Sequence-stratigraphic controls on complex reservoir architecture of highstand fluvial-dominated deltaic and lowstand valley-fill depositsin the Upper Cretaceous(Cenomanian) WoodbineGroup, East Texas field:Regional and local perspectives: William A. Ambrose, Tucker F. Hentz,Florence Bonnaffe´, Robert G. Loucks,L. Frank Brown Jr., Fred P. Wang, and Eric C. Potter

Sequence-stratigraphic controls on complex reservoir architecture of highstand fluvial-dominated deltaic and lowstand valley-fill deposits in the Upper Cretaceous
(Cenomanian) Woodbine Group, East Texas field: Regional and local perspectives
William A. Ambrose, Tucker F. Hentz, Florence Bonnaffe, Robert G. Loucks, L. Frank Brown Jr., Fred P. Wang, and Eric C. Potter
AUTHORS William A. Ambrose Bureau of Economic Geology, John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, 78713-8924; william.ambrose@beg.utexas.edu William A. Ambrose is a research scientist at the Bureau of Economic Geology, John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences at the University of Texas at Austin. His areas of interest include unconventional energy minerals, clastic depositional systems, and stratigraphy. He holds M.A. and B.S. degrees in geosciences from the University of Texas at Austin. Tucker F. Hentz Bureau of Economic Geology, John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, 78713-8924; tucker.hentz@beg.utexas.edu Tucker F. Hentz is a research associate at the Bureau of Economic Geology, John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences at the University of Texas at Austin. His areas of interest include sequence-stratigraphic analysis and clastic depositional systems. He holds an M.S. degree in geology from the University of Kansas. Florence Bonnaffe Bureau of Economic Geology, John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, 78713-8924; florence.bonnaffe@beg.utexas.edu Florence Bonnaffe is a research scientist associ ate at the Bureau of Economic Geology, John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences at the University of Texas at Austin. Her previous work was with Elf Exploration Production and Compagnie Generale de Geophysique. She re ceived her M.S. degree in applied geophysics from the University of Paris in 1996. Robert G. Loucks Bureau of Economic Geology, John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, 78713-8924; bob.loucks@beg.utexas.edu Robert G. Loucks is a senior research scientist at the Bureau of Economic Geology, John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences at the University of Texas at Austin. His research interests include carbonate and siliciclastic sequence stratigraphy, depositional systems, diagenesis, and reservoir characterization. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Texas at Austin.
ABSTRACT An analysis of 31 whole cores (1600 ft, 490 m) and closely spaced wireline logs (500 wells) penetrating the Lower Cretaceous (Cenomanian) lower Woodbine Group in the mature East Texas field and adjacent areas indicates that depositional origins and complexity of the sandstone-body architecture in the field vary from those inferred from previous studies. Heterogeneity in the lower Woodbine Group is controlled by highstand, fluvial-dominated deltaic depositional architecture, with dip-elongate distributary-channel sandstones pinching out over short distances (typically <500 ft [<150 m]) into deltaplain and interdistributary-bay siltstones and mudstones. This highstand section is truncated in the north and west parts of the field by a thick (maximum of 140 ft [43 m]) lowstand, incised-valley-fill succession composed of multistoried, coarsegravel conglomerate and coarse sandstone beds of bed-load
Copyright #2009. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved. Manuscript received May 7, 2008; provisional acceptance July 22, 2008; revised manuscript received September 3, 2008; final acceptance September 18, 2008. DOI:10.1306/09180808053
AAPG Bulletin, v. 93, no. 2 (February 2009), pp. 231 269
231
L. Frank Brown Jr. Bureau of Economic Geology, John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, 78713-8924; frank.brown@beg.utexas.edu Frank Brown is a research professor at the Bureau of Economic Geology, John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences at the University of Texas at Austin. His research interests include sequence stratigraphy, depositional systems, and reservoir characterization. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Fred P. Wang Bureau of Economic Geology, John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, 78713-8924; fred.wang@beg.utexas.edu Fred Wang is a research scientist at the Bureau of Economic Geology, John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences at the University of Texas at Austin. He has experience in reservoir characterization, shale gas production, deepshelf and deep-water fields, CO2 sequestration, and enhanced oil recovery. He received a Ph.D. in petroleum engineering from Stanford University. Eric C. Potter Bureau of Economic Geology, John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, 78713-8924; eric.potter@beg.utexas.edu Eric C. Potter is an associate director of the Bureau of Economic Geology, John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences at the University of Texas at Austin. He worked for 25 years for Marathon Oil Company as an exploration geologist. He holds an M.S. degree in geology from Oregon State University.
fluvial systems. In some areas of the field, this valley fill directly overlies distal-delta-front deposits, recording a fall in relative sea level of at least 215 ft (65 m). Correlation with the Woodbine succession in the East Texas Basin indicates that these highstand and lowstand deposits occur in the basal three fourth-order sequences of the unit, which comprises a maximum of 14 such cycles. Previous studies of the Woodbine Group have inferred meanderbelt sandstones flanked by coeval flood-plain mudstones and well-connected, laterally continuous sheet sandstones of wave-dominated deltaic and barrier-strand-plain settings. This model is inappropriate, and a full assessment of reservoir compartmentalization, fluid flow, and unswept mobile oil in East Texas field should include the highstand, fluvial-dominated deltaic and lowstand valley-fill sandstone-body architecture.
INTRODUCTION The mature, super-giant East Texas field has been the most productive oil field in the U.S. lower 48 states and the second largest in the country. From its discovery in 1930 (Minor and Hanna, 1933; Alexander, 1951; Hudnall, 1951) through mid2007, it produced 5.42 billion stock tank barrels of oil (BSTB) from the siliciclastic Upper Cretaceous (Cenomanian) Woodbine Group (Ambrose et al., 2007). Its calculated ultimate recovery of approximately 5.49 BSTB and advanced degree of water encroachment indicate that it is in the waning stages of production. Given these figures, about 70 million stock tank barrels (MMSTB) are still most likely producible under current production practices. However, recent closer evaluation of the amount of bypassed pay, deeper Woodbine pay, and poorly swept oil indicates that the field has remaining reserves of as much as 550 MMSTB (Ambrose et al., 2007). Because of this large estimated remaining-reserves volume, the abundant wells that exist in the field for potential recompletion and/or deepening, and currently favorable price of oil, producers are now aggressively targeting recompletions and especially deeper pay zones in the Woodbine section. Unlike previous studies (Oliver, 1971; Turner and Conger, 1981; Halbouty and Halbouty, 1982; Phillips, 1987; DeDominic, 1988; Jasper and Wagner, 1989), our investigation integrates a sequencestratigraphic analysis of the East Texas Basin and the adjacent field with reservoir-scale depositional-facies interpretation using log data from closely spaced wells (~1501200 ft, ~46 366 m) and core data to document more precisely the regional
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was funded by the State of Texas Advanced Resource Recovery project. The authors are indebted to the East Texas Engineering Association for log and engineering data, as well as to William E. Galloway for his insights and observations from the core data. Manuscript editing was by Lana Dieterich. The manuscript benefited from the reviews of Brian W. Horn, William A. Hill, and Michael L. Sweet. David Stephens, John Ames, and Jana Robinson prepared the illustrations under the direction of Joel Lardon, manager, Media Information Technology. Partial support of this research was received from the John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences and the Geology Foundation at the University of Texas at Austin. Publication was authorized by the director, Bureau of Economic Geology.
232
Woodbine Group of East Texas Field
Figure 1. East Texas field, major regional structural elements, and outline of the study area (modified from Siemers, 1978). The east Texas salt diapir province extends throughout the East Texas Basin: from the Sabine uplift to within 20 mi (32 km) of the Mexia-Talco fault zone (Seni and Jackson, 1984). The location of cored wells cited in this study: (A) Cities Service 2B Killingsworth; (B) Arco B142 King; (C) Shell 55 Watson; and (D) Arco C-21 Pinkston, Arco C19 Pinkston, and Arco 18 Griffin, collectively. Specific locations for wells in group D are shown in Figure 17. NPA = north pilot area; SPA = south pilot area.
chronostratigraphic framework of the Woodbine and sandstone origins, trends, and continuity in the field. The field encompasses approximately 134,000 ac (210 mi2, 542 km2) in parts of Gregg, Rusk, Smith, and Upshur counties (Figure 1), throughout which more than 31,200 wells have been drilled (Halbouty and Halbouty, 1982; Galloway et al.,
1983; Ambrose et al., 2007). The average well spacing is 4.3 ac (1.7 ha) (range: 0.0515 ac [0.02 6.1 ha]) (East Texas Engineering Association, 1953, and data files of the Railroad Commission of Texas). Because of the high density of wells and the fields long-term trend of depletion, few new wells targeting the Woodbine section have been drilled since 1990. Moreover, despite the fields long history,
Ambrose et al. 233
it has never been unitized to promote maximum recovery efficiency. As a result, large secondaryrecovery projects, such as significant waterfloods (1 mi2 [2.6 km2] or larger), have rarely been implemented because coordination of such operations is difficult over multiple leases. Primary hydrocarbon accumulation in the field is in west-dipping Woodbine sandstones that are truncated on the west flank of the Sabine uplift by a subregional unconformity below the Austin Chalk (hereafter termed the base-of-Austin unconformity) that formed during the Late Cretaceous after uplift and erosion. Impermeable calcareous siltstones of the Austin form the seal throughout the field. Reservoirs are associated with a strong water drive resulting from a combination of regionally tilted Woodbine strata, inferred excellent sandstone-body continuity, and consistently high porosity (averaging 25.2%) and permeability (averaging 2.1 d) values (East Texas Engineering Association, 1953). Excellent vertical and horizontal sweep efficiency contributes to an overall high recovery factor of approximately 77%. Although the East Texas field has been producing for more than 75 yr, no modern comprehensive study of the field exists. This study is the first to integrate core data from the field and adjacent areas using well-log analysis; our main objective is to understand the function of sequence stratigraphy in the depositional origin of the producing intervals in the East Texas field. An additional objective is to document facies distribution in the field and to describe its controls on the production potential for bypassed pay, deeper Woodbine pay zones, and incompletely swept zones. Tasks that achieved these objectives included (1) applying sequence-stratigraphic analysis to the Woodbine Group in the East Texas Basin, where the succession is complete, and extending it to the truncated Woodbine section on the adjacent Sabine uplift to identify principal chronostratigraphic boundaries in the East Texas field; (2) using these boundaries to map coeval sandstone units, identifying reservoir-facies trends in the pilot areas, and interpreting depositional-facies origin and distribution and Woodbine paleogeography; and (3) inferring sequence-stratigraphic and facies controls on
234 Woodbine Group of East Texas Field
fluid flow, incompletely swept reservoir zones, potential bypassed pay and deeper pay zones, and enhanced oil recovery by integrating our findings from the large core and log data set with engineering data.
DATABASE AND METHODS This subsurface study of the Woodbine Group in the East Texas field and adjacent East Texas Basin used approximately 1600 ft (490 m) of section from 31 whole cores and closely spaced log sections from approximately 500 wells. Project time constraints and limitations on acquisition of commonly old, privately owned data prevented us from conducting a fieldwide analysis using the more than 31,000 available well logs in the field. Therefore, we selected two pilot areas in the northern and southern parts of the field (Figure 1). The north pilot area (NPA) and south pilot area (SPA) encompass approximately 12.25 and 2.9 mi2 (~31.7 and 7.5 km2), respectively, with average well spacings of approximately 750 and 500 ft (229 and 152 m), respectively. These areas were chosen for a detailed study because of the high density of well control and the availability of cores. They also represent contrasting depositional styles and differences in reservoir performance. For example, permeability is lower (Adair, 1960) and sandstone-body architecture is more complex in the southern part of the field, where the Woodbine Group is composed of multiple, subregionally discontinuous sandstone units. These sandstones, termed stringers by field operators, produce under solution-gas drive and have experienced relatively greater pressure declines during water flooding because of their poor contact with injected water and low degree of stratigraphic continuity (Galloway et al., 1983). In contrast, the stringer zone in the northern part of the field is consistently thinner and overlain by a massive, highpermeability, conglomerate-and-sandstone unit named by operators the Main sand (historically, the fields primary reservoir), which produces under a strong water drive. In the study, we documented the continuity of significant stratigraphic surfaces (unconformities
