sh unnamed 15 Temblor Fm Mbr, undiff migration Nozu sd MIOCENE B REL. Triple junction Triple Media Sh Mbr Olcese Zilch fm Sand Zilch fm Carneros

Ss Mbr Temblor Fm 20 Santos Jewett SAUCESIAN Freeman Sand Silt

Agua SsMbr Sh PH 25 . Bed Rio Bravo sd

Vaqueros Fm unnamed Walker Fm

30 Subduction and magmatism Wygal Ss Mbr Vedder Sand ZEMORRIAN OLIGOCENE Cymric Shale Mbr REF. Leda sd 35 Tumey formation Tumey formation Oceanic sand

40 Kreyenhagen Formation Kreyenhagen Formation Point of Rocks Ss unnamed unnamed Mbr sand Famoso

PENUTIAN ULATSIAN NARIZIAN Potential marine Potential nonmarine reservoir rock 55 Lodo Fm reservoir rock Nonmarine Marine coarse

TIAN coarse grained BULI- grained rock rock

orogeny San Carlos sd Clay/shale/ ~ ~ Coast Range mudstone/ ~ ~ ophiolite/

and Laramide Granitic basement ZIAN

YNE- biosiliceous 60 Oil-prone source Hiatus or loss by rock/ erosion Gas-prone source rock Garzas Ss

Flat slab subduction Wheatville sd Moreno Fm PALEOCENE undifferentiated

Moreno Fm Cretaceous 65 CHENEYIAN 121˚W 120˚W 119˚W 38˚N miles unnamed Stockton Arch basin axis San Joaquin0 Basin 25Province Blewett sds

MAASTRICH. Starkey sands 70 COAST RANGES Tracy sds RVS Brown Mtn ss North Sawtooth shale Ragged Valley silt SIERRA NEVADA

Panoche Fm 37˚N 75 Lathrop sd Joaquin Ridge Ss Mbr Sacramento shale Panoche Fm

80 LATE

CAMPANIAN Forbes fm SAN ANDREAS FAULT Central SANT. ? 85 ? DCN CON. RVS=Ragged Valley silt 36˚N DR DC T PH South 90 undifferentiated Cretaceous DD J TUR. Bakersfield Arch marine and nonmarine strata

105 and margin Convergent EARLY

ALBIAN Basement rocks Basement rocks Basement rocks 110

Figure 8.21. Stratigraphic column shown in figure 8.2, but with petroleum source rock and reservoir rocks for the Tumey-Temblor(.) petroleum system (blue outline) on the central region of the stratigraphic section. Figures 37

Geographic extent of Tumey-Temblor(.) Petroleum System Pleasant Valley D Field D’ North Guijarral Hills Burial South 2 East Coalinga Field history McKittrick 5 6 Extension Field Kettleman North Field Dome Field 0 Kreyenhagen Fm * Tulare Fm Etchegoin Fm San Joaquin Fm 5

10 Kreyenhagen Fm Antelope shale Etchegoin Fm Explanation 2 pre-Eocene rocks Depth (x1,000 ft) 15 Well/Oil field * Source rock Kreyenhagen Fm * Antelope shale Petroleum 0.6 %R 20 o Temblor Fm Scale Window 0.9 %Ro (oil + gas) 0 10 20 km ** 1.2 %Ro Pod of active Tumey fm 25 source rock Present Day pre-Eocene rocks *Antelope shale of Graham and Williams (1985) **Tumey formation of Atwill (1935)

Figure 8.22. Cross section D-D’ showing geographic extent of the Tumey-Temblor(.) petroleum system, the location of the burial history chart (vertical line; location also shown on map in fig. 8.20 and chart shown in fig. 8.23), the Tumey formation source rock interval (circle-bar pattern), the petroleum window, pod of active source rock (warm shading), and the stratigraphic units that contain the petroleum accumulations in known fields (blue blobs). Stratigraphic depth contours and vitrinite reflectance contours (%Ro) are derived from the San Joaquin Basin model of Peters, Magoon, Lampe, and others (this volume, chapter 12). Fm, Formation; fm, formation.

38 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California

Overburden rock Overburden

Seal rock Seal Reservoir rock Reservoir

9 Source rock Source 12 20 13 * ELEMENTS ESSENTIAL Tumey fm Tumey Rock unit Formation San Joaquin basement rock Antelope shale of Graham and Williams (1985) Tulare Formation Tulare Kreyenhagen Fm pre-Eocene rocks Temblor Formation Temblor GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE Etchegoin Formation 0

Q Pleist. Plio. 5 , percent vitrinite reflectance. o 10 Neogene Miocene 15 20 Peak generation Minor generation 3 Ma at 24,800 ft 4.5 Ma at 22,200 ft Onset of 25 5.5 Ma at 14,000 ft petroleum generation Tumey formation of Atwill (1935) formation of Tumey * 30 Oligocene 35 Tertiary Cenozoic 40 Tumey-Temblor(.) Petroleum System Burial History System Chart Petroleum Tumey-Temblor(.) o o o 45 Paleogene Eocene Pod of active of Pod sourcerock 0.6 %R0.6 %R0.9 %R1.2 Buriallines Sourcerock 50 Explanation 55 Window (oil + gas) Petroleum 60 Paleocene 65

0 5 Depth (x1,000 ft) (x1,000 Depth 25 30 10 15 20 Burial history chart for the Tumey-Temblor(.) petroleum system shows the onset of generation at 5.5 Ma, peak 4.5 and source rock Figure 8.23. Burial history chart for the Tumey-Temblor(.) overlying yellow rectangles in the reservoir rock column refer to depletion at 3 Ma. The pod of active source rock is indicated by warm shading. numbers numbers in table 8.8 and appendix 8.2 . Fm, Formation; fm, formation; Pleist., Pleistocene; Plio., Pliocene; Q, Quaternary; %R Figures 39

LATION

ACCUMU

ION- MIGRAT PETROLEUM SYSTEM EVENTS SCALE TIME

GEOLOGIC ROCK UNIT RESERVOIR ROCK GENERATION-

OVERBURDEN ROCK PRESERVATIO CRITICAL MOMENT SOURCE ROCK SEAL ROCK TRAP FORMATION 0 Q Pleistocene Tulare Formation Pliocene San Joaquin Formation 5 Etchegoin Formation Stevens sand* 9 structural 1015 Antelope shale** Miocene Neogene sand of Temblor Fm 20 13 15 12 25 Temblor Formation 19 Oligocene 17 18 30354045 20 Cenozoic 21 Tumey formation*** stratigraphic Tertiary Kreyenhagen Formation Point of Rocks Ss**** Eocene Kreyenhagen Formation Paleogene

50 sand of Domengine Formation

55 Domengine Formation

Paleocene 60 Garzas Ss Mbr of Moreno Fm 65 Maastrichtian Moreno Formation Tumey-Temblor(.) Petroleum System Events Chart 70

Lathrop sand of Callaway (1964) 75 Campanian Sacramento shale of Callaway (1964)

80 Forbes formation of Kirby (1943) Late

Santonian 85 Coniacian Mesozoic Turonian 90 Cretaceous

95 Hiatus Cenomanian 100

Albian Point of Rocks Sandstone Member of the Kreyenhagen Formation 105

Early weathered basement * Stevens sand of Eckis (1940) (1985) ** Antelope shale of Graham and Williams Atwill (1935) formation of *** Tumey **** velopment occurred before and during petroleum migration. The numbers on the lines in reservoir rock item refers to res ervoir table 8.8; relative thickness of Member; Q, Quaternary; Ss, Sandstone. names in italics are informal. Fm, Formation; Mbr, lines is proportional to the volume of oil (green) in known pools. Formation basement petroleum system shows the time of deposition essential elements and processes this system. Note that trap de Figure 8.24. Events chart for the Tumey-Temblor(.) 40 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California

121°30’ 121°00’ 120°30’ 120°00’ 119°30’ 119°00’ 118°30’ 38°00’

10 0 10 20 30 40 MILES

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

Index Map California 37°30’ North

San Joaquin Basin Province N X 37°00’ 2000 basin axis

Raisin City Central

Vallecitos San Joaquin 36°30’ Helm 2000 2000 Turk Anticline Riverdale Five Points E Coalinga E Extension 6000 Coalinga A Pleasant Valley X 1 X 10,000 Guijarral Hills 6000 Jacalitos 14,000 Kettleman South 36°00’ North Dome Kreyenhagen-Temblor(!) 18,000 Petroleum System X Kettleman Middle Dome B 22,000 E’ Cross section E Pyramid Hills Central Relevant stratigraphic Devils Den 26,000 section Shale Point Geographic extent Welcome ValleyShale Flats18,000 of petroleum system 10,000 B Seep X Antelope Hills, N 2 Belridge, N Wasco Bakersfield Arch Antelope Plains * 26,000 35°30’ 3 Oil from Antelope Hills Well Kreyenhagen Formation McDonald Anticline 6000 Field source rock Carneros Creek Cymric 14,000 McKittrick 10,000 Field Oil suspected from PacificKreyenhagen Formation 14,000 Belgian Anticline Coles Levee, N source rock 18,000 OceanBurial history chart location 3 * Source rock outline N E’ 6000 Burial depth to 26,000 22,000 35°00’ source rock <0.6 CI, 4,000 ft 0.6-0.9 Pod of active 0.9-1.2 source rock >1.2 (in %Ro)

