Eagle Ford Group

Last updated
Eagle Ford Group
Stratigraphic range: Cenomanian-Turonian
~96–90  Ma
Type Group
Sub-units Britton Formation, Arcadia Park Shale Formation, Lake Waco Formation, South Bosque Formation, Boquillas Formation
Underlies Austin Chalk
Overlies Woodbine Formation or Buda Limestone
Lithology
Primary Shale
Other Marl, limestone, sandstone, volcanic ash beds
Location
Region Texas
CountryFlag of the United States.svg  United States
Type section
Named for Eagle Ford, Texas [1]
Named byRobert T. Hill [1]
Year defined1887
Eagle Ford outcrop map.jpg
Eagle Ford stratigraphic column Austin Chalk stratigraphic column in Texas.png
Eagle Ford stratigraphic column
Outcrop of the Eagle Ford and Austin Chalk Contact off Kiest Blvd, 1/2 mile east of Patriot Pky in Dallas County Austin Chalk -Eagle Ford Contact.JPG
Outcrop of the Eagle Ford and Austin Chalk Contact off Kiest Blvd, 1/2 mile east of Patriot Pky in Dallas County

The Eagle Ford Group (also called the Eagle Ford Shale) is a sedimentary rock formation deposited during the Cenomanian and Turonian ages of the Late Cretaceous over much of the modern-day state of Texas. The Eagle Ford is predominantly composed of organic matter-rich fossiliferous marine shales and marls with interbedded thin limestones. It derives its name from outcrops on the banks of the West Fork of the Trinity River near the old community of Eagle Ford, [1] which is now a neighborhood within the city of Dallas. The Eagle Ford outcrop belt trends from the Oklahoma-Texas border southward to San Antonio, westward to the Rio Grande, Big Bend National Park, and the Quitman Mountains of West Texas. [2] It also occurs in the subsurface of East Texas and South Texas, where it is the source rock for oil found in the Woodbine, Austin Chalk, and the Buda Limestone, [3] and is produced unconventionally in South Texas and the "Eaglebine" play of East Texas. [4]

Contents

The Eagle Ford was one of the most actively drilled targets for unconventional oil and gas in the United States in 2010, [5] but its output had dropped sharply by 2015. [6] By the summer of 2016, Eagle Ford spending had dropped by two-thirds from $30 billion in 2014 to $10 billion, according to an analysis from the research firm Wood Mackenzie. This strike has been the hardest hit of any oil fields in the world. As of 2016, the spending was, however, expected to increase to $11.6 billion in 2017. A full recovery was not expected any time soon. [7]

Fossils are relatively common in Eagle Ford rocks. Fossilized Plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, Fish, shark teeth, crustaceans, sea urchins, feather stars, ammonites, oysters, clams, and other gastropod shells have all been found there. [8] [9] [10]

Depositional environment

Schematic E-W section showing the Eagle Ford Shale among the geological strata beneath the DFW Metroplex DFWsection.jpg
Schematic E-W section showing the Eagle Ford Shale among the geological strata beneath the DFW Metroplex

The Eagle Ford rocks were created by the remains of sea life that dropped to the floor of an inland sea (or epeiric sea) that covered much of modern-day Texas. The Texas shelf during the Cenomanian-Turonian was bounded by the Ouachita Uplift to the north, the Sabine Uplift to the East, relict reef margins of the Stuart City Formation and the Sligo Formation to the southeast, and the Western Interior Seaway to the west. The East Texas and South Texas regions were divided by an extension of the Llano Uplift known as the San Marcos Arch. Primary basins active during Eagle Ford deposition were the East Texas and Brazos Basins in East Texas and the Maverick Basin in South Texas. [11]

The bottom waters of the Eagle Ford sea were starved of oxygen when most of the Eagle Ford material dropped to the sea floor, and this is related to the global Oceanic Anoxic Event 2 (OAE2), or Cenomanian-Turonian boundary event, although the Texas shelf became that way nearly two million years prior to OAE2. [2] The low-oxygen conditions helped preserve the organic matter that ultimately generated the hydrocarbons associated with the Eagle Ford in the subsurface. [3] Evidence for anoxia include the high amounts of organic matter, the lack of fossils or trace fossils of the kind of creatures that live on the sea floor, and enrichment in the redox proxies molybdenum and vanadium. [2]