and flooding surfaces) and interpreted the lateral and vertical extent of sequences and parasequences in each pilot area. Moreover, we provided paleogeographic reconstructions based on detailed netsandstone maps and analysis of log facies. Core interpretation enabled us to document the vertical lithologic succession and infer Woodbine depositional facies, identify and confirm significant stratigraphic surfaces and bed contacts interpreted from well logs, and provide rock evidence of systemstract interpretations. To resolve depositionally significant and timeequivalent surfaces and zones within the Woodbine of the East Texas field, we first examined the units sequence-stratigraphic framework in the East Texas Basin, where the succession is complete. Proper examination of the Woodbines sequence succession in the field necessitated its regional characterization first to (1) establish a firm reservoir-scale chronostratigraphic basis for accurate correlation to and within the field; (2) identify the precise Woodbine interval and the systems tracts that extend into the field and that contain the reservoir facies; (3) determine possible regional structural influences, and their timing, on Woodbine deposition; and (4) better define the origin of the subregional base-of-Austin unconformity, the hydrocarbon seal that caps the Woodbine in the field. Published micropaleontologic data (planktonic foraminifera, palynomorphs) from the shaly units immediately above and below the Woodbine (Maness Shale, lower Eagle Ford Group) were used primarily to place the study interval within the third-order worldwide coastal onlap curve of Haq et al. (1988). Correlation efforts in the basin required selecting wire-line logs away from salt diapirs where the Woodbine interval is commonly incomplete (Jackson and Seni, 1984; Seni and Jackson, 1984). We used techniques for interpreting sequence stratigraphy from wire-line logs that were discussed by Van Wagoner et al. (1990) and Mitchum et al. (1993). For genetic correlation within the East Texas Basin and on the Sabine uplift, we used primarily gamma-ray logs to ensure consistent and accurate representation and interpretation of sand-
stone and mudstone intervals within the Woodbine Group.
GEOLOGIC SETTING Regional Tectonic Setting The Sabine uplift is a low-relief regional anticlinorium lying astride the Texas-Louisiana border between the East Texas Basin and north Louisiana diapir province (Figure 1) (Ewing, 1991a). The structure most likely originated in the late Mesozoic; it overlies and is probably genetically related to basement blocks that formed as midrift highs during the Triassic rifting phase of the reopening of the Gulf of Mexico (Jackson, 1982; Nunn, 1990). The Sabine uplift is inferred to have been periodically active during the Mesozoic and early Tertiary (Jackson and Laubach, 1991). Its present form is related to a Gulf-wide series of middle to Late Cretaceous disturbances and uplifts (Ewing, 1991a, b). Halbouty and Halbouty (1982) specifically described two episodes of uplift of the structure: just prior to Woodbine deposition and during late Woodbine and Eagle Ford sedimentation. Jackson and Laubach (1991) also proposed an upwarp of the structure just before accumulation of the Woodbine. Woodbine sediments were derived from the Ouachita and Arbuckle Mountains of Oklahoma and Arkansas (Stehli et al., 1972), and the succession thins and pinches out eastward against the west flank of the Sabine uplift. The East Texas Basin, a structural embayment of the Gulf Coast Basin, is bounded on the north and west by the Mexia-Talco fault system (Figure 1). In its deepest part, the basin is filled with more than 13,000 ft (>3960 m) of Mesozoic and Tertiary strata (Wood and Guevara, 1981) that were structurally modified by mobilization of the Middle Jurassic Louann Salt, most commonly as diapirs, throughout Cretaceous and early Tertiary Basin sedimentation (Seni and Jackson, 1984). The AngelinaCaldwell flexure, a low-relief monocline that was most prominent as a depositional feature during the Late Cretaceous and Paleogene (Stehli et al.,
Ambrose et al. 235
Figure 2. Regional Lower to Upper Cretaceous stratigraphy of the East Texas Basin. The figure depicts the commonly used lithostratigraphic nomenclature in the basin, which does not necessarily coincide with formal usage as defined by the U.S. Geological Survey. Compiled from Childs et al. (1988), Salvador and Muneton (1989), and Sohl et al. (1991).
1972), separates the embayment from the Gulf Coast Basin.
Stratigraphy and Regional Depositional Setting The middle and upper Cenomanian Woodbine Group represents the dominant, most widespread episode of coarse-siliciclastic deposition during the Late Cretaceous in the East Texas Basin (Figure 2). Stratigraphically, the Woodbine occurs between the older, limestone-dominated Washita Group (upper Albian to middle Cenomanian) and the younger, areally extensive Eagle Ford Group (lower Turonian), the principal source rock of East Texas field hydrocarbons (Surles, 1985; Dzou et al., 2000). The uppermost Washita section comprises the 170 200-ft-thick (5261-m) Buda Limestone, a deeper shelf limestone, and the overlying thick (6075 ft,
1829 m) Maness Shale. The Woodbine Group is divided into the Dexter sand (dominated by sandstone) and the younger and relatively shalier Lewisville Formation. The Woodbine Group comprises on-shelf facies, mostly fluvial-deltaic deposits, in the East Texas Basin (Oliver, 1971) (Figure 3). The Woodbine Group reaches a maximum thickness of approximately 890 ft (270 m) in the basin and thins gradually toward the Sabine uplift, where it is as much as 250 ft (76 m) thick at the west (downdip) edge of the East Texas field. In the southern part of the basin, these deposits grade into primarily shale (Pepper Shale) of the outer shelf and slope (Figure 2). The south margin of the Angelina-Caldwell flexure and adjacent Edwards reef trend mark the approximate location of the Woodbine depositional shelf edge (Figures 1, 3a) (Siemers, 1978), south of which the unit produces from deep (>11,000 ft, >3350 m) Woodbine/Eagle Fordequivalent slope turbidite facies, such as those in Seven Oaks (Polk County) and Sugar Creek (Tyler County) fields (Siemers, 1978; Foss, 1979). The Woodbine is equivalent to the lower Tuscaloosa Formation of south-central Louisiana (Mancini and Puckett, 2005); the productive deep occurrence of the two units composes the Tuscaloosa-Woodbine trend (e.g., Dubiel et al., 2003). Early outcrop studies of the Woodbine Group tentatively recognize it to be at least partly composed of deltaic facies (Scott, 1926). Oliver (1971) presented the only comprehensive regional study of the unit based on outcrop and well-log data. He interpreted three principal Woodbine depositional systems: meanderbelt fluvial, shelf strand plain, and high-destructive deltaic. His fluvial system in the Dexter sand of the northern East Texas Basin (Figure 3b) was inferred to be a succession of thick sandstones with blocky log responses (180380 ft, 55 116 m), flanked by coeval flood-plain mudstones with baseline and serrate log responses. His shelf-strand-plain system of the Lewisville Formation, also only in the north half of the basin, comprises fewer and thinner sandstones. Log facies are upward coarsening, serrate, and blocky. A highdestructive (wave-dominated) deltaic system was deposited south of the other systems and is coeval
Figure 3. (a) Paleogeographic reconstruction of the northwest Gulf Coast Basin during Woodbine deposition (modified from Sohl et al., 1991). (b) Regional depositional-facies distribution of the lower Woodbine (Dexter sand equivalent) inferred by Oliver (1971). Only the Dexter sand facies (and not those of the Lewisville Formation of the upper Woodbine) are illustrated because it is the unit present in the East Texas field.
with both. Major sand accumulations of this system developed primarily in stacked coastal barriers with thick (100 ft, 30 m), blocky, and blocky-serrate log responses.
Within the lower Woodbine Dexter sand in the East Texas field, Oliver (1971) inferred stacked meanderbelt sandstones in the northern part of the field grading to sandstones of equivalent wave-dominated
Ambrose et al. 237
238
deltaic and coastal-barrier systems in the southern part (Figure 3b). In contrast, we interpret Olivers blocky fluvial and coastal-barrier facies to collectively compose those of basin-scale, lowstand, incisedvalley river systems. Instead of being flanked by coeval flood-plain mudstones, the valley systems are eroded into older highstand, fluvial-dominated deltaic facies. Therefore, as subsequently discussed, we infer no genetic linkage between the fluvial (incised-valley) and deltaic systems in the field. Our interpretation of sandstone trends and facies reflects a new depositional model and provides a more realistic understanding of reservoir compartmentalization, fluid flow, flow-unit geometry, and location of unswept mobile oil in the field.
SEQUENCE-STRATIGRAPHIC FRAMEWORK Regional Chronostratigraphy The Woodbine Group was deposited during a major middle and late Cenomanian regressive event following a pronounced lowering of the relative sea level after Buda and before Woodbine deposition that affected the entire Gulf Coast Basin (Salvador, 1991; Mancini and Puckett, 2005). This relative sea level fall exposed shelves and platforms around the basin to subaerial exposure (Salvador, 1991). Embayments, such as the incipient East Texas Basin, however, remained mostly submerged. The hiatus recorded by the middle Cenomanian unconformity (Salvador, 1991) occurs at the top of the Buda shelf limestone (SB 10), which is conformably overlain by the deeper water, transgressive Maness Shale (Figure 4) throughout the basin and its eastern flank. The unconformity is inferred to
coincide with the third-order sequence boundary (SB) at approximately 94 Ma defined by Haq et al. (1988) (Figure 4). The subaerial exposure of the Buda Limestone did not occur in the east Texas area (Salvador, 1991) most likely because its rate of subsidence exceeded that of the general Gulf Coast Basin. Syndepositional salt mobilization, a principal mechanism for Cretaceous subsidence in the East Texas Basin (Seni and Jackson, 1984), created more accommodation space than could be countered by the eustatic fall, thus preserving a fully submerged middle Cenomanian Basin in the east Texas area. Middle Cenomanian (preWoodbine) uplift along the north margin of the Gulf Coast Basin (Sohl et al., 1991), also termed the southern Arkansas uplift (Ewing, 1991a, b), provided the catalyst for subsequent coarse-siliciclastic Woodbine deposition. The top of the Buda Limestone represents an SB and transgressive surface of erosion (TS) and either a surface of nondeposition or a very low rate of deposition above a carbonate highstand systems tract. The thick retrogradational lower half of the overlying Maness Shale (50 ft [15 m] in most of the basin, thinning to 35 ft [11 m] at the Sabine uplift) records the subsequent third-order transgressive systems tract, and its associated maximum flooding surface (MFS 10) is dated at approximately 93.5 Ma (Haq et al., 1988) (Figure 4). Micropaleontologic studies of the Maness Shale (Loeblich and Tappan, 1961) and lower Eagle Ford Group (Pessagno, 1969; Christopher, 1982), integrated with regional chronostratigraphic compilations (e.g., Childs et al., 1988), support these ages and termination of Woodbine deposition at approximately 92 Ma. Some imprecision, however, exists in the correlation of these formation-specific dates
Figure 4. Coastal-onlap curve derived from Haq et al. (1988) correlated with the Cenomanian and Turonian succession in the East Texas Basin. All ages of third-order sequence boundaries are inferred to coincide with those of Haq et al. (1988), except that at the top of the Woodbine succession (92 Ma). Haq et al.s global analysis places the age at approximately 93 Ma, thereby giving their major overlying early Turonian third-order transgressive systems tract a duration of approximately 1.5 Ma (not 0.5 Ma as depicted here). We infer the variation from the global average to be caused by local tectonic influences on Woodbine deposition. Continuing highsiliciclastic sediment supply and creation of accommodation space in the subsiding East Texas salt basin enabled on-shelf, keep-up Woodbine depositional conditions to extend to the end of the Cenomanian. Compiled from Childs et al. (1988), Salvador and Muneton (1989), and Sohl et al. (1991). Surfaces depicted at the preserved tops of highstand systems tracts in the left log (e.g., sequence boundary [SB] 30) are both SBs and transgressive surfaces (TSs). SB 100 is locally cut out by SB 110. Well location coincides with well 1 in Figure 5a. GR = gamma ray; SP = spontaneous potential; Res = resistivity; MFS = maximum flooding surface; TS = transgressive surface. Ambrose et al. 239
240