Figure 8.25. Kreyenhagen-Temblor(!) petroleum system map shows the present-day burial depth of the known source rock—the Kreyenhagen Formation (brown contours)—as well as the extent of the source rock thought to have good source rock qualities (such as facies, hydrogen index, and total organic carbon; gray line), location of cross section E-E’, location(*) of burial history chart, and a brown dashed line indicating the geographic extent of the system. Petroleum accumulations in this system are shown in brown; solid polygons indicate accumulations based on geochemical analysis, whereas outlines indicate suspected accumulations based on

stratigraphic proximity. Seep location is from Cole and others (1999). CI, contour interval; %Ro, percent vitrinite reflectance. Figures 41

Kreyenhagen-Temblor(!) Petroleum System Stratigraphic Section

5 unnamed Etchegoin Fm unnamed Etchegoin Fm Trans-

pression Reef Ridge Sh Mbr Reef Ridge Sh Mbr Monterey Fm Chanac

DEL. Antelope sh KR Santa Margarita Santa Margarita Stevens sd Fm Ss McLure Shale Mbr Ss Santa

Monterey Fm Margarita 10 Fruitvale shale Ss McDonald Sh Mbr MOHNIAN unnamed

NEOGENE Devilwater Sh Round Mtn Silt LUI.

Mbr/Gould Sh unnamed 15 Temblor Fm Mbr, undiff migration Nozu sd MIOCENE B REL. Triple junction Triple Media Sh Mbr Olcese Zilch fm Sand Zilch fm Carneros

Ss Mbr Temblor Fm 20 Santos Jewett SAUCESIAN Freeman Sand Silt

Agua SsMbr Sh PH 25 . Bed Rio Bravo sd

Vaqueros Fm unnamed Walker Fm

30 Subduction and magmatism Wygal Ss Mbr Vedder Sand ZEMORRIAN OLIGOCENE Cymric Shale Mbr REF. Leda sd 35 Tumey formation Tumey formation Oceanic sand

40 Kreyenhagen Formation Kreyenhagen Formation Point of Rocks Ss unnamed unnamed Mbr sand Famoso

EOCENE Kreyenhagen Formation 45 Famoso sand Famoso subsidence unnamed unnamed Diablo Range Diablo Canoas Slts Mbr unnamed uplift and basin basin and uplift Domengine Fm Domengine Fm Yokut B=Buttonbed Ss Mbr Ss PH=Pyramid Hill Sd Mbr KR=Kern River Fm 50 Gatchell sd Arroyo Hondo Sh Mbr PALEOGENE Cantua Ss Mbr Oil reservoir rock Gas reservoir rock unnamed

PENUTIAN ULATSIAN NARIZIAN Potential marine Potential nonmarine reservoir rock 55 Lodo Fm reservoir rock Nonmarine Marine coarse

TIAN coarse grained BULI- grained rock rock

orogeny San Carlos sd Clay/shale/ ~ ~ Coast Range mudstone/ ~ ~ ophiolite/

and Laramide Granitic basement ZIAN

YNE- biosiliceous 60 Oil-prone source Hiatus or loss by rock/ erosion Gas-prone source rock Garzas Ss

Flat slab subduction Wheatville sd Moreno Fm PALEOCENE undifferentiated

Moreno Fm Cretaceous 65 CHENEYIAN 121˚W 120˚W 119˚W 38˚N miles unnamed Stockton Arch basin axis San Joaquin0 Basin 25Province Blewett sds

MAASTRICH. Starkey sands 70 COAST RANGES Tracy sds RVS Brown Mtn ss North Sawtooth shale Ragged Valley silt SIERRA NEVADA

Panoche Fm 37˚N 75 Lathrop sd Joaquin Ridge Ss Mbr Sacramento shale Panoche Fm

80 LATE

CAMPANIAN Forbes fm SAN ANDREAS FAULT Central SANT. ? 85 ? DCN CON. RVS=Ragged Valley silt 36˚N DR DC T PH South 90 undifferentiated Cretaceous DD J TUR. Bakersfield Arch marine and nonmarine strata

105 and margin Convergent EARLY

ALBIAN Basement rocks Basement rocks Basement rocks 110 Figure 8.26. Stratigraphic column shown in figure 8.2, but with petroleum source rock and reservoir rocks for the Kreyenhagen-Tem- blor(!) petroleum system (brown outline) on the central and south regions of the stratigraphic section. 42 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California

Geographic extent of Kreyenhagen-Temblor(!) Petroleum System

Coalinga Pleasant Valley bend in section Field Field Belgian Anticline E Guijarral Hills Kettleman Middle Field E’ Northwest Vallecitos East Coalinga Field Dome Field Burial South Field Extension Field Kettleman North history Cymric Dome Field Field

0 Temblor Fm Tulare Fm Tulare Fm San Joaquin* Fm Etchegoin Fm Etchegoin Fm 5 Antelope shale

Antelope shale 10

Explanation KreyenhagenTemblor Fm Fm Temblor Fm * Oil field pre-Eocene rocks * Kreyenhagen Fm Depth (x1,000 ft) 15 Source rock

Petroleum 0.6 %Ro

20 Window 0.9 %Ro (oil + gas) 1.2 %Ro Kreyenhagen Fm Pod of active 0 10 20 km 25 source rock pre-Eocene rocks Present Day

*Antelope shale of Graham and Williams (1985) Figure 8.27. Cross section E-E’ showing geographic extent of the Kreyenhagen-Temblor(!) petroleum system, the location of the burial history chart (vertical line; location also shown on map in fig. 8.25 and chart shown in fig. 8.28), the Kreyenhagen Formation source rock interval (circle- bar pattern), the petroleum window, pod of active source rock (warm shading), and the stratigraphic units that contain the petroleum accumulations in known fields (green blobs). Stratigraphic depth contours and vitrinite reflectance contours (%Ro) are derived from the San Joaquin Basin model of Peters, Magoon, Lampe, and others (this volume, chapter 12). Fm, Formation.

Figures 43

Overburden rock Overburden

Seal rock Seal

Reservoir rock Reservoir Source rock Source 22 12 20 21 25 26 27 ELEMENTS ESSENTIAL Rock unit Formation San Joaquin basement rock Antelope shale of Graham and Williams (1985) Tulare Formation Tulare Kreyenhagen Fm pre-Eocene rocks GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE Temblor Formation Temblor Etchegoin Formation 0

Q Pleist. Plio. 5 10 Neogene Miocene 15 Onset of 20 Peak generation Minor generation 3.5 Ma at 25,000 ft 4.5 Ma at 23,000 ft 5.2 Ma at 18,000 ft petroleum generation , percent vitrinite reflectance. o 25 30 Oligocene 35 Tertiary Cenozoic 40 o o o 45 Paleogene Eocene Kreyenhagen-Temblor(!) Petroleum System Burial History System Chart Petroleum Kreyenhagen-Temblor(!) Pod of active of Pod sourcerock 0.6 %R0.6 %R0.9 %R1.2 Buriallines Sourcerock 50 Explanation 55 Window (oil + gas) Petroleum 60 Paleocene 65

0 5 Depth (x1,000 ft) (x1,000 Depth 25 30 10 15 20 Burial history chart for the Kreyenhagen-Temblor(!) petroleum system shows the onset of generation at 5.2 Ma, peak 4.5 and source rock Figure 8.28. Burial history chart for the Kreyenhagen-Temblor(!) The numbers overlying yellow rectangles in the reservoir rock column refer to depletion at 3.5 Ma. The pod of active source rock is indicated by warm shading. %R table 8.9 and appendix 8.2 . Fm, Formation; Pleist., Pleistocene; Plio., Pliocene; Q, Quaternary;

44 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California ACCUMULATION

PETROLEUM I RATION- MIG SYSTEM EVENTS SCALE

GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC TIME ROCK UNIT RESERVOIR ROCK GENERATION-

OVERBURDEN ROCK PRESERVATION CRITICAL MOMENT SOURCEROCK SEALROCK TRAP FORMATION 0 Q Pleistocene Tulare Formation Pliocene San Joaquin Formation 4 5 Etchegoin Formation Stevens sand* 10 structural 1015 Antelope shale** Miocene Neogene sand of Temblor Fm 20 13 12 25 Temblor Formation

