SPE115683

Engineering and Geologic Characterization of Giant East Texas Oil Field:

North and South Pilot Studies
F.P Wang, SPE, W.A. Ambrose, T.F. Hentz, F. Bonnaffé, and R.G. Loucks, Bureau of Economic Geology,
John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin
Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 21–24 September 2008.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
East Texas oil field (ETOF), discovered on September 3, 1930, is the second-largest oil field discovered in the United States.
It has produced 5.42 BSTB of 39o API oil from >31,000 wells from lower Woodbine sandstones. Estimates of original oil in
place (OOIP) have ranged from 6.8 to 7.5 BSTB. Based on a midrange OOIP value of 7.0 BTSB, current recovery efficiency
is 77%, which is the highest of any giant oil field in the world. Two areas of the field, one in the north and the other in the
south, were selected in 2007 for study of the primary engineering, geological and operational factors controlling recovery; for
describing the detailed reservoir architecture; and for developing strategies for future exploitation.

The Upper Cretaceous lower Woodbine Group in ETOF, ~150 ft thick in the western downdip area, is truncated by a pre-
Austin Chalk unconformity to the east. The Woodbine is composed of stacked, NE-SW-trending fluvial-dominated deltaic
deposits, with dip-elongate distributary-channel sandstones pinching out over short distances into delta-plain and
interdistributary-bay siltstones and mudstones. High-quality fluvial- and distributary-channel sandstones with average
porosity and permeability of 25.2% and 2,098 mD, respectively, are the major producing lithofacies. The fluvial-channel
sandstones that dominate the northern pilot area are laterally and vertically more continuous than the delta-dominated facies
of the southern pilot area.

ETOF, with an average of 4.2-acre well spacing, is one of the most densely drilled fields. Production is supported by a active
downdip aquifer. Major operating strategies have been downdip water injection, plugback, deepening for untapped intervals,
and waterflooding in areas with poor reservoir quality as well as aquifer support. Its high-recovery efficiency stems from its
high reservoir quality, low residual oil, favorable stratigraphic dip, effective aquifer support, stable water movement
controlled by production rates.

Of the estimated 1.58 BSTB of remaining oil, only 70 MMSTB is likely to be produced under current operating techniques.
However, a fraction of 410 MMSTB of remaining mobile oil may be produced by depositional-trend-guided deepening and
water injection. The remaining approximately 1.1 BSTB of residual oil will only be produced by enhanced oil recovery
methods. Because the reservoir is shallow and reservoir pressure low, CO2 flooding would most likely be immiscible. In
addition, with most wells >60 years old, well-bore leakage is an environmental factor that must be considered prior to CO2
injection.
2 SPE 115683

Introduction
Giant East Texas oil field (ETOF) is located in Gregg, Rusk, Upshur, Smith and Cherokee Counties in East Texas Basin of
eastern Texas (Fig. 1a). Discovered on September 3, 1930,1 it is the second-largest field in the United States after Prudhoe
Bay oil field in Alaska. It has produced 5.42 BSTB of 39o API oil from >31,000 wells from the high-quality Upper
Cretaceous lower Woodbine sandstone reservoirs.

It is a highly successful field as well as the birthplace of many technologies and theories Its success sparked the general
exploration credo of “going deeper” and “looking for updip stratigraphic traps,”2, 3 which has led to several large discoveries
including the giant Prudhoe Bay field in Alaska.3 With the exception of the field’s early chaotic development history and
overproduction, it has been one of the best regulated and managed fields through the efforts of government and major
operators.

Geological, production and reservoir aspects of the field were studied and reported widely from 1931 through the early
1950s.4-10 Minor and Hanan in 19336 and 19417 thoroughly summarized the geology and early development of the field.
Examining cores from 275 wells throughout the field, they determined that the Woodbine reservoir is composed of
predominantly non-marine sandstones and conglomerates. Two other comprehensive studies of the field were conducted by
the East Texas Engineering Association (ETEA, 1953)1 and Casey Engineering Inc. in 1994.11 ETEA (1953) estimated the
original oil in place (OOIP) at 6.84 BSTB and estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) at 5.42 BSTB (79%). Casey Engineering
Inc. (1994) raised the OOIP and EUR to 7.03 and 5.64 BSTB (recovery efficiency of 80%). As of December 31, 2007, the
production has surpassed the EUR of 5.42 BSTB, which had been estimated by ETEA in 1953. Based on a midrange OOIP
value of 7.0 BTSB, current recovery efficiency is 77%, which is the highest of all giant oil fields in the world.

In spite of the field’s excellent reservoir quality and stunning performance of the field, details of its depositional environment
and reservoir architecture have not been fully studied and are not well understood. Two areas (Fig. 1b), one in the north and
the other in the south, were selected in 2007 for studying the primary engineering, geological, and operational factors
controlling recovery; for describing the detailed reservoir architecture; and for assessing operational strategies for future
exploitation. The north study area, the Castleberry Survey, is the best produced area in ETOF, and the south study area, with
16 cored wells, is best suited for studying detailed reservoir architecture.

