USGS Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · pp17138

Petroleum systems used to determine the assessment units in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California

Leslie B. Magoon·Paul G. Lillis·Kenneth E. Peters
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

For the San Joaquin Basin Province in California (fig. 8.1), six petroleum systems were identified, mapped, and described to provide the basis for the five total petroleum systems (TPS) and ten related assessment units (AU) used in the 2003 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Oil and Gas Assessment (table 8.1; Gautier and others, 2004; Hosford Scheirer, 2007). The petroleum pools in the province were allocated to each petroleum system on the basis of (1) geochemical composition as described by Lillis and Magoon (this volume, chapter 9) and Lillis and others (this volume, chapter 10), (2) reservoir rock nomenclature (fig 8.2; appendix 8.1 and appendix 8.2) as described by Hosford Scheirer and Magoon (this volume, chapter 5), and (3) the volume of oil and gas discovered for each petroleum system by system, flank, and trap type (tables 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4). For this assessment, each petroleum system was determined, followed by the TPS from one or more petroleum systems. For example, the Miocene TPS includes two petroleum systems, the McLure-Tulare(!) and Antelope-Stevens(!) (notation described in Petroleum System Name section, below). Magoon and Schmoker (2000) describe how the TPS is used in this and the USGS world assessments. This chapter describes the six petroleum systems used to make five total petroleum systems in this San Joaquin Basin Province assessment. The figures and tables for each petroleum system and TPS are as follows: (1) the San Joaquin(?) petroleum system or the Neogene Nonassociated Gas TPS is a natural gas system in the southeast part of the province (figs. 8.3 through 8.8; table 8.5; this volume, chapter 22); (2) the Miocene TPS (this volume, chapters 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17) includes the McLure-Tulare(!) 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 volume, chapters 18 and 19) combines two petroleum systems, the Tumey-Temblor(.) covering much of the province (figs. 8.20 through 8.24; table 8.8) and the underlying Kreyenhagen-Temblor(!) (figs. 8.25 through 8.29: table 8.9), and is summarized in figure 8.30; (4) the Eocene-Miocene Composite TPS, formed by combining the Miocene and Eocene TPS (this volume, chapter 20); and (5) the Moreno-Nortonville(.) is both a petroleum system and a TPS consisting mainly of natural gas in the northern part of the province (figs. 8.31 through 8.36: table 8.10; this volume, chapter 21). Oil samples with geochemistry from surface seeps and wells used to map these petroleum systems are listed in table 8.11. Finally, the volume of oil and gas expelled by each pod of active source rock was calculated and compared with the discovered hydrocarbons in each petroleum system (figs. 8.37 through 8.39; tables 8.12 and 8.13).

Explore related subjects

Professional PaperReport
90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 34.9° to 37.8167° latitude; -121.4° to -118.625° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Leslie B. Magoon, Paul G. Lillis, Kenneth E. Peters. 2009. Petroleum systems used to determine the assessment units in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp17138

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Resurvey of the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon dam sites in Grand Canyon National Park—Changes in sediment storage and evidence supporting the occurrence of bedrock incision through the mid-20th century

The Bureau of Reclamation developed an extensive plan for a network of dams, water tunnels, and hydropower plants in and around Grand Canyon, Arizona, in the 1940s through 1960s. The two largest of these planned dams were the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon Dams on the Colorado River. Though these dams were ultimately never built, Reclamation conducted extensive topographic, bathymetric, and subsurface exploration work at the sites proposed for these dams in the 1940s and 1950s. Resurveys of these dam sites were conducted between 1998 and 2021 to determine the changes in sediment storage at these dam sites caused by the upstream construction and operation of Glen Canyon Dam and by the recession of Lake Mead, the reservoir impounded by Hoover Dam. The resurveys of the Marble Canyon dam sites indicate that the post-1950s changes in sediment storage at these dam sites are broadly consistent with flux-based estimates of voluminous sand erosion from Marble Canyon since the 1963 closure of Glen Canyon Dam. These resurveys also suggest that the pre-dam longitudinal variation in sediment thickness over bedrock played a key role in determining the locations of the sand erosion induced by Glen Canyon Dam; more sand eroded from locations where more sand was present in the 1950s. The resurvey of the Bridge Canyon dam sites indicates that the Colorado River’s incision of the Lake Mead delta is regulated both by bed-sediment grain size and downstream hydraulic controls. Finally, analyses of bed-sediment thickness and sedimentological data at the dam sites, and observations of bed scour and gravel transport, suggest that sufficient bedrock was exposed to allow bedrock incision during commonly recurring pre-dam snowmelt floods that entrained small boulders into transport.

Arizona↗
USGS2026

The eruptive behavior of distributed volcanism forming low shield edifices—A case study of Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field, U.S.A.

Distributed volcanic fields are present in various tectonic settings worldwide, and their characteristics reflect differing influences from magmatic and tectonic processes. In the southwestern United States alone, there are 37 Quaternary distributed volcanic fields. After the primary period of extensional tectonics in the southern Basin and Range 15–5 million years ago, the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field developed in southwestern Arizona between 4 and 1 million years ago. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists primarily of low relief shield volcanoes, a type of distributed volcanism with poorly understood temporal evolution. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field is less than 200 kilometers (km) from the Colorado Plateau, Gulf of California, and southern San Andreas Fault system. This work identifies and examines controls on the emplacement of the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field by documenting shallow and surficial structures as well as eruption characteristics and style through time. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists of 21 volcanoes with a total of 33 vents over an area of about 770 square kilometers (km 2 ). The prominence of low relief shield volcanoes may be explained by ascent of basaltic magmas through thin Basin and Range crust, without much crustal contamination, and low viscosities common to mafic compositions. Typical eruption characteristics involve the construction of low relief shield volcanoes followed by Strombolian fissure eruptions at the summits or near-summit medial areas that produce scoria lapilli, which may weld to form agglomerate. The total lifetime erupted volume of about 4.3 cubic kilometers (km 3 ) represents an average eruptive flux of approximately 2x10 -3 km 3 per thousand years (k.y.). This erupted volume is low relative to Neogene basaltic intraplate distributed volcanic fields worldwide, which typically range from 10 -3 to 1 km 3 k.y. -1 . Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field eruptions were likely triggered by intermittent rejuvenation of transient magmatic zones that exist in thinned crust. Instantaneous flux from point sources feeding the lava flows is estimated to be on the order of 10 -1 to 10 cubic meters per second.

Arizona↗
USGS2026

Capitalization of positional (Lower/Middle/Upper) and temporal (Early/Middle/Late) adjectives in the names of formal chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units of the Phanerozoic

Many authors are understandably confused about the capitalization of the words “lower,” “middle,” “upper,” “early,” and “late.” Where these words are used simply as descriptive adjectives, they should be in lowercase; where they form the first word of a formal chronostratigraphic or geochronologic unit name, they should be in uppercase.

Professional Paper↗