After the significant drop in sea level (marine regression) associated with deposition of the Woodbine during the Early Cenomanian, the sea level began to rise (marine transgression), allowing for the deposition of Lower Eagle Ford organic-rich marls in South Texas and limestones of the Terrell Member of the Boquillas Formation in West Texas starting at about 96 million years ago. [12] [13] The rise in sea level eventually drowned the East Texas Woodbine river deltas, initiating Eagle Ford deposition in East Texas. [14] The initial deposits, known as the Six Flags Limestone in Dallas and the Bluebonnet Limestone in Waco, are calcarenites predominantly composed of disaggregated prisms of "Inoceramus" clams and planktonic foraminifera tests. [15] [16]

Following deposition of the calcarenites, a river delta began to prograde from the Ouachita Uplift to the northern East Texas Basin. [14] Although the sandstones and siltstones from this delta, known as the Templeton Member, were originally placed within the Woodbine Formation, [17] the ammonites found within them indicate that they are better associated with the Eagle Ford. [2] In areas unaffected by the Templeton Delta, depositional rates were low, producing a condensed section composed of organic-rich, calcareous marls, limestones, and volcanic ash beds in both South Texas and West Texas. The microfossils found within the marls are predominantly coccoliths and planktonic foraminifera, whereas the limestones contain abundant radiolaria and calcispheres (calcareous cysts produced by some dinoflagellates). Inoceramus fragments and fish bones are also found in these deposits. [2]

During the Late Cenomanian the Sabine Uplift along the modern-day Texas/Louisiana border became active, causing erosion of Eagle Ford and Woodbine sediments [18] and deposition within the Harris Delta complex. [19] Clay from this delta reached as far south as DeWitt County, Texas. [14]

Towards the end of the Late Cenomanian, the bottom waters of the Texas shelf and the Western Interior Seaway became oxygenated, [20] which may be related to the sea-level maximum associated with the Cenomanian-Turonian boundary event. [2] Evidence for this oxygenation event, known as the "Benthonic Zone," [21] include an increase in the abundance of benthic organism fossils and bioturbation, a decrease in redox proxies uranium, molybdenum, and vanadium, and a reduction in organic matter. [22] [23] This oxygenation event marks the boundary between the Lower and Upper Eagle Ford in West Texas and the subsurface of South Texas. In general, Upper Eagle Ford rocks deposited during the Cenomanian-Turonian boundary event (OAE2) contain much less organic matter than Lower Eagle Ford rocks, which is the reverse of organic matter trends seen in the global ocean. [10] [20] [22] An unconformity occurs throughout East Texas at this level, possibly due to a lack of sediments reaching the basin during the sea-level maximum. [14]

The sea-level began to drop after the Early Turonian sea-level maximum; this is most obvious at outcrops near Langtry, Texas, where water depths became shallower than 100 ft (30 m). This limestone-rich unit is known as the Langtry Member of the Boquillas Formation. It contains very little organic matter, and abundant sea urchin fossils. [10] The Kamp Ranch Limestone is found above the unconformity in the Dallas area. It is similar to the older Six Flags and Bluebonnet Limestones, as it is predominantly composed of disaggregated prisms of Inoceramus clams [24] and has ripple marks indicative of shallow-water deposition. [25] As the sea level continued to fall during the Late Turonian, deltaic sediments originating from the Ouachita Uplift prograded into the northern East Texas region. These sandstones are known as the Sub-Clarksville Delta in the subsurface and the Bells Sandstone in outcrop. [26] [27] In the South Texas subsurface, the age equivalent unit to the Langtry Member is more calcareous than the underlying Upper Eagle Ford rocks, making them difficult to distinguish from the limestones of the overlying Austin Chalk, although an unconformity is found between the Eagle Ford and the Austin Chalk in both South Texas and East Texas. [2]

Eagle Ford unconformity

This cross-section illustrates how the reactivation of the Sabine Uplift in the East developed the Woodbine/Eagle Ford Unconformity that is present in the subsurface of Far East Texas Eagle Ford Unconformity.JPG
This cross-section illustrates how the reactivation of the Sabine Uplift in the East developed the Woodbine/Eagle Ford Unconformity that is present in the subsurface of Far East Texas