Geological Setting
East Texas oil field, located on the west flank of the Sabine Uplift (Fig. 1a), is productive from the Upper Cretaceous lower
Woodbine sandstone at subsea depths between 3100 and 3300 ft (Fig. 2a). Oil has been produced from a wedge-type
stratigraphic trap with pay thicknesses of as much as 120 ft (Fig. 2b). It is bounded by the subregional, thin pre-Austin Chalk
unconformity7 above, and the Buda Formation or the aquifer below (Fig. 2c). Woodbine reservoirs in ETOF are composed of
predominantly non-marine sandstones and conglomerates,6, 7, 12 and deltaic sandstones.12 With average porosity and
permeability of 25% and 2,098 mD respectively (Table 1), the quality of the Woodbine sandstone in most of ETOF is
excellent. The reason for the high porosity and permeability, explained by Minor and Hanan (1941),6, 7 is that Woodbine
sandstones are well indurated by small amount of silica cement around sand grains. Before this was recognized in 1933, most
wells were cased. Since then, openhole completions have been used in most wells.1 The field has been produced under
combined solution-gas and effective water drive. As shown in Fig. 3, water influx moved steadily from downdip to updip
during the decades of production.1, 13-16

Field Development
After two failed attempts, C. M. Joiner tested the discovery well—Daisy Bradford #3 (Fig. 1b)—in Rusk County from
October 3 to 5, 1930, which had an initial potential of 400 bopd.1, 4, 6, 11, 17 On December 4, 1930, the Ashby #1, 1 mi from the
discovery well, was completed by Deep Rock Co. with an initial potential of 3,000 bopd, and on December 27, 10 mi from
the discovery well, the L. D. Crim #1 well was tested with an initial potential of 22,000 bopd. On January 26, 1931, the
Lathrop #1 well was completed with an initial potential of 18,000 bopd ~25 mi north of the discovery well. The field rapidly
developed with 3,612 and 9,372 wells completed by the end of 1931 and 1932, respectively (Fig. 4a). Producing wells
reached a peak of 25,829 wells in 1939 and the field expanded to 45 mi in length and 5 to 10 mi in width in the late 1930s. As
one of the most densely drilled fields in the world, ETOF’s average well spacing is 4.2 ac (ranging from 0.05 to 15 ac).1

Overproduction in the field brought oil prices to 10 cents per barrel in 1931,1 and the field was shut down to stabilize the
market. After production restarted in 1932, to prevent future overproduction, the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC)
imposed strict proration orders to limit well and field production.11, 17

ETOF is a great field discovered by the persistent wildcatter—Joiner—against all the odds1 during bad economic times (in
the middle of the Great Depression). Its profound impacts have undoubtedly far exceeded all the turmoil that it engendered. It
paved the way to a new era of oil exploration with strategy to “go deeper” and “look for subtle stratigraphic traps”.2, 3, 18
SPE 115683 3

Production History and Evolution

The stunningly high recovery efficiency of the field has been attributed to (1) high reservoir quality and continuity (2)
favorable wedge-shaped trap geometry, thickness and stratigraphic dip (3) effective water drive (4) top-grade crude (5) low
residual oil saturation (6) close well spacing (7) high sweep efficiency and (8) successful production management including
conservation, plugback, downdip water injection, well deepening, waterflooding, and mini-waterfloods.
Production History and Conservation. Fig. 4c shows the history of oil production, water production and injection,
pressure, and number of production days per year from 1930 to the end of 2007. As of December 31, 2007, production had
just surpassed the EUR of 5.42 BSTB estimated by ETEA in 1953.1 The current daily production rate is about 10,571 bopd
from 4,567 wells (Table 2). Yearly production (green curve in Fig. 4c) peaked at 207 MMSTB in 1933, declined to
40MMSTB in 1964, increased again to 77 MMSTB in 1972, then declined to 8.7 MMSTB in 2000 when the entire field was
watered out, and further declined gradually to 4.5 MMSTB in 2007. The first decline from 1933 to 1964 was caused by
decrease in (1) reservoir pressure, (2) number of producers and (3) number of monthly production days (Fig. 4c). From 1948
to 1964, U.S. oil supply was significantly higher than the market demand, and the RRC reduced the number of monthly
production days to curtail the supply.11 Number of monthly production days decreased from 31 days in 1948 to 8 days (96
days per year) from 1961 to 1964. The second increase in production in 1965 to 1972 resulted from the increase in the
number of monthly production days from 8 to 26 days.

Reducing the number of monthly production days has been one of numerous conservation policies put into effect for ETOF.1,
7, 11
On April 4, 1931, the RRC issued a proration order to restrict field production to 50,000 STB per day. In June 1936, the
RRC reduced the allowable per well to 2.32% of potential.7, 11 Conservation measures minimized water coning and made
water move slowly and uniformly toward the updip pinchout, thus significantly enhancing sweep and recovery efficiencies.
Conservation has been one of the most important factors for the remarkable performance of ETOF.17

Downdip Water Injection. Another important strategy used to extend the field’s production was downdip water injection.1
Early pressure data1 (Figs. 4 and 5) indicate that reservoir pressure had declined quickly from 1635 to 1100 psia in 1938 and
strength of the downdip aquifer was insufficient to maintain reservoir pressure. Produced water was reinjected into the
downdip aquifer in June 1938 to support reservoir pressure and rate of water injection gradually increased between 1938 and
1950. Since then, all produced water has been reinjected into the reservoir, and reservoir pressure has stabilized at about 1050
psia. Currently, ~1 million bopd is produced and reinjected.
Plugback and Deepening. Plