Back

13
Hein, Frances J., 2013, Overview of heavy oil, seeps, and oil (tar) sands, California,
in F. J. Hein, D. Leckie, S. Larter, and J. R. Suter, eds., Heavy-oil and oil-sand
petroleum systems in Alberta and beyond: AAPG Studies in Geology 64,
p. 407 – 435.

Overview of Heavy Oil, Seeps, and Oil (Tar)

Sands, California
Frances J. Hein
Energy Resources Conservation Board, Suite 1000, 250-5th St. SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 0R4, Canada
(e-mail: fran.hein@ercb.ca)

ABSTRACT
California has one of the largest reserves for heavy oil in the world, second only to Venezuela.
Recent declines in conventional resources and reserves during the last decade have prompted
other jurisdictions to examine their prospective unconventional resources, such as heavy oil
and oil sands, in a more favorable technological and economic setting. However, this has not
been done universally in the United States, where thermal enhanced oil-recovery technologies
(mostly used to produce heavy oil) have experienced a decline in production, concomitant with
the downturn in conventional production.
In California, the seep and oil-sand deposits are mostly unconsolidated sands bound to-
gether by biodegraded bitumen. Source rocks for both modern seeps and oil sands and ancient
heavy-oil deposits are mainly the Miocene Monterey diatomites and equivalent diatomaceous
mudstones and organic shales. In California, most of the seeps and oil sands overlie or are
updip from underlying heavy-oil reservoirs. The seep and oil-sand deposits occur in areas
where cap-rock integrity was compromised for the underlying heavy-oil reservoirs, breeched
mainly by faults or fractures. Hydrocarbons migrated updip into basin-marginal settings or in
structural areas of compromised cap rock and then pooled to form the seeps, later hardening
into oil-sand deposits. Hydrocarbons accumulated in a wide variety of depositional environ-
ments from deep-sea fans, lobes, and submarine channels to fluvial-lacustrine deltas and in-
cised valleys and every other sedimentary environment in between. This makes it difficult to
identify type examples for the California accumulations, although case examples are given.
In the past, steam-flood, condensed water drive, cyclic steam stimulation (CSS), and fire-
flood were used to produce the California heavy-oil reservoirs. Currently, significant California
CSS projects underway include Belridge, Cymric, and northern Midway Sunset fields to stim-
ulate intermediate-gravity hydrocarbons in the Monterey, Reef Ridge, and Etchegoin diatomite
lithologies. Elsewhere, for example, in Canada, in-situ bitumen and extra-heavy-oil sands are
commonly developed using CSS or steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD). Combined ap-
plication of CSS along with SAGD from horizontal wells may recover bypassed pay in heavy-
oil reservoirs and may be used to recover bitumen from associated oil sands, and multistage
multifracing technologies may recover oil from the deeper unconventional (Monterey) source
rocks.

Copyright n2013 by The American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

DOI:10.1306/13371587St643550

407
408 Hein

These technological developments, along with improved computing techniques (i.e., three-
dimensional [3-D] geologic modeling/visualization), allow for real-time exploration and de-
velopment of unconventional reservoirs. A significant effort exists in California to improve
recovery from Pleistocene, Pliocene, and Miocene heavy-oil deposits; for example, at present,
70 to 80% recovery from heavy-oil steam drives is seen in Pleistocene Tulare Formation fluvial
and alluvial sands. Full 3-D models anchored by extensive coring and logging programs have
reaped benefits in many older oil fields (e.g., South Belridge, Midway Sunset, Cymric, Lost
Hills, Kern River). Bypassed pay and new production from associated shallow oil sands and
deeper source rocks may ultimately be a key to attainment of increases in secure unconven-
tional energy reserves in North America. In the future, full integration of new technologies,
along with technology sequencing, may be applied to old California oil fields for production
of bypassed pay in heavy-oil fields.

INTRODUCTION bbl of oil remaining (Jaramenko, 2011). For more than

In its most recent assessment, the International Energy
Agency (2010) predicted that unconventional oil pro-
duction will rise to more than 9 million bbl/day by
2035 compared with a production of about 2 million
bbl/day in 2009.
Currently, conventional oil production and thermal
enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in the United States and
heavy-oil production in California are in a decline (U. S.
Department of Energy, 2010). As production from these
commodities becomes more limited, other unconven-
tional resources such as tight oil, shale gas, oil sands
(also called tar sands), oil shale, and shale oil are re-
ceiving increased interest on a world basis.
Almost all of California’s main oil fields (Figure 1)
were discovered between 1890 and 1925, by which time
California was a major exporter of oil, accounting for
more than 22% of the world oil production (Tennyson,
1998, 2005; Croft and Patzek, 2009). In 1985, California
oil production peaked at 1.1 million bbl of oil/day (BOPD)
(California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil,
Gas and Geothermal Resources, 2006). As conventional
hydrocarbon production decreased, the development of
thermal production in the 1960s allowed continued oil
production of California’s heavy-oil deposits, which sur-
passed conventional oil production in the mid-1980s
(Olsen and Ramzel, 1995). By 2006, California’s oil pro-
duction declined to 685,000 BOPD, of which 409,000
BOPD was heavy oil and 113,000 BOPD was offshore
production (California Department of Conservation,
Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, 2006).
Much of the world’s heavy-oil technologies were orig-
inally developed in California. One example is the Kern
River field of the San Joaquin Basin (Figure 1), the 10th
largest heavy-oil field in the world (10–148 API). It started
producing in 1902 and 107 yr later (in 2009), contin-
ued to produce about 29 million bbl of oil (Beeson and
Singer, 2011). As of 2011 it has an estimated 725 million
60 yr in California, steam injection, along with steam-
flood and condensed-water drive, has been used to
produce heavy oil (in-situ viscosity <10,000 cp). Pres-
sure gradients are maintained by continuous injection
that keeps the heated oil and condensed water flowing
to production wells (Dusseault, 2013).
In the past, steam-flood, condensed-water drive, cyclic
steam stimulation (CSS), and fire-flood were used to
produce the California heavy-oil reservoirs. Currently
significant California CSS projects underway include
Belridge, Cymric, and northern Midway Sunset fields
to stimulate intermediate-gravity hydrocarbons in the
Monterey, Reef Ridge, and Etchegoin diatomite lithol-
ogies. These technological developments, along with im-
proved computing techniques (i.e., three-dimensional
[3-D] geologic modeling/visualization), allow for real-
time exploration and development of unconventional
reservoirs. A significant effort exists in California to
improve recovery from Pleistocene, Pliocene, and Mio-
cene heavy-oil deposits; for example, at present, 70 to
80% recovery from heavy-oil steam drives is seen in
Pleistocene Tulare Formation fluvial and alluvial sands.
Full 3-D models anchored by extensive coring and
logging programs have reaped benefits in many older
oil fields (e.g., South Belridge, Midway Sunset, Cymric,
Lost Hills, Kern River). Bypassed pay and new produc-
tion from associated shallow oil sands and deeper source
rocks may ultimately be a key to the attainment of in-
creases in secure unconventional energy reserves in
North America. In the future, full integration of new tech-
nologies, along with technology sequencing (Dusseault,
2013), may be applied to old California oil fields for
production of bypassed pay in heavy-oil fields.
Most of the California oil seeps, heavy-oil, and oil-
sand occurrences are located along the margins of the
San Joaquin Basin and Central (or Great) Valley or in
the Los Angeles and Ventura basins, generally along
the main San Andreas Fault system (Colvin, 1968; U.S.

Geological Survey, 2005) (Figures 1, 2; Table 1). Seeps,
heavy oil, and oil sands in California are associated
with underlying major hydrocarbon fields, where the
subsurface oil fields are in communication with sur-
face or shallow groundwaters. The oil sands of Cali-
fornia are relatively small (5.34 billion bbl); however,
the oil sands are associated with heavy-oil fields, for
which California has the largest heavy-oil reserves
(62.85 billion bbl) in North America (Hein, 2006). Sev-
eral significant heavy-oil fields on the east side of the
San Joaquin Basin (e.g., Kern River, Kern Front, Poso
Creek, Mt. Poso) and the Wilmington field of the Los
Angeles Basin are extensively developed with thermal
methods, using state-of-the-art techniques, such as
horizontal wells, full 3-D geologic and reservoir mod-
els, use of aquifer drawdown to expand steam fronts,
and so on. As estimated by several workers, many of the
Overview of Heavy Oil, Seeps, and Oil (Tar) Sands, California 409
Figure 1. General map of Califor-
nia showing the location of the
oil and gas fields and of the major
sedimentary basins that contain
discovered or prospective hydro-
carbon resources. Generalized
sediment thicknesses are shown:
yellow = 6096 m (0 – 20,000 ft);
orange = 6096 to 12,192 m
(20,000 – 40,000 ft); brown =
12,192 – 18,288 m (40,000 –
60,000 ft); dashed basin out-
lines indicating areas where no
thickness data were available
(from Zieglar and Cassell, 1978;
Alexander, 1986). 100 mi
(161 km).
old, long-producing oil and heavy-oil fields of California
have significant parts of bypassed pay that may be re-
covered with these improving technologies (Olsen and
Ramzel, 1995; Dusseault, 2013).
Previous Work
One of the first compilations concerning the reserves,
geology, and technological developments associated
with heavy oil and bitumen in California was done as
an AAPG Research Conference held in 1984 in Santa
Maria, California (Meyer et al., 1984a), published later
by Meyer (1987). Other reviews of heavy-oil and bitu-
men occurrences include those of Jennings (1957),
Hills (1974), Walters (1974), Demaison (1977), Hallmark
(1980), Interstate Oil Compact Commission (1984),
Meyer et al. (1984b, 2007), Herron (2003), Meyer and
410 Hein
Figure 2. Index map of California
showing the main areas of oil
and gas fields and active gas and
oil seeps with the location of the
San Andreas Fault system and
other major faults (modified from
U.S. Geological Survey, 2005).
Attanasi (2003), Hein (2006), and Hein and Higley
(2010). Further references are given in Table 1.
The history of oil and gas production in California
has been well documented by several authors, most no-
tably by Orcutt (1924), Heizer (1940), California Depart-
ment of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas (1981),
and the San Joaquin Geological Society (2002a, b; 2005).
An overview of heavy-oil technologies in California was
published by Guerard (1989), with a recent review of the
future of California’s oil supply by Croft and Patzek (2009).
Ongoing environmental concerns associated with both
natural and anthropogenic oil seeps have led to a cat-
alog of several seep occurrences in both the offshore and
onshore areas of California (Wilkinson, 1972; Hodgson,
1980; U.S. Geological Survey, 1999a, b; 2000a, b; Kunitomi
et al., 2007).
Oil Seeps, Heavy Oil, Bitumen, Asphaltum, and Oil
(Tar) Sand
Studies of oil and gas seeps have led to the discoveries
of many hydrocarbon deposits throughout the world
(U.S. Geological Survey, 2000b). In California, the oc-
currence of seeps have been known for thousands of
years, with aboriginals using hardened oil from seeps
for various waterproofing and for making implements
(Heizer, 1940; Mulqueen, 2007). The most famous of
the southern California oil seeps is the La Brea Tar Pits
at Rancho La Brea in the Los Angeles Basin (Figures 1,
3). During the Pleistocene, these tar pits were a trap for
large mammals and birds, forming one of the world’s
most prolific fossil sites (Natural History Museum of
Los Angeles County, 2005). Other similar tar pits near

Carpinteria in the Ventura Basin (Figures 1, 3) have
yielded a similar prolific collection of fossils (California
Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas,
1993).
For seeps and the associated heavy oil, bitumen, and
asphaltum to occur, subsurface reservoirs need to have
communication to surface. Oil, water, and gas follow
open pathways (most commonly faults and fractures
or open porosity networks in mainly unconsolidated
sediments) to the ground surface where the oil pooled,
forming the seeps. Petroleum seeps have a variety of
forms and compositions (Figure 4), the more common
being (Mulqueen, 2007)

Oil emanation: surface discharge of crude light or
heavy oil, some with gas and/or water (Figure 4B);

Light crude: oil with more than 208 API and vis-
cosities of less than 100 cp;

Heavy oil: oil with 10 to 208 API and viscosity from
100 to 10,000 cp, a product of biodegradation by
mostly anaerobic bacteria of light oil in the sub-
surface, with some volatilization (Figure 4B);

Bitumen: extra-heavy oil and oil (or tar) sands with
less than 108 API and viscosity of more than 10,000 cp.
Surface accumulations of bitumen may extrude
from fractures or along faults (Figure 4C), and some
may become resedimented into tar balls, ropes, or
petroleum-saturated sand in beach environments;

Asphaltum: highly viscous crude oil consisting of
bitumen, asphaltene, water, soil, rock, and organic
matter. Asphaltum can occur as mounds or flows,
and some asphaltum is liquid hydrocarbon that
has weathered into a semisolid after being exuded
on the surface. Many asphaltum mounds continue
to flow for years after active discharge of the seep
has stopped, depending on local conditions such
as temperature and ground slope (Figure 4A)
(Mulqueen, 2007);