(and others given in Figure 4) with the worldwide ages presented by Haq et al. (1988), and our age correlations should be considered to be a best-fit effort using the sparse micropaleontologic data for the Upper Cretaceous of east Texas that exist in published sources. The top surface of our study interval, an MFS 150 above a thick shaly transgressive systems tract in the basalmost Eagle Ford section (Figure 4) (130 ft [40 m] in most of basin, thinning to 30 ft [9 m] at the Sabine uplift), represents the major early Turonian third-order MFS and the widespread CenomanianTuronian anoxic event (e.g., Herbin et al., 1986; Arthur et al., 1987) dated at approximately 91.5 Ma by Haq et al. (1988). The Woodbine succession was, therefore, deposited over a period of approximately 1.5 m.y. (93.5 92 Ma) as a single third-order sequence. Each fourthorder sequence composing the Woodbine was deposited over an average of approximately 110 k.y. On the basis of a sequence-stratigraphic analysis of approximately 225 well logs distributed across the central and south-central parts of the East Texas Basin (Figure 1), we identified a maximum of 14 fourth-order sequences within the greater Woodbine succession (top of Buda Limestone to lowermost Eagle Ford Group) in the central part of the basin. Sequence boundaries, TSs , and MFSs within the sequences were inferred primarily from the logs gamma-ray signatures (Figure 4), supported by whole-core data from the field area. The Woodbine succession in the basin is dominated by inferred lowstand incised-valley fills, which occur as low-gamma-ray zones as much as 150 ft [45 m] thick forming blocky log responses with abrupt horizontal basal (erosional) surfaces. Sequence boundaries at the base of the incised-valley fills were correlated with those at the tops of adjacent upwardcoarsening cycles, which represent older highstand systems tracts into which the valley fills were cut.
Transgressive surfaces of erosion define tops of the aggradational valley fills and coincide with sequence boundaries atop the highstand systems tracts. Maximum flooding surfaces cap upward-fining successions (transgressive systems tracts) at gamma-ray maxima above the lowstand incised-valley-fill and highstand successions. Sequences, Systems Tracts, and Relation to Sabine Uplift The relative rise of the Sabine uplift was initiated soon after deposition of the Maness Shale, and we infer that it was a gradual and continuous process, not episodic, during the entire period of Woodbine and Eagle Ford deposition (2.5 m.y). Its development most likely coincides with that of the middle Cenomanian southern Arkansas uplift that affected most of south Arkansas and north Louisiana (Ewing, 1991a, b). Halbouty and Halbouty (1982), however, deduced that rejuvenation of the Sabine uplift occurred as a major, short-term episode, resulting in the development of a regional angular unconformity after Buda, but before Woodbine, deposition. Jackson and Laubach (1991) similarly invoked the formation of a sub-Woodbine angular unconformity by a pre-latest Early Cretaceous upwarp. Sequence-stratigraphic relations in our study do not support these conclusions and enable a more focused interpretation of the structural influences and their timing on Woodbine deposition in the East Texas Basin and field. The highstand Buda Limestone carbonates, regionally transgressive lower Maness Shale, and basal highstand upper Maness Shale are each isochronous, maintaining nearly consistent thickness (systematically thickening by 25% toward the protobasin center), except where they are truncated by the middle Turonian base-of-Austin unconformity along
Figure 5. (a) Lithostratigraphic cross section from the axis of the East Texas Basin to the Sabine uplift. The eastern four wells lie on the west flank of the Sabine uplift. The datum is the top of the Austin Chalk. (b) Schematic rendering of the sequence-stratigraphic framework of Woodbine Group, East Texas Basin, and Sabine uplift. The datum is the top of the Woodbine Group. Systems-tract interpretations from log facies of the eastern two-thirds of the cross section (wells 3 6) are shown in Figure 6. Systems tracts of well 1, which records the maximum number of fourth-order sequences (14) composing the Woodbine in the deep axial part of the East Texas Basin, are depicted in Figure 4. The line of section closely coincides with that of a. The shaded area in the index maps is the East Texas field. No horizontal scale. GR = gamma ray; SP = spontaneous potential; Res = resistivity. SW = SW Operating, Inc.; NOE = T.C. Noe Oil Account. Ambrose et al. 241
Figure 6. Details of sequence-stratigraphic and systems-tract framework of Woodbine Group in the eastern East Texas Basin western Sabine uplift area. The datum is sequence boundary (SB) 10. Wells coincide with the eastern four wells (well 3 6) shown schematically in Figure 5b. Two particularly salient features are illustrated: (1) only the oldest five fourth-order sequences S1 S5 (SB 10 60) are truncated by the base-of-Austin unconformity, and (2) all younger Woodbine sequences depositionally pinch out below the shaly third-order transgressive systems tract (capped by maximum flooding surface [MFS] 150) of the lowermost Eagle Ford Group. No horizontal scale. GR = gamma ray; SP = spontaneous potential; Res = resistivity. NOE = T.C. Noe Oil Account.
the flank and crest of the Sabine uplift (Figures 5a, 6). Because the Buda and Maness successions exhibit no significant internal stratal changes on the Sabine uplift, this structure exhibited little or no
relief during deposition of these units. Ewing (1991a) similarly concluded that the uplift is not expressed in sub-Upper Cretaceous (pre-Woodbine) strata.
The Woodbine succession gradually thins from the axis of the East Texas Basin westward to the Mexia-Talco fault zone and eastward to the Sabine uplift. This thinning coincides with a systematic decrease in the number of fourth-order Woodbine sequences in both directions away from the deep axial part of the basin, where 14 sequences are present. The oldest five sequences extend to the west flank of the Sabine uplift and are truncated by the baseof-Austin unconformity beginning approximately 10 mi (16 km) west of the downdip edge of the East Texas field (Figures 5b, 6). At the westernmost extent of the unconformity, it incises the Eagle Ford strata and progressively cuts downward stratigraphically toward the uplift (Figure 6). The generally thinner upper nine sequences, in contrast to the older sequences, are conformably overlain by the Eagle Ford mudstones and therefore depositionally pinch out between eastern Henderson and westcentral Smith counties more than 10 mi (>16 km) from the field. No more than the oldest five fourth-order Woodbine sequences (S1S5) were ever deposited in the area of the Sabine uplift (Figure 5b). Minor thinning of these sequences toward the uplift records an incipient relative rise of the structure during earliest Woodbine deposition (Figure 7). Cenomanian salt mobilization (dome growth) in the East Texas Basin coincided with rapid accumulation of voluminous Woodbine siliciclastic sediments (Seni and Jackson, 1984) and helped sustain the concurrent relative subsidence and uplift. Beginning about the time of deposition of S5 or S6, deposition of the upper Woodbine (sequences S6 S14) was limited to the central part of the East Texas Basin, a zone approximately 35 mi (56 km) wide centered on the basin axis (Figures 1, 5b). Restriction to basin-center deposition records the period during which the Sabine uplift probably had become a positive (emergent) feature and started to influence Woodbine depositional patterns. Lower Woodbine sequences S1S5 were likely exposed on the uplift and composed a proximal, secondary sediment source for the younger, onlapping Woodbine deposits (S6S14) (Figure 7). Unlike previous workers, most notably Halbouty and Halbouty (1982), we do not infer short-term major episodes of
Figure 7. Schematic depictions of the development of the Sabine uplift and adjacent East Texas Basin during (a) early Woodbine (S1S5) deposition, (b) late Woodbine (S6S14) deposition, and (c) Austin Chalk deposition. The area depicted is approximately 50 mi (80 km) wide; vertical exaggeration is significant. ETOF = East Texas oil field. Ambrose et al. 243
rise of the Sabine uplift immediately before Woodbine deposition and during late Woodbine deposition. The sequence-stratigraphic architecture of the unit documents a fairly consistent rate of subsidence and creation of accommodation space within the basin throughout accumulation of lower and upper Woodbine sequences. An episodic, accelerated rise of the adjacent uplift during Woodbine deposition would have produced prominent signatures in the basins stratigraphic record, such as basin-scale angular unconformities and abrupt subregional depositional-facies transitions within thick successions (e.g., fan deltas at the uplift grading to shallow-marine deposits in the basin). The Eagle Ford Group gradually thins toward the Sabine uplift west of the area where the baseof-Austin unconformity is developed (Figure 5). The uplift was, therefore, also a positive feature during Eagle Ford deposition and was subaerially exposed (Jackson and Laubach, 1988) as it probably was during the preceding late Woodbine (S6 S14). Over an extended period before deposition of the Austin Chalk, however, at least a few hundred feet of Washita, Woodbine, and Eagle Ford Group strata had been gradually eroded from the uplift and its west flank. Erosion likely began just before or during deposition of the middle Woodbine (S5 or S6) and culminated no later than during deposition of the upper Eagle Ford (middle Turonian). A series of local unconformities and disconformities within the Woodbine (Figure 7a, b) and Eagle Ford groups probably developed on the uplift and its flanks, recording the structures period of gradual emergence. These unconformities are inferred to have been removed by subsequent uplift and erosion. The base-of-Austin unconformity, therefore, represents a significant hiatus and extended period of stratal erosion from the uplift, perhaps lasting as much as 2 m.y. Development of the middle Turonian base-ofAustin unconformity does not coincide with any documented regional or subregional tectonic activity. This development predates regional Laramide compression, which most likely later affected the Sabine uplift (Jackson and Laubach, 1991) and the greater Gulf Coast Basin beginning in the latest Late Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) (Salvador, 1991).
Culmination of sub-Austin Chalk erosion of the uplift most likely occurred when termination of the period of high rate of siliciclastic sedimentation in the East Texas Basin coincided with the third-order middle Turonian eustatic lowstand immediately following Eagle Ford deposition at approximately 91 Ma (Haq et al., 1988) (Figures 4, 7c). Relative sea level fall intensified erosion and beveling of the uplift area, accentuating the stratigraphic expression of the resulting SB (unconformity). Minimal thinning of the Austin Chalk (Figure 5) and overlying Upper Cretaceous carbonates and shales over the uplift, also documented by Granata (1963), indicates that the relative rise of the structure had nearly stopped before Austin deposition. Only the oldest three fourth-order sequences (S1S3) of the lower Woodbine Group are preserved below the base-of-Austin unconformity in the East Texas field (Figures 5b, 6). Detailed mapping of principal sandstone bodies and description of whole cores from the NPA and SPA (Figure 1) allowed the interpretation of depositional facies and key depositional surfaces and provided a corroboration of our sequence-stratigraphic interpretation. Key Chronostratigraphic Surfaces: East Texas Field Although the same sandstone-bearing sequences are represented in the NPA and SPA, key differences in their log expression, core attributes, and depositional facies exist. These differences profoundly affected (and continue to affect) their reservoir characteristics and production histories. We herein provide an initial summary of these basic differences. Throughout the NPA, the S3 lowstand incised-valley fill (Main sand of operators) overlies the S1 highstand and transgressive (Maness Shale) systems tracts and SB 10 (top of Buda Limestone) (Figure 8a). The entire S2 succession has been removed by valley incision in this area. The baseof-Austin unconformity truncates the top of the S3 incised-valley fill across the NPA. Our regional sequence correlations show that this succession characterizes the entire west margin of East Texas field (Figures 6, 8, 9). We infer that it provides a record of increased regional downcutting to adjust to a lower base level created by the initial relative rise
Figure 8. (a) Representative structural-dip cross section of the north pilot area (NPA), showing inferred fourth-order sequencestratigraphic surfaces and systems tracts. The datum is the base-of-Austin unconformity. No horizontal scale. (b) Representative structural-dip cross section of the southwestern part of East Texas field and the south pilot area (SPA), showing inferred fourth-order sequence-stratigraphic surfaces and systems tracts. The datum is the base-of-Austin unconformity. Local lower Woodbine (LWB) chronostratigraphic surfaces LWB 10 40 depicted in SPA wells. LWB 10 coincides with regional maximum flooding surface (MFS) 10. See Figure 1 for the location of the NPA and SPA within the East Texas field. No horizontal scale. GR = gamma ray; SP = spontaneous potential; Res = resistivity; SB = sequence boundary. TXOK = TXOK Energy Resources Co., EOG = EOG Resources, Inc. Ambrose et al. 245