In the Cretaceous after the Woodbine and Eagle Ford formations were deposited, the Sabine Uplift started to become elevated again due to its reactivation ~88 mya. A decrease in the effective elastic plate thicknesses caused the basin to subside as the uplift became increasingly elevated. As a result, an estimated 150 m of uplift over the Sabine region caused the eastern parts of the Woodbine and Eagle Ford formations to have a subaerial exposure, which eventually resulted in their easterly erosion. Deposition of the Austin Chalk after this erosional occurrence caused a sealing of the East Texas petroleum reservoir and the creation of a middle Cretaceous unconformity. Currently, the Sabine Uplift is in the subsurface, and the middle Cretaceous unconformity is not seen because it is buried below a massive wedge of clastic sediments from the Late Cretaceous to the present.[ citation needed ]

Oil and natural gas production

Daily oil production from the Eagle Ford Formation, January 2008 - March 2024 EF Oil Jan2008-Mar2024 v3.png
Daily oil production from the Eagle Ford Formation, January 2008 - March 2024
Daily gas production from the Eagle Ford Formation, January 2008 - March 2024 EF Gas Jan2008-Mar2024 v3.png
Daily gas production from the Eagle Ford Formation, January 2008 - March 2024
Map of the Eagle Ford Shale Play, published by the Texas Railroad Commission TXRRCogm0168.jpg
Map of the Eagle Ford Shale Play, published by the Texas Railroad Commission
The oil to gas ratio from the Eagle Ford increased in 2010 when companies shifted drilling from gas-rich to more oil-rich areas. As reservoir becomes more depleted, the oil to gas ratio has trended lower. EF OGR Jan2008-Mar2024.png
The oil to gas ratio from the Eagle Ford increased in 2010 when companies shifted drilling from gas-rich to more oil-rich areas. As reservoir becomes more depleted, the oil to gas ratio has trended lower.
Eagle Ford Shale flares visible from space (green and infrared wavelengths), in the arc between "1" and "2", amid cities in south Texas in 2012 Southeast Texas at night 2012.png
Eagle Ford Shale flares visible from space (green and infrared wavelengths), in the arc between "1" and "2", amid cities in south Texas in 2012

Paul Basinski, the geologist who helped discover the Eagle Ford basin, has been called "one of the fathers of fracking". [28] Petrohawk drilled the first well to unconventionally produce gas from the Eagle Ford in 2008, in LaSalle County, Texas. Oil companies quickly extended the productive area, which stretches from the Texas-Mexico border in Webb and Maverick counties and extend 400 miles toward East Texas. The play is 50 miles wide and an average of 250 feet thick at a depth between 4000 and 12,000 feet. The shale contains a high amount of carbonate, which makes it brittle, and it is thus easier to use hydraulic fracturing to produce the oil or gas. [29]

The oil reserves in the Eagle Ford Shale Play were estimated in 2011 at 3 billion barrels. [30] The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimated that the Eagle Ford held 50.2 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of unproved, technically recoverable gas. The average well was estimated to recover 2.36 billion cubic feet (BCF) of gas. [31]

In 2011, the Eagle Ford produced an average of 1.14 BCF/day of gas and 211,000 barrels/day of oil and condensate. In 2012, the Eagle Ford produced an average of 2.43 BCF/day of gas and 566,000 barrels/day of oil and condensate. By the end of 2013, production had skyrocketed to well over 1,000,000 BOE/day (1 MMBOE/day). [32] In 2013, the Eagle Ford produced an average of 3.73 BCF/day of gas and 975,000 barrels/day of oil and condensate. In 2014, the Eagle Ford produced an average of 4.85 BCF/day of gas and 1,376,000 barrels/day of oil and condensate.

The large increase in tight oil production from the Eagle Ford is one of factors that led to the oil price drop of late 2014. [33] Total production peaked in March 2015 at 2.62 MMBOE/day (1.625 MMBO/day and 5.75 BCF/day).

Eagle Ford production has occurred in 27 counties in Texas. [34] The large area of oil and gas operations of the Eagle Ford are visible on nighttime satellite photos of the United States, appearing as a diffuse bright patch about two hundred miles long, between the more concentrated lights of San Antonio, Austin, Houston, Victoria, Corpus Christi, Laredo, and neighboring cities. [35]

Proven reserves (US)*

*EIA estimate includes reserves in the basin in other overlying and underlying strata including the Austin Chalk, Olmos/San Miguel, etc.