Oil (tar) sand: generally unconsolidated sand that
is held together by degraded hydrocarbon, com-
monly bitumen; has less than 108 API, with vis-
cosity of more than 10,000 cp (Figure 4A, C).
GENERAL GEOLOGY OF HEAVY OIL, SEEPS, AND OIL
SANDS IN CALIFORNIA
Oil exploration in California began in 1865, originally on
surface outcrops or shallow oil sands and seeps, many
of which are updip or lie above the largest oil and gas
fields in the area (Figures 1–3) (de Chadenedes, 1984,
1987). California is estimated to have about 63 billion
bbl of heavy oil and just more than 5 billion bbl of bi-
tumen in place, representing about 78% of the heavy oil
Overview of Heavy Oil, Seeps, and Oil (Tar) Sands, California 411
and about 2% of the bitumen resources in the United
States and Canada (Hein, 2006). As with many other
heavy-oil and bitumen deposits, the California occur-
rences are at relatively shallow depth; associated with
oil seeps, springs, and/or mud volcanoes; occur near
faults or unconformities; and are commonly in com-
bined structural-stratigraphic traps near the updip end
of basin margins. The largest seeps, heavy oil, and oil
sands in California are associated with faulted margins,
anticlines, and faulted anticlines, most as structural or
combined structural and stratigraphic traps (Table 1)
(de Chadenedes, 1984, 1987; Hein, 2006).
The California occurrences are relatively small- and
medium-size deposits (compared with the Canadian
examples) that are related to the loss of cap-rock integ-
rity of underlying hydrocarbon reservoirs. These oc-
currences are similar to other small- and medium-size
deposits of the Basin and Range Province (Schamel,
2013) or in the midcontinent areas of the United States
(May, 2013). In all of these cases, the loss of integrity of
the cap-rock seals (mostly by faulting) put the subsur-
face hydrocarbons in contact with groundwater, atmo-
sphere, or seawater (for the coastal and offshsore
California occurrences). This leads to contamination
of the shallow subsurface reservoirs by anaerobic
bacteria, which then biodegrade the light-oil hy-
drocarbons into heavy oil or bitumen (Requejo and
Halpern, 1989; Head et al., 2003). Usually, the heavier
oils and oil sands occur close to or at the surface. In some
cases, such as the Ventura Avenue Anticline, reverse
gradients in oil viscosity occur, with the heavier oils
lying below lighter oil, mostly a consequence of ground-
water washing through fracture networks at depth
(Roberts, 1987; Hein, 2006).
The oil-producing basins of California are mainly
strike-slip and sag basins that developed in response to
transpressive forces along the strike-slip San Andreas
Fault and its subsidiary faults (Figure 2). Within the
California basins, 3.6 to 14 km (2.2–8.7 mi) of sed-
imentary fill accumulated. Basin trends are generally
parallel to the strike of the San Andreas Fault (Figures 1,
2). In some cases, basins such as the Miocene Ridge
Basin are off-trend. Here, increased subsidence along
the subsidiary Garlock Fault caused a thick, local sag
basin to form, which accumulated up to 14 km (8.7 mi)
of sedimentary fill (Crowell, 1974a, b, 1987). Other tec-
tonic effects on sedimentation occur east of the San
Andreas Fault in the San Joaquin Basin (Figures 1, 3),
where subsidence and uplift relate to differential tec-
tonic movements along the transform boundary. Here,
local transpressional folding occurred along the east
side of the San Andreas Fault, creating en echelon anti-
clinal structures that form many of the oil fields in the
area (Harding, 1976). In general, for California, the main
 412
Table 1. Summary of characteristics of the main oil (tar) sand and heavy oil deposits in California.*

Formation and Reserves

Hein
Name Type Lithology (billion bbl) Age Basin or Uplift Structural Setting References
Careaga and Foxen Oil (tar) sands Pliocene Santa Maria Closed anticlines 1, 2**
Canyon
Casmalia Heavy oil; Sisquoc dt/ 0.9 – 1.5 Miocene/Pliocene Santa Maria Faulted anticline 3, 9**
diatomite Careaga ssy
Cat Canyon Oil (tar) sands 0.83 Miocene Santa Maria Faulted margin 9**
Chino Oil (tar) sands Pliocene ssy >0.05 Pliocene Unknown 3**
Cholame Creek Oil (tar) sands Poncho Rico ssy 0.05 – 0.10 Miocene/Pliocene Unknown 3**
Coalinga Heavy oil >0.7 Miocene Coalinga Faulted anticline 4**
Edna (Arroyo Grande) Oil (tar) sands; Pismo ssy 0.2 – 0.31 Miocene Santa Maria Flank of anticline/ 1, 2, 3, 5, 9**
heavy oil regional sand wedge
Foxen (Basal Foxen) Oil (tar) sands 1.9 Pliocene Santa Maria Closed anticlines 9**
Gaviota Oil (tar) sands Pleistocene ss,y 0.1 Miocene/Pleistocene Santa Barbara Faulted margin 3**
Vaqueros ssy
Indian Valley Oil (tar) sands Paso Robles ssy >0.05 Miocene Santa Barbara Faulted margin/ 3**
sandstone wedge
La Brea Oil (tar) sands Miocene ssy 0.05 – 0.15 Miocene/Pleistocene Los Angeles Anticline 3**
Loma Verde Oil (tar) sands 0.9 Miocene/Pliocene Los Angeles Anticline 9**
McKittrick Heavy oil; Tulare ss, dty 0.83 Miocene San Joaquin Faulted anticline 1, 2, 3, 6**
diatomite
Mylar Oil (tar) sands Poncho Rico ssy 0.05 – 0.1 Miocene/Pliocene San Joaquin Faulted anticline/ 3**
sandstone wedge
Orcutt Heavy oil, Sisquoc dty 0.05 – 0.1 Miocene Santa Maria Anticline/flank 3**
diatomite of anticline
Oxnard Oil (tar) sands 0.5 Miocene/Pliocene Ventura Syncline 3, 9**
Paris Valley Oil (tar) sands 0.7 Miocene/Pliocene Paris 9**
Point Arena Oil (tar) sands Vaqueros ssy 0.1 Miocene/Pliocene Santa Maria Anticline 3**
Red Rock Mountain Oil (tar) sands, Sisquoc dt/ 0.15 Pliocene Santa Maria Anticline 3, 6**
diatomite Careaga ssy
Reef Ridge Oil (tar) sands Miocene ssy >0.05 Miocene San Joaquin Faulted margin/ 3**
sandstone wedge
Richfield Oil (tar) sands 0.4 Miocene/Pliocene Los Angeles Faulted anticline 9**
Santa Cruz Oil (tar) sands Santa Margarita ssy 0.1 – 0.15 Miocene/Pliocene Santa Cruz Faulted margin/ 3, 5, 9**
sandstone wedge
Sargeant Ranch Oil (tar) sands, Purisma ss, 0.4 Miocene/Pliocene Purisma Anticline 3, 5**
diatomite Monterey ss, dty
Sisquoc (Zaca_Sisquoc) Oil (tar) sands Careaga ss, 0.14 – 0.5 Pliocene Santa Maria Faulted anticline 3, 5, 6, 9**
Monterey dty
South Belridge Oil (tar) sands 1 Pleistocene San Joaquin Unconformity and 7**
anticline
South Belridge and Heavy oil; 2 Miocene San Joaquin Unconformity and 6, 7, 8**
Belridge diatomite anticline
 Overview of Heavy Oil, Seeps, and Oil (Tar) Sands, California 413

1, 2, 6** extensional phase in middle–late Miocene was followed

3, 6**

6, 7**
by two contractional phases between the Pliocene and

3**
3**

3**
3**

3**

3**

**(1) Dibblee (1984); (2) Dibblee et al. (1987); (3) de Chandenedes (1987); (4) Bate and Graham (1987); (5) Walters (1974); (6) Ingle (1981); (7) Beyer (1987); (8) Roadifer (1987);
the Holocene (Karner and Dewey, 1986).
Initial fill of the basins, near adjacent uplands, was
mostly fluvial to shallow marine, evolving downdip
into more marine and deep-marine embayments. At
Synclinal valley fill

Complex anticline
Anticline/faulted

sandstone wedge

sandstone wedge

sandstone wedge
different times during the Miocene, regional upwelling
Faulted margin/

Faulted margin/

Faulted margin/
Faulted anticline
Anticline/flanks

Faulted margin
along the continental borderland resulted in a very
of anticline

high production of organics, along with biogenic silica,

mainly associated with diatom blooms. The resulting
margin

organic-rich shales and diatomites, mostly belonging to

the siliceous Miocene Monterey Formation (Figures 5,
6), provided much of the source rocks for the heavy-oil
reservoirs and oil-sand deposits along the margins of
Santa Barbara

Santa Maria
San Joaquin

San Joaquin

San Joaquin
Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz

the basins (Ingle, 1981; Isaacs, 1981a, b, 1987; Reid and

Ventura

McIntyre, 2001). True diatomites within the Monterey

Formation tend to have high contents of biogenic silica
and generally lack organic matter. By contrast, the as-
sociated phosphatic shales and mudstones of the Mon-
terey Formation tend to be the best and most prolific
Miocene/Pliocene

Miocene/Pliocene
Miocene/Pliocene

source rocks. Hydrocarbon migration was updip to the

margins of the individual basins and occurred during
the latest Tertiary (de Chadenedes, 1984, 1987; Dibblee,
1984; Dibblee et al., 1987; Yeates and Beall, 1991; Magoon
Miocene

Miocene

Miocene
Miocene

Miocene

Miocene

et al., 2004). Current resource plays within the Monte-

rey Formation are mainly light, tight oil that have high
enough flow rates through induced fracs for econom-
ic recovery. Typically, on their own, the more heavy-oil
0.05 – 0.15

0.05 – 0.15

0.1 – 0.2

zones within the Monterey Formation are not econom-

>0.05

>0.5

>0.5

0.13
0.1

ically produced at high enough rates through induced

fracs. For economic production, the heavy-oil zones may
be produced, along with lighter oils, that are within and
adjacent to areas of very mature Monterey source rocks.
Santa Margarita ssy

The Monterey Formation is highly fractured (Figure 6B)

and locally forms structural traps of fractured reser-
Monterey ssy

Fernando ssy
Vaqueros ssy

Temblor dty

Miocene ssy

voirs in the Santa Maria Basin and offshore Santa Barbara

Cantua ss,

Channel (Figure 1). The Monterey succession is the main

source for much of the hydrocarbons in the coastal and
offshore seeps, in the heavy-oil fields, and the oil (tar)
sand outcrops (Wilkinson, 1972; Hostettler et al., 2004;
*Modified from Hein (2006) and Dibblee (1984).
Oil (tar) sands,
Oil (tar) sands

Oil (tar) sands

Oil (tar) sands

Oil (tar) sands

Oil (tar) sands

Oil (tar) sands

U. S. Geological Survey, 2005) (Figures 1–3). Elsewhere,

other source rocks contribute to the multiple petro-
Heavy oil

Heavy oil
diatomite

leum systems operating within the different subbasins

of California. The stable carbon isotope, biomarker,
and Rock-Eval pyrolysis data indicate that, in addition
ss = sandstone; dt = diatomite.

to the Miocene Monterey Formation, some of the other

South Sulfur Mountain

(9) Kuuskraa et al. (1987).

source rocks include the Eocene Kreyenhagen shale

West Midway/Sunset

(Reef Ridge – Kettleman Hills and Coalinga oil field),

West Cat Canyon

the Miocene Point Sal shale (Santa Maria Basin), and the
West King City

West San Ardo

Tapo Canyon

upper Miocene Belridge diatomite (Reef Ridge Mem-

Upper Ojai

ber) and associated underlying shales of the McClure

Vallecitos

Formation (Reef Ridge–Kettleman Hills, South Belridge,

and McKittrick oil fields) (Figure 5) (Lillis and Stanley,
Taft

1999; Magoon et al., 2004).

y
414 Hein

Figure 3. Google map of California with highlighted part showing locations of the main oil seep and tar pits discussed in this
chapter; inset index map of part of California illustrating the coastal area, the Los Angeles and San Joaquin basins, with major oil
and heavy oil field outlines indicated in black. Modified from Tennyson (2005); U.S. Geological Survey (2005). 100 km (62 mi).