Figure 9. (a) Regional areal extent of the S3 lowstand incised-valley fill (SB 30 TS 30, Main sand of operators), (b) cross section of west the edge of the incised-valley fill (line of section shown in a; the datum is TS 30), and (c) areal extent of the incised-valley fill in East Texas field. The cross-sectional view of the eastern depositional or erosional limit of the valley fill is depicted in Figure 8b. No horizontal scale. NPA = north pilot area; SPA = south pilot area; GR = gamma ray; SP = spontaneous potential; Res = resistivity; SB = sequence boundary; MFS = maximum flooding surface.
of the Sabine uplift during earliest Woodbine (S3) deposition. The Woodbine section of the SPA occurs just east of the approximate depositional limit
of the S3 incised-valley-fill system and comprises most or all of the S1 highstand deltaic succession (MFS 10SB 20) (Figures 8b, 9).
Sequence Boundaries and Transgressive Surfaces of Erosion Sequence boundaries are the most significant Woodbine surfaces that define sandstone units and reservoir-facies trends in the pilot areas. In the NPA, they include SB 10 at the top of the Buda Limestone (middle Cenomanian unconformity), SB 30 (base of incised-valley fill), and the base-ofAustin unconformity. Well represented in whole cores from wells just outside the area (Figure 1), SB 30 marks the boundary between the fields primary reservoir (lowstand fluvial Main sand) from the underlying highstand deltaic stringer zone, the primary completion target today. The distinctly erosional surface occurs as fluvial chert-clast conglomerate or granular, coarse-grained sandstone overlying distal-delta mudstones and siltstones, recording a pronounced drop in relative sea level (Figures 10, 11, 12a, b). At the top of shelf limestones of the Buda Limestone throughout the field, as in the basin, SB 10 exhibits no evidence of erosion and is in conformable contact with the overlying Maness Shale (e.g., Figure 10). The base-of-Austin unconformity in the NPA and SPA, the middle Turonian third-order SB (Figure 4), marks the base of the top seal in the field and records a TS. Chert, milky quartz, and other clasts derived from incisedvalley-fill conglomerates of the underlying Woodbine were incorporated in the basal part of the transgressive Austin Chalk in the NPA (Figure 12c). Well-developed paleosols in lower Woodbine facies immediately below the Austin contact in the SPA and in cores outside the field record a period of long-term subaerial exposure associated with this unconformity (Figure 13b). Note that SB 20 exists only in the SPA, where incision by SB 30 did not occur, and even in this area, the surface is preserved only in the western (downdip) part of the area (Figure 8b). Flooding Surfaces The MFS 10 in the lower Maness Shale (Figures 6, 10) is significant because it represents a regional chronostratigraphic horizon that extends into East Texas field. One of the local flooding surfaces (lower Woodbine [LWB] 10, Figure 8b) that we used to correlate coeval reservoir sandstone units
in the SPA coincides with MFS 10. These four local horizons are inferred to represent surfaces of delta-lobe abandonment or avulsion (Figure 8b) that bound three sandstone-bearing zones (LWB 1020, LWB 2030, LWB 3040) in the upwardcoarsening S1 highstand systems tract (MFS 10 SB 20). Although these flooding surfaces are hypothesized to reflect the avulsion of major deltaic lobes, nodal points of avulsion are not documented in this study because a larger area for detailed netsandstone maps than that shown in the SPA (Figure 1) would be required to fully define the geographic extent of major deltaic lobes in the S1 highstand sequence. Net-sandstone values were calculated for each zone in the S1 highstand deltaic succession, which were mapped separately to identify reservoir-facies trends and depositional facies in the pilot areas. Units are generally isopachous in the SPA, although locally developed thicker sandstones occur and are inferred to represent distributary-channel fills (subsequently discussed). The same succession in the NPA exists between MFS 10 and the base of the lowstand valley fill (SB 30), but its thickness varies according to differences in depth of valley incision (Figure 8a).
DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS IN EAST TEXAS FIELD Highstand Fluvial-Dominated Deltaic System Cores recording the Woodbines lowest fourthorder sequence (S1), herein referred to as Woodbine stringers (after operators usage), from the central and southern parts of the field (Figure 1) exhibit many sedimentary features typical of fluvialdominated deltaic systems. For example, a core from the Shell 55 Watson well in the central part of the field contains a nearly complete succession of the stringer interval, from the top of the Buda Limestone at 3728 ft (1136 m) to the base of the S3 incised-valley fill at approximately 3625 ft (1105 m) (Figure 10). This overall upwardcoarsening succession is interpreted to include
Ambrose et al. 247
Figure 10. (a) Core description and log response of the S1 highstand (lower Woodbine stringer) section and the lower part of the S3 lowstand incised-valley-fill section in the Shell 55 Watson well. (b) Distal-delta-front siltstones and very fine-grained sandstones at 3698 ft (1127 m). (c) Proximal-delta-front very fine-grained, rippled siltstones and sandstones at 3687 ft (1124 m). (d) Reddishbrown, carbonaceous mudstone overlain by a zone with abundant pedogenic mottling at 3661 ft (1116 m). The well is located in Figure 1. SP = spontaneous potential; Res = resistivity; SB = sequence boundary; MFS = maximum flooding surface. CMT = cement. 248 Woodbine Group of East Texas Field
Figure 11. Core description and photographs of S3 incised-valley bed-load fluvial deposits directly overlying very fine sandstones and siltstones from highstand delta-front deposits in the Cities Service B2 Killingsworth well. (a) Description and log response from 3610 to 3646 ft (1100 to 1111 m). (b) Contact between gravelly and pebbly sandstone and burrowed, very fine-grained sandstone at 3636 ft (1108 m). (c) Stacked gravel-bar deposits at 3629 ft (1106 m). (d) Coarse-grained sandstone with large-pebble clasts at 3614 ft (1101 m). Well is located in Figure 1. GR = gamma ray; Res = resistivity; SB = sequence boundary. CMT = cement. Ambrose et al. 249
Figure 12. Core description and photographs of S3 incised-valley bed-load fluvial deposits directly overlying very fine-grained sandstones and siltstones from highstand delta-front deposits in the Arco 142B King well. (a) Description and log response from 3420 to 3450 ft (1042 to 1051 m). (b) Erosional contact between gravel beds and cross-bedded, coarse-grained sandstone at 3437.4 ft (1047.7 m). (c) Transgressive-lag deposits at the base of the Austin Chalk at 3422.4 ft (1043.1 m). The well is located in Figure 1. GR = gamma ray; Res = resistivity; SB = sequence boundary. CMT = cement. 250 Woodbine Group of East Texas Field
Figure 13. Core description and photographs of stacked distributary-channel deposits of the S1 highstand succession in the Arco 18 Griffin well. (a) Description and log response of interval from 3570 to 3655 ft (1088 to 1114 m). (b) Paleosol developed below the baseof-Austin unconformity (3574.5 ft, 1089.5 m). (c) Cross-bedded, upper-fine sandstone with scour surfaces and soft-sediment deformation at 3599 ft (1097 m). (d) Rippled and scoured, organic-rich fine sandstone with dewatering structures at 3588.5 ft (1093.7 m). Well is located in Figure 17. GR = gamma ray; Res = resistivity. CMT = cement. Ambrose et al. 251
prodelta, delta-front, delta-plain, and distributarychannel facies. These facies and other genetically related facies from other cores in the field area are described separately. The upper part of the Shell 55 Watson core (3600 3625 ft, 1097 1105 m), distinctly coarser grained than the underlying section, consists of medium-grained and coarse-grained, gravelly sandstone interbedded with thin siltstones and very fine-grained sandstones (Figure 10). This upper section is interpreted to represent nonmarine, bed-load fluvial deposits, which are discussed in the section titled Lowstand Incised-Valley Fluvial System. Reservoir sandstones of the Woodbine stringers (for example, oil-stained sandstones in proximaldelta-front and distributary-channel sandstones in Figure 13) are interpreted to have been deposited in the S1 highstand deltaic succession (Figure 14). Inferred dimensions of sandstone bodies and interpretations of facies relationships in both the S1 highstand deltaic and S3 incised-valley-fill successions are based on detailed net-sandstone maps and cross sections in the NPA and SPA areas (see Figures 1518 in the following sections of this report). They were deposited in high-constructive, fluvial-dominated deltaic systems, with narrow, dip-elongate distributary-channel sandstones exhibiting southward-bifurcating net-sandstone patterns. Distributary-channel depositional axes are flanked locally by lobate crevasse-splay deposits inferred to pinch out into interdistributary-bay and delta-plain siltstones (Figure 14a). Sandbodies in modern fluvial-dominated deltaic systems are distributed in narrow distributary channels that bifurcate seaward, forming bar-finger sands (Fisk, 1961; Galloway, 1975). These distributaries are commonly flanked by abundant crevasse splays formed by levee breaching and subsequent infilling of the muddy interdistributary bay (Coleman and Gagliano, 1964; Elliott, 1974). The continuity of sandstone bodies in fluvial-dominated deltas is typically poor to moderate because of the presence of narrow distributaries and lobate crevasse splays that pinch out into muddy interdistributary areas (Coleman and Wright, 1975). Sandstone heterogeneity in fluvial-dominated deltas is also increased by abundant soft-sediment deformation related
to compaction of distributary-channel sandstones into soft delta-front mudstones, as well as dewatering of delta-plain sediments (Frazier, 1967; Kelling and George, 1971; Brown et al., 1973). Early diagenetic siderite (e.g., in the lower part of the cored interval in Figure 10) may be locally abundant, as observed in studies of other fluvial-dominated deltaic systems by Coleman and Prior (1982) and Bhattacharya and Walker (1991).
Prodelta, Delta Front, and Channel-Mouth Bar Prodelta, delta-front, and channel-mouth-bar deposits together comprise the most commonly observed facies in cores from the S1 highstand deltaic succession in the East Texas field. Prodelta and innershelf deposits in the Shell 55 Watson core, extending from approximately 3710 to 3728 ft (1131 to 1136 m) (Figure 10), are composed of calcareous, laminated mudstone interbedded with sparse, thin ( < 1 in., < 2.5 cm) beds of very fine-grained sandstone and coarse-grained siltstone with sharp bases and burrowed and rippled tops. This section grades upward into an upward-coarsening succession of siltstones interbedded with rippled, very fine-grained sandstone beds that extend from approximately 3684 to 3710 ft (1123 to 1131.1 m). The lower part of this upward-coarsening section consists commonly of sideritic siltstone with abundant interbeds of very fine-grained sandstone (Figure 10a). Many of these sandstone beds have sharp but undulating bases and are laminated and rippled; some sandstone beds contain small clay clasts. These thin, sharp-based sandstones are interpreted to record pulses of sediment-laden discharge from the distributary mouth, representing deposits of dilute turbidity currents in the delta front. They are similar to thin, erosive-based, coarsegrained siltstones and very fine-grained sandstone beds in fluvial-dominated deltaic deposits in the Westphalian in the United Kingdom (De Raaf et al., 1965), Upper Cretaceouslower Paleocene deltaic deposits in northwest Mexico (McBride et al., 1975), and the modern Yellow River delta (Wright et al., 1988). In contrast, the upper part of the upward-coarsening section (36843693 ft,
Figure 14. Block diagrams summarizing sequences and depositional systems in the lower Woodbine Group in the East Texas field. (a) S1 highstand fluvial-dominated deltaic deposits in the basal lower Woodbine section. (b) Truncation of the S1 highstand (preserved) and S2 (removed) successions by the S3 lowstand incised-valley system comprising multistoried, coarse-grained bed-load fluvial deposits. Inferred dimensions of sandstone bodies and interpretations of facies relationships in both the S1 highstand deltaic and S3 incised-valley-fill successions are based on detailed net-sandstone maps in the NPA and SPA (Figure 1). Ambrose et al. 253
Figure 15. Core description and photographs of delta-front and channel-mouth-bar deposits of the S1 highstand succession in the Arco C-21 Pinkston well. (a) Description and log response of cored interval from 3658 to 3708 ft (1115 to 1130 m). (b) Sharp-based, distal-deltafront sandstone bed at 3689.3 ft (1124.4 m). (c) Slump in medial-delta-front sandstone bed at 3675.6 ft (1120.3 m). (d) Photograph of crossbedded channel-mouth-bar sandstone at 3669 ft (1118 m). The well is located in Figure 17. GR = gamma ray; Res = resistivity. CMT = cement. 254 Woodbine Group of East Texas Field
Figure 16. Core description and photographs of crevasse-splay deposits of the S1 highstand succession in the Arco C19 Pinkston well. (a) Description and log response of the interval from 3580 to 3625 ft (1091 to 1105 m). (b) Current ripples in lower-splay deposits at 3611.8 ft (1100.8 m). (c) Deformed ripples and small-scale cross-beds in upper-splay deposits at 3605.7 ft (1099 m). The well is located in Figure 17. SP = spontaneous potential; Res = resistivity. CMT = cement. Ambrose et al. 255
Figure 17. Net-sandstone maps of Woodbine progradational parasequences of the S1 highstand stringer sandstones in the SPA: (a) LWB 10 20, (b) LWB 20 30, (c) and LWB 30 40 intervals, respectively. The SPA is located in Figure 1. Core descriptions and photographs of selected S1 intervals in the Arco 18 Griffin, Arco C-21 Pinkston, and the Arco C-19 Pinkston wells are shown in Figures 13, 15, and 16, respectively.
256