Oligocene 19 30354045 20 Cenozoic 21 Tumey formation*** Kreyenhagen Formation

Tertiary Point of Rocks Ss**** 24 22 Eocene Kreyenhagen Formation 25 Paleogene 26 50 sand of Domengine Formation

27 55 Domengine Formation

Paleocene 60

Garzas Ss Mbr of Moreno Fm stratigraphic 65 Maastrichtian Moreno Formation 70

Kreyenhagen-Temblor(!) Petroleum System Events Chart Kreyenhagen-Temblor(!) Lathrop sand of Callaway (1964) 75 Campanian Sacramento shale of Callaway (1964) 32

80 Forbes formation of Kirby (1943) Late

Santonian 85 Coniacian Mesozoic Turonian 90 Cretaceous

95 Hiatus Cenomanian 100

Albian Point of Rocks Sandstone Member of the Kreyenhagen Formation Early 105 weathered basement basement * Stevens sand of Eckis (1940) (1985) ** Antelope shale of Graham and Williams Atwill (1935) formation of *** Tumey **** Events chart for the Kreyenhagen-Temblor(!) petroleum system shows the time of deposition essential elements and processes this system. Note that Figure 8.29. Events chart for the Kreyenhagen-Temblor(!) trap development occurred before and during petroleum migration. The numbers on the lines in reservoir rock item refers t o table 8.9; relative thickness Member; Q, Quaternary; Ss, Sandstone. pools. Formation names in italics are informal. Fm, Formation; Mbr, of the lines is proportional to volume oil (green) and gas (red) in known Figures 45

121°30’ 121°00’ 120°30’ 120°00’ 119°30’ 119°00’ 118°30’ 38°00’

10 0 10 20 30 40 MILES

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

Index Map California 37°30’ North

San Joaquin Basin Province N X

37°00’

basin axis

Central

36°30’

36°00’ South

Eocene Total Petroleum System Geographic extent of total petroleum 35°30’ system Geographic extent of Tumey-Temblor(.) petroleum system

Geographic extent of Kreyenhagen-Temblor(!) petroleum system Pod of active source N 35°00’ rock (Kreyenhagen Formation & Tumey formation of Atwill, 1935) Outline of source rocks

Figure 8.30. Eocene Total Petroleum System map combines the Tumey-Temblor(.) and the Kreyenhagen-Temblor(!) petroleum systems for the purposes of assessment. Oil accumulations in this petroleum system are shown in blue and brown; solid polygons indicate oil accumulations based on geochemical analysis, whereas outlines indicate suspected accumulations from stratigraphic proximity. Warm shading indicates location of pod of active source rock for the two systems. 46 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California

121°30’ 121°00’ 120°30’ 120°00’ 119°30’ 119°00’ 118°30’ 38°00’

10 0 10 20 30 40 MILES

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

Index Map North California 37°30’ F

San Joaquin Basin Province N X Chowchilla 37°00’ Mint Road Ash Slough Merrill Avenue basin axis Merrill Ave SE Mo at Ranch

Gill Ranch Cheney Ranch Central Raisin City San Joaquin, NW

36°30’ Cantua Creek

2000 X

Oil City 6000

10,000 South 36°00’ 14,000 Moreno-Nortonville(.) 18,000 Petroleum System 22,000 * F F’ Cross section Central Relevant stratigraphic 26,000 & North section 30,000 Geographic extent of petroleum system 35°30’ Field Gas and oil from Moreno Formation 34,000 source rock F’ Field Gas and oil suspected from Moreno Formation Pacificsource rock OceanBurial history chart location N Source rock outline 6000* Burial depth to source 35°00’ rock CI, 4,000 ft <0.6 0.6-0.9 Pod of active 0.9-1.2 source rock >1.2 (in %Ro)

Figure 8.31. Moreno-Nortonville(.) petroleum system map shows the present-day burial depth of the hypothetical source rock—the Moreno Formation (brown contours)—as well as the extent of the source rock thought to have good source rock qualities (such as facies, hydrogen index, and total organic carbon; gray line), location of cross section F-F’, location(*) of burial history chart, and a red dashed line indicating the geographic extent of the system. Petroleum accumulations in this system are shown in red; solid polygons indicate accumulations based on geochemical analysis, whereas outlines indicate suspected accumulations based on

stratigraphic proximity. CI, contour interval; %Ro, percent vitrinite reflectance. Figures 47

Moreno-Nortonville(.) Petroleum System Stratigraphic Section

5 unnamed Etchegoin Fm unnamed Etchegoin Fm Trans-

pression Reef Ridge Sh Mbr Reef Ridge Sh Mbr Monterey Fm Chanac

DEL. Antelope sh KR Santa Margarita Santa Margarita Stevens sd Fm Ss McLure Shale Mbr Ss Santa

Monterey Fm Margarita 10 Fruitvale shale Ss McDonald Sh Mbr MOHNIAN unnamed

NEOGENE Devilwater Sh Round Mtn Silt LUI.

Mbr/Gould Sh unnamed 15 Temblor Fm Mbr, undiff migration Nozu sd MIOCENE B REL. Triple junction Triple Media Sh Mbr Olcese Zilch fm Sand Zilch fm Carneros

Ss Mbr Temblor Fm 20 Santos Jewett SAUCESIAN Freeman Sand Silt

Agua SsMbr Sh PH 25 . Bed Rio Bravo sd

Vaqueros Fm unnamed Walker Fm

30 Subduction and magmatism Wygal Ss Mbr Vedder Sand ZEMORRIAN OLIGOCENE Cymric Shale Mbr REF. Leda sd 35 Tumey formation Tumey formation Oceanic sand

40 Kreyenhagen Formation Kreyenhagen Formation Point of Rocks Ss unnamed unnamed Mbr sand Famoso

PENUTIAN ULATSIAN NARIZIAN Potential marine Potential nonmarine reservoir rock 55 Lodo Fm reservoir rock Nonmarine Marine coarse

TIAN coarse grained BULI- grained rock rock

orogeny San Carlos sd Clay/shale/ ~ ~ Coast Range mudstone/ ~ ~ ophiolite/

and Laramide Granitic basement ZIAN

YNE- biosiliceous 60 Oil-prone source Hiatus or loss by rock/ erosion Gas-prone source rock Garzas Ss

Flat slab subduction Wheatville sd Moreno Fm PALEOCENE undifferentiated

Moreno Fm Cretaceous 65 CHENEYIAN 121˚W 120˚W 119˚W 38˚N miles unnamed Stockton Arch basin axis San Joaquin0 Basin 25Province Blewett sds

MAASTRICH. Starkey sands 70 COAST RANGES Tracy sds RVS Brown Mtn ss North Sawtooth shale Ragged Valley silt SIERRA NEVADA

Panoche Fm 37˚N 75 Lathrop sd Joaquin Ridge Ss Mbr Sacramento shale Panoche Fm

80 LATE

CAMPANIAN Forbes fm SAN ANDREAS FAULT Central SANT. ? 85 ? DCN CON. RVS=Ragged Valley silt 36˚N DR DC T PH South 90 undifferentiated Cretaceous DD J TUR. Bakersfield Arch marine and nonmarine strata

105 and margin Convergent EARLY

ALBIAN Basement rocks Basement rocks Basement rocks 110 Figure 8.32. Stratigraphic column shown in figure 8.2, but with petroleum source rock and reservoir rocks for the Moreno-Nortonville(.) petroleum system (red outline) on the north and central regions of the stratigraphic section. 48 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California - F’ South

Moreno Fm Moreno

Domengine Fm Fm Domengine Kreyenhagen Fm Kreyenhagen

San Joaquin Fm

Etchegoin Fm * Burial history chapter 12 ). Fm, Formation.