Mexico

The Eagle Ford Formation extends into northern Mexico's Burgos Basin, where it is known as the Boquillas Formation and has an average thickness of 200 metres (660 ft). Total organic content (TOC) is estimated to average 5%. Technically recoverable hydrocarbons are estimated to be 343 trillion cubic feet of shale gas and 6.3 billion barrels of tight oil. The national oil company Pemex first began exploring in 2010. Pemex had an exploration program in progress until 2015. [40]

In April 2013, Pemex started producing the nation's first shale gas well, just south of the U.S. border. The well was completed in the equivalent of the Eagle Ford Formation. [41] Gas drilling in the Burgos Basin, close to the U.S. border, has been hampered by drug gangs. [42] One Mexican industry expert said that Mexico was unlikely to develop the Eagle Ford because of lack of pipeline infrastructure and lack of expertise and because the Mexican company Pemex was investing in oil deposits that yield a higher rate of return. [43]

Decline in crude oil prices, 2015 onward

With the worldwide decline in crude oil prices in 2015, a sharp downturn swept through Eagle Ford play. In January 2015, there were 840 active drilling rigs in Texas as a whole; by the end of the year, 321. Within the Eagle Ford play, the decline during these twelve months was from 200 to 76 rigs. The oil price decline rendered it uneconomical to drill sub-optimal wells. Particularly hard hit in the decline were the oil-field workers in South Texas. [6]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Permian Basin (North America)</span> Large sedimentary basin in the US

The Permian Basin is a large sedimentary basin in the southwestern part of the United States. It is the highest producing oil field in the United States, producing an average of 4.2 million barrels of crude oil per day in 2019. This sedimentary basin is located in western Texas and southeastern New Mexico.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Geology of the Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex</span>

The Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex sits above Cretaceous-age strata ranging from ≈145-66 Ma. These Cretaceous-aged sediments lie above the eroded Ouachita Mountains and the Fort Worth Basin, which was formed by the Ouachita Orogeny. Going from west to east in the DFW Metroplex and down towards the Gulf of Mexico, the strata get progressively younger. The Cretaceous sediments dip very gently to the east.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">East Texas Oil Field</span> Oil and gas field in east Texas

The East Texas Oil Field is a large oil and gas field in east Texas. Covering 140,000 acres (57,000 ha) and parts of five counties, and having 30,340 historic and active oil wells, it is the second-largest oil field in the United States outside Alaska, and first in total volume of oil recovered since its discovery in 1930. Over 5.42 billion barrels (862,000,000 m3) of oil have been produced from it to-date. It is a component of the Mid-continent oil province, the huge region of petroleum deposits extending from Kansas to New Mexico to the Gulf of Mexico.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">San Juan Basin</span> Structural basin in the Southwestern United States

The San Juan Basin is a geologic structural basin located near the Four Corners region of the Southwestern United States. The basin covers 7,500 square miles and resides in northwestern New Mexico, southwestern Colorado, and parts of Utah and Arizona. Specifically, the basin occupies space in the San Juan, Rio Arriba, Sandoval, and McKinley counties in New Mexico, and La Plata and Archuleta counties in Colorado. The basin extends roughly 100 miles (160 km) N-S and 90 miles (140 km) E-W.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sirte Basin</span>

The Sirte Basin is a late Mesozoic and Cenozoic triple junction continental rift along northern Africa that was initiated during the late Jurassic Period. It borders a relatively stable Paleozoic craton and cratonic sag basins along its southern margins. The province extends offshore into the Mediterranean Sea, with the northern boundary drawn at the 2,000 meter (m) bathymetric contour. It borders in the north on the Gulf of Sidra and extends south into northern Chad.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bend Arch–Fort Worth Basin</span> Major petroleum producing region in Texas and Oklahoma

The Bend Arch–Fort Worth Basin Province is a major petroleum producing geological system which is primarily located in North Central Texas and southwestern Oklahoma. It is officially designated by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) as Province 045 and classified as the Barnett-Paleozoic Total Petroleum System (TPS).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Haynesville Shale</span>

The Haynesville Shale is an informal, popular name for a Jurassic Period rock formation that underlies large parts of southwestern Arkansas, northwest Louisiana, and East Texas. It lies at depths of 10,500 to 13,000 feet below the land’s surface. It is part of a large rock formation which is known by geologists as the Haynesville Formation. The Haynesville Shale underlies an area of about 9,000 square miles and averages about 200 to 300 feet thick. The Haynesville Shale is overlain by sandstone of the Cotton Valley Group and underlain by limestone of the Smackover Formation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Woodbine Group</span> Geological formation in Texas, United States

The Woodbine Group is a geological formation in east Texas whose strata date back to the Early to Middle Cenomanian age of the Late Cretaceous. It is the producing formation of the giant East Texas Oil Field from which over 5.42 billion barrels of oil have been produced. The Woodbine overlies the Maness Shale, Buda Limestone, or older rocks, and underlies the Eagle Ford Group or Austin Chalk. In outcrop the Woodbine Group has been subdivided into the Lewisville Sandstone, Dexter Sandstone, and/or Pepper Shale formations. Thin-bedded sands of the Woodbine and Eagle Ford are collectively referred to as the "Eaglebine" oil and gas play in the southwestern portion of the East Texas region.