A significant amount of structural variation devel- series of transgressive–regressive cycles superimposed

oped as this part of the western North American plate wedges of sands and associated diatomites on the larger
boundary reorganized from a convergent plate boundary evolving tectonic features to produce combination
(before the Oligocene) to a fully developed right-lateral stratigraphic-structural traps for many of the California
San Andreas transform boundary by the Miocene. A oil fields (de Chadenedes, 1984, 1987). Similar regional

interactions of sedimentation, eustasy, and tectonics re-
sulted in structural and stratigraphic complexity, inter-
rupted by major unconformities (Figure 5A). On a re-
gional basis, the diatomaceous mudstones, diatomites,
and black shales are the main source rocks (Figure 5A).
Associated heavy-oil reservoirs were emplaced within
a variety of sandstones, including basal lowstand de-
posits and transgressive and regressive sandstones.
Surficial oil sands are hosted within mainly unconsol-
idated Pliocene–Pleistocene and Pleistocene sands.
HEAVY OIL
For decades, much of the heavy-oil production has been
associated with the Miocene Monterey Formation. This
is a thin-bedded, mixed-lithology succession of fine-
grained mudstones (Figure 6)—one of the more typical
unconventional mudstone and mudrock reservoirs pres-
ently being exploited in North America. The Monterey is
an organic-rich hemipelagic deposit, locally phosphatic,
calcareous, or dolomite rich. It represents hemipelagic
deposition of drowned basins in a variety of environ-
ments from shelves to banktops, deep sea slopes, and
base-of-slope settings (Figure 7).
Later diagenesis and structural deformation of the
Monterey Formation was complex, mostly a function of
mudrock composition, petrography, and burial history.
Originally, the hemipelagic diatomaceous silica was
deposited as a metastable opal (amorphous opal; opal-A),
which underwent two stages of dissolution and repre-
cipitation to form the metastable opal (cristoballite and
Overview of Heavy Oil, Seeps, and Oil (Tar) Sands, California 415
Figure 4. Examples of natu-
ral oil seeps, coastal area
(Figure 3), between Point
Conception and Los Angeles,
California: (A) Koeningstein
Road oil seep, north of Santa
Paula, east of Ojai, consisting
of bitumen and asphaltum;
(B) Surface emanation of
heavy oil and gas, north Sulfur
Mountain area, Ojai oil field,
Ventura County, California;
(C) Hamp oil seep (arrow),
consisting of heavy oil, bitu-
men, and bitumen-saturated
oil sand, Silverthread area,
Ojai oil field. Note fault trace
shown by the line.
tridynamite; opal-CT), and then eventually to form the
more stable quartz phases. These diagenetic changes
resulted in the development of systems of fractures,
which augmented the structural fractures that were
forming in response to tectonic forces on the brittle,
hard, siliceous rocks. The diagenesis resulted in the ex-
pulsion of significant volumes of water from the highly
porous matrix of the diatomite and siliceous muds.
The micro-overpressure associated with the dewater-
ing and associated column loss (opal-A porosity up to
70%, opal-CT up to 40%, and quartz up to 20%) generated
a microfracture fabric in the less terrigenous facies of
the Monterey Formation. Because of the original low ma-
trix permeability of the Monterey diatomaceous shales,
the petroleum system flow paths were dependent on
the fracture flow paths created during diagenesis and
tectonism.
Fracture and fault system patterns that developed
were a function of the host rock type, the bed thickness,
and regional stress regimes. In the Monterey succession,
a wide variety of structural features occurs at several
scales (Gutierrez-Alonso and Gross, 1997). Large-scale
structural features include normal faults, bedding-plane
detachments, low-angle thrust faults, triangle zones,
thrust duplex structures, and fault blocks. Mesoscale
features include: ptygmatically folded veins, folded
beds of chert, inverted normal faults, fault-propaga-
tion folds, and breccia zones (Jeffrey et al., 1991).
Aside from the Monterey Formation, it is difficult to
present representative or type deposits of heavy-oil res-
ervoirs in California because such significant variation
exists between the different subbasins (Figure 7). This is
416 Hein

Figure 5. (A) Stratigraphic nomenclature of southern California for the offshore and onshore areas and oil fields discussed
in this chapter. Yellow indicates source rocks, black bars are main hydrocarbon fields, red bars show host rocks for surficial
oil-sand deposits exposed in either basin-marginal settings and/or surface areas with structural deformation, exposing the
deeper successions at surface (sources: Oakeshott et al., 1954; de Chandenedes, 1984, 1987; Dibblee, 1984; Dibblee et al.,
1987; Norton and Otott, 1996; Bridges and Castle, 2003; Imhof and Castle, 2004). (B) Approximate line of section for the
stratigraphic nomenclature discussed from the Wilmington oil field southeast to the Coalinga oil field in the northwest.
100 km (62 mi).

caused by differential rates of subsidence and uplift,
sediment supply, paleooceanographic histories of re-
gional circulation and upwelling, and sill depths be-
tween the different subbasins (Bridges and Castle, 2003;
Bowersox, 2004; see Schwartz, 1988, for a good sum-
mary). All of these paleogeomorphic factors were coupled
with several transgressive-regressive pulses associated
with changes in relative base level from the post-
Cretaceous to the Holocene. This results in stratigraphy
and petroleum flow system(s) that are nonuniform and
complex (Figure 5). The overall result is a patchwork of
different sedimentation and tectonic histories and reser-
voirs that range the spectrum from deep-marine to near-
shore, nonmarine fluviolacustrine and alluvial-fan en-
vironments. On a field basis, facies models from most
environments are applicable (dependent on the sedi-
mentary and tectonic history within an individual ba-
sin). Because of this inherent complexity, in this section,
some of the major oil fields are discussed that show the
main reservoir types and their dominant controls.
Fluvial and Lagoonal and Nearshore Reservoirs:
Coalinga Oil Field
The Coalinga oil field, central California (Figures 3B,
8), originally discovered in the late 1800s, started

production in 1890. Cumulative production was in
excess of 912 million bbl, with estimated remaining
reserves of 58 million bbl, and more than 1600 active
wells (end of 2006). It is now the eighth largest pro-
ducing oil field in California. The main operators are
Aera Energy LLC and Chevron Corporation (California
Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and
Geothermal Resources, 2006).
The Coalinga oil field is one of the first discovered
and described oil fields in California and became one of
the more prolific producers of heavy oil in California
(Arnold and Anderson, 1910). The oil on the west side of
the field is heavy (11–198 API); on the east side, both
heavy and medium-grade oil (12–308 API). Most of the
oil and heavy oil are produced from multiple discrete
intervals within the lower part of the Temblor Formation
(Figure 5) (Bate, 1984; Bate and Graham, 1987; Clark et al.,
2001). The Coalinga field is divided into the East and
West Coalinga, separated by the northwest–southeast-
trending Coalinga anticline (Figure 8) (Clark et al., 2001).
The Coalinga oil field is part of a petroleum system, in
which the organic-rich rocks of the underlying middle
Overview of Heavy Oil, Seeps, and Oil (Tar) Sands, California 417
Figure 5. (cont.).
Eocene Kreyenhagen Formation were the source rocks,
and the accumulated oil was reservoired in the overlying
Temblor Formation sandstones (Figures 5, 8). Traps are
mostly stratigraphic in nature, with some structural
complications. Along the eastern side of the San Andreas
Fault reservoir rocks outcrop, several historical oil seeps
(Figure 8A, B) also exist. Here, local solidified tar mats
and tight zones within the reservoir rocks provide cap
rocks to the subsurface reservoirs (Clark et al., 2001;
Imhof and Castle, 2004). Structure at the Coalinga oil
field is a southeastern-plunging anticline (Figure 8A)
(Clark et al., 2001). The Coalinga anticline is one of a
series of enechelon anticlines that occur on the eastern
side of the San Andreas Fault and define the western fold
belt of the San Joaquin Basin (Bridges and Castle, 2003).
The Temblor Formation unconformably overlies the
Eocene Kreyenhagen Shale and, in turn, is unconform-
ably overlain by the Etchegoin Formation shales, the
McLure Shale, the Reef Ridge diatomaceous shale, or
by regressive sands of the Santa Margarita Formation
(Figures 5; 8B, D). The Coalinga oil field reservoir con-
sists of the Miocene Temblor Formation braided stream
418 Hein

Figure 6. Miocene Monterey Formation diatomite, southern California. (A) Representative stratigraphic column showing textural
variation on the left, mineralogy and total organic carbon plotted on the right (from Isaacs, 1981b). (B) Outcrop photograph
of wispy-laminated dark organic shale, light-gray silty mudstone, and white very fine sandstone/siltstone interlaminations,
Monterey Formation (from Isaacs, 1981b). (C) Outcrop photograph of fractured, light-tan, silica-rich diatomite, with bitumen
and heavy-oil fracture fills, overlying unfractured, parallel-laminated, fissile organic shale at the base, coastal outcrops, Point
Conception, California. (D) Photograph of hand specimen of fractured and folded Miocene Formation diatomite, Arroyo Burro,
Santa Barbara, California.

Figure 7. Submerged topography of the

California borderland during highstands
that emplaced the regional, hemipelagic,
diatomaceous shales and mudstones. These
organic mudstones, mainly from the Mio-
cene Monterey Formation, were source
rocks for later hydrocarbon accumulations,
including heavy oil, seeps, and oil sands in
California (from Gorsline and Emery, 1959,
published in Pickering et al., 1989).
 Overview of Heavy Oil, Seeps, and Oil (Tar) Sands, California 419

Figure 8. Coalinga oil field, San Joaquin Basin. (A) Structure contour map showing the outline of the field, the southeast-
plunging Coalinga anticline, and line of section BB0. Division of the Coalinga oil field is into the West Coalinga and East Coalinga
areas. Map also shows lease locations, cored wells, sonic logs, seismic data, and outcrops. The Coalinga Nose anticline represents
the East Coalinga part of the field, and the monclinal flank is the West Coalinga part of the field. (B) Cross section BB0 of the East
Coalinga field showing the absence of an updip seal at Coalinga, where the Temblor reservoir is breached at the surface. Oil
accumulates behind near-surface tight cemented rocks and tar seals to create the underlying giant oil field. (C) Core photograph
(white light) of the basal Temblor unconformity (BT) showing onlap of Temblor sands onto the diatomaceous shales of the
Kreyenhagen Formation. (D) Core photograph (white light) of the top Temblor unconformity (TT) showing onlap of Etchegoin
shales onto the cemented, bioturbated, and oil-stained Temblor sands. Scale bar in tenths of feet. Modified from Clark et al. (2001).

sands that are overlain by transgressive lagoonal and
shallow-marine sediments. Internally within the Tem-
blor Formation are five different systems tracts, including
incised-valley, estuarine, tide- to wave-dominated shore-
line, diatomite, and subtidal deposits (Bridges and Castle,
2003). The basal reservoir cobble conglomerates and cob-
ble sands were emplaced as broad (tens of meters wide),
shallow (several meters deep), braided channels that
were cut into and deposited over the siliceous source
rock shales of the Kreyenhagen Formation (Figures 5,
8C). The overlying coarse clastics are a sequence of sand-
stone and mudstones deposited in a variety of nearshore
marine environments that draped the Coalinga anticline
(Clark et al., 2001). The trap is a tar seal that formed at the
air-oil contact in the eastern part of the oil field (Bate and
Graham, 1987). Internally, the lower Temblor reservoir
was highly compartmentalized with a complete lack of
vertical transmissibility between the different braid-
channel sands (Lennon, 1976).
Detailed mapping of both vertical and lateral res-
ervoir anisotropy is needed for a 3-D characterization
and visualization of the geologic framework. This al-
lows for proper placement of wells to ensure optimum
production from a very heterogeneous heavy-oil res-
ervoir in a basin-marginal setting (Lennon, 1976; Bate
and Graham, 1987). Recently, seismic facies mapping
with 3-D reservoir visualization and modeling tools
are being used routinely in the Coalinga field. These
are used to build geologic models for reservoir plan-
ning, simulation, and monitoring and to construct the
420 Hein

Figure 9. (A) Cross section of the

McKittrick oil field along N408E,
subsurface depths in feet. Modi-
fied from Allan et al. (2006).
(B) Cross section of the McKittrick
oil field along N308E, subsurface
depths in feet. Modified from
Dibblee (1984). (C) Three-
dimensional block model of the
faulted anticline of the South
Belridge oil field, with zone color
key indicating the main strati-
graphic units (from Allan et al.,
2006). 1000 ft (305 m).

pathways for horizontal wells, aided with logging-while-
drilling (LWD) systems (Sanford and Wildman, 1999;
Clark et al., 2001; Imhof and Castle, 2004).
Fluvial, Lacustrine, and Deep-Sea Slope Reservoirs:
South Belridge Oil Field
The South Belridge oil field, southern San Joaquin Ba-
sin (Figures 3, 9A – C), originally discovered in 1911, is
the fourth largest oil field in California and sixth most
productive in the United States. Cumulative produc-
tion is close to 2 billion bbl, with estimated remain-
ing reserves of 520 million bbl and about 6000 active
wells (end of 2006). The main operator is Aera Energy
Ltd. that has stated a production of 140,000 bbl of oil-
equivalent per day (Miller and McPherson, 1992; Cali-
fornia Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas
and Geothermal Resources, 2006).
This oil field has mostly produced heavy oil (10–148
API), mainly from the Pliocene–Pleistocene Tulare For-
mation (Beyer, 1987; Eagan et al., 1999) (Figures 5, 9B).