Figure 18. (a) Net-sandstone map of the undivided lower Woodbine stringer sandstones (S1 highstand) in the NPA. (b) Net-sandstone map of the S3 lowstand incised-valley-fill system in the NPA. The location of NPA is shown in Figure 1. The northwestsoutheast stratigraphic section in the northwestern part of the NPA is shown in Figure 20.
Ambrose et al.
257
11231125 m) consists of ripple-bedded, brown to purple siltstone and very fine-grained sandstone (Figure 10b). The section is sparsely burrowed by Planolites. This upward-coarsening section of siltstones and ripple-laminated, very fine sandstones in the Shell 55 Watson core from 3684 to 3710 ft (1123 to 1131 m) is interpreted to represent deltafront deposits. A similar vertical facies succession is observed in the Arco C-21 Pinkston core (Figure 15). The lower part of the succession consists of thin (commonly 1 4 in. [2.5 10 cm] beds of very fine, sparsely burrowed and laminated sandstone interbedded with fine siltstone. Individual sandstone beds in the lower section are commonly sharp based and laminated (Figure 15b), and some contain small, millimeter-scale clay clasts and Planolites burrows. Higher in the delta-front section, individual very fine to fine-grained sandstone beds range in thickness from 6 in. to 1 ft (15 cm to 0.3 m). Stratification in these sandstone beds consists of ripples and horizontal laminations commonly distorted by load structures and slumps (Figure 15c). The upper part of the succession features 12-ft (0.30.6-m) fine sandstone beds with horizontal and low-angle, inclined laminations; internal scour surfaces; and cross-beds, although soft-sediment deformation has obscured some stratification (Figure 15d). Delta Plain, Crevasse Splay, and Distributary Channel Woodbine delta-plain facies in the East Texas field consist of interbedded organic-rich sandstones and siltstones. In the Shell 55 Watson core, deltaplain and crevasse-splay deposits are interpreted to extend from 3640 to 3680 ft (1109 to 1122 m) (Figure 10). Intermittently exposed soil horizons and peat swamps that formed on splay platforms are illustrated by a 6-in. (15-cm) zone of massively deformed and mottled organic mudstone and siltstone with abundant carbonaceous filaments at approximately 3661 ft (1116 m) (Figure 10d). Crevasse-splay deposits in other Woodbine cores consist of 510-ft (1.53-m), upward-coarsening intervals of laminated siltstone grading upward into millimeter-scale, very fine, ripple-laminated sandstone beds interbedded with siltstone (Figure 16a,
b). The log response of the crevasse-splay facies is typically upward coarsening and serrate (Figure 16a), reflecting an upward decrease in clay and muddy matrix. The top of the crevasse-splay section is composed typically of organic-rich, rippled and crossbedded, fine sandstone with multiple internal scour surfaces and soft-sediment deformation (Figure 16c), features commonly observed in crevasse-splay deposits in the modern Mississippi delta plain (Coleman et al., 1964; Arndorfer, 1973). Splay deposits, inferred from net-sandstone maps of individual S1 highstand parasequences in the SPA, are digitate in shape and extend less than 2500 ft (<760 m) from inferred distributary-channel depositional axes (see the section titled Net-Sandstone Geometry: South Pilot Area). Individual Woodbine distributary-channel deposits are typically composed of 1020-ft (36-m) intervals of erosion-based, cross-bedded and planebedded, fine sandstone fining upward into very fine, rippled, and finely laminated sandstone (Figure 13a). These individual channel-fill deposits commonly occur in multistoried complexes up to 40 ft (12 m) thick. Channel-fill successions are internally complex, with multiple internal scour surfaces, clay clasts, dispersed organic fragments, and abundant soft-sediment deformation (Figure 13b). Stratification in the lower part of the channel fill is dominantly cross-bedded, low-angle, inclined laminations and large-scale ripples, whereas the upper part is marked by asymmetric current ripples with mudstone drapes, fine-scale laminations, and dewatering structures (Figure 13c). Similar distributarychannel successions are observed in the modern Niger Delta (Oomkens, 1967, 1974), Mississippi delta (Frazier, 1967), and lacustrine deltas in the Atchafalaya Basin (Tye and Coleman, 1988), as well as in outcrops from Pennsylvanian deltaic deposits of the Eastern shelf of the Midland Basin (Brown et al., 1973; Brown et al., 1990). Net-Sandstone Geometry: South Pilot Area A series of net-sandstone maps of three Woodbine fluvial-dominated deltaic parasequences, the LWB 1020, LWB 2030, and LWB 3040 intervals (Figure 8b), illustrate sandstone-body and inferred facies geometry of a progradational system in the
SPA (Figure 17). Maps of successively younger Woodbine stratigraphic units in the SPA exhibit increasing net-sandstone thickness patterns, from which a southward progradational trend is inferred. The Woodbine LWB 4030 interval, a progradational parasequence in the upper part of the Woodbine offlapping deltaic succession, provides an example of proximal fluvial-dominated deltaic facies in the SPA (Figure 1). The sandstone-body geometry of this interval, defined by net-sandstone contours greater than or equal to 30 ft (9 m), is dip elongate and southward bifurcating (Figure 17c). Narrow depositional axes (commonly < 1000 ft [<300 m]) pinch out laterally (eastward and westward) and distally (southward) into relatively muddier deposits, with net-sandstone values locally less than 5 ft (<1.5 m). Depositional axes in the LWB 4030 interval comprise multistoried successions of erosionally based fine sandstone containing cross-beds and ripples, as well as abundant soft-sediment deformation (Arco 18 Griffin core [Figure 13b]; the location is shown in Figure 17c). The LWB 4030 interval is interpreted to represent multiple crevasse-splay and interdistributarybay deposits within a larger fluvial-dominated deltaic complex (Figure 17c). In this detailed area, individual elongate sandstone-body trends defined by values of more than 30 ft (>9 m) extend over distances of only 15002500 ft (460760 m), suggesting that they represent individual splay-channel deposits within subdelta complexes that are comparable in morphology but smaller in scale than those occurring in the modern Mississippi River delta (cf. Coleman and Gagliano, 1964). Net-Sandstone Geometry: North Pilot Area The undivided S1 highstand stringer succession in the NPA is interpreted to represent updip, fluvial to lower delta-plain feeder systems for deltaic deposits in the SPA. A net-sandstone map of this interval in the NPA, which consists dominantly of the LWB 20 30 interval, partly reflects truncation by S3 lowstand incised-valley-fill deposits (Figure 18a). Although this interval is incomplete because of truncation, sufficiently coherent and well-defined net-sandstone patterns exist to infer a dip-elongate sandstone-body geometry, with de-
positional axes corresponding to values of more than 10 ft (>3 m). These dip-elongate depositional axes display both anastomosing patterns in the southwestern part of the NPA, whereas tributary net-sandstone patterns are inferred in north and northwest areas (Figure 18a). However, variations in degree of incision by the overlying section could account for some of these anastomosing and tributary patterns. Lowstand Incised-Valley Fluvial System The S3 lowstand incised-valley fill in the East Texas field consists of multiple successions of chert- and quartz-clast conglomerates and conglomeratic to coarse sandstones that grade upward into fine to coarse sandstone. These successions, observed in cores from the northern part of the field, are interpreted to represent multistoried fluvial-channel deposits within the incised-valley interval. In the East Texas field they truncate prodelta and distaldelta facies of the older highstand deltaic deposits (Figure 14b). The contact (a regional unconformity) and the valley-fill system itself can be correlated more than 35 mi (>56 km) into the East Texas Basin. The valley fill is truncated throughout most of the field by the base-of-Austin unconformity. Where the entire interval is preserved immediately downdip (west) of the field, however, the valley fill is as much as 140 ft (43 m) thick, recording a relative sea level drop of no less than 215 ft (65 m) (corrected for a conservative 35% porosity loss from burial compaction alone) (e.g., Houseknecht, 1987). This magnitude of sea level fall seems high under the Cretaceous greenhouse conditions that existed. Eustatic fall, however, was most likely enhanced by a rate of subsidence in the East Texas Basin that exceeded that in the adjacent Gulf Coast Basin and other global Cenomanian basins, mostly because of syndepositional salt mobilization (Seni and Jackson, 1984) and concurrent rapid Woodbine sediment influx. Channel-fill successions of modern bed-load fluvial deposits are commonly composed of sandy and gravelly longitudinal and transverse bars that form by downstream migration in braided-river systems (Ore, 1963; Smith, 1970; Boothroyd, 1972;
Ambrose et al. 259
Smith, 1974). Most channel-fill deposits in these coarse-grained fluvial systems are caused by migration of sand and gravel bars on the channel floor, with minor slack-water suspension sedimentation of fine-grained material draping the bar forms (Rust, 1972). Woodbine gravel-bar deposits, present in cores of the Cities Service 2B Killingsworth, Shell 55 Watson, and the Arco B142 King wells, are composed of 3060 ft (918 m) multiple 2 4-ft (0.61.2-m) beds of gravel capped by thin (commonly <4 in. [<10 cm]) beds of medium to very coarse sandstone grading upward into medium to very coarse pebbly sandstone (Figure 11). A core from the Cities Service 2B Killingsworth well contains an abrupt, basal contact defined by a 1-ft (0.3-m) bed of gravelly and pebbly, very coarse sandstone overlying a 10-ft (3-m) section of burrowed siltstone with thin (centimeter-scale), laminated and rippled, very fine sandstone (Figure 11b). Pebbles in this basal, very coarse sandstone are composed of subrounded and subangular pink quartzite and microporous (degraded) chert. The overlying section consists of multiple 1 2-ft (0.3 0.6-m) gravel beds with thin (12-in., 2.55.0-cm), coarse sandstone interbeds. Pebble and coarse-granule clasts in these gravel beds are composed dominantly of chert with lesser amounts of quartz (Figure 11c). Gravel clasts in some zones display crude imbrication, although this type of stratification is not evident in many other zones. The gravel-dominated, lower section from 3622 to 3637 ft (1104.3 1108.8 m) in the Cities Service 2B Killingsworth well is overlain by a 12-ft (3.7-m), oil-stained section composed of laminated and cross-bedded, medium sandstone interbedded with a 2.5-ft (0.8-m) bed composed of coarse sandstone with pebbles (Figure 11d). The gamma-ray response of the gravelly and coarse sandstones in the Cities Service 2B Killingsworth core is sharp based and blocky and exhibits a significant leftward deflection with respect to the underlying fine-grained section (Figure 11a). This log response, typical of the Woodbine fluvial incised-valley section in the East Texas field, is a feature on which our interpretation of bed-load fluvial deposits is partly based. A short (30 ft, 9 m) section of core from the Arco B142 King well includes parts of all three ma260 Woodbine Group of East Texas Field
jor stratigraphic intervals in the East Texas field: the S1 Woodbine stringers, the S3 incised-valley-fill interval, and the Austin Chalk (Figure 12). As in the Cities Service B2 Killingsworth core, a fine-grained burrowed section of the Woodbine stringer interval is truncated by nonmarine, multistoried gravelbar and sandy channel-fill deposits (Figure 12a, b). Stacking patterns in the valley-fill section are nonsystematic, with no net vertical grain-size trend, although much of the upper valley fill is inferred to have been eroded. The Austin Chalk composes the top 4 ft (1.2 m) of the core. The base-of-Austin unconformity is overlain by large rip-up clasts from the underlying Woodbine section, as well as abundant shell fragments, reflecting marine transgression over the exposed Woodbine surface (Figure 12c). Woodbine S3 incised-valley-fill deposits in the NPA display southwest-trending contour patterns (Figure 18b). Systematic southeastward-decreasing net-sandstone values in this map reflect beveling by the base-of-Austin unconformity and resulting southeastward thinning of this section toward the Sabine uplift (Figure 8a); they do not correspond to original depositional thinning or greater mudstone content. However, in downdip parts of the NPA, primary depositional axes expressed as tributary patterns containing more than 75 ft (>23 m) of net sandstone within a bed-load fluvial valley-fill system can be inferred.
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES Although the East Texas field has produced 5.42 BSTB and has a high recovery efficiency of 77%, the amount of remaining oil (approximately 1.6 BSTB) is great, partly because of the large original oil in place (OOIP) of 7.03 BSTB, the poor sweep efficiency and variability in reservoir properties of discontinuous stringer sandstones, and large volumes (1.05 BSTB) of residual oil. Production characteristics of the S1 highstand deltaic and S3 lowstand incised-valley-fill successions vary greatly and are partly a function of contrasting sandstone architecture and depositional origin (Table 1). For example, reservoir sandstone geometry in the S1 highstand
Table 1. Summary of Reservoir Sandstone Thickness, Geometry, Heterogeneity, Drive Mechanism, Production Characteristics, and Recovery Strategies in the S1 Highstand Deltaic and S3 Lowstand Incised-Valley-Fill Successions in East Texas Field