San Joaquin Fm

Moreno Fm Present Day bend in section

Basement rocks City Field 20 km Raisin Petroleum System 10 Geographic extent of Moreno-Nortonville(.) 0 Gill Field Ranch Field Moffat Ranch o o o Field Podactive of sourcerock 0.6 %R 0.9 %R 1.2 %R Gas & oil field Source rock

Merrill Ave Moreno Fm Moreno

San Joaquin Fm Ash Field Slough Explanation Field Chowchilla ) are derived from the San Joaquin Basin model of Peters, Magoon, Lampe, and others (this volume, Window o (oil + gas) Petroleum F

0 5 Depth (x1,000 ft) (x1,000 Depth 25 10 15 20 North Figure 8.33. Cross section F-F’ showing geographic extent of the Moreno-Nortonville(.) petroleum system, location burial histor y chart (vertical line; also pod of active source rock source rock interval (circle-bar pattern), the petroleum window, shown on map in fig. 8.31 and chart 8.34), the Moreno Formation (warm shading), and the stratigraphic units that contain petroleum accumulations in known fields (red blobs). Stratigr aphic depth contours vitrinite reflectance con tours (%R

Figures 49

Overburden rock Overburden

Seal rock Seal

Reservoir rock Reservoir Source rock Source 23 27 31 25 30 32 13 * ELEMENTS ESSENTIAL Rock unit Formation Formation Temblor Fm Temblor San Joaquin Domengine Fm Lathrop sand of Callaway (1964) of Monterey Fm GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE Kreyenhagen Fm Moreno Formation McLure Shale Mbr Garzas Sandstone Member of Moreno Sacramento shale Etchegoin Formation 0

Q Pleist. Plio. 5 10 Neogene Miocene 15 , percent vitrinite reflectance. o 20 Minor generation 4 Ma at 23,200 ft 25 10 Ma 14,400 ft Peak generation 30 Oligocene 35 Tertiary basement rock Cenozoic * Sacramento shale of Callaway (1964) Onset of 40 37.5 Ma at 9,700 ft petroleum generation o o o Moreno-Nortonville(.) Petroleum System Burial History System Chart Petroleum Moreno-Nortonville(.) 45 Paleogene Eocene Pod of active of Pod sourcerock 0.6 %R0.6 %R0.9 %R1.2 Buriallines Sourcerock 50 Explanation 55 Window (oil + gas) Petroleum 60 Paleocene 65

0 5 Depth (x1,000 ft) (x1,000 Depth 25 30 10 15 20 tion at 4 Ma. The pod of active source rock is indicated by warm shading. The numbers overlying yellow rectangles in the reservoir rock column refer to numbers table tion at 4 Ma. The pod of active source rock is indicated by warm shading. numbers Member; Pleist., Pleistocene; Plio., Pliocene; Q, Quaternary; %R 8.10 and appendix 8.2 . Fm, Formation; Mbr, Figure 8.34. Burial history chart for the Moreno-Nortonville(.) petroleum system shows onset of generation at 37.5 Ma, peak 10 and source rock deple

50 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California ACCUMULATION

PETROLEUM MIGRATION- SYSTEM EVENTS SCALE

TIME

GEOLOGIC ROCK UNIT RESERVOIR ROCK GENERATION-

OVERBURDEN ROCK PRESERVATION CRITICAL MOMENT SOURCE ROCK SEAL ROCK TRAP FORMATION 0 Q Pleistocene Tulare Formation Pliocene San Joaquin Formation 5 Etchegoin Formation Stevens sand*

1015 Antelope shale** Miocene Neogene sand of Temblor Fm 20 13 25 Temblor Formation Oligocene 30354045 Cenozoic Tumey formation*** Kreyenhagen Formation Tertiary Point of Rocks Ss**** 23 Eocene Kreyenhagen Formation Paleogene 25

50 sand of Domengine Formation

27 55 Domengine Formation stratigraphic Paleocene 60 Garzas Ss Mbr of Moreno Fm 65 30 Maastrichtian Moreno Formation 31 70 Moreno-Nortonville(.) Petroleum System Events Chart Lathrop sand

75 of Callaway (1964) Campanian Sacramento shale of Callaway (1964) 32

80 Forbes formation of Kirby (1943) Late

Santonian 85 Coniacian Mesozoic Turonian 90 Cretaceous

95 Hiatus Cenomanian 100

Albian Point of Rocks Sandstone Member of the Kreyenhagen Formation Early 105 weathered basement basement * Stevens sand of Eckis (1940) (1985) ** Antelope shale of Graham and Williams Atwill (1935) formation of *** Tumey **** Figure 8.35. Events chart for the Moreno-Nortonville(.) petroleum system shows timing of essential elements and processes this system. Note that migrated after trap development. The numbers on the lines in reservoir rock item refers to table 8 .10; relative thickness of is proportional Member; Q, Quaternary; Ss, Sandstone. are informal. Fm, Formation; Mbr, volume of gas (red) or oil (green) in known pools. Formation names italics Figures 51

121°30’ 121°00’ 120°30’ 120°00’ 119°30’ 119°00’ 118°30’ 38°00’

10 0 10 20 30 40 MILES

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

Index Map North California 37°30’

San Joaquin Basin Province N X Chowchilla

37°00’ Mint Road Ash Slough Merrill Avenuebasin axis Merrill Ave SE Mo at Ranch

Gill Ranch Cheney Ranch Central Raisin City San Joaquin, NW

36°30’ Cantua Creek

Oil City

36°00’

Winters-Domengine Total Petroleum System

Geographic extent of Winters-Domengine Total Petroleum System Geographic extent of Moreno-Nortonville(.) 35°30’ petroleum system Moreno Formation source rock outline Field PacificGas and oil from Moreno Formation Oceansource rock Field Gas and oil suspected N from Moreno Formation source rock South 35°00’ Pod of active source rock

Figure 8.36. The Winters-Domengine Total Petroleum System, which comprises both discovered and undiscovered accumulations, includes a portion of the Moreno-Nortonville(.) petroleum system, which comprises only discovered accumulations (see text for more information). Gas accumulations in this petroleum system are shown in red; solid polygons indicate gas accumulations based on geochemical analysis, whereas outlines indicate suspected accumulations from stratigraphic proximity. Note that warm shading within Moreno-Nortonville(.) petroleum system indicates location of pod of active source rock, which lies entirely outside of the Winters-Domengine Total Petroleum System. 52 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California

0.8

“Cooles” 0.7 “Peters”

o “Schmoker” “Lewan HP” “Lewan Actual” 0.6 “Peters Corrected” “Schmoker Corrected”

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2 Expulsion Factor (g Carbon/g TOC ) Expulsion Factor (g Carbon/g TOC

0.1

100 200 300 400 500 600 Hydrogen Index (mg HC/g TOC)

Figure 8.37. Expulsion factors calculated from the Rock-Eval and hydrous pyrolysis methods. The expulsion factor is the ratio of the grams of carbon expelled from a thermally mature source rock as petroleum

compared to the original total organic carbon (TOCo) of immature source rock. mg HC/g TOC, milligrams of hydrocarbon per gram of total organic carbon. Data sources are: “Cooles,” Cooles and others (1986); “Peters,” Peters and others (2006); “Schmoker,” Schmoker (1994); “Lewan HP,” Lewan and others (2002). “Lewan Actual,” “Peters Corrected,” and “Schmoker Corrected” data are explained in text. Figures 53

121°30’ 121°00’ 120°30’ 120°00’ 119°30’ 119°00’ 118°30’ 38°00’

10 0 10 20 30 40 MILES

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

Index Map California 37°30’ North

San Joaquin Basin Province N

37°00’

Central

36°30’

400

36°00’ 4.0 500 South 400 3.0 2.0 200

300 400

600 Area = 169,504,101m 2 3.0 HI = 350 mg HC/g TOC

TOCo = 2.5 wt.% 2.0

35°30’ Thickness = 650 m 300 200

200 3.0

Pacific 400200 4.0 Ocean 500

Thickness (m) 4.0

600 TOCo (wt.%) HI (mg HC/g TOC) Extent of source rock 35°00’ Active source rock N

Figure 8.38. Example of a cell used to calculate volumes of generated petroleum from intersection of the hydrogen index (HI), origi-

nal total organic carbon (TOCo), and the thickness in meters (m). Example used is the pod of active source rock for the Kreyenhagen Formation. mg HC/g TOC, milligrams of hydrocarbon per gram of total organic carbon. 54 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California

Antelope shale of Graham and Williams (1985) 250 Antelope Shale bo)

9 200

150

100

50 Uncorrected

Expelled oil (10 Corrected 0

McLure Shale Mbr 200 ofMcLure the Monterey Shale Fm bo) 9 150

100

50 Uncorrected Corrected Expelled oil (10 0

250 KreyenhagenKreyenhagen Shale Fm bo)

9 200Expelled Oil (Bbl)

150

100

50 Uncorrected

Expelled oil (10 Corrected 0

50 MorenoMoreno Shale Fm bo)

9 40

10 Uncorrected

Expelled oil (10 Corrected 0 “Lewan “Peters” HP” “Cooles” “Schmoker” “Lewan Actual”

Figure 8.39. Volume of petroleum expelled from four thermally mature source rocks, determined by several methods. Data sources are: “Cooles,” Cooles and others (1986); “Peters,” Peters and others (2006); “Schmok- er,” Schmoker (1994); “Lewan HP,” Lewan and others (2002); “Lewan Actual” and “Corrected” data refer to method explained in text. Formations in italics are informal. bo, barrel of oil; Fm, Formation; Mbr, Member. 55

Tables 8.1–8.13 56 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California

Table 8.1. Relation of the total petroleum system to the petroleum system and assessment unit in the San Joaquin Basin Province. [Petroleum system naming symbology is from Magoon and Dow (1994) and is explained in text]

Petroleum System (PS) Assessment Unit

Total Petroleum System (TPS) Side Fold Belt Diagenetic Traps San Joaquin(?) PS McLure-Tulare(!) PS Antelope-Stevens(!) PS Tumey-Temblor(.) PS Kreyenhagen-Temblor(!) PS Moreno-Nortonville(.) PS Neogene Nonassociated Gas Southeast Stable Shelf Lower Bakersﬁeld Arch Miocene West Side Fold Belt South of White Wolf Fault Central Basin Monterey Eocene West Side Fold Belt North and East of Eocene West Deep Fractured Pre-Monterey Northern Nonassociated Gas Neogene Nonassociated Gas TPS X X Miocene TPS X X X X X X X Eocene TPS X X X X Eocene-Miocene Composite TPS* X X X X X Winters-Domengine TPS X X *, no map provided for this TPS.