Different reservoir types within the field have been
produced by either thermal stimulation or through hy-
draulic fracturing. The structure in the South Belridge
oil field consists of a northwest-trending elongate anti-
cline that is plunging to the southeast and oriented sub-
parallel to the San Andreas Fault system (Figure 9A–C)
(Miller and McPherson, 1992). The shallow successions
dip gently on the flanks of the fold. Several unconfor-
mities occur in the field, with the most prominent at the
base of the Pleistocene Tulare Formation. The produc-
ing intervals within the Tulare Formation are lenticular,
nonmarine, fluvial-lacustrine deltaic sandstone reser-
voirs, which attain aggregate thicknesses of about 70 m
(230 ft) on structural closures and up to about 180 m
(590 ft) on the flanks of the fold. These lenticular sands
are interbedded with siltstone and claystone, and the
main reservoir is a stratigraphic trap associated with
a westward lensing out of the Tulare sands. Thermal
stimulation is used to produce heavy oil (oil gravity
ranges from 12 to 158 API) from unconsolidated to
weakly indurated, poorly sorted Tulare sands. Histor-
ically, the Tulare production accounted for about 80%
of the production and reserves of the South Belfied oil
field (Beyer, 1987).
A cross section and seismic survey of the South
Belridge oil field (Figure 9A, B) shows the various struc-
tural and stratigraphic relationships of the Tulare reser-
voir sands that overlie the Monterey diatomite (opal-A)
reservoirs. In the South Belridge field, the diagenetic
Overview of Heavy Oil, Seeps, and Oil (Tar) Sands, California 421
Figure 9. (cont.).
transition from opal-A to opal-CT occurs between 457
and 549 m (1500 and 1800 ft) depth in the southern part
of the field. The anticlinal structure of the diatomite
rocks that contains medium-gravity oil (Figure 9C) un-
derlies the Tulare oil sands (Figure 9A, B). At present,
the diatomite of the South Belridge field is being steamed
continuously on the crest of the anticline and cyclically
on the east flank of the anticline (Miller and McPherson,
1992). The trap at South Belridge consists of a combi-
nation of structural and stratigraphic traps and local tar
seals in both the Tulare sands and the underlying di-
atomite reservoirs. Compared with other fields in the
San Joaquin Basin, the petroleum accumulation in the
South Belridge oil field is relatively young, and the field
is not in equilibrium. Hydrocarbon migration was pre-
depositional or syndepositional with the Tulare Forma-
tion, as indicated by tar mats in the Pliocene Ethegoin
Formation and earliest Tulare sediments along the bas-
al unconformity. At present, the deeper Monterey diat-
omite is generating hydrocarbons at depth. The Mon-
terey diatomite has a subcropping relationship with
the overlying Tulare succession along the axis of the
South Belridge anticline, thus providing the pathway
for hydrocarbon charging in the oil field (Figure 9A, B)
(Miller and McPherson, 1992). Several bitumen accu-
mulations are present at the crest of the structure that
are thought to be paleo-tar pits, formed when the
diatomite was exposed at the surface in the Pliocene –
Pleistocene. These were subsequently overtopped by
422 Hein
late Pliocene and Pleistocene fluvial and alluvial de-
posits. The bitumen contains very little sedimentary
material, indicating it was relatively solid at the time of
Tulare deposition.
The biggest challenge in production from the Tulare
reservoirs is the lateral discontinuity of the reservoir
sands, which typically die out in 3 to 30 m (10–100 ft)
and are bounded by floodplain and lacustrine mud and
siltstones that range from local to fieldwide in extent
(Eagan et al., 1999). Normal faulting (at least five were
mapped) further complicates the stratigraphy and lo-
cally may lead to compartmentalization of the heavy-oil
reservoir. In the past, it has been difficult to place the
injector and producer wells in ideal locations. It was
also impossible to ascertain the actual geospatial rela-
tionship of the injector and producer wells to one an-
other and their orientation with respect to the thin
lenticular reservoirs and internal cap rocks. In 1998, this
led to a fieldwide development of a 3-D surveillance
geologic framework using data from 650 wells to de-
scribe the complex stratigraphic and structural relation-
ships of the reservoir and nonreservoir rock. The result-
ing computer model has 22 different reservoir zones,
each from 1.5 to 6 m (5–20 ft) thick, and specifically
models the influence of the five most prominent faults.
Preliminary results of the 3-D geologic model and visu-
alization have led to optimizing the placement of the
injector and producer wells and provide for real-time
visualization and quantification of production and flow
units (Eagan et al., 1999).
In the South Belridge oil field, below the Pleistocene
unconformity is the Belridge diatomite (Reef Ridge
Member, Monterey Formation) (Figure 5A). Oil from
this deeper diatomite is lighter oil (20 – 318 API). This
deeper succession is more sharply folded than the over-
lying Tulare Formation. The Belridge diatomite consists
of silty or clayey diatomite with thin sandstone and
siltstone interbeds and lenses of porcelaneous clay-shale
(Schwartz, 1988). Wells were completed by hydraulic
fracturing. The Belridge diatomite (Reef Ridge shale)
accounted for about 20% of the production and reserves
for the field. Other very limited production occurred
from underlying siliceous rocks of the Monterey For-
mation (below the Reef Ridge Member) because they
are opal-CT and very tight. Some production occurred
from Pliocene sands and diatomite preserved on the
flanks of the anticline, where they were not removed by
the Pleistocene erosion (Beyer, 1987).
The history of the South Belridge oil field is similar
to other fields in the southern San Joaquin Basin. Oil
initially accumulated on the main anticlinal structure
at South Belridge in the fractured Belridge diatomite.
Further faulting and fracturing of local cap rocks above
the Belridge diatomite allowed the oil to migrate up into
the overlying Tulare sand reservoirs, where locally, they
pinch out along the anticlinal structure, forming a mostly
stratigraphic trap. The emplacement of the hydrocarbons
into the Tulare is a complex story. What is amazing is that
so much oil entered the sands in such a short period.
A similar, but more complex, history of emplacement
occurred at the nearby Taft-McKittrick oil field and tar
pit (de Chadenedes, 1984, 1987) (Figure 9A, B). Plung-
ing folds are faulted, deeper successions are more tight-
ly folded and faulted than shallower successions, and
internal unconformities and faults compartmentalize
the reservoir. Initially, a simple faulted anticline formed
the trap, with oil accumulating in the Miocene Reef Ridge
Member and overlying Pliocene–Pleistocene Tulare For-
mation. Structural deformation during the Pleisto-
cene then thrust the Miocene on top of the Pliocene –
Pleistocene Tulare sandstone reservoirs. Subsequent
fracturing and faulting of the Miocene overthrust suc-
cession permitted further petroleum migration into
the Miocene overthrust and to the surface forming the
McKittrick tar pits (Figure 9A, B) (de Chadenedes,
1984, 1987).
Deep-sea Submarine Slope and Base-of-slope Fan
Reservoirs: Wilmington Oil Field
The Wilmington oil field, Los Angeles Basin (Figures 3
[inset], 10, 11), originally discovered in 1932, is the larg-
est oil field in California (Mayuga, 1970; Biddle, 1991)
and the third largest in the United States (Clarke and
Phillips, 2003, 2004). Original oil in place is estimated
to be about 9 billion bbl. Cumulative total production
is more than 2.6 billion bbl, with remaining reserves of
about 300 million bbl (as of 2002), and more than 1200
active wells (California Department of Conservation,
Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, 2006).
The main operator is the Tidelands Oil Production
Company in the Old Wilmington, or western part, of
the field, with THUMS’ (artificial islands named after
the parent companies: Texaco, Humble Oil [now
Exxon], Union Oil [now ConocoPhillips], Mobil Oil
[now Exxon], and Shell Oil) Long Beach Unit the field
contractor for the eastern part of the field (Figure 10A)
(Clarke and Phillips, 2003, 2004).
This oil field has highly variable oil gravities, with
shallower pools containing heavier oil (12–148 API) and
some deeper pools with light oil (25–328 API). Other
variations are between onshore and offshore pools
(Berman and Clarke, 1987; California Department of
Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal
Resources, 2006). Oil is produced mainly from the
Pliocene Repetto turbidite lobes and the underlying
Miocene deep-sea turbidite sands from slope and base-
of-slope settings of the Puente Formation (Figure 5)
 Overview of Heavy Oil, Seeps, and Oil (Tar) Sands, California 423

Figure 10. (A) Map of the Long Beach area showing the areas of the Wilmington oil field where Tidelands Oil Production Company
(western part) and THUMS Long Beach Company (Long Beach Unit) are the field contractors. The city of Long Beach, Department
of Oil Properties, operates both. The coastline, harbor areas, breakwater, and oil-drilling islands are shown for reference.
Pacific Energy Resources operates the polygonal area between the properties. (B) Aerial photograph of Long Beach – Los Angeles
Harbor showing the location of the three horizontal well projects (case histories 1, 2, 3) and fault blocks II through V (FB II– FB V).
Oil activities coexist with the busiest harbor in the country, with fault block V steam-flood operations (case history 2) beneath
Long Beach’s new $180 million aquarium and northeast of the Queen Mary dockyard. (C) Type logs for the wells 2AU 30B1 and
2AT58B 0 for the steam-flood project in FB V; original picked markers are shown in black, and newly picked markers are shown
in red, the difference of which was used to calculate subsidence related to 60 yr of oil production in the area. The inset shows
the T4 paleochannel fill from well 2AT58B. Location of wells given in Figure 11C (from Clarke and Phillips, 2003, 2004).

(Truex, 1972, 1974; Henderson, 1987; Slatt et al., 1993;
Norton and Otott, 1996).
The Wilmington oil field is part of a series of oil fields
in the Los Angeles Basin that lie on a series of northwest–
southeast-trending en echelon anticlines and complex
antiforms that are associated with the Newport-
Inglewood Fault (Pickering et al., 1989; Norton and
Otott, 1996) (Figures 11A, 12). Production is from slope
and base-of-slope turbidites and channel sands, with the
entire succession being folded and faulted (Figures 10C;
11B, C). The basic structure of the field is a large, sygmoidal,
asymmetric highly faulted anticline, with field produc-
tion progressively from east to west in a series of 10
different fault blocks (Norton and Otott, 1996; Clarke,
1999). Internally, the main Wilmington anticline is cut
by several normal faults that compartmentalize the
reservoir into separate production units (Figures 10B,
11A). These faults also offset both the paleochannel
reservoir sands and the onlapping turbidite reservoir
sands (Figure 11B, C) (Clarke and Phillips, 2003, 2004).
424 Hein

Figure 11. (A) Structure map of the T marker in fault block IIA. Observation well locations shown by yellow dots, and trajectories
of the horizontal wells are shown by brown curving lines. Contour intervals are 15.2 m (50 ft) from 731.5 to 1036 m
(2400 to 3400 ft) below sea level (B) Three-dimensional geologic visualization of the D1F onlap onto the D2 shale in fault
block II, vertical exaggeration 2, and the units are displayed in feet; (C) Three-dimensional geologic visualization of the T2
horizon in fault block II, showing the locations of the two type wells in Figure 10. The T4 paleochannel cuts through several
horizons and is offset by the Wilmington and Ford faults (from Clarke and Phillips, 2003, 2004). 2000 ft (609.6 m).

One of the biggest challenges in secondary and ter-
tiary recovery from this field is the extreme lateral and
vertical heterogeneity in both the reservoir and non-
reservoir rocks. Geologic heterogeneity at all scales has
made it difficult to properly characterize the reservoir
heterogeneity. Individual turbidite beds are normally
graded and interbedded with siltstones and shales;
however, the turbidites occur in multistory, stacked,
and faulted base-of-slope paleochannel fills or in over-
lapping and onlapping lenticular lobes, with internal
channeling (Slatt et al., 1993). In addition to the strat-
igraphic compilations, many small structural compli-
cations exist. The structural faulting is complex, with
vertical offsets ranging from 15 to 30 m (50–100 ft). Lo-
cally, some faults in the Repetto Formation are perme-
ability barriers, whereas other faults are only partially
sealing (Clarke and Phillips, 2003, 2004).
In some areas of the Wilmington oil field, steam-
flood expansion in the mid-1990s was done using hor-
izontal wells that each replaced four or five vertical
wells (Figure 10B), with five observation wells used to
monitor the steam growth in the subsurface (Clarke
and Phillips, 2003, 2004). This scheme had two steam
injectors and two producers placed 122 m (400 ft)
apart horizontally in a pseudo-steam assisted gravity
drainage (SAGD) scheme. For the scheme to be
effective, a complete 3-D geologic model was built
by doing detailed wire-line-log interpretation tied to