The Lake Waco Formation is a geologic formation within the Eagle Ford Group deposited during the Middle Cenomanian to the Early Turonian of the Late Cretaceous in central Texas. The formation was named for outcrops near Lake Waco, south of the city of Waco, Texas by W. S. Adkins and F. E. Lozo in 1951. The Lake Waco Formation is primarily composed of shale, with minor amounts of limestone and volcanic ash beds (bentonites). It is subdivided into three members: Bluebonnet Member, Cloice Member, and the Bouldin Member. The Bluebonnet Member is 10 to 20 ft thick, and is made up of broken pieces (prisms) of inoceramid clams and planktonic foraminifera. The Cloice Member is 35 ft thick at its type section on the Cloice Branch of the South Bosque River, whereas the Bouldin Member was named for outcrops on Bouldin Creek south of downtown Austin, where it is roughly 9 ft thick. They are both made up of shales rich in organic matter with thin limestones and volcanic ash beds.

The Britton Formation is a geologic formation deposited during the Middle Cenomanian to the Early Turonian ages of the Late Cretaceous in modern-day East Texas. It forms the lower half of the Eagle Ford Group in the northern portion of East Texas. The formation was named by W. L. Moreman in 1932 for outcrops on Mountain Creek near the small town of Britton, south of Dallas. In the Dallas area it has been subdivided into the Six Flags Limestone, Turner Park Member, and Camp Wisdom Member. The Six Flags Limestone is a 3 ft thick fossiliferous calcarenite made up of pieces (prisms) of Inoceramus clams. The Turner Park and Camp Wisdom Members were subdivided based on the numerous volcanic ash beds (bentonites) found in the Turner Park, and the common occurrence of concretions in the Camp Wisdom. They are approximately 120 ft and 250 ft thick in the Dallas area. Thin sandstones known as the Templeton Member are found in Grayson County, north of Dallas, that are age equivalent to the lower part of the Turner Park Member. The Templeton Member was originally described as a part of the Woodbine, but it was recently placed in the Britton Formation of the Eagle Ford Group based on its age as derived by ammonites. Plesiosaur remains are among the vertebrate fossils that have been recovered from its strata.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mancos Shale</span> Late Cretaceous geologic formation of the Western United States

The Mancos Shale or Mancos Group is a Late Cretaceous geologic formation of the Western United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bazhenov Formation</span> Oil-bearing rock formation in Russia

The Bazhenov Formation or Bazhenov Shale is a geological stratum in the West Siberian basin. It was formed from sediment deposited in a deep-water sea in Tithonian–early Berriasian time. The sea covered more than one million square kilometers in the central basin area. Highly organic-rich siliceous shales were deposited during this time in anoxic conditions on the sea bottom. The sea was connected to the world's oceans and contains trace minerals derived from dissolved minerals and organic materials similar to sapropel sediments in the Black Sea.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Boquillas Formation</span>

The Boquillas Formation is a geologic formation deposited during the Late Cretaceous in modern-day West Texas. It is typically composed of alternating marls and limestones with thin volcanic ash beds (bentonites). It was named for outcrops near the former Boquillas post office in Big Bend National Park. The term Boquillas Formation has been used for rocks that outcrop from Del Rio, Texas to as far west as Doña Ana County, New Mexico.