Table 8.2. Summary of oil and gas volume by petroleum system. [Data from appendix 8.1 and appendix 8.2. EUR, estimated ultimate recovery; Mbo, thousands of barrels; MMcfg, millions of cubic feet of gas; GOR, gas-to-oil ratio; cfg/bo, cubic feet of gas per barrel of oil; Boe, Barrel of oil equivalent; NA, Not Applicable. World Scale Size, from Klemme (1994), is defined as: “Super Giant” Petro- leum System (PS)>100x109 Boe; “Giant” PS=20x109 to 100x109 Boe; “Large” PS=5x109 to 20x109 Boe; “Significant” PS=0.2x109 Boe; and “Small” PS<0.2x109 Boe]

EUR Oil Oil EUR Gas Gas EUR Boe Boe World Scale Petroleum System GOR (cfg/bo) (Mbo) (%) (MMcfg) (%) (Mbo) (%) Size San Joaquin(?) 0 0.0 367,897 2.0 NA 61,316 0.3 Small McLure-Tulare(!) 2,606,588 17.9 1,804,291 9.6 692 2,907,303 16.4 Significant Antelope-Stevens(!) 9,596,658 65.8 11,286,098 60.1 1,176 11,477,674 64.8 Large Tumey-Temblor(.) 613,002 4.2 2,117,868 11.3 3,455 965,980 5.5 Significant Kreyenhagen-Temblor(!) 1,776,710 12.2 3,020,627 16.1 1,700 2,280,148 12.9 Significant Moreno-Nortonville(.) 158 0.0 182,774 1.0 1,156,797 30,620 0.2 Small Total 14,593,116 100.0 18,779,555 100.0 1,287 17,723,042 100.0 Tables 57 l a

t e o ) o n T i o s 61,316 30,620 B b n a R M B w U ( o E n k n U 5 0 28 3 5 21 c

i n 21 3 100 28 1 51 43 0 98 38 2 100 e i h ) 133 2 316 233 11 614 s o p o a a B b r B R g M i U ( t E a r t S ) o

e b R r / 23 76 22 55 13 60 O u g t G f k c c n u ( a r l t S F

t ) s s g a f a c E G n R M w U M o E ( n k n 0 367,897 NA 61,316 0 178,915 NA 29,819 U

l i ) 4 0 0 2 3 0 0 5 c o i O 88 0 181 14 1 42 3 b h k R 109 8 370 n p M U ( a a l E r g F i t t s a a r t E S 0

e 6 7 801 e ) r o 23 84 10 13 55 o u t B b c R M u U ( r E t S ) o

n b R w / O o g G f n k c k n ( n a l U 0 NA F t 1 0 3 0

c i s ) s 21 1 45 2 14 0 40 0 35 1 k h e g a n 124 3 143 f p a W c l a G r R M F g i t U M t s E ( a e r t W S 0

0 e 0 l r 158 3,859 24,424 i ) 70 97 12 64 u o 227 t O b c R 519,160 2,036,186 3,922 858,524 93,842 81,682 870 107,456 965,980 u M U r ( t E 2,595,069 1,797,540 693 2,894,659 11,519 6,751 586 12,644 2,907,303 S 10,585,325 15,885,902 1,501 13,232,975 4,006,792 2,893,652 722 4,489,067 17,723,043 m m e e t t s s y y S S m m u u e l e l o o r r t t e e P P San Joaquin(?) McLure-Tulare(!) Antelope-Stevens(!) 5,718,703 9,103,445 1,592 7,235,944 3,877,955 2,182,653 563 4,241,731 11,477,674 Tumey-Temblor(.) Kreyenhagen-Temblor(!) 1,752,235 2,944,872 1,681 2,243,047 24,476 75,755 3,095 37,102 2,280,148 Moreno-Nortonville(.) Total San Joaquin(?) McLure-Tulare(!) Antelope-Stevens(!) Tumey-Temblor(.) Kreyenhagen-Temblor(!) 48 Moreno-Nortonville(.) Total Percent Trap type by petroleum system on each flank of the San Joaquin Basin Province. 8.4. Trap Table [Data from appendix 8.1 and 8.2 . “Stratigraphic” traps include those involving truncation asphalt; “Structure” anticlines, faults, or a combination. Data State of California, Department of Conservation, CDOGGR (1998)] Volume of petroleum on each flank the San Joaquin Basin Province. 8.3. Volume Table [Data from appendix 8.1 and 8.2 . EUR, estimated ultimate recovery; Mbo, thousands of barrels oil; MMcfg, millions cubic feet gas; GOR, gas-to-oil ratio; cfg/bo, gas per barrel Boe, Barrel of oil equivalent; NA, Not Applicable] 58 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California -

0 . ) e 1 o % 5 ( B 2

6 e ) 9 o , o 2 B b R 8 M U ( 4 , E

1 0 ) . e 4 o % ( B 8

5 . ) s

6 a % e 3 4 G ( ) o 2 o 5 B b , R 5 1 M

. ) U l ( 5 i 1 E % O 5 (

0 . ) s 4 a % ) 4 8 G ( o

2 b R 6 /

O 0 ) l g i G f % O c ( ( ) 9 o

34 94 0.0 0.0 366 0.0 6 b

R ) / s 877 43,850 0.0 0.0 166 0.0 7 O , g NA g a G f f 8 c c G 3 ( R M 8

U 5 M ) s E ( 3 g a f 1 , c G 9 R M 0 U M 7 3 E

( l 6 i ) 1 o , )

00 4,866 NA 53,896 NA 0 0 1.3 14.6 811 8,983 14.6 1.3 0 367,897 NA 0 100.0 61,316 100.0 O 0

b o l 3 R R i b U 4 M U O ( E M 3 E , (

1 r s 6 1

l e r s 11 1 28 o 2 6 360 5 121,979 164,827 1,351 4.7 9.1 149,450 5.1 l b e o 1 o b m o 105 2,606,588 1,804,291 693 100.0 100.0 2,907,303 100.0 P u f m N P o u f N ) o a

e M g ( 6 5 . . n e ) a 2 0 g a - - n M R 5 NA 5 a . ( . e 9.5-7 33-14 26 72,495 132,973 1,834 2.8 7.4 94,657 3.3 2.5-0.6 4 R 4.5-2.55.5-4.5 4 12 84,690 20 141,154 1,667 3.3 7.8 108,216 3.7 2 g 33.5-25 3 5,189 3,354 646 0.2 0.2 5,748 0.2 e A Total g A Total * * n t i o i n t a U k m c r o o t i R F n r i n i o u U v q k r a c e o s o e J R R n r i a o S * v * r n

e . s o s i o e 3 1 Tulare Formation 4 Etchegoin Formation 5.5-4.5 t e N R a R Table 8.5. San Joaquin(?) petroleum system gas volume by reservoir rock. Table [Data from appendix 8.1 and 8.2 . Res No., Reservoir Number corresponding to column 8 in ; Ma, million years ago; EUR Oil, Estimated ultimate recovery of oil; Mbo, thousands barrels EUR Gas, Estimated gas; MMcfg, millions cubic feet GOR, gas-to-oil ratio; cfg/bo, cubic feet of gas per barrel oil; Boe, Barrel oil equivalent; NA, Not Applicable. ** and yellow shading highlight the major reservoir rock for the petroleum system] m r o F e r a l u T