Plugging lower, water-producing zones; recompletion zones of interbedded conglomeratic and potentially oil-saturated sandy zones (NPA) Well deepening (NPA), strategically targeted water flooding, and limited polymer flooding (SPA)
Sequence
S3 lowstand: incised-valley fill
S1 highstand: fluvial-dominated delta
deltaic succession is dominated by dip-elongate, distributary-channel sandstone bodies, whereas bed-load, fluvial-channel-fill sandstones in the S3 lowstand incised-valley-fill succession, associated with a strong water drive, are inferred to be wellconnected vertically and laterally (Table 1). Fewer infill or well-deepening opportunities exist relative to those in the S1 highstand deltaic succession. Recovery strategies in the S3 lowstand incisedvalley-fill succession are focused mainly on plugging off lower, water-saturated zones to avoid upward water encroachment, as well as identifying thin (commonly <5 ft [<1.5 m]) zones of oil-saturated, coarse sandstones interbedded with sandy conglomerates. In contrast, sandstone bodies in the relatively complex S1 highstand deltaic succession, associated with both solution-gas and water drive recovery mechanisms, exhibit great variation in reservoir quality (Table 2). Sweep efficiency and secondary recovery vary greatly between individual leases in the S1 highstand deltaic succession in the SPA. Two main development strategies in the East Texas field, well deepening and optimized waterfloods, are options for increasing recovery efficiency and are described here in detail. Successful implementation of these strategies will depend on a thorough understanding of the reservoir sandstone architecture and its control on fluid flow. Other strategies, including polymer flooding and enhanced oil recovery (EOR), which are not described in detail in this study, can also be used to improve recovery efficiency in the field. Polymer flooding can recover additional remaining oil in the field by diverting waterfloods into poorly swept stringer sandstones where high-permeability sandstones in the overlying incised-valley-fill section have served as thief zones. The EOR would target the remaining 1.05 BSTB of residual oil in the field. The presence of high API-gravity oil (38j) in permeable reservoirs is an incentive for pursuing EOR in the East Texas field. However, CO2 flooding in the field would likely be immiscible because the reservoirs are low pressure (1250 psi). The minimum miscibility pressure for 38j API oil at 130146jF (54.44 63.33jC) in the field is 18502000 psi (Ambrose et al., 2007). Moreover, the potential for CO2
Ambrose et al. 261
Recovery Strategies
Significant water encroachment and vertical migration of oil-water contact
Drive Mechanism
Thin zones of interchannel mudstones and sandy conglomerates
30 125 ft; broad, well-connected sheet sandstones
5 25 ft; narrow, dip-elongate sandbodies crosscutting structural gradient
Net-Sandstone Values and Geometry
Sandbody pinch-outs, muddy and silty matrix, zones of soft-sediment deformation
Reservoir Heterogeneity
Solution-gas and water drive
Water drive
Steep decline in deepened wells caused by limited reservoir-compartment size (NPA); variable pressure support from water flooding of complex sandstones (SPA)
Production Behavior
Table 2. Summary of Selected Reservoir Properties (Porosity and Klinkenberg Permeability at a Confining Pressure of 2000 psi) and Lateral Extent of Principal Facies in the S1 Highstand Deltaic and S3 Lowstand Incised-Valley-Fill Successions Inferred from Net-Sandstone Maps in the Southern Part of East Texas Field
Dip Continuity (ft)
leakage is great in the field because of wellbore integrity issues; casing leaks have been reported from approximately one-fourth of the approximately 31,000 wells in the field (East Texas Engineering Association, 1953).
1000 3000 20 40 ft: digitate
500 1000 20 40 ft: digitate
Strike Continuity (ft)
> 5000
500 1000 4000
> 10,000
3000 500
Well Deepening Production of oil in the East Texas field by deepening of existing wells is primarily from stringer sandstones in the S1 highstand deltaic succession that are inferred to contain limited, untapped reservoir compartments because of abrupt lateral and vertical changes in thickness of sandstone bodies. Permeability and porosity data in Table 2, in conjunction with net-sandstone maps in Figure 17, indicate that that primary reservoir facies in the S1 highstand deltaic succession in the SPA occur in thick (>25 ft, >7.6 m) distributary-channel and channel-mouth-bar stringer sandstones. In the NPA, the thickest stringer sandstones (>10 ft, >3 m) occur in southwest-trending belts composed of channel-fill deposits in an upper delta-plain setting (Figures 18a, 19). Early production in the field focused on thick, permeable sandstones in the upper, incised-valley-fill interval, with many wells not penetrating the underlying stringer sandstones. In addition, some stringer sandstones, particularly in the NPA, have been commingled with the upper incised-valley-fill sandstones and, after being shut in, may have been resaturated with oil resulting from updip migration. For potential targets in the stringer sandstones that could be produced either through well deepening or recompletions to be ranked, all commingled and shut-in wells must be identified, and locations where relatively thick sandstone bodies are distributed in areas where fewer already producing stringer wells exist must be determined. Several examples of production from recently deepened wells in the NPA illustrate the potential for additional oil recovery that still exists in the East Texas field (Figure 19). In October 2007, the recently deepened Danmark 12 Moncrief well, located in the southwest part of the NPA, produced 69 barrels of oil per day (BOPD). This well occurs
Klinkenberg Permeability Range and Mean (md)
< 1.0 1650.0 (847.0)
Porosity Range and Mean (%)
13.0 27.5 (22.3)
262
Crevasse splay (S1 highstand) Distributary channel (S1 highstand)
Channel-mouth bar (S1 highstand)
Incised-valley fill (S3 lowstand)
Delta front (S1 highstand)
Facies
9.325.5 (17.7) 14.2 30.0 (24.5)
4.725.4 (18.3)
2.937.4 (17.2)
< 1.0 1360.0 (262.1) < 12320.0 (897.5)
< 1.0 678.0 (142.8)
8.8 954.0 (285.1)
Depositional axes 75 100; broad sheets within valley-fill complex 5 20; elongate trend flanking distributary-channel axes 10 25; elongate-to-arcuate trend flanking termini of distributarychannel axes 5 20 ft: digitate 20 40 ft: digitate
Net-Sandstone Values (ft) and Patterns
Figure 19. Selected recently deepened and successfully producing wells in S1 highstand stringer sandstones in the NPA. The northwest southeast stratigraphic section in the northwestern part of the NPA is shown in Figure 20. STB = stock tank barrels. SND = SND Energy Company, Inc. Ambrose et al. 263
Figure 20. Northwest southeast stratigraphic cross section that includes the deepened SND 3 Spurrier well in the northwestern part of the NPA, illustrating inferred facies architecture of stringer sandstones in the S1 highstand deltaic succession. The line of section is located in Figures 18a and 19. GR = gamma ray; SP = spontaneous potential; Res = resistivity; SB = sequence boundary. TXOK = TXOK Energy Resources Co.; SND = SND Energy Company, Inc.
in a southwest-trending, anastomosing, fluvial stringer depositional axis with 12 ft (3.7 m) of net sandstone. Although the overlying, low-resistivity, upper incised-valley-fill sandstone was inferred to be depleted, an upper sandstone bed in the lower stringer sandstone interval, more than 20 ft (>6 m) below the incised-valley-fill sandstone, was inferred from relatively higher resistivity values to contain additional untapped oil (Figure 19). The Danmark C-17 Bumpas well is also located in a major stringer fluvial depositional axis (defined by >10 ft [>3 m] of net sandstone) in the western part of the NPA (Figure 19). This deepened well initially produced 125 BOPD, resulting in a sharp increase in the monthly production of the Bumpas C lease from less than 400 bbl to more than 3500 bbl before production began to decline again (Figure 19). The SND 18 Satterwhite well, deepened in late 2005, demonstrates that additional oil can be produced in minor fluvial stringer depositional axes with thin (5 ft, 1.5 m) net-sandstone values (Figure 19). The SND 18 Satterwhite well, located in a southwest-trending stringer fluvial tributary system, initially produced 20 BOPD and tempo264 Woodbine Group of East Texas Field
rarily halted production decline in the Satterwhite lease (Figure 19). The SND 3 Spurrier and SND 6 Spurrier wells are two neighboring wells in the northwestern part of the NPA that were deepened in October 1996 and November 1997, respectively (Figure 19). Both wells are on the west margin of a south-trending tributary, where net-sandstone values range from 5 to 15 ft (1.5 to 4.5 m). As a result of these two wells being deepened and completed in Woodbine stringer sandstones, monthly oil production in the Spurrier lease initially climbed from approximately 480 bbl of oil per month to more than 1500 bbl of oil per month (Figure 19). A northwest southeast stratigraphic cross section in the northwestern part of the NPA shows that the deepened SND 3 Spurrier well is located on the west margin of a complex of multistoried channel-fill sandstones preserved below the base of the S3 lowstand incised-valley-fill succession (Figure 20). Two sandstone intervals were perforated in this deepened well: the lower one in a channel-fill sandstone inferred to pinch out northwestward into relatively muddy channel-margin deposits, and the upper
Figure 21. Net-sandstone maps of two genetic depositional units in the S1 highstand stringer section in the SPA, with monthly production per lease in 2007, distribution of water-injection wells, and an example of increased oil recovery by water injection in thick (> 20 ft, > 6 m), continuous, distributary-channel sandstones in the Mason lease. Monthly production of the combined stringer sandstones varies greatly between individual leases in SPA and is partly related to local facies and net-sandstone distribution. Secondary recovery could be made more cost effective in these reservoir examples by discontinuing water injection in sandstonepoor areas where production has ceased from interdistributary and distal-delta-front facies. (a) Net sandstone in the LWB 30 40 unit. (b) Net sandstone in the LWB 20 30 unit. (c). Monthly oil production in stock tank barrels (STB) from the Mason lease from 1993 to present. Increased oil production in the Mason lease in 1997 was caused by water injection into transmissive, southwesttrending distributary-channel sandstones in the LWB 30 40 unit. The location of SPA is shown in Figure 1. The west east structural cross section in the Kinney lease is shown in Figure 22. Ambrose et al. 265
Figure 22. Westeast structural cross section in the Kinney lease in the SPA, showing the location of water-injection wells and the complex deltaic facies architecture in the lower Woodbine (LWB) 40 30 interval in the S1 highstand deltaic succession. The line of section is shown in Figure 21a. GR = gamma ray; Res = resistivity.
one in a thin (5 ft, 1.5 m), channel-margin sandstone inferred to be in poor lateral communication with thicker and sandier channel-fill deposits eastward. Optimized Waterfloods Pressure support from injected water has been under way in many areas in the East Texas field since 1938, increasing recovery efficiency to 77%. However, water flooding could locally be made more cost effective by reducing the number of waterinjection wells in sandstone-poor areas, where production has declined to as little as 2 BOPD. Other options include designing mini waterfloods to provide pressure support in areas where discontinuous stringer sandstones have not been penetrated by existing well bores or where relatively thick distributary-channel sandstones are favorably oriented along the structural gradient. Two genetic depositional units in the Woodbine stringer section (LWB 2030 and LWB 3040) in the SPA illustrate relationships between facies and geometry of sandstone bodies, oil production, and how water flooding patterns could be redesigned to increase efficiency (Figure 21a, b). In addition, the complex lateral and vertical geometry of sandstone bodies and facies architecture in parasequences in the S1 highstand deltaic succession such as the LWB 40
30 interval (Figure 21a) are inferred to limit pathways for injected water where sandy distributarychannel sandstones pinch out laterally into thinner, muddier, and poorly transmissive delta-front deposits (Figure 22). Monthly production from individual leases varies greatly throughout the area and is partly related to local facies and net-sandstone distribution. For example, relatively greater monthly production in the S1 highstand deltaic succession occurs in leases in the northern and west-central part of the SPA where water-injection wells contact thick (>20 ft, >6 m) distributary-channel sandstones (Figure 21). In contrast, there has been no production from sandstone-poor interdistributary or delta-front facies in the Strickland lease in the southeast corner of the SPA in either the LWB 20 30 or LWB 3040 units since 1996. Secondary recovery could be made more cost effective in the SPA by discontinuing water injection in the Strickland lease, as well as in other muddy areas where water injection into thin, discontinuous sandstones will provide ineffective pressure support and result in poor sweep efficiency. In contrast, water injection into thick (>20 ft, >6 m) distributary-channel sandstones in the Mason lease in the southwest corner of the SPA has been successful in boosting monthly oil production by providing pressure support in other wells to the northeast that are in the
same distributary-channel trend and that are also up the structural gradient (Figure 21).
CONCLUSIONS