reservoir characterization and structural fault delinea-
tion (Figure 11B, C).
A real-time 3-D working geologic model with 3-D
visualization allowed for data inconsistencies to be re-
conciled and also identified areas of intraformational
subsidence and compaction that related to oil produc-
tion and heavy-oil withdrawal during the previous
60 yr, with maximum subsidence in this area of 8.8 m
(29 ft) (Figure 10C). In January 1999, a steam-flood pilot
project was halted because of increased subsidence.
In October 1999, flank wells were converted to cold-
water injection wells, and subsidence was halted by
September 2002. Elsewhere, experience from this
steam-flood pilot project was applied successfully to
the development, definition, exploitation, and capture
of bypassed pay (Clarke and Phillips, 2003, 2004).
This recent work involving 3-D geologic modeling,
visualizing, and measuring-while-drilling technologies
have clearly demonstrated that these new and evolving
technologies can greatly increase reserves and ulti-
mate recovery from old oil fields in California, such as
the Wilmington oil field (Blesener and Henerson, 1996;
Clarke, 1999). Production from the western fault blocks
are reaching economic limits; elsewhere, in the field,
Overview of Heavy Oil, Seeps, and Oil (Tar) Sands, California 425
Figure 12. Sedimentary basins
and main structural features of
the southern California Borderland
and immediately adjacent on land
areas, with approximate thick-
nesses of basin fills shown in pa-
rentheses in kilometers; as follows:
1. Ridge Basin (4.5 km; 2.8 mi);
2. Los Angeles Basin (8.0 km;
5 mi); 3. San Diego Trough (2.5 km;
1.6 mi); 4. Santa Monica Basin
(3.5 km; 2.2 mi); 5. Catalina Basin
(0.8 km; 0.5 mi); 6. Santa Cruz
Basin (1.8 km; 1.1 mi); 7. San Pedro
Basin (1.8 km; 1.1 mi); 8. San
Clemente Basin; 9. San Nicolas
Basin (1.4 km; 0.9 mi); 10. East
Cortes Basin; 11. Tanner Basin
(1.4 km; 0.9 mi); 12. Patton Basin
(1.7 km; 1.056 mi). SMI = San
Miguel Island; SRI = Santa Rosa
Island; SCrI = Santa Cruz Island;
SCI = Santa Catalina Island; SBI =
Santa Barbara Island; SNI = San
Nicolas Island; SCLI = San Cle-
mente Island. Northwest-trending
faults are dextral and synthetic to
the San Andreas Fault. Santa
Monica Fault is sinistral. Anticline
trend is mainly west-northwest
(from Pickering et al., 1989).
where water cuts are less, secondary and tertiary steam-
recovery techniques have proven to successfully pro-
duce the heavy oil. In some cases, steam was used to
fuse and indurate the unconsolidated sands to avoid
wellbore breakthrough and to allow selective perfora-
tions to optimize water recoveries. Three-dimensional
seismic studies have aided in reservoir characteriza-
tion and delineation of the complete geologic frame-
work; were used to geologically model, define, and
exploit bypassed pay; and were used to extend the life
of the field into more marginal areas, which previous-
ly have not been developed (Clarke, 1999; Clarke and
Phillips, 2003, 2004).
Seeps
Recent world estimates indicate that about 47% of crude
oil currently entering the marine setting is from natural
oil seepage, and natural oil seeps are the single most
important source of oil in the ocean (Kvenvolden and
Cooper, 2003). Oil seeps are common in southern and
central California and are a natural part of the oil-
producing area along the California coastline. Here,
many winter storms wash up tar balls along the beaches
426 Hein
from oil that was mostly sourced in the Miocene Mon-
terey diatomite that crops out along the shoreline
(Hartman and Hammond, 1981; Kvenvolden et al., 1999,
2002a, b; Kvenvolden and Cooper, 2003; Hostettler et al.,
2004; Minerals Management Service, 2005). Since about
1980, more than 1 million bbl of oil have seeped off along
the coast of central and southern California (Minerals
Management Service, 2005). These seeps form oil slicks
on the water surface, and some have had perennial or
continuous discharge since the late 1700s, as noted by
early English and Spanish explorers (Wilkinson, 1972).
In submarine areas, a unique and diverse macrofaunal
seep community exists (Hornafius et al., 1999; Lorenson,
2001). Similarly, on land, ecological studies show areas
surrounding seeps to be more diverse and biologically
active than surrounding areas lacking seeps. This is in-
terpreted to be caused by the bubbling of both water and
oil from the seeps (Lorenson, 2001; Mulqueen, 2007).
One particularly active area is in the Coal Oil and
Goleta points seep field, located in the offshore Santa
Barbara Channel, between Point Conception and Ventura
(Figure 3) (Fischer, 1978; Hornafius et al., 1999; Broderick,
2001; Washburn et al., 2005). Here, a series of seeps have
been studied since the 1980s by sampling and collection
of natural hydrocarbon emanations in ocean-bottom
steel pyramids (350-ton and 15-m [50-ft]-high structures)
called seep tents. The Coal Oil Point offshore seep area
has collectively discharged about 55,000 bbl of oil/yr
(equivalent to 50–70 bbl/day or about 1–2  104 L/day),
with an additional 1.8 billion ft3 (510 million m3) of nat-
ural gas (Allen et al., 1970; Broderick, 2001; Kvenvolden
et al., 2002b). This seep area also contributes about
22 tons of reactive organocarbons (ROGs precursors to
smog) in the Santa Barbara area each day (Clark et al.,
1999, 2005). The connection of submarine discharge in
the Coal Point seep field has been tied to subsurface
reservoirs, where decreased natural-marine seepages
correlate with increased offshore oil production in the
area (Quigley et al., 1999a, b). The collection of hydro-
carbons on the ocean floor in seep tents have cut em-
anations to the seawater and atmosphere, with notice-
able reduction in the natural levels of ROGs, oil slicks
on the sea surface, and the number of tar balls along the
shoreline. In addition to the Coal Point seep field, a
1000-m (3280-ft)-thick tar mat is within and overlying
the Monterey structures offshore Santa Maria. This tar
mat is the seal for fractured Monterey strata that was
explored in the 1980s and 1990s.
Oil (Tar) Sands
Hundreds of asphaltum and oil (tar) sands locations are
in California (de Chadenedes, 1984, 1987). Most of the
largest oil-sand deposits occur in the Santa Maria Ba-
sin, in the coastal area of southern California (Figure 3;
Table 1). These are mostly hosted within the Sisquoc
Formation (Figure 5), which may have been a seal to
migrating Miocene oil, hosted from the deeper source
rocks of the Monterey Formation and Point Sal Mem-
ber (Kuuskraa et al., 1987). Other oil sands in the Santa
Maria Basin are hosted in basal Foxen deposit and in
the overlying Careaga Formation, where underlying
source rocks of the Sisquoc Formation are relatively
thin (Figure 5) (Kuuskraa et al., 1987). In California, the
sixth largest oil-sand deposit is the Oxnard oil field of
the Ventura Basin, where bitumen is hosted within two
sands of the Pico Formation (Figure 5), which uncon-
formably overlie the source rocks of the Monterey For-
mation (Kuuskraa et al., 1987).
Oil-sand deposits have been mined intermittently
for hundreds of years (Earley, 1984), but to date, no
commercial in-situ thermal schemes have been oper-
ating. In the 1980s, Getty Oil Company ran an experi-
mental heat distillation scheme on the giant McKittrick
oil field in the southwest San Joaquin Basin (Figures 3
[inset], 9C). Here, the basic structure is a series of
faulted (both thrust and normal) anticlines or anticline-
syncline pairs, with most of the heavy oil and oil (tar)
sands in combination structural-stratigraphic traps. Al-
though called tar sands, the deposit is technically oil
sand and heavy oil, with oil viscosity increasing with
depth from 5 to 208 API (de Chadenedes, 1984, 1987). In
the McKittrick oil district, oil is produced mainly from
almost all of the Tertiary sands, with the largest produc-
tion from the Miocene Temblor Formation (Figures 5;
9A, B) (de Chadenedes, 1987). A diatomite project is
also in place to extract hydrocarbons from surface ex-
posures of the charged diatomite; at present, cat litter
is made from the non-hydrocarbon-bearing offsetting
diatomite strata.
HISTORICAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT OF
HEAVY OIL, SEEPS, AND OIL SANDS IN CALIFORNIA
In 1850, the first distillation of seep oil into lamp oil was
by Andreas Pico, who collected and distilled seep oil in
Pico Canyon, to be used as lamp oil in the San Fernando
Mission (California Department of Conservation, Divi-
sion of Oil and Gas, 1981). By the mid-1860s, oil dug in
pits or underground tunnels was being mined in large
operations, including those at McKittrick tar pits in
Kern County and the Adams Canyon area of the Santa
Paula oil field, in Ventura County. More than 130 yr ago,
excavations of more than 25 of these tunnels were done
by companies that eventually merged to form Union

Oil Company. Tunnels followed the natural oil seep-
ages in the area, and at many of these sites, water and oil
are still flowing to the surface. In the 1860s, the tunnels
in the Adams Canyon area of the Santa Paula oil field
produced more oil than any other production method
in California. At the time, the long distances to markets,
the relatively high operating costs, and economic fac-
tors meant that such operations were sporadic and
seasonal. As the oil fields were by Union Oil Company
(or by the companies that merged later to form Union
Oil), the seep oil production declined, along with a
replacement of seep oil production by conventional
drilling operations (California Department of Conser-
vation, Division of Oil and Gas, 1981).
Most of the technologies used to produce heavy oil
were originally developed in California. Guerard (1989)
gives a comprehensive review of the history of the tech-
nologies developed in California for extraction and pro-
duction of heavy oil. In the past, although California’s
heavy-oil potential was enormous, it was not economical
to produce them by conventional means and as such, in
the past, these deposits were not economically attractive.
With the evolution of secondary and tertiary schemes,
mostly thermal steam-flood and fire-flood (in-situ com-
bustion), it became possible to develop these vast re-
sources. As noted by Schamel (1998), recoveries in-
creased from presteam values of less than 10% in the
Midway-Sunset field to up to 40 to 70% after steam-
injection projects were beyond the pilot stage of
development.
To produce the heavy oil, the viscosity has to be re-
duced, which is done mainly by either steam injection
or in-situ combustion. Steam produced in steam gen-
Overview of Heavy Oil, Seeps, and Oil (Tar) Sands, California 427
erators, mostly fueled by natural gas, is injected under
high pressure into the heavy-oil reservoir. The steam
can be injected in either a continuous mode or in a cyclic
basis (Figure 13). In continuous steam-flooding, steam is
pumped through injector wells into the heavy-oil res-
ervoir. As the steam rises, eventually, it reaches a cap-
rock barrier and then begins to spread laterally at the top
of the reservoir. The steam warms the heavy oil in the
reservoir and provides drive toward a nearby vertical
production well. In CSS, the steam is injected for a
few months, followed by a brief (few months) soak
time (to allow the heat to penetrate the formation,
heat the heavy oil, and lower the viscosity), and then the
heated oil is produced up the same well (Guerard, 1989;
Dusseault, 2013).
Disadvantages of the CSS and steam-flood processes
are the costs associated with using natural gas to heat
the water for the steam; water requirements for steam
generation (Veil and Quinn, 2008); and heat losses
through surface lines, wellbores, and latent heat losses
to adjacent nonproducing rocks in the formation. Con-
ventional steam injection using vertical wells has a
practical limitation of 914 to 1219 m (3000 – 4000 ft)
(Guerard, 1989). Recently, horizontal drilling has been
used to reduce well spacing in areas with urbanization
or environmental concerns (Figure 10A, B) (Clarke and
Phillips, 2003, 2004) and to target some of the more
marginal areas for heavy-oil production. In pilot areas
of California, some of the horizontal schemes are start-
ing to use SAGD to access the heavy-oil reservoirs, as is
more commonly done for the Athabasca oil sands of
Canada (Hein et al., 2013). The advantage of SAGD with
horizontal drilling is that it may allow more uniform
Figure 13. Steam-flooding scheme
used in early development of the
California heavy-oil fields. Heat
from steam is either injected con-
tinuously or cyclically into the
heavy-oil reservoir. The injected
steam heats the reservoir, lower-
ing the viscosity of the oil, making
it easier for the steam to push
the oil through the formation to
the production wells (from Stosur
and Slater, 1987).
428 Hein
heating of the reservoir, the steam and the overlying
nonproductive formations have less contact, and latent
heat losses may be less than for schemes that use
vertical wells with steam-flooding. The difficulty of
SAGD is that many of the heavy-oil reservoirs in Cali-
fornia are very complex, with channelization, faulting,
and significant vertical and lateral barriers. This is in
contrast to the Canadian reservoirs that are more lat-
erally continuous and have fewer lateral baffles and
barriers.
The final thermal process that has been used for
heating of heavy-oil reservoirs in California is in-situ
combustion, more commonly known as fire-flooding
(Garon et al., 1984; Guerard, 1989) (Figure 14). Here,
the heavy-oil (or oil-sand) reservoir is heated under-
ground, with initial ignition from a downhole-heating
device. Air is then pumped downhole in the injection
wells, and a burning front then moves slowly through
the reservoir toward the producing wells. Lighter
fractions of crude oil ahead of the front are vaporized,
leaving a coke behind that is the principal fuel for the
in-situ combustion process. The rate of migration of
the burning front is dependent on the air injection
rate and the type and amount of crude oil being burned
(Guerard, 1989). In some cases, water is injected simul-
taneously or alternatively with the air to help transfer
some of the heat to the oil ahead of the burn because of
the low heat-carrying capacity of the gases ahead of the
burning front. In all cases, once the heavy oil reaches the
producing well, artificial lifts, including conventional
rods, progressive cavity pumps, or more recently, elec-
trical submersible pumps, are used to lift the oil to the
surface.
Figure 14. In-situ combustion
scheme used in early develop-
ment of the California heavy-oil
fields. Heat is used to reduce the
viscosity of the oil and permit it
to flow more easily to the pro-
duction wells. In a fire-flood, the
formation is ignited, and by con-
tinued production of air, the
burning front is advanced through
the reservoir (from Stosur and
Slater, 1987).
Ongoing challenges for thermal stimulation of these
heavy-oil reservoirs relate to steam-front or burn-front
conformance issues, wellbore breakthrough, cap-rock
integrity, the use of water, greenhouse gas emissions,
and other environmental concerns. Recently, one com-
pany, GlassPoint Solar, has built the first solar-powered
steam-flood (called Solar Pilot 1) for an oil field in Kern
County, California (Terrell, 2011). The solar pilot is a
hybrid system of both natural gas and solar energy. The
solar pilot array is too far from the injection wells to
provide steam directly; instead, the water is heated to
subboiling temperatures and then fed to gas-fired steam
generators. This pilot has reduced gas usage by 20%, and
the hybrid system is below the market prices of natural
gas (Terrell, 2011). Several clean-steam and green-steam
projects are being piloted in the San Joaquin Basin.
RESERVE GROWTH OF HEAVY OIL, SEEPS, AND OIL
SANDS IN CALIFORNIA
In his review, Tennyson (2005) looked at the long-term
growth history of the 52 giant oil fields in California to
determine whether growth patterns are a function of
geologic or other characteristics of the fields, including
advances in technology. In California, most of the oil
fields had early discoveries, between 1890 and 1925, gen-
erally growing to significant volumes (>500 million bbl)
within the first 20 yr after discovery. Nine giant fields in
the San Joaquin Basin had significant stepped growth
late in their life—the Midway-Sunset, Kern River, Elk
Hills, South Belridge, and Coalinga. Fields in other