. s o e 4 Etchegoin Formation 1 3 San Joaquin Formation 5 McLure Shale Member of Monterey Fm* 16.5-5.5 26 102,684 403,026 3,925 3.9 22.3 169,855 5.8 7 Reef Ridge Shale Member of Monterey Fm 6.5-5.5 11 876,004 119,277 136 33.6 6.6 895,884 30.8 34 zz-undesignated 10 Stevens sand of Eckis (1940) 17 Vedder Sand 12 Temblor Formation N R cable; zz-undesignated, unknown reservoir rock. ** and yellow shading highlight the major rock for petroleum system; * green source interval system] McLure-Tulare(!) petroleum system volumes by reservoir rock. 8.6. McLure-Tulare(!) Table [Data from appendix 8.1 and 8.2 . Res No., Reservoir Number corresponding to column 8 in ; Ma, million years ago; EUR Oil, Estimated ultimate recovery of oil; Mbo, thousands barrels oil; EUR Gas, Estimated ultimate recovery of gas; MMcfg, millions cubic feet GOR, gas-to-oil ratio; cfg/bo, gas per barrel Boe, Barrel oil equivalent; Fm, Formation; NA, Not Appli Tables 59 - 3

. ) e 9 0.0 7.1 4.2 0.1 o % 2 ( B 6 00 0.0 0.0

6 20 18 0.0 e ) 1 o , o 3 9,426 B b 6 R M 3 811,546 485,021 U ( , E 3

5 . ) s 0 0.0 4.1 1.5 0.0 a % 8 G ( 3

. ) l i 9 0.0 7.7 4.8 0.1 % O 1 ( ) 9 o

50 0 b R 626 360 610 9 / , O g 4 G f c ( 4 1 00 00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4 ) s 3 g a , f 0 5,219 c G 8 R M 0 459,986 164,567 U M , E ( 9 5 0 0

l 7 20 18 i ) 7 204 2,488 12,196 0.0 0.0 619 0.0 o , O b 9 8,556 R M 4 U ( 8 734,882 457,593 E , 1

r s l e o b 2 o 2 m 34 29 9 12 P u f N o

e g n ) 7 - a a ? 1?? 1,384 5 5 18,742 13,542 24,347 0.0 58,663 0.2 2,409 0.3 4,508 0.5 0.0 34,124 0.3 5 M R . NANA 4 6 3,611,230 657,980 182 37.6 5.8 3,720,893 32.4 ( 11-6 e 9 8-0.7 4 2,076,205 19,308 9 21.6 0.2 2,079,423 18.1 33-1425-21 10 1934-25 5,55833-24 442,058 165,509 2 29,779 1 56,505 0.1 128 1.5 4.6 33,143 0.5 0.3 451,476 3.9 11-6.5 25 52,002 15,453 297 0.5 0.1 54,578 0.5 2.5-0.6 5.5-4.5 4.5-2.5 11 2,313 44,191 19,105 0.0 0.4 9,678 0.1 g 21-16.5 1433.5-25 25,160 28 20,948 282,779 459,535 833 1,625 0.3 2.9 0.2 4.1 28,651 359,368 0.2 3.1 16-13.5 A Total 317 9,596,658 11,286,098 1,176 100.0 100.0 11,477,674 100.0 t i n * * U ) k 0 c 4 o 9 R 1 r i ( o s i v k r c e s E e f R o d n a s s n e v e t Tulare Formation Etchegoin Formation Chanac Formation S Round Mountain Silt

. s 0 o e 1 23 Kern River Formation 4 San Joaquin Formation 67 Antelope shale of Graham and Williams (1985)*8 16.5-5.5 Reef Ridge Shale Member of Monterey Fm9 Santa Margarita Sandstone 4 6.5-5.5 9,646 9 49,800 12,928 5,163 0.1 6,859 0.4 531 17,946 0.1 0.2 0.1 14,071 0.1 1 11 1214 Temblor Formation 15 Olcese Sand 16 Jewett Sand 17 Basalt formation(?) 18 Vedder Sand 19 Walker Formation 28 Vaqueros Formation 29 San Emigdio Formation 33 Tejon Formation 34 schist zz-undesignated N R plicable; zz-undesignated, unknown reservoir rock; ?, age. ** and yellow shading highlight the major rock for petroleum system; * green source interval petroleum system] Table 8.7. Antelope-Stevens(!) petroleum system volumes by reservoir rock. Table [Data from appendix 8.1 and 8.2 . Res No., Reservoir Number corresponding to column 8 in ; Ma, million years ago; EUR Oil, Estimated ultimate recovery of oil; Mbo, thousands barrels of oil; EUR Gas, Estimated ultimate recovery gas; MMcfg, millions cubic feet GOR, gas-to-oil ratio; cfg/bo, gas per barrel Boe, Barrel oil equivalent; Fm, Formation; NA, Not Ap 60 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California

5 0 . . ) e 3

. 3 o ) % e 4 5 ( B o % 8 ( B 0

4 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 e 4

) 7 o e 2 o , ) 4 o B b 0 o 6 R , B b 2 M U ( 4 R 2 M , E 1 U ( 1 E 8 0

. 3 ) s

. 0 ) a s % 3 3 a G ( % 9 G ( 2 .

) ) l 2 i 0 . % % 6 O 9 ( 7 ( l i ) O 8 o

4 ) b R 4 8 o /

O 7 b g R G 0 f / , O c g 4 ( G f c ( 3 0 0 0.0 0.0 8 NA 0.0 0.0

) 2 s 7 0 0 0.0 0.0 71 0.0 5 1 0.7 0.0 4,006 0.4 0 0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 7 2 0.5 0.0 3,353 0.3

g a 4 ) s f , 9 g c a 6 G 5 f , R M 0 c G 6 U 9 M R M 7 E ( U M 9 , E ( 1 9 3 403 134,333 0.0 0.0 70 0 0 586 NA 0.0 0.0 98 0.0 2 12 6,000 0.0 0.0 0 0

6 l

2 0 4 i l ) i 1 784 1,247 1,591 0.0 0.0 992 0.0 761 848 1,114 0.0 0.0 902 0.0 ) 71 1 , o O o 2 O 9 b , R b R 6 M 5 U M ( U 0 E ( 8 , E 4 1

r s r s l l e e o o b b 2 o 3 o m 3 m 2 P P u u f f N o N o

e e g g 4 n 4 n ) ) a a 1 1 a a - - M R M R NA 1 3,617 5,998 1,658 0.6 0.3 4,617 0.5 NA 2 49,710 159,610 3,211 2.8 5.3 76,312 3.3 3 3 ( ( e e 9.5-7 2 33-24 3 27,339 49,114 1,796 4.5 2.3 35,525 3.7 25-34 1 3 30-14 2 33-2434-33 1 2 23,702 32,704 1,380 1.3 1.1 29,153 1.3 25-21 1 3 71-61 1 11-6.5 3 3,352 5.5-4.5 2 g g 48.5-37 4 49-48.5 6 23,555 74,105 3,146 1.3 2.5 35,906 1.6 49.5-49 3 5,351 5,622 1,051 0.3 0.2 6,288 0.3 83.5-74 1 33.5-25 1 4,005 58.5-49.5 16 556,719 1,661,893 2,985 31.3 55.0 833,701 36.6 A A Total 58 613,002 2,117,868 3,455 100.0 100.0 965,980 100.0 Total 99 1,776,710 3,020,627 1,700 100.0 100.0 2,280,149 100.0 t i t n i n U k U c k * o c * o n R * r o R i i * r i t o n a o v o r i v t m r e r a e s o s e m e r R F R r o o l F r b o l m b e T m e T