This study presents a sequence-stratigraphic and new depositional model for the lower Woodbine Group in the East Texas field. Characterization of the sequence stratigraphy of the complete Woodbine succession in the East Texas Basin enabled (1) the interpretation of structural influences and their timing on Woodbine deposition in the East Texas field and (2) the correlation of fourthorder sequences to the field where the unit is truncated, thus enabling the construction of a precise chronostratigraphic framework within the field for accurate mapping of reservoir-facies trends. Dip-elongate sandstones and conglomerates of lowstand incised-valley (bed-load fluvial) and highstand (high-constructive deltaic) systems tracts compose the fields productive zones. This interpretation contrasts with the seminal Woodbine study of Oliver (1971), which infers meanderbelt-fluvial and strike-elongate stacked coastal-barrier facies of high-destructive deltas in the field area. The lowermost Woodbine Group in the East Texas field was deposited in a series of dipelongate, fluvial-dominated deltas in an overall highstand succession. This highstand succession is truncated by a lowstand succession of incisedvalley-fill fluvial deposits that are composed of multistoried, conglomeratic sandstones. The greatest relative reservoir heterogeneity in the East Texas field is inferred to occur in the S1 highstand, fluvial-dominated deltaic succession, where narrow distributary-channel and lobate crevasse-splay sandstones pinch out over short distances (commonly a few hundred feet) into interdistributary mudstones and siltstones. Reservoir continuity is inferred to be relatively greater in the overlying S3 lowstand incisedvalley fluvial succession, composed of gravelly and sandy bedload channel-fill deposits. Great potential exists for production of undrilled, deeper Woodbine S1 highstand deltaic
sandstones and poorly swept pay in the East Texas field despite the field having produced oil since 1930. Additional mobile oil can be produced in discontinuous lower Woodbine stringer sandstones through deepening of existing wells and recompletions. Waterfloods can be better designed to take advantage of the discontinuous reservoir sandstone geometry. Costs can be reduced by shutting off water-injection wells in muddy areas where no appreciable pressure support exists.
REFERENCES CITED
Adair, J. K., 1960, East Texas oil field, Gregg, Rusk, Upshur, Smith, and Cherokee counties, Texas: Compass, v. 37, no. 3, p. 174 181. Alexander, C. I., 1951, History of discovery and development of Woodbine oil fields in East Texas, in The Woodbine and adjacent strata: History of discovery and development of Woodbine oil fields in east Texas: Dallas Petroleum Geologists Fondren Science Series, p. 12 20. Ambrose, W. A., T. F. Hentz, F. P. Wang, F. Bonnaffe R. G. , Loucks, E. C. Potter, and S. Clift, 2007, Pilot study of East Texas field: Geology, engineering, and potential exploitation workshop: University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, State of Texas Advanced Resource Recovery and Petroleum Technology Transfer Council Workshop No. SW0017, variously paginated. Arndorfer, D. J., 1973, Discharge patterns in two crevasses in the Mississippi River delta: Marine Geology, v. 15, p. 269 287. Arthur, M. A., S. O. Schlanger, and H. C. Jenkyns, 1987, The Cenomanian Turonian anoxic event: II. Paleoceanographic controls on organic matter production and preservation, in J. Brooks and A. J. Fleet, eds., Marine petroleum source rocks: Geological Society (London) Special Publication 26, p. 401 420. Bhattacharya, J., and R. G. Walker, 1991, River- and wavedominated depositional systems of the Upper Cretaceous Dunvegan Formation, northwestern Alberta: Canadian Petroleum Geology Bulletin, v. 39, p. 165 191. Boothroyd, J. C., 1972, Coarse-grained sedimentation on a braided outwash fan, northeast Gulf of Alaska: University of South Carolina, Coastal Research Division, Technical Report No. 6, 127 p. Brown Jr., L. F., A. W. Cleaves II, and A. W. Erxleben, 1973, Pennsylvanian depositional systems in north-central Texas: University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Guidebook 14, 122 p. Brown Jr., L. F., R. F. Sols-Iriarte, and D. A. Johns, 1990, Regional depositional systems tracts, paleogeography, and sequence stratigraphy, upper Pennsylvanian and lower Permian strata, north- and west-central Texas: University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Report of Investigations 197, 116 p., 27 plates.
Ambrose et al.
267
Childs, O. E., G. Steele, and A. Salvador, 1988, Correlation of stratigraphic units of North America (COSUNA) project, Gulf Coast region: AAPG, oversize chart. Christopher, R. A., 1982, The occurrence of the ComplexiopollisAtlantopollis zone (palynomorphs) in the Eagle Ford Group (Upper Cretaceous) of Texas: Journal of Paleontology, v. 56, no. 2, p. 525541. Coleman, J. M., and S. M. Gagliano, 1964, Cyclic sedimentation in the Mississippi River delta plain: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 14, p. 67 80. Coleman, J. M., and D. B. Prior, 1982, Deltaic environments, in P. A. Scholle and D. R. Spearing, eds., Sandstone depositional environments: AAPG Memoir 31, p. 139 178. Coleman, J. M., and L. D. Wright, 1975, Modern river deltas: Variability of processes and sand bodies, in M. L. Broussard, ed., Deltas: Models for exploration: Houston, Texas, Houston Geological Society, p. 99 149. Coleman, J. M., S. M. Gagliano, and W. G. Smith, 1964, Minor sedimentary structures in a prograding distributary: Marine Geology, v. 1, p. 240 258. DeDominic, J. R., 1988, Deposition of the WoodbineEagleford sandstones, Aggieland field, Brazos County, Texas: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 38, p. 61 68. De Raaf, J. F. M., H. G. Reading, and R. G. Walker, 1965, Cyclic sedimentation in the lower Westphalian of North Devon, England: Sedimentology, v. 4, p. 152. Dubiel, R. F., J. K. Pitman, and D. Steinshouer, 2003, Seismicsequence stratigraphy and petroleum system modeling of the downdip Tuscaloosa-Woodbine, Louisiana and Texas, in G. Stone, J. Wrenn, and S. Bentley, eds., Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies/Gulf Coast Section SEPM Transactions, 53rd Annual Convention, v. 53, p. 193 203. Dzou, L., S. Petmecky, and A. Pepper, 2000, East Texas Basin petroleum systems revisited: Is long distance migration to the giant East Texas field really necessary? (abs.): AAPG Annual Convention Program, v. 9, p. A44. East Texas Engineering Association, 1953, The East Texas oil field, 1930 1950: Kilgore, Texas, East Texas Engineering Association, 644 p. Elliott, T., 1974, Interdistributary bay sequences and their genesis: Sedimentology, v. 21, p. 611 622. Ewing, T. E., 1991a, The tectonic framework of Texas: Austin, Texas, University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, 36 p. Ewing, T. E., 1991b, Structural framework, in A. Salvador, ed., The Gulf of Mexico Basin: Geological Society of America, Decade of North American Geology, v. J, p. 37. Fisk, H. N., 1961, Bar finger sands of the Mississippi delta, in J. A. Peterson and J. C. Osmond, eds., Geometry of sandstone bodies A symposium, 45th Annual Meeting, Atlantic City, NJ: AAPG Special Publication, p. 29 52. Foss, D. C., 1979, Depositional environment of Woodbine sandstones, Polk County, Texas: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 29, p. 83 94. Frazier, D. E., 1967, Recent deltaic deposits of the Mississippi River: Their development and chronology: Gulf
Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 17, p. 287 315. Galloway, W. E., 1975, Process framework for describing the morphological and stratigraphic evolution of deltaic depositional systems, in M. L. Broussard, ed., Deltas: Models for exploration: Houston, Texas, Houston Geological Society, p. 87 98. Galloway, W. E., T. E. Ewing, C. M. Garrett Jr., N. Tyler, and D. G. Bebout, 1983, Atlas of major Texas oil reservoirs: Austin, Texas, University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, 139 p. Granata Jr., W. H., 1963, Cretaceous stratigraphy and structural development of the Sabine uplift area, Texas and Louisiana, in L. A. Herrmann, ed., Report on selected north Louisiana and south Arkansas oil and gas fields Reference volume 5: Shreveport, Louisiana, Shreveport Geological Society, p. 50 95. Halbouty, M. T., and J. J. Halbouty, 1982, Relationships between East Texas field region and Sabine uplift in Texas: AAPG Bulletin, v. 66, no. 8, p. 1042 1054. Haq, B. U., J. Hardenbol, and P. R. Vail, 1988, Mesozoic and Cenozoic chronostratigraphy and cycles of sea level change, in C. K. Wilgus, C. A. Ross, H. Posamentier, and C. G. St. C. Kendall, eds., Sea-level changes: An integrated approach: SEPM Special Publication 42, p. 71 108. Herbin, J. P., L. Montadert, C. Muller, R. Gomez, J. Thurow, and J. Wiedmann, 1986, Organic-rich sedimentation at the CenomanianTuronian boundary in oceanic and coastal basins in the North Atlantic and Tethys, in C. P. Summerhayes and N. J. Shackleton, eds., North American paleoceanography: Geological Society (London) Special Publication 21, p. 389 422. Houseknecht, D. W., 1987, Assessing the relative importance of compaction processes and cementation to reduction of porosity in sandstones: AAPG Bulletin, v. 71, no. 6, p. 633 642. Hudnall, J. S., 1951, East Texas field, in F. A. Herald, ed., Occurrence of oil and gas in northeast Texas: University of Texas at Austin Publication No. 5116, p. 113 118. Jackson, M. P. A., 1982, Fault tectonics of the East Texas Basin: University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Geological Circular 82-4, 31 p. Jackson, M. L. W., and S. E. Laubach, 1988, Cretaceous and Tertiary compressional tectonics as the cause of the Sabine arch, east Texas and northwest Louisiana: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 38, p. 245 256. Jackson, M. L. W., and S. E. Laubach, 1991, Structural history and origin of the Sabine arch, east Texas and northwest Louisiana: Bureau of Economic Geology Geological Circular No. 91-3, 47 p. Jackson, M. P. A., and S. J. Seni, 1984, Atlas of salt domes in the East Texas Basin: University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Report of Investigations No. 140, 102 p. Jasper, A. K., and W. O. Wagner, 1989, Kerens, South (Woodbine) field, in F. A. Herald, ed., Occurrence of oil and gas in northeast Texas: Tyler, Texas, East Texas Geological Society, p. 73-78.
268
Kelling, G., and G. T. George, 1971, Upper Carboniferous sedimentation in the Pembrokeshire coalfield, in D. A. Bassett and M. G. Bassett, eds., Geological excursions in South Wales and the Forest of Dean: Cardiff, Wales, Geological Association South Wales Group, p. 240 259. Loeblich Jr., A. R., and H. Tappan, 1961, Cretaceous planktonic foraminifera: Part I. Cenomanian: Micopaleontology, v. 7, no. 3, p. 257 304. Mancini, E. A., and T. M. Puckett, 2005, Jurassic and Cretaceous transgressive-regressive (T-R) cycles, northern Gulf of Mexico, U.S.A.: Stratigraphy, v. 2, no. 1, p. 31 48. McBride, E. F., A. E. Weidie, and J. A.Wolleben, 1975, Deltaic and associated deposits of Difunta Group (Late Cretaceous to Paleocene), Parras and La Popa Basins, northwestern Mexico, in M. L. Broussard, ed., Deltas, models for exploration: Houston, Texas, Houston Geological Society, p. 485 522. Minor, H. E., and M. A. Hanna, 1933, East Texas oil field: AAPG Bulletin, v. 17, no. 7, p. 757 792. Mitchum, R. M., J. B. Sangree, P. R. Vail, and W. W. Wornardt, 1993, Recognizing sequences and systems tracts from well logs, seismic data, and biostratigraphy: Examples from the Late Cenozoic of the Gulf of Mexico, in P. Weimer and H. Posamentier, eds., Siliciclastic sequence stratigraphy: Recent developments and applications: AAPG Memoir 58, p. 163 197. Nunn, J. A., 1990, Relaxation of continental lithosphere: An explanation for Late Cretaceous reactivation of the Sabine uplift of Louisiana-Texas: Tectonics, v. 9, no. 2, p. 341 359. Oliver, W. B., 1971, Depositional systems in the Woodbine Formation (Upper Cretaceous), northeast Texas: University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Report of Investigations No. 73, 28 p. Oomkens, E., 1967, Depositional sequences and sand distribution in a deltaic complex: Geologie en Mijnbouw, v. 46, p. 265 278. Oomkens, E., 1974, Lithofacies relations in the late Quaternary Niger Delta complex: Sedimentology, v. 21, p. 195 222. Ore, H. T., 1963, Some criteria for recognition of braided stream deposits: Wyoming University Department of Geology Contributions to Geology, v. 3, p. 114. Pessagno Jr., E. A., 1969, Upper Cretaceous stratigraphy of the western Gulf Coast area of Mexico, Texas, and Arkansas: Geological Society of America Memoir 111, 139 p. Phillips, S., 1987, Shelf sedimentation and depositional sequence stratigraphy of the Upper Cretaceous WoodbineEagle Ford groups, east Texas: Ph.D. dissertation, Ithaca, Cornell University, 507 p. Rust, B. R., 1972, Structure and process in a braided river: Sedimentology, v. 18, p. 221 245. Salvador, A., 1991, Origin and development of the Gulf of Mexico Basin, in A. Salvador, ed., The Gulf of Mexico Basin: Geological Society of America, Decade of North American Geology, v. J, p. 389 444.
Salvador, A., and J. M. Q. Muneton, compilers, 1989, Strat igraphic correlation chart, Gulf of Mexico Basin, the Gulf Coast Basin: Geological Society of America, The Geology of North America, v. J, plate 5. Scott, G., 1926, The Woodbine sand of Texas interpreted as a regressive phenomenon: AAPG Bulletin, v. 10, no. 6, p. 613 624. Seni, S. J., and M. P. A. Jackson, 1984, Sedimentary record of Cretaceous and Tertiary salt movement, East Texas Basin: University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Report of Investigations No. 139, 89 p. Siemers, C. T., 1978, Submarine fan deposition of the Woodbine-Eagle Ford interval (Upper Cretaceous), Tyler County, Texas: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 28, p. 493 533. Smith, N. D., 1970, The braided stream depositional environment: Comparison of the Platte River with some Silurian clastic rocks, north-central Appalachians: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 81, p. 2993 3014. Smith, N. D., 1974, Sedimentology and bar formation in the Upper Kicking Horse River, a braided outwash stream: Journal of Geology, v. 82, p. 205 224. Sohl, N. F., E. R. Martnez, P. Salmeron-Urena, and F. Soto Jaramillo, 1991, Upper Cretaceous, in A. Salvador, ed., The Gulf of Mexico Basin: Geological Society of America, Decade of North American Geology, v. J, p. 205 244. Stehli, F. G., W. B. Creath, C. F. Upshaw, and J. M. Forgotson Jr., 1972, Depositional history of Gulfian Cretaceous of east Texas embayment: AAPG Bulletin, v. 56, no. 1, p. 38 67. Surles Jr., M. A., 1985, Petroleum and source rock potential of Eagle Ford Group ( Upper Cretaceous), East Texas Basin (abs.): AAPG Bulletin, v. 69, no. 2, p. 309. Turner, J. R., and S. J. Conger, 1981, Environment of deposition and reservoir properties of the Woodbine sandstone at Kurten field, Brazos County, Texas: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 31, p. 213 232. Tye, R. S., and J. M. Coleman, 1988, Evolution of Atchafalaya lacustrine deltas, south-central Louisiana: Sedimentary Geology, v. 65, p. 95 112. Van Wagoner, J. C., R. M. Mitchum, K. M. Campion, and V. D. Rahmanian, 1990, Siliciclastic sequence stratigraphy in well logs, cores, and outcrops: Concepts for highresolution correlation of time and facies: AAPG Methods in Exploration Series 7, 55 p. Wood, D. H., and E. H. Guevara, 1981, Regional structural cross sections and general stratigraphy, East Texas Basin: Austin, Texas, University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, 21 p. plus 8 plates. Wright, L. D., W. J. Wiseman, B. D. Bornhold, D. B. Prior, J. N. Suhayda, G. H. Keller, Z. S. Yang, and Y. B. Fan, 1988, Marine dispersal and deposition of Yellow River silts by gravity-driven underflows: Nature, v. 332, p. 629 632.
Ambrose et al.
269