The Arcadia Park Shale is a geologic formation within the Eagle Ford Group that outcrops in the northern portion of East Texas. It was deposited during the Middle to Late Turonian of the Late Cretaceous. It was originally described by W. L. Moreman from outcrops near the former Arcadia Park railway station west of downtown Dallas, where it is 100 ft thick. In the type area there is an unconformity between the Arcadia Park and the underlying Britton Formation. The base of the Arcadia Park is a thin limestone termed the Kamp Ranch Limestone. The Kamp Ranch Limestone is made up of broken pieces (prisms) of Inoceramus clams, and also contains shark's teeth. The remainder of the Arcadia Park in the Dallas area is shale with concretions. Sandstones are found within the Arcadia Park north of Dallas. The sandstones have been termed the Bells Sandstone Member for outcrops in Grayson County, and the Sub-Clarksville Sandstone in the subsurface. The shale overlying the Bells Sandstone has been named the Maribel Shale

The Favel Formation is a stratigraphic unit of Late Cretaceous age. It is present in southern Manitoba and southeastern Saskatchewan, and consists primarily of calcareous shale. It was named for the Favel River near Minitonas, Manitoba, by R.T.D. Wickenden in 1945.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tuscaloosa Marine Shale</span>

The Tuscaloosa Marine Shale is a 90-million-year-old Late Cretaceous sedimentary rock formation across the Gulf Coast region of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Slaughter Field</span>

Slaughter Field is a 100,000+ acre conventional oil and gas field 40 miles west of Lubbock, TX in Cochran, Hockley, and Terry Counties. It was discovered in 1936 by a three-way venture between Honolulu Oil Company, Devonian Oil Company, and Cascade Petroleum Company. The area was originally two different fields: Duggan Field and Slaughter Field. When it was proven that both Duggan Field and Slaughter Field were producing from the same formation, they were combined under a single field regulation named Slaughter Field. In March 2015, it ranked 25th on the United States Energy Information's Top 100 U.S. Oil and Gas Fields.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bolivar Coastal Fields</span>

The Bolivar Coastal Fields (BCF), also known as the Bolivar Coastal Complex, is located on the eastern margin of Lake Maracaibo, Venezuela. Bolivar Coastal Field is the largest oil field in South America with its 6,000-7,000 wells and forest of related derricks, stretches thirty-five miles along the north-east coast of Lake Maracaibo. They form the largest oil field outside of the Middle East and contain mostly heavy oil with a gravity less than 22 degrees API. Also known as the Eastern Coast Fields, Bolivar Coastal Oil Field consists of Tía Juana, Lagunillas, Bachaquero, Ceuta, Motatán, Barua and Ambrosio. The Bolivar Coast field lies in the Maracaibo dry forests ecoregion, which has been severely damaged by farming and ranching as well as oil exploitation. The oil field still plays an important role in production from the nation with approximately 2.6 million barrels of oil a day. It is important to note that the oil and gas industry refers to the Bolivar Coastal Complex as a single oilfield, in spite of the fact that the oilfield consists of many sub-fields as stated above.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Greater Green River Basin</span> River basin in southwestern Wyoming, United States

The Greater Green River Basin (GGRB) is a 21,000 square mile basin located in Southwestern Wyoming. The Basin was formed during the Cretaceous period sourced by underlying Permian and Cretaceous deposits. The GGRB is host to many anticlines created during the Laramide Orogeny trapping many of its hydrocarbon resources. It is bounded by the Rawlins Uplift, Uinta Mountains, Sevier overthrust belt, Sierra Madre Mountains, and the Wind River Mountain Range. The Greater Green River Basin is subdivided into four smaller basins, the Green River Basin, Great Divide Basin, Washakie Basin, and Sand Wash Basin. Each of these possesses hydrocarbons that have been economically exploited. There are 303 named fields throughout the basin, the majority of which produce natural gas; the largest of these gas fields is the Jonah Field.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alaska North Slope basin</span>

The Alaskan North Slope (ANS) is a foreland basin located on the northern edge of the Brooks Range. The Alaska North Slope is bounded on the north by the Beaufort Sea and runs from the Canadian border to the maritime boundary with Russia in the west. The western edge extends into the Chukchi Sea and Chukchi platform where the basin is at its widest. As the basin moves east it narrows towards the Canadian border. The basin is 1000 km long, 600 km at its widest, and covers a total area of 240,000 km2.