. s 2 o

e 9 Santa Margarita Sandstone . 34 zz-undesignated 21 Tumey formation of Atwill (1935)* 37-33.5 4 173 889 5,139 0.0 0.0 321 0.0 20 Leda sand of Sullivan (1962) 34-33 2 10,240 22,758 2,222 1.7 1.1 14,033 1.5 19 Vaqueros Formation 18 Walker Formation 17 Vedder Sand 15 Jewett Sand 101 Stevens sand of Eckis (1940) 9.5-7 1 13 Zilch formation of Loken (1959) 30-14 9 78,989 62,500 791 12.9 3.0 89,406 9.3 s N R 2 o e 4 Etchegoin Formation 10 Stevens sand of Eckis (1940) 13 Zilch formation of Loken (1959) 1 1920 Vaqueros Formation Leda sand of Sullivan (1962) 21 Tumey formation of Atwill (1935) 37-33.5 8 31,886 94,172 2,953 1.8 3.1 47,581 2.1 22 Point of Rocks Ss Mbr, Kreyenhagen Fm 45.5-40.5 26 15,069 82,994 5,508 0.8 2.7 28,901 1.3 24 Kreyenhagen Formation* 25 Domengine Formation 26 Yokut Sandstone 30 Moreno Formation 27 Lodo Formation 32 Panoche Formation 34 zz-undesignated N R Tumey-Temblor(.) petroleum system volumes by reservoir rock. 8.8. Tumey-Temblor(.) Table [Data from appendix 8.1 and 8.2 . Res No., Reservoir Number corresponding to column 8 in ; Ma, million years ago; EUR Oil, Estimated ultimate recovery of oil; Mbo, thousands of barrels EUR Gas, Estimated ultimate recovery gas; MMcfg, millions cubic feet GOR, gas-to-oil ratio; cfg/bo, gas per barrel of oil; Boe, Barrel oil equivalent; NA, Not Applicable; zz-undesignated, unknown reservoir rock. ** and yellow shading highlight the major rock for petroleum system; * and green shading highlight source rock interval for the petroleum system] Kreyenhagen-Temblor(!) petroleum system volumes by reservoir rock. 8.9. Kreyenhagen-Temblor(!) Table [Data from appendix 8.1 and 8.2 . Res No., Reservoir Number corresponding to column 8 in ; Ma, million years ago; EUR Oil, Estimated ultimate recovery of oil; Mbo, thousands of barrels oil; EUR Gas, Estimated ultimate recovery gas; MMcfg, millions cubic feet GOR, gas-to-oil ratio; cfg/bo, gas per barrel Member; Fm, Formation; NA, Not Applicable; zz-undesignated, unknown reservoir rock. ** and yellow shading highlight the major Boe, Barrel of oil equivalent; Ss, Sandstone; Mbr, reservoir rock for the petroleum system; * and green shading highlight source interval system] Tables 61

Table 8.10. Moreno-Nortonville(.) petroleum system gas and oil volumes by reservoir rock. [Data from appendix 8.1 and appendix 8.2. Res No., Reservoir Number corresponding to column 8 in appendix 8.1; Ma, million years ago; EUR Oil, Estimated ultimate recovery of oil; Mbo, thousands of barrels of oil; EUR Gas, Estimated ultimate recovery of gas; MMcfg, millions of cubic feet of gas; GOR, gas-to-oil ratio; cfg/bo, cubic feet of gas per barrel of oil; Boe, Barrel of oil equivalent; NA, Not Applicable. ** and yellow shading highlight the major reservoir rock for the petroleum system; * and pink shading highlight source rock interval for the petroleum system]

EUR Age Range Number EUR Oil EUR Gas GOR Oil Gas Boe Res No. Reservoir Rock Unit Boe (Ma) of Pools (Mbo) (MMcfg) (cfg/bo) (%) (%) (%) (Mbo) 13 Zilch formation of Loken (1959) 30-14 3 0 5,968 NA 0.0 3.3 995 3.2 23 Nortonville sand of Frame (1950)** 45.5-40.5 4 0 74,067 NA 0.0 40.5 12,345 40.3 25 Domengine Formation 49-48.5 2 0 2435 NA 0.0 1.3 406 1.3 27 Lodo Formation 58.5-49.5 1 40 801 20,025 25.3 0.4 174 0.6 30 Moreno Formation* 71-61 4 118 4742 40,186 74.7 2.6 908 3.0 31 Blewett sands of Hoffman (1964) 71.5-68.5 4 0 34905 NA 0.0 19.1 5,818 19.0 32 Panoche Formation 83.5-74 3 0 59,856 NA 0.0 32.7 9,976 32.6 Total 21 158 182,774 1,156,797 100.0 100.0 30620 100.0 62 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California m e t s y S m u e l o r t e P Temblor(!) Temblor(!) Kreyenhagen- Temblor(!) Kreyenhagen- Temblor(!) Temblor(!) Kreyenhagen- Kreyenhagen- Kreyenhagen-

e l 3 p . o m 67 Tumey-Temblor(.) 24 Tumey-Temblor(.) N a S 131, 132 131, 129, 130, 130, 129, e g A Eocene 155 Tumey-Temblor(.) Eocene 27 Eocene 252 Tumey-Temblor(.) Eocene Eocene 23 Eocene 253 Eocene 79 Miocene Miocene Miocene 117 McLure-Tulare(!) Eocene or Eocene or 2 k c o R e c r u o S Tumey fm Eocene 255 Tumey-Temblor(.) Tumey fm or Tumey fm- Kreyenhagen Tumey fm- Tumey fm- Antelope shale MioceneAntelope shale Miocene 118 91 McLure-Tulare(!) Antelope-Stevens(!) Antelope shale outlier Antelope shale Miocene 119 McLure-Tulare(!) Kreyenhagen Antelope shale- Antelope shale Miocene 251 250, McLure-Tulare(!) Antelope shale Miocene 92 McLure-Tulare(!) Kreyenhagen Kreyenhagen Kreyenhagen outlier Fm outlier outlier Fm Fm Fm Fm 1 k c wn-Rng, location of sample in notation public land survey system; Fm, o appendix 8.1 ] R r i o v r e s e R (Temblor Fm) (Temblor Fm) Devilwater Shale Mbr, & Gould Shale Mbr of Temblor Fm Gibson sand Oceanic sand Gibson sand Kreyenhagen McLure Shale Mbr, None given Kreyenhagen Kreyenhagen (Tumey fm) Carneros Sandstone Formation Mbr of Monterey Fm Formation (?) Formation h t p e D 17500 19698 10852 17728 17400- 19370- 10412- 17248- e d u t i t a L e d u t i g n o L g n R - n w T - c e 6-26S-21E -119.74449 35.69133 4-30S-22E -119.60703 35.34586 8750-8995 None given 7-29S-22E -119.64833 35.41397 3-27S-22E -119.58714 35.60267 ~17000 None given 2-32S-26E -119.16267 35.16687 ~18300 20-19S-15E -120.36361 36.25775 0 Lodo Formation (?) 21-18S-10E -120.89189 36.34791 1670-1678 None given S e m a N p e e S r o l l e W l

l e p e e W r S o

. p b a b M A e r u g 8.9 5 well SEC 4Z 385X 8.9 4 well 528-7X SMUG 8.9 3 well Gene Reid 53-36 36-28S-18E -119.99065 35.44851 1674-1692 None given 8.9 2 well Great Basins 31X-10 10-27S-22E -119.59196 35.59988 8.9 1 well EKHO 1 i 8.20 4 well (DST 3) BLC 2 5-27S-20E -119.8443 35.60342 ~12200 8.20 58.20 well 5 (DST 3) BLC 2 well (DST 4) 934-29R 5-27S-20E 29-30S-23E -119.52946 -119.8443 35.29009 35.60342 ~11,400 Temblor Formation Tumey fm Eocene 256 Tumey-Temblor(.) 8.20 68.25 well A Frank Short Melinda 2 seep 22-32S-22E Coalinga -119.59417 35.12083 1598-1604 Temblor Formation Tumey fm Eocene 254 Tumey-Temblor(.) 8.20 3 well Berkeley 1 8.20 18.20 well 2 Tully 1 well Coalinga 45-27 27-19S-15E -120.33549 36.24122 1122-1724 Temblor Formation 8.25 B seep Big Tar Canyon 18-23S-16E -120.16646 35.93245 0 8.14 A seep Midway-Sunset 4-21A 20-11N-23W -119.35487 35.03143 0 None given 8.25 1 well Coalinga Rock 20-19S-15E -120.36785 36.2576 shallow 8.25 2 well (DST BLC 2 1) 5-27S-20E -119.8443 35.60342 ~13000 8.25 3 well Paloma 28X-2 F Informally described reservoir rocks are: Gibson sand of Williams (1938), Tumey formation of Atwill (1935), and Oceanic sand McMasters (1948). Informally described reservoir rocks are: Gibson sand of Williams (1938), Tumey formation of Atwill (1935). Informally described source rocks are: Antelope shale of Graham and Williams (1985), Tumey Samples are provided in Lillis and Magoon (this volume, chapter 9 ). Table 8.11. Oil samples analyzed from surface seeps and wells. Table [Figure refers to map in chapter where well or seep is shown; Map Abb., abbreviation of on that particular map; Sec-T Formation; fm, formation; Mbr, Member. Reservoir rock and source names are modified to comply with USGS geologic name standards. “Outlier” in column refers classification scheme of Member. Formation; fm, formation; Mbr, Lillis and Magoon (this volume, chapter 9 ). Shading in Petroleum System column corresponds to colors used same of 1 2 3 Tables 63

Table 8.12. Averaged Rock-Eval pyrolysis/total organic carbon data for core and drill cuttings samples of hydrocarbon source rocks in the San Joaquin Basin Province. [Well number refers to labeled red triangles in fig. 11.3 of Peters, Magoon, Valin, and Lillis (this volume, chapter 11); table data come from table 11.5 of that chapter. TOCo, original total organic carbon of immature source rock; HIo, original hydrogen index; mg HC/g TOC, milligrams of hydrocarbon per gram of total organic carbon]