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sequence-stratigraphic controls on complex reservoir architecture of highstand fluvial-dominated deltaic and lowstand valley-fill deposits in the Upper Cretaceous

AAPG Bulletin, v. 93, no. 2 (February 2009), pp. 231 269

Woodbine Group of East Texas Field

stone and mudstone intervals within the Woodbine Group.

1972), separates the embayment from the Gulf Coast Basin.

Woodbine Group of East Texas Field

Woodbine Group of East Texas Field

Woodbine Group of East Texas Field

S3 lowstand: incised-valley fill

S1 highstand: fluvial-dominated delta

Significant water encroachment and vertical migration of oil-water contact

Thin zones of interchannel mudstones and sandy conglomerates

30 125 ft; broad, well-connected sheet sandstones

5 25 ft; narrow, dip-elongate sandbodies crosscutting structural gradient

Net-Sandstone Values and Geometry

Sandbody pinch-outs, muddy and silty matrix, zones of soft-sediment deformation

Solution-gas and water drive

Dip Continuity (ft)

1000 3000 20 40 ft: digitate

500 1000 20 40 ft: digitate

Strike Continuity (ft)

500 1000 4000

Klinkenberg Permeability Range and Mean (md)

< 1.0 1650.0 (847.0)

Porosity Range and Mean (%)

13.0 27.5 (22.3)

Woodbine Group of East Texas Field

Crevasse splay (S1 highstand) Distributary channel (S1 highstand)

Channel-mouth bar (S1 highstand)

Incised-valley fill (S3 lowstand)

Delta front (S1 highstand)

9.325.5 (17.7) 14.2 30.0 (24.5)

< 1.0 1360.0 (262.1) < 12320.0 (897.5)

< 1.0 678.0 (142.8)

8.8 954.0 (285.1)

Net-Sandstone Values (ft) and Patterns

Woodbine Group of East Texas Field

You might also like

500 1000 4000