References

  1. 1 2 3 "The American journal of science 3rd ser.:v.34 1887". HathiTrust. pp. 291–303. hdl:2027/coo.31924084352636 . Retrieved 2024-06-03.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Denne, R. A., Breyer, J. A., Callender, A. D., Hinote, R. E., Kariminia, M., Kosanke, T. H., Kita, Z., Lees, J. A., Rowe, H., Spaw, J. M., and Tur, N. (2016). Biostratigraphic and geochemical constraints on the stratigraphy and depositional environments of the Eagle Ford and Woodbine Groups of Texas: "in" Breyer, J. A. (ed.), The Eagle Ford Shale: A renaissance in U.S. oil production, AAPG Memoir 110, pp. 1–86.
  3. 1 2 Surles, Jr., Milton A. (Spring 1987). "Stratigraphy of the Eagle Ford Group (Upper Cretaceous) and Its Source-Rock Potential in the East Texas Basin" (PDF). Baylor Geological Studies. Bulletin No. 45. Waco, Texas: Baylor Printing Service. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 3, 2024 – via Baylor University Department of Geosciences.
  4. ↑ Hentz, T. F., Ambrose, W. A., and Smith, D. C. (2014). Eaglebine play of the southwestern East Texas basin: Stratigraphic and depositional framework of the Upper Cretaceous (Cenomanian-Turonian) Woodbine and Eagle Ford Groups: AAPG Bulletin, v. 98, p. 2551-2580.
  5. ↑ Papa, Mark G. (2021-03-09). "Eagle Ford Shale - Eagle Ford Shale Map - Texas Oil & Gas". Archived from the original on March 9, 2021. Retrieved 2024-06-03.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  6. 1 2 Jennifer Hiller, "Hard Times Hit Eagle Ford," "San Antonio Express-News," January 3, 2016, pp. 1, A20
  7. ↑ Jennifer Hiller, "Spending in Eagle Ford has dropped by 67 percent", "San Antonio Express-News," July 22, 2016, pp. 1, A6
  8. ↑ Jacobs, L.L., Polcyn, M.J., Winkler, D.A., Myers, T.S., Kennedy, J.G., and Wagner, J.B. (2013) Late Cretaceous strata and vertebrate fossils of North Texas, "in" Hunt, B.B., and Catlos, E.J., eds., Late Cretaceous to Quaternary Strata and Fossils of Texas: Field Excursions Celebrating 125 Years of GSA and Texas Geology, GSA South-Central Section Meeting, Austin, Texas, April 2013: Geological Society of America Field Guide 30, p. 1–13, doi:10.1130/2013.0030(01)
  9. ↑ Moreman, W. L. (1942) Paleontology of the Eagle Ford Group of north and central Texas: Journal of Paleontology, v. 16, p. 192–220.
  10. 1 2 3 Donovan, A. D., T. S. Staerker, A. Pramudito, W. Li, M. J. Corbett, C. M. Lowery, A. M. Romero, and R. D. Gardner (2012) The Eagle Ford outcrops of West Texas: Understanding heterogeneities within unconventional mudstone reservoirs: GCAGS Journal, v. 1, p. 162–185.
  11. ↑ Hentz, T. F., and S. C. Ruppel (2010) Regional lithostratigraphy of the Eagle Ford Shale: Maverick Basin to East Texas Basin: Transactions of the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, v. 60, p. 225–337.
  12. ↑ Gardner, R. D., M. C. Pope, M. P. Wehner, and A. D. Donovan (2013) “Comparative stratigraphy of the Eagle Ford Group in Lozier Canyon and Antonio Creek, Terrell County, Texas”: GCAGS Journal, v. 2, p. 42-52.
  13. ↑ Wehner, M., R. Gardner, M. M. Tice, M. C. Pope, A. D. Donovan, and T. S. Staerker (2015) Anoxic, storm dominated inner carbonate ramp deposition of Lower Eagle Ford Formation, west Texas: Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, San Antonio, Texas, USA 20-22 July 2015, doi:10.15530/urtec-2015-2154667
  14. 1 2 3 4 Denne, R. A., and Breyer, J. A. (2016) Regional depositional episodes of the Cenomanian-Turonian Eagle Ford and Woodbine groups of Texas: "in" Breyer, J. A. (ed.), The Eagle Ford Shale: A renaissance in U.S. oil production, AAPG Memoir 110, p. 87-135.
  15. ↑ Norton, G. H. (1965) Surface geology of Dallas County, "in" The geology of Dallas County: Dallas Geological Society, Dallas, Texas, p. 40–125.
  16. ↑ Silver, B. A. (1963) The Bluebonnet Member, Lake Waco Formation (Upper Cretaceous), Central Texas-A lagoonal deposit: Baylor Geologic Studies Bulletin 4, Waco, Texas, 46 p.