TOC HI (mg Number of o o Well Number Well Name Longitude Latitude (weight HC/g analyses %) TOC) McLure Shale Member of Monterey Formation 4 Furtado 55-36 -119.85807 36.23955 2 2.27 126 9 Van Sicklen 45 -119.66325 35.53545 4 4.57 455 10 Mobil (GP) 2-110 -119.7515 35.65538 1 4.19 347 13 Univ. Consolidated 44 -119.73196 35.62241 3 5.64 314 20 Monte Christo 163 -119.71218 35.58257 8 4.36 500 21 Gulf 142 (4-16) -119.7164 35.58427 2 5.24 597 23 Chevron 9-3X -119.71512 35.59923 4 4.29 428 24 Arco 801 -119.70753 35.56033 2 2.56 413 25 Arco 901 -119.72554 35.57124 2 1.86 689 28 Chevron 678X -119.82556 36.0218 3 0.71 111 29 J.G. Boswell 31-1 -119.73999 36.06124 2 1.95 148 31 Chevron Morris 1 -119.44473 35.79634 45 3.16 303 44 Chevron 7-26Q -120.00212 35.98059 20 2.11 181 55 Camp West Lowe 1 -119.10948 35.41884 18 2.62 269 56 Sheep Springs 1 -119.71045 35.33025 40 2.72 389 59 Hellman 13-1X -119.89165 35.78794 18 2.55 356 61 Richardson 46 -119.75656 35.41906 7 2.78 413 63 Tenneco 73-12 -119.43928 35.59627 24 3.13 351 65 Howe 1-2 -119.88098 35.95074 22 1.97 317 66 Malley 1 -120.00877 35.82034 15 2.22 263 67 Haven 44X-6 -119.95057 36.22078 11 1.92 205 68 Geyer 1 -120.09526 35.84787 12 1.7 153 74 Shafter C-1 -119.29611 35.54405 7 3.49 301 75 Shafter B-1 -119.26759 35.52228 8 3.3 236 76 Kernco 11-34 -119.27669 35.45534 20 2.55 314

Antelope shale of Graham and Williams (1985) 12 Arco KCLD-26-29 -119.04277 35.00983 3 4.78 265 22 Getty 9D-523 -119.40683 35.16054 8 3.55 407 45 Midway Sunset 801 -119.58421 35.27017 166 3.46 468 57 Union Avenue 1 -119.01176 35.34403 21 2.68 322 77 N. Coles Levee 26-29 -119.32004 35.28647 15 3.06 306 78 Paloma 81X-3 -119.16403 35.17935 4 2.39 303 79 Santiago A 72-30 -119.26237 35.01537 11 3.37 506 80 Pioneer 1 -119.25645 34.99837 13 3.87 364 81 Maricopa Flats 47X-7 -119.27071 35.049 18 2.7 464 82 Texaco 21X-13 -119.18495 35.04625 7 2.67 391 83 Channel 38X-6 -119.1651 35.06332 13 2.44 350 84 Tenneco 27X-26 -119.09727 35.0927 9 1.6 413 85 Gen. American 81-4K -119.33165 35.07536 16 2.74 347 88 Bear Valley 1 -119.56737 35.28079 79 1.86 429 89 Fairﬁeld Fee D48-38 -119.56285 35.26828 68 2.33 357 90 White Wolf 205-5 -119.15196 34.98685 75 4.18 480 91 653Z-26B -119.47267 35.19515 98 2.24 295 64 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California

Table 8.12. Averaged Rock-Eval pyrolysis/total organic carbon data for core and drill cuttings samples of hydrocarbon source rocks in the San Joaquin Basin Province—Continued. [Well number refers to labeled red triangles in fig. 11.3 of Peters, Magoon, Valin, and Lillis (this volume, chapter 11); table data come from table 11.5 of that chapter. TOCo, original total organic carbon of immature source rock; HIo, original hydrogen index; mg HC/g TOC, milligrams of hydrocarbon per gram of total organic carbon]

TOC HI (mg Number of o o Well Number Well Name Longitude Latitude (weight HC/g analyses %) TOC) Kreyenhagen Formation 1 Chevron 4-18J -120.18022 36.10254 9 4.38 446 3 Hanneman 83-30 -120.1512 36.59958 2 2.96 53 6 Aqueduct 1-14 -119.98513 36.18994 17 3.11 297 26 West. Cont. BLC #2 -119.8443 35.60342 17 3.71 388 27 Chevron 73-30V -119.95322 35.90116 30 3.06 311 29 J.G. Boswell 31-1 -119.73999 36.06124 18 2.02 277 30 Conoco W. Lake 36-1 -119.87068 36.05965 4 2.84 578 34 Union Bravo 1 -120.30113 36.58513 1 4.11 451 39 Ferry 1-2 -120.09575 36.38788 4 3.54 505 43 61X-17A -120.36112 36.28139 2 1.37 25 46 Cheney Ranch 1 -120.58321 36.68315 10 2.56 247 58 KCL G-1 -119.1395 35.36286 3 4.7 552 60 Beer 5 -119.91242 35.65666 21 2.91 327 67 Haven 44X-6 -119.95057 36.22078 16 2.73 341 63 Tenneco 73-12 -119.43928 35.59627 5 1.58 224 86 Jacalitos 67 -120.36621 36.09563 9 2.79 342 87 Williamson 33 -119.78958 35.68265 10 2.03 345

Moreno Formation 8 Bravo Oil 1-35 -120.19988 36.23955 27 2.95 342 34 Union Bravo 1 -120.30113 36.58513 4 1.57 140 36 Shell 363X -120.32388 36.27841 1 2.8 304 39 Ferry 1-2 -120.09575 36.38788 3 2.43 382 46 Cheney Ranch 1 -120.58321 36.68315 191 1.99 169 47 Magnet Fearon 2 -120.38205 36.18628 16 3.69 270 48 Helm Unit 31-34 -120.11 36.5012 7 0.7 114 49 Russ Hewitt 1 -120.76998 36.85642 29 1.99 74 50 Ponte 1 -120.16376 36.77382 4 1.17 23 51 Lillis 85-36 -120.60589 36.58309 14 2.61 259 52 Henderson 66-22 -120.31988 36.60749 2 1.02 99 53 Cerini 1 -119.90267 36.47505 6 1.84 121 67 Haven 44X-6 -119.95057 36.22078 9 2 225 73 Dos Palos corehole 3 -120.68403 36.64375 13 2.08 143 Tables 65

Table 8.13. Volumes of petroleum (in units of 109 barrels of oil) within the San Joaquin Basin Province predicted using equation 8.1 compared to in-place petroleum assigned to the corrected volume for each source rock. [EUR Boe, Estimated ultimate recovery of barrel of oil equivalent; GAE, generation-accumulation efficiency; HP, Hydrous Pyrolysis. See text for discussion of “HP” versus “Actual” results. *Corrected volumes of expelled petroleum determined by the Rock-Eval pyrolysis method assume that (1) at least 2.0 weight percent TOC is required for expulsion (Lewan, 1987; Peters and others, 2005), and that (2) 55 weight percent of the pyrolyzate consists of NSO-compounds (Behar and others, 1997) swept out of the rock by carrier gas that would otherwise cross-link to form pyrobitumen and thus not contribute to expelled petroleum. Volumes of expelled petroleum determined by hydrous pyrolysis were corrected using a factor of 0.5 as recommended by Lewan and others (1995; 2002) and discussed in the text]

EUR Boe In-place Boe Rock-Eval Pyrolysis Method Hydrous Pyrolysis Method (109) (109) Lewan and Lewan and Source Rock Cooles and Peters and Magoon and Magoon and Schmoker others others others others others others (1994) (2002) (2002) (1986) (2006) (this study) (this study) HP Actual McLure Shale Member of Monterey Formation pod of active source rock Uncorrected 157 123 115 59 35 2.91 - Corrected* 58 46 43 24 14 GAE (%) 20.0 25.2 27.0 48.3 82.6 - 11.6 Antelope shale of Graham and Williams (1985) pod of active source rock Uncorrected 250 196 185 94 55 11.48 - Corrected* 123 96 91 47 28 GAE (%) 37.3 47.8 50.4 97.7 163.9(?) - 45.9 Kreyenhagen Formation pod of active source rock Uncorrected 223 175 164 83 49 2.28 - Corrected* 82 65 61 34 20 GAE (%) 11.1 14.0 14.9 26.8 45.5 - 9.1 Moreno Formation pod of active source rock Uncorrected 40 30 26 14 8.1 0.031 - Corrected* 15 11 9.2 5.5 3.3 GAE (%) 0.8 1.1 1.3 2.3 3.8 - 0.124