basins that also have significant late stepped growth
include the Ventura, San Ardo, Cat Canyon, and Wil-
mington oil fields (Figure 15A, B).
At the Midway-Sunset field, the oil gravities are
mainly heavy (11 –148 API), with some extra heavy-oil
(88 API). Reservoir sands have porosities of 30 to 35%,
and permeabilities are from hundreds to thousands of
millidarcys. Most of the field is quite shallow, with a
low natural drive (Lennon, 1976, 1990). The Midway-
Sunset oil field is the largest of these fields that showed
late growth (Figure 15A). Pilot cyclic steam injection
projects began in the early 1960s, which were so suc-
cessful that they were deployed throughout the field
(Rintoul, 1995, 1999). Limited success with in-situ com-
bustion or fire-flooding was done in 1970s, but the most
significant reserves growth were related to the develop-
ment of steam-flooding in the 1960s and 1970s (Tennyson,
2005). Recently, since about 2000, operators have been
Overview of Heavy Oil, Seeps, and Oil (Tar) Sands, California 429
using steam-floods from horizontal wells, which have
again significantly spiked the reserves (Figure 15A, B).
A further complexity in Midway-Sunset field is the
checkerboard nature of the leases. Operators do not
always have contiguous acreage, and it is difficult to
get benefits of thermal projects if offsetting producers
are not steaming their reservoirs. Another heavy-oil
field that showed significant reserve growth related to
technological development is the South Belridge field
(Tennyson, 2005). The production at South Belridge is
from two main reservoirs, the upper shallow Pliocene–
Pleistocene heavy-oil sands of the Tulare Formation,
which contain heavy oil (10–148 API) and the lower
more intensely folded Belridge diatomites (Figure 5)
with lighter, medium oil (20–328 API). Two advances in
unconventional recovery technology led to the increase
in reserves growth of the South Belridge oil field. The
first was related to the piloting of steam-flooding in the
Figure 15. Estimated ultimate
recovery over time for those giant
fields in California that showed
late-stage stepped growth, inter-
preted as reflecting advances in
in-situ technological develop-
ments. The Midway-Sunset, Kern
River, Elk Hills, South Belridge,
and Coalinga oil fields are in the
San Joaquin Basin; the Wilming-
ton oil field in the Los Angeles
Basin; and the Ventura, San Ardo,
and Cat Canyon oil fields in the
coastal California area (Figure 3)
(from Tennyson, 2005).
430 Hein
upper Pliocene–Pleistocene sands (which was successful
and then done fieldwide); and the second was advances
related to hydraulic fracturing of the deeper diatomite.
From its initial discovery in 1911 to 1950, the South
Belridge field reserves grew mainly by expansion and
the addition of new pools. In the early 1950s, an in-place
combustion pilot (fire-flood) operation showed that up
to 40 to 60% of the heavy oil could be recovered by in-
situ thermal methods (Miller and McPherson, 1992).
Early CSS began in the 1960s, followed by the diatomite
fracturing technology in the 1970s, with the estimated
ultimate recovery tripling by 1990 to 1.1 billion bbl. Since
the early 1990s, further infill drilling and expansion of
steam-flood and water-flooding in the fractured diato-
mite have increased the expected ultimate recovery to 1.9
billion bbl (Tennyson, 2005) (Figure 15A).
The Wilmington field, in the Los Angeles Basin, con-
sists of weakly consolidated to unconsolidated, Plio-
cene deep-sea submarine fan turbidites. Oil gravities
are variable from heavy (12–148API) in the shallower
pools to light (25–328API) in the deeper pools; reservoir
sands have porosities of 26 to 32% and permeabilities
from 80 to 1600 md. Most of the field is quite shallow,
with low natural drive. The Wilmington field grew by
the addition of pools for the first 20 yr, with an estimated
ultimate recovery of 1 billion bbl. By the mid-1960s, the
ultimate oil recoverability increased to about 3 billion
bbl because of additions from offshore expansion and
increased productivity associated with the fieldwide
water-flooding schemes. In the late 1980s, steam-flooding
was introduced, and since 1988, both water-flooding
and steam-flooding have produced most of the oil from
Wilmington (Tennyson, 2005). Recently, new technol-
ogies, including horizontal drilling, LWD, and 3-D geo-
logic modeling and visualization, along with continued
secondary and tertiary recovery techniques, have con-
tinued to improve production efficiencies and extend
the production life of the field (Clarke, 1999; Clarke and
Phillips, 2003, 2004).
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
Steam injection continues to be the favorite method for
thermal recovery of heavy oil from California. With in-
creased horizontal drilling, SAGD may be applied in
combination with other thermal technologies, such as
CSS and steam-flood, to maximize production through
technology sequencing in many of these old heavy-oil
reservoirs that are nearing the end of their production.
Until now, most of the California oil sands have not been
commercially developed. Although much of the in-situ
steam technology was developed and applied in Cali-
fornia to its heavy-oil reservoirs, to date this technology,
has not been, in general, done on the many significant
oil-sand deposits in the state (Table 1).
Elsewhere, integration of LWD technology has im-
proved unconventional shale gas production for shale
gas reservoirs through accurate well placement. The
Monterey Formation is actually similar to many of these
other unconventional shale plays such as the Woodford
Shale of southeastern Oklahoma, which has complex
layering, faults, and extensive sealed and open frac-
tures. Three-dimensional seismic and geologic analyses
are required to characterize the faults, dips, direction,
and intensity of natural fractures for optimal lateral
orientation of horizontal wells and completions
strategies.
In-situ technologies, such as SAGD and CSS, are rou-
tinely used in Alberta to produce the vast oil-sands de-
posits in northern Canada (Hein et al., 2013). These
technologies have evolved to the extent that small-scale
SAGD is being proposed for many of the smaller leases.
Expansion of this type of production to California may
be linked into existing infrastructures that are associ-
ated with heavy-oil production; in fact, the technologies
are very similar to what has been done to rejuvenate the
old Wilmington oil field horizontal drilling of multiple
wells from a single pad and creation of larger steam
chambers in the subsurface that coalesce along the well
pairs to give a better conformance to the scheme. In
many areas of California, the oil sands, heavy oil, and
diatomites occur as separate play types within given
fields or in close proximity to one another. These close
associations of the diatomites and diatomaceous shales
(which are most amenable to hydraulic fracking) make
it possible to have full integration of the heavy-oil and
oil-sand reservoirs, with deeper development by
multistage, multifracing (diatomites), and overlying or
laterally adjacent heavy oil and oil sands by SAGD, CSS
with or without water-flood and steam-flood.
At present, steam-enhanced heavy-oil production
in California is in decline. Several other known Cali-
fornia heavy-oil or oil-sand deposits have never been
developed because it was initially thought that their
viscosity was too high for steam or fire-flood to be ef-
fective. In-situ technologies such as SAGD or CSS are
routinely used to develop the more highly viscous oil
sands of Canada. Recently, the use of SAGD in the Ox-
nard field near Ventura, California, has been proposed.
Other known heavy-oil and oil-sand deposits in Cali-
fornia, where such technologies may be used, include
the large Foxen oil (tar) sand, Santa Maria Basin, and
the Arroyo Grande (Edna) in the Kern River area (among
others, Table 1). Other prospective sources for Califor-
nia’s future oil production include those offshore un-
developed oil fields, such as those offshore the Santa
Maria Basin, north of Point Conception, or undeveloped

fields north of the Channel Islands, San Miguel, Santa
Rosa, and Santa Cruz.
In the past, in California, technological advances al-
lowed oil production to continue when conventional
production declined by switching to heavy-oil produc-
tion. Today, application of other technologies, such as
SAGD, may be applied to the common oil-sand and
seep deposits of California and, with technology se-
quencing with heavy-oil production, may increase or at
least maintain California’s oil production. These on-
shore resources, along with additions from offshore
leases, may allow California to again become self-
sufficient with its own strategic resources.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Energy Resources Conservation Board, Calgary,
provided technical assistance and support. I thank
Kevin Parks, Doug Boyler, Jon Schwalbach, and Daniel
Schwartz for helpful suggestions to improve the man-
uscript and Dan Magee for digital graphics. Any use
of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive pur-
poses only and does not imply endorsement by the
author or the Alberta Government.
REFERENCES CITED
Alexander Jr., R. G., 1986, California and Saudi Arabia geo-
logic contrasts, in M. T. Halbouty, ed., Future petroleum
provinces of the world: AAPG Memoir 40, p. 291 – 315.
Allan, M., M. Rahman, and B. Rycerski, 2006, Belridge giant oil
field: Learnings from an unusual marine reservoir in an old
field: AAPG Annual Convention, Houston, Texas, April 11:
AAPG Search and Discovery article 90052, http://www
.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2006/06143allan
/index.htm; http://www.searchanddiscovery.com
/documents/2006/06088houston_abs/abstracts/allan01
.htm (accessed April 1, 2010).
Allen, A. A., R. S. Schlueter, and P. G. Mikolaj, 1970, Natural
oil seepage at Coal Oil Point, Santa Barbara, California:
Science, v. 170, no. 3961, p. 974 – 977, doi:10.1126/science
.170.3961.974.
Arnold, R., and R. Anderson, 1910, Geology and oil resources
of the Coalinga oil district, California: U.S. Geological Sur-
vey Bulletin 398, 354 p.
Bate, M. A., 1984, Temblor and Big Blue formations: Interpre-
tation of depositional environment sequence on Coalinga
anticline, Fresno County, California: M.Sc. thesis, Stanford
University, Stanford, California, 123 p.
Bate, M. A., and S. A. Graham, 1987, Significance of reservoir
stratigraphy in production of heavy oil from Coalinga oil
field, in R. F. Meyer, ed., Exploration of heavy crude oil and
natural bitumen: AAPG Studies in Geology 25, p. 301–309.
Overview of Heavy Oil, Seeps, and Oil (Tar) Sands, California 431
Beeson, D., and J. Singer, 2011, Surveillance well utility in
4-D modeling of oil saturation changes at Kern River
field, California (abs.): CD-ROM.
Berman, B., and D. D. Clarke, 1987, THUMS oil operations,
in D. D. Clarke and C. P. Henderson, eds., Geologic guide
to the Long Beach area: AAPG Pacific Section Guidebook
58, p. 99 – 127.
Beyer, L. A., 1987, Porosity of unconsolidated sand, diato-
mite, and fractured shale reservoirs, South Belridge and
West Cat Canyon oil fields, California, in R. F. Meyer, ed.,
Exploration of heavy crude oil and natural bitumen:
AAPG Studies in Geology 25, p. 395 – 414.
Biddle, K. T., 1991, The Los Angeles Basin: An overview, in
K. T. Biddle, ed., Active basin margins: AAPG Memoir 52,
p. 5 – 24.
Blesener, J. A., and C. P. Henerson, 1996, New technologies
in the Long Beach Unit, in D. D. Clarke, G. E. Otott Jr.,
and C. C. Phillips, eds., Old oil fields and new life: A visit
to the giants of the Los Angeles Basin: AAPG Pacific Sec-
tion, p. 45 – 50.
Bowersox, J. R., 2004, Late Neogene paleobathymetry, rel-
ative sea level, and basin margin subsidence, northwest
San Joaquin Basin, California: AAPG Search and Discov-
ery article 30029, 5 p.: http://www.searchanddiscovery
.com/documents/2004/bowersox/index.htm (accessed
April 1, 2010).
Bridges, R. A., and J. W. Castle, 2003, Local and regional
tectonic control on sedimentology and stratigraphy in a
strike-slip basin: Miocene Temblor Formation of the
Coalinga area, California, U.S.A.: Sedimentary Geology,
v. 158, p. 271 – 197, doi:10.1016/S0037-0738(02)00314-7.
Broderick, K. G., 2001, Controls on the location of hydrocar-
bon seeps in the northern Santa Barbara Channel shelf,
California: A geologic plumbing system (abs.): American
Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2001, abstract OS31B-
0436, 2 p.
California Department of Conservation, Division of oil and
gas, 1981, Oil and gas production history in California:
Sacramento, California, California Department of Conser-
vation, Division of Oil and Gas, 8 p.: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca
.gov/pub/oil/history (accessed April 1, 2010).
California Department of Conservation, Division of oil and
gas, 1993, Petroleum seeps, geogenic sources, Section 9.2,
Report, 5 p.
California Department of Conservation, Division of oil, gas
and geothermal resources, 2006, Annual report of the state
oil and gas supervisor, 1994 through 2006 (December 31):
California Department of Conservation, Sacramento, Cali-
fornia, 269 p.
Clark, J. F., L. Washburn, J. S. Hornafius, and B. P. Luyendyk,
1999, Distribution and source strength of dissolved hy-
drocarbons from natural marine seeps, Coal Oil Point,
Santa Barbara, California (abs.): 1999 AAPG Pacific Sec-
tion Meeting, Monterey, California: AAPG Search and Dis-
covery article 90920, http://www.searchanddiscovery.com
/abstracts/html/1999/pacific/abstracts/0681m.htm
(accessed April 1, 2010).
Clark, J. F., K. Schwager, and L. Washburn, 2005, Variability
432 Hein
of gas composition and flux intensity in natural marine
hydrocarbon seeps: University of California Energy Insti-
tute, Development and Technology, Paper EDT-008, 15 p.
Clark, M. S., L. F. Klonsky, and K. E. Tucker, 2001, Geologic
study and multiple 3-D surveys give clues to complex res-
ervoir architecture of giant Coalinga oil field, San Joaquin
Valley, California: The Leading Edge, p. 744– 751, doi:10
.1190/1.1487285.
Clarke, D. D., 1999, At 68 Wilmington still has life: New
technology revitalizes the old field: 1999 AAPG Pacific
Section Meeting, Monterey, California: AAPG Search and
Discovery article 90920, http://www.searchanddiscovery
.com/abstracts/html/1999/pacific/abstracts/0681p.htm
(accessed April 1, 2010).
Clarke, D. D., and C. C. Phillips, 2003, Three-dimensional
geologic modeling and horizontal drilling bring more oil
out of the Wilmington oil field of southern California, in
T. R. Carr, E. P. Mason, and C. T. Feazel, eds., Horizontal
wells: Focus on the reservoir: AAPG Methods in Explo-
ration 14, p. 27 – 47.
Clarke, D. D., and C. C. Phillips, 2004, Three-dimensional
geologic modeling and horizontal drilling bring more oil
out of the Wilmington oil field of southern California, in
T. R. Carr, E. P. Mason, and C. T. Feazel, eds., Horizontal
wells: Focus on the reservoir: AAPG Search and Discovery
article 20019, p. 27– 47: http://www.searchanddiscovery
.com/documents/2004/clarke/index.htm (accessed April 1,
2010).
Colvin, R. G., 1968, South Belridge oil field, in S. E. Karp, ed.,
Geology and oil fields, west side southern San Joaquin
Valley: AAPG — Society of Economic Geologists —
SEPM Guidebook, Pacific Section, p. 64 – 67.
Croft, G. D., and T. W. Patzek, 2009, The future of California’s
oil supply: Society of Petroleum Engineers Western Re-
gional Meeting, San Jose, California, March 24 – 26, SPE
Paper 120174-PP, 13 p.
Crowell, J. C., 1974a, Sedimentation along the San Andreas
fault, California, in R. H. Dott Jr. and R. H. Shaver, eds.,
Modern and ancient geosynclinal sedimentation: SEPM
(Society of Sedimentary Geology) Special Publication 19,
p. 292 – 303.
Crowell, J. C., 1974b, Origin of Late Cenozoic in southern
California, in W. R. Dickinson, ed., Tectonics and sedi-
mentation: SEPM (Society of Sedimentary Geology) Spe-
cial Publication 22, p. 190 – 204.
Crowell, J. C., 1987, Coarse clastic facies of Miocene Ridge
Basin adjacent to the San Gabriel fault, southern California:
Geological Society of America, Centennial Field Guide-
Cordilleran Section, p. 231 – 232.
de Chadenedes, J. F., 1984, Geology and genesis of the Coast
Range province of California and its hydrocarbon depos-
its: Surface tar sand deposits in California, in R. F. Meyer,
J. W. Earley, J. Barnea, and R. L. Johnston, eds., Explo-
ration for heavy crude and bitumen: AAPG Research Con-
ference, Santa Maria, California, October 29– November,
15 p.
de Chadenedes, J. F., 1987, Surface tar sand deposits in Cali-
fornia, in R. F. Meyer, ed., Exploration of heavy crude oil
and natural bitumen: AAPG Studies in Geology 25, p. 565–
570.
Demaison, G. J., 1977, Tar sands and supergiant oil fields:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 61, p. 1950 – 1961, reprinted, in E. A.
Beaumont, 1982, Energy minerals: AAPG Reprint Series
25, p. 218 – 229.
Dibblee Jr., T. W., 1984, Geology and genesis of the Coast
Range province of California and its hydrocarbon de-
posits, in R. F. Meyer, J. W. Earley, J. Barnea, and R. L.
Johnston, eds., Exploration for heavy crude and bitumen:
AAPG Research Conference, October 29–November, Santa
Maria, California, 44 p.
Dibblee Jr., T. W., R. L. Johnston, J. W. Earley, and R. F.
Meyer, 1987, Field trip guidebook: Geology and hydrocar-
bon deposits of the Santa Maria, Cuyama, Taft-McKittrick,
and Edna oil districts, Coast Ranges, California, in R. F.
Meyer, ed., Exploration of heavy crude oil and natural bi-
tumen: AAPG Studies in Geology 25, p. 685 – 713.
Dusseault, M. B., 2013, Screening criteria and technology
sequencing for in-situ viscous oil production, in F. J. Hein,
D. Leckie, S. Larter, and J. R. Suter, eds., Heavy-oil and oil-
sand petroleum systems in Alberta and beyond: AAPG
Studies in Geology 64, p. 655 – 668.
Eagan, J. M., M. M. Kolb, K. D. Knollenberg, and D. J.
Murphy, 1999, Three-dimensional surveillance in a ma-
ture steam-flood Tulare Formation, South Belridge field,
Kern County, California: 1999 AAPG Pacific Section Meet-
ing, Monterey, California: AAPG Search and Discovery
article 90920, http://www.searchanddiscovery.com
/abstracts/html/1999/pacific/abstracts/0681u.htm
(accessed April 1, 2010).
Earley, J. W., 1984, Economic factors in near-surface heavy
oil/tar sand mining, in R. F. Meyer, J. W. Earley, J. Barnea,
and R. L. Johnston, eds., Exploration for heavy crude and
bitumen: AAPG Research Conference, Santa Maria, Cali-
fornia, October 29 – November, 12 p.
Fischer, P. J., 1978, Oil and tar seeps, Santa Barbara Basin,
California, in California State Lands Commission, Califor-
nia offshore gas, oil and tar seeps, Sacramento, California,
p. 1 – 62.
Garon, A. M., M. Komar, and G. C. Cala, 1984, Oxygen
flooding: State of the art, in R. F. Meyer, J. W. Earley, J.
Barnea, and R. L. Johnston, eds., Exploration for heavy
crude and bitumen: AAPG Research Conference, Santa
Maria, California, October 29 – November, 36 p.
Gorsline, D. S., and K. O. Emery, 1959, Turbidity current de-
posits in San Pedro and Santa Monica basins off southern
California: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 70,
p. 279 – 290.
Guerard Jr., W. F., 1989, Heavy oil in California: California
Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas,
Publication TR28, 12 p.
Gutierrez-Alonso, G., and M. R. Gross, 1997, Geometry of in-
verted faults and related folds in the Monterey formation:
Implications for the structural evolution of the southern
Santa Maria Basin, California: Journal of Structural Ge-
ology, v. 19, no. 10, p. 1303– 1321, doi:10.1016/S0191-8141
(97)00039-4.