  17. ↑ Bergquist, H. R. (1949) Geology of the Woodbine Formation of Cooke, Grayson, and Fannin Counties, Texas: USGS, Oil and Gas Investigation, Preliminary Map 98.
  18. ↑ Halbouty, M. T., and J. J. Halbouty (1982) Relationships between East Texas field region and Sabine uplift in Texas: AAPG Bulletin, v. 66, p. 1042–1054.
  19. ↑ Turner, J. R., and S. J. Conger (1981) Environment of deposition and reservoir properties of the Woodbine Sandstone at Kurten field, Brazos County, Texas: Transactions of the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, v. 31, p. 215–249.
  20. 1 2 Eldrett, J. S., D. Minisini, and S. C. Bergman (2014) Decoupling of the carbon cycle during Ocean Anoxic Event 2: Geology, v. 42, p. 567–570.
  21. ↑ Eicher, D. L., and P. Worstell (1970) Cenomanian and Turonian foraminifera from the Great Plains, United States: Micropaleontology, v. 16, p. 269–324.
  22. 1 2 Denne, R. A., R. E. Hinote, J. A. Breyer, T. H. Kosanke, J. A. Lees, N. Engelhardt-Moore, J. M. Spaw, and N. Tur (2014) The Cenomanian-Turonian Eagle Ford Group of South Texas: insights on timing and paleoceanographic conditions from geochemistry and micropaleontologic analyses: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 413, p. 2-28.
  23. ↑ Boling, K. S. and Dworkin S. I. (2015) Origin of organic matter in the Eagle Ford Formation: Interpretation, v. 3, p. SH27–SH39.
  24. ↑ Reid, W. T. (1952) Clastic limestone in the Upper Eagle Ford Shale, Dallas County, Texas: Field and Laboratory, v. 20, p. 111–122.
  25. ↑ Hensleigh, D. E. (1983) Depositional setting of the Turonian Kamp Ranch Member, Eagle Ford Group, Northeast Texas: M.S. Thesis, University of Texas, Arlington, Texas, 358 p.
  26. ↑ McNulty, C. L, Jr. (1954) Fish Bed conglomerate and Sub-Clarksville sand, Grayson and Fannin Counties, Texas: AAPG Bulletin, v. 38, p. 335–337.
  27. ↑ McNulty, C. L. Jr. (1966) Nomenclature of uppermost Eagle Ford Formation in northeastern Texas: AAPG Bulletin, v. 50, p. 375–379.
  28. ↑ Alex Nussbaum (2017-03-10). "A father of fracking seeks to emulate shale boom in Alaska's Arctic". www.arctictoday.com. Retrieved 2024-05-16.
  29. ↑ ""Eagle Ford Information" Railroad Commission of Texas". Archived from the original on 2014-05-23. Retrieved 2015-11-04.
  30. ↑ Selam Gebrekidan "Analysis: 100 years after the boom, shale makes Texas oil hot again", "Reuters." May 3, 2011.
  31. ↑ U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy outlook 2012, accessed 14 Sept. 2013.
  32. ↑ Fuel Fix, Dec 3, 2013.
  33. ↑ Ovale, Peder. "Her ser du hvorfor oljeprisen faller" In English Archived 2015-03-18 at the Wayback Machine Teknisk Ukeblad , 11 December 2014. Accessed: 11 December 2014.
  34. ↑ https://www.rrc.texas.gov/media/f4sbu4aq/ogm0168.jpg [ bare URL image file ]
  35. ↑ Melissa Block (April 10, 2014). "Drilling Frenzy Fuels Sudden Growth In Small Texas Town". NPR.
  36. ↑ US EIA, U.S. crude oil and natural gas proved reserves, 1 Aug. 2013.
  37. ↑ US EIA, Table 2: Proved reserves of tight oil plays, 2014.
  38. ↑ "Proved Reserves of Crude Oil and Natural Gas in the United States, Year-End 2020". www.eia.gov. Retrieved 2022-05-19.
  39. 1 2 "EIA Crude Oil Reserves" (PDF). April 29, 2024.
  40. ↑ "Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources: An Assessment of 137 Shale Formations in 41 Countries Outside the United States" (PDF). U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). June 2013. Retrieved June 11, 2013.
  41. ↑ David Alire Garcia, "Mexico still far from tapping shale potential, minister says", Toronto "Globe and Mail," May 8 2013.
  42. ↑ Dudley Althaus, "Zetas gang poses daunting threat to Mexico's shale gas", Houston Chronicle, 26 Sept. 2012.
  43. ↑ , Emily Pickrell, "Mexico unlikely to tap its Eagle Ford Shale, experts say", Houston Chronicle, October 31 2013.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.