Hallmark, F. O., 1980, Unconventional petroleum resources
in California: California Department of Conservation, Di-
vision of Oil and Gas, Sacramento, Publication TR25, 17 p.
Harding, T. P., 1976, Tectonic significance and hydrocarbon
trapping consequences of sequential folding synchronous
with San Andreas faulting, San Joaquin Valley, California:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 60, p. 356 – 378.
Hartman, B., and D. E. Hammond, 1981, The use of carbon
and sulfur isotopes as correlation parameters for the source
identification of beach tar in the southern California bor-
derland: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 45, p. 309–
319, doi:10.1016/0016-7037(81)90241-6.
Head, I. M., D. M. Jones, and S. R. Larter, 2003, Biological
activity in the deep subsurface and the origin of heavy oil:
Nature, v. 426, p. 344 – 352, doi:10.1038/nature02134.
Hein, F. J., 2006, Heavy oil and oil (tar) sands in North Amer-
ica: An overview and summary of contributions: Natural
Resources Research, v. 15, no. 1, p. 67 – 84, doi:10.1007
/s11053-006-9016-3.
Hein, F. J., and D. K. Higley, 2010, EMD oil sands commodity
report: AAPG Energy Minerals Division, 25 p., http://aapg
/members-only/energy minerals division/oil sands/
(accessed December 15, 2010).
Hein, F. J., D. Leckie, S. Larter, and J. R. Suter, 2013, Heavy
oil and bitumen petroleum systems in Alberta and
beyond: The future is nonconventional and the future is
now, in F. J. Hein, D. Leckie, S. Larter, and J. R. Suter, eds.,
Heavy-oil and oil-sand petroleum systems in Alberta and
beyond: AAPG Studies in Geology 64, p. 1 – 21.
Heizer, R. F., 1940, Aboriginal use of bitumen by the Cali-
fornia Indians, in Geological formations and economic
development of the oil land gas fields of California: State
Division of Mines Bulletin, v. 118, p. 74.
Henderson, C. P., 1987, The stratigraphy of the Wilmington
oil field, in D. D. Clarke and C. P. Henderson, eds., Geo-
logic field guide to the Long Beach area, AAPG Pacific
Section, p. 57 – 68.
Herron, E. H., 2003, U.S. heavy oil and natural bitumen re-
sources: Petroleum Equities Inc., 2 p.: www.petroleumequities
.321z.com (accessed December 15, 2010).
Hills, L. V., ed., 1974, Oil sands fuel of the future: Canadian
Society of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 3, 263 p.
Hodgson, S. F., 1980, Onshore oil and gas seeps in California:
California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil
and Gas, Sacramento Publication TR26, 20 p.
Hornafius, J. S., D. Quigley, and B. P. Luyendyk, 1999, The
world’s most spectacular marine hydrocarbon seeps (Coal
Oil Point, Santa Barbara Channel, California): Quantifica-
tion of emissions: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 104,
no. C9, p. 20,703 – 20,711, doi:10.1029/1999JC900148.
Hostettler, F. D., R. J. Rosenbauer, T. D. Lorenson, and J.
Dougherty, 2004, Geochemical characterization of tarballs
on beaches along the California coast: Part I. Shallow
seepage impacting the Santa Barbara Channel Islands,
Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa and San Miguel: Organic Geo-
chemistry, v. 35, no. 6, p. 725–746, doi:10.1016/j.orggeochem
.2004.01.022.
Imhof, M. G., and J. W. Castle, 2004, Seismic determination
Overview of Heavy Oil, Seeps, and Oil (Tar) Sands, California 433
of reservoir heterogeneity: Application to the character-
ization of heavy oil reservoirs: U.S. Department of En-
ergy Final Report, DE-FC26-00BC15301, 80 p.
Ingle, J., 1981, Origin of Neogene diatomites around the
north Pacific rim, in R. E. Garrison and R. G. Douglas.,
eds., The Monterey Formation and related siliceous rocks
of California: Pacific Section of the SEPM (Society of Sed-
imentary Geology), Research Symposium, Los Angeles,
p. 159 – 179.
International Energy Agency (IEA), 2010, World Energy
Outlook, Report (November), 50 p.
Interstate Oil Compact Commission (IOCC), 1984, Major tar
sand and heavy oil deposits of the United States: IOCC
Report, p. 85 – 116.
Isaacs, C. M., 1981a, Porosity reduction during diagenesis of
the Monterey Formation, Santa Barbara coastal area, in
R. E. Garrison and R. G. Douglas, eds., The Monterey For-
mation and related siliceous rocks of California: Pacific
Section SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology) Special
Publication 15, p. 257– 271.
Isaacs, C. M., 1981b, Guide to the Monterey Formation in the
California coastal area, Ventura to San Luis Obispo: AAPG
Pacific Section, 81 p.
Isaacs, C. M., 1987, Sources and deposition of organic matter
in the Monterey Formation, south-central coastal basins
of California, in R. F. Meyer, ed., Exploration for heavy
crude oil and natural bitumen: AAPG Studies in Geology
25, p. 193 – 205.
Jaramenko, D., 2011, Oil sands overseas: Oil Sands Review,
v. 6, no. 5, p. 18 – 22.
Jeffrey, A. W. A., H. M. Alimi, and P. D. Jenden, 1991, Geo-
chemistry of Los Angeles Basin oil and gas systems, in
K. T. Biddle, ed., Active margin basins: AAPG Memoir 52,
p. 197 – 219.
Jennings, C. W., 1957, Asphalt and bituminous rock, in L. A.
Wright, ed., Mineral commodities of California: Califor-
nia Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 176, p. 5 – 22.
Karner, G. D., and J. F. Dewey, 1986, Rifting: Lithospheric
versus crustal extension as applied to the Ridge Basin of
southern California, in M. T. Halbouty, ed., Future petro-
leum provinces of the world: AAPG Memoir 40, p. 317 –
337.
Kunitomi, D. S., S. P. Mulqueen, and B. H. Hesson, 2007, Oil
on their shoes: Famous and little known oil seeps of Los
Angeles and Ventura counties: AAPG Pacific Section,
80 p.
Kuuskraa, V. A., E. C. Hammershaimb, and M. Paque, 1987,
Major tar sand and heavy-oil deposits of the United
States, in R. F. Meyer, ed., Exploration of heavy crude oil
and natural bitumen: AAPG Studies in Geology 25, p. 123–
135.
Kvenvolden, K. A., and C. K. Cooper, 2003, Natural seepage
of crude oil into the marine environment: Geo-Marine
Letters, v. 23, no. 3 – 4, p. 140 – 146.
Kvenvolden, K. A., F. D. Hostettler, R. J. Rosenbauer, T. D.
Lorenson, and P. R. Carlson, 1999, Oil seeps as sources of
some coastal bitumen at the California shoreline (abs.):
1999 AAPG Pacific Section Meeting, Monterey, California:
434 Hein
AAPG Search and Discovery article 90920, http://www
.searchanddiscovery.com/abstracts/html/1999/pacific
/abstracts/0682y.htm (accessed April 1, 2010).
Kvenvolden, K. A., F. D. Hostettler, T. D. Lorenson, and R. J.
Rosenbauer, 2002a, Natural oil seeps and coastal tar in
California: An extension of the Kaplan legacy (abs.): Geo-
logical Society of America, Annual Meeting, Denver, Pro-
gram with Abstracts, Paper 95-6, 1 p.
Kvenvolden, K. A., W. S. Reeburgh, and T. D. Lorenson, 2002b,
Naturally occurring methane seepage (abs.): EOS, Trans-
actions American Geophysical Union, v. 82, p. 457.
Lennon, R. B., 1976, Geological factors in steam-soak projects
on the west side of the San Joaquin Basin: Journal of Pe-
troleum Technology, v. 28, no. 7, p. 741 – 748, doi:10.2118
/5540-PA.
Lennon, R. B., 1990, Midway-Sunset field, U.S.A., San
Joaquin Basin, California, in E. A. Beaumont and N. H.
Foster, eds., AAPG treatise of petroleum geology, atlas of
oil and gas fields, structural traps III, tectonic fold and
fault traps, p. 221 – 241.
Lillis, P. G., and R. G. Stanley, 1999, Petroleum systems of
the La Honda Basin, California: 1999 AAPG Pacific Sec-
tion Meeting, Monterey, California: AAPG Search and
Discovery article 90920, http://www.searchanddiscovery
.com/abstracts/html/1999/pacific/abstracts/0683f.htm
(accessed April 1, 2010).
Lorenson, T., 2001, The ecology of oil seeps in central Cali-
fornia, U.S. Geological Survey: Sound Waves Monthly
Newsletter, May 2001, 2 p.
Magoon, L. B., K. E. Peters, A. H. Scheirer, C. Lampe, D. L.
Gautier, and P. G. Lillis, 2004, Modeling petroleum sys-
tems in the San Joaquin Basin, California (abs.): AAPG
Proceedings Annual Meeting, Dallas, Texas, http://www
.searchanddiscovery.com/abstracts/html/2004/annual
/abstracts/Magoon.htm (accessed April 1, 2010).
May, M. T., 2013, Oil-saturated Mississippian – Pennsylvanian
sandstones of south-central Kentucky, in F. J. Hein, D.
Leckie, S. Larter, and J. R. Suter, eds., Heavy-oil and oil-
sand petroleum systems in Alberta and beyond: AAPG
Studies in Geology 64, p. 373 – 405.
Mayuga, A. N., 1970, Geology and development of Califor-
nia’s giant Wilmington oil field, in M. T. Halbouty, ed.,
Geology of giant petroleum fields: AAPG Memoir 14,
p. 158 – 184.
Meyer, R. F., 1987, Exploration of heavy crude oil and natural
bitumen: AAPG Studies in Geology 25, 535 p.
Meyer, R. F., and E. D. Attanasi, 2003, Heavy oil and natural
bitumen strategic petroleum resources: U.S. Geological
Survey, Fact Sheet 70-03, August 2003, online version 1.0:
http://pubs.usgs/fs/fs070-03/fs070-03.html (accessed
December 30, 2009).
Meyer, R. F., J. W. Earley, J. Barnea, and R. L. Johnston,
1984a, Exploration for heavy crude and bitumen: AAPG
Research Conference, October 29 – November, Santa
Maria, California, 518 p.
Meyer, R. F., J. C. Wynn, and J. C. Olson, eds., 1984b, The
future of heavy crude and tar sands: United Nations In-
stitute for Training and Research (UNITAR), 2nd Inter-
national Conference, Caracas, Venezuela, February 7 – 17,
1982: New York City, New York: UNITAR/UNDP, 350 p.
Meyer, R. F., E. D. Attanasi, and P. A. Freeman, 2007, Heavy
oil and natural bitumen resources in geological basins of
the world: U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Sur-
vey Open-File Report 2007-1084: Reston, Virginia, U.S. De-
partment of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 36 p.
Miller, D. D., and J. G. McPherson, 1992, South Belridge field,
U.S.A., San Joaquin Basin, California, in E. A. Beaumont
and N. H. Foster, eds., AAPG treatise of petroleum geol-
ogy, atlas of oil and gas fields, structural traps III, tectonic
fold and fault traps, p. 221 – 241.
Minerals Management Service, 2005, Fingerprinting seeps in
the Santa Maria Basin: Natural seeps sampled: Newslet-
ter, May-June 2005, p. 5.
Mulqueen, S. P., 2007, Petroleum seeps: Structural setting,
energy drive and path of migration, in D. S. Kunitomi,
S. P. Mulqueen, and B. H. Hesson, eds., Oil on their shoes:
Famous and little known oil seeps of Los Angeles and
Ventura counties: AAPG Pacific Section, p. 1 – 26.
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 2005, Pit 91
excavation, Page Museum, La Brea Tar Pits, 2 p.: www
.tarpits.org/research/pit91/pitfacts.html (accessed April 1,
2010).
Norton, T. F., G. E. Otott Jr., 1996, The stratigraphy of the
Wilmington oil field: AAPG Pacific Section, Old oil fields
and new life: A visit to the giants of the Los Angeles
Basin, p. 23 – 35.
Oakeshott, G. B., M. D. Turner, and C. W. Jennings, 1954,
Correlation chart of sedimentary formations in southern
California, in California Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Mines, Bulletin 170, v. 2, cont. 1, plate 1.
Olsen, D. K., and E. D. Ramzel, 1995, State of heavy oil
production and refining in California: Cooperative Agree-
ment DE-FC22-83FE60149, U.S. Department of Energy Re-
port 1995-018, p. 159 –172.
Orcutt, W. W., 1924, Early oil development in California:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 8, p. 61 – 72.
Pickering, K. T., R. N. Hiscott, and F. J. Hein, 1989, Deep
marine environments: Clastic sedimentation and tecton-
ics: Unwin Hyman, London, 436 p.
Quigley, D. C., J. S. Hornafius, B. P. Luyendyk, R. D. Francis,
J. Clark, and L. Washburn, 1999a, Decrease in natural
marine hydrocarbon seepage near Coal Oil Point, Cali-
fornia, associated with offshore oil production: Geology,
v. 27, p. 1047– 1050, doi:10.1130/0091-7613(1999)027<1047
:DINMHS>2.3.CO;2.
Quigley, D. C., B. P. Luyendyk, J. S. Hornafius, R. D. Francis,
J. Clark, and L. Washburn, 1999b, Decrease in natural
hydrocarbon seepage offshore Coal Oil Point, California,
associated with oil production: 1999 AAPG Pacific Section
Meeting, Monterey, California: AAPG Search and Discov-
ery article 90920, http://www.searchanddiscovery.com
/abstracts/html/1999/pacific/abstracts/0683y.htm
(accessed April 1, 2010).
Reid, S. A., and J. L. McIntyre, 2001, Monterey Formation
porcelanite reservoirs of the Elk Hills field, Kern County,
California: AAPG Bulletin, v. 85, p. 69 – 189.

Requejo, A. G., and H. Halpern, 1989, An unusual hopane
biodegradation sequence in tar sands from the Pt. Arena
(Monterey) Formation: Nature, v. 342, p. 670 – 673, doi:10
.1038/342670a0.
Rintoul, B., 1995, Midway-Sunset keeps producing oil with a
little help from steam injection: Hart’s Oil and Gas World,
v. 87, no. 10, p. 101– 102.
Rintoul, B., 1999, Steam-flooding marked production break-
through: Bakersfield Californian, April 27, 1999, 2 p.
Roadifer, R. E., 1987, Size distribution of the world’s largest
known oil and tar accumulation, in R. F. Meyer, ed.,
Exploration of heavy crude oil and natural bitumen: AAPG
Studies in Geology 25, p. 3–23.
Roberts III, W. H., 1987, Common conditions for heavy oils,
in R. F. Meyer, ed., Exploration of heavy crude oil and nat-
ural bitumen: AAPG Studies in Geology 25, p. 453 –472.
Sanford, S. J., and N. A. Wildman, 1999, Use of 3-D model-
ing and visualization tools to add value in California heavy
oil projects: Cymric and Coalinga fields: 1999 AAPG Pacific
Section Meeting, Monterey, California: AAPG Search and
Discovery article 90920, http://www.searchanddiscovery
.com/abstracts/html/1999/pacific/abstracts/0684d.htm
(accessed April 1, 2010).
San Joaquin Geological Society, 2002a, The Kern County oil
industry, 2 p.: www.sjgs.com (accessed May 1, 2010).
San Joaquin Geological Society, 2002b, The history of the oil
industry (with emphasis on California and Kern County),
12 p.: www.sjgs.com (accessed May 1, 2010).
San Joaquin Geological Society, 2005, Geology of the McKittrick
tar pits, 2 p.: www.sjgs.com/tarpits_geol.html (accessed
May 1, 2010).
Schamel, S., 1998, Reactivation of an idle lease to increase
heavy oil recovery through application of conventional
steam drive technology in a low dip slope and basin res-
ervoir in the Midway-Sunset field, San Joaquin Basin,
California: Quarterly Report to U.S. Department of En-
ergy, Report DE-FC22-95BC14937, 325 p.
Schamel, S., 2013, Unconventional oil resources of the Uinta
Basin, Utah, in F. J. Hein, D. Leckie, S. Larter, and J. R.
Suter, eds., Heavy-oil and oil-sand petroleum systems
in Alberta and beyond: AAPG Studies in Geology 64,
p. 437 – 480.
Schwartz, D. E., 1988, Characterizing the lithology, petro-
physical properties, and depositional setting of the
Belridge diatomite, South Belridge field, Kern County,
California, in S. A. Graham, ed., Studies of the geology of
the San Joaquin Basin: SEPM Pacific Section, v. 60, p. 281 –
301.
Slatt, R. M., S. Phillips, J. M. Boak, and M. B. Lagoe, 1993,
Scales of geologic heterogeneity of a deep-water sand giant
oil field, Long Beach Unit, Wilmington field, California,
in E. G. Rhodes and T. F. Moslow, eds., Frontiers in sed-
imentary geology, marine clastic reservoirs, examples and
analogs: New York, Springer-Verlag, p. 263 – 292.
Stosur, J. J. G., and J. A. Slater, 1987, Recovery methods for
heavy oil and tar sands, in R. F. Meyer, ed., Exploration
of heavy crude oil and natural bitumen: AAPG Studies in
Geology 25, p. 679 – 683.
Overview of Heavy Oil, Seeps, and Oil (Tar) Sands, California 435
Tennyson, M. E., 1998, Estimates of ultimate recovery of oil
from California’s giant fields (>100 million barrels), 1923– Next
1995: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-513-A,
165 p.
Tennyson, M. E., 2005, Growth history of oil reserves in major
California oil fields during the twentieth century, in T. S.
Dyman, J. W. Schmoker, and M. Verma, eds., Geologic,
engineering, and assessment studies of reserve growth:
U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2172-H, 15 p.
Terrell, H., 2011, What’s new in production, solar power en-
hances recovery in old oil fields: World Oil (March), p. 19.
Truex, J. N., 1972, Fractured shale and basement reservoir,
Long Beach Unit, California: AAPG Bulletin, v. 56, p. 1931–
1938.
Truex, J. N., 1974, Structural evolution of Wilmington, Cali-
fornia, anticline: AAPG Bulletin, v. 58, p. 2398 – 2410.
U.S. Department of Energy, 2010, Fact sheet, U. S. heavy oil
resource potential, strategic unconventional fuels: U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Petroleum Reserves, 1 p.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1999a, The effect of seeps on the
environment, 2 p.: http://seeps.wr.usgs.gov/seeps
/environment.html (accessed June 15, 2010).
U.S. Geological Survey, 1999b, Some examples of oil and gas
seeps, 2 p.: http://seeps.wr.usgs.gov/seeps/examples.html
(accessed June 15, 2010).
U.S. Geological Survey, 2000a, What are oil and gas seeps?,
2 p.: http://seeps.wr.usgs.gov/seeps/what.html (accessed
June 15, 2010).
U.S. Geological Survey, 2000b, Seeps and underground oil dis-
coveries, 2 p.:, http://seeps.wr.usgs.gov/seeps/discoveries
.html (accessed June 15, 2010).
U.S. Geological Survey, 2005, U.S. Geological Survey Web
site postings on oil and gas seeps, including detailed quad-
rangle maps: http://pubs.usgs.gov/seeps (accessed June
15, 2010).
Veil, J. A., and J. A. Quinn, 2008, Water issues associated
with heavy oil production: Argonne National Laboratory,
Environmental Sciences Division, Report ANL/EVS//R
-08/4, 59 p.
Walters, E. J., 1974, Review of the world’s major oil sand de-
posits, in L. V. Hills, ed., Oil sands fuel of the future: Ca-
nadian Society of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 3, p. 240–
263.
Washburn, L., J. F. Clark, and P. Kyriakidis, 2005, The
spatial scales, distribution, and intensity of natural ma-
rine hydrocarbon seeps near Coal Oil Point, California:
Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 22, p. 569 – 578, doi:10
.1016/j.marpetgeo.2004.08.006.
Wilkinson, E. R., 1972, California offshore oil and gas seeps:
California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil
and Gas, 11 p.
Yeates, R. S., and J. M. Beall, 1991, Stratigraphic controls on
oil fields in the Los Angeles Basin, in K. T. Biddle, ed.,
Active margin basins: AAPG Memoir 52, p. 221 – 235.
Zieglar, D. L., and J. K. Cassell, 1978, The synthesis of OCS
well information, offshore central and northern Califor-
nia, Oregon and Washington: Proceedings of the AAPG
Pacific Section 53rd Annual Meeting, April 28 – 29, 27 p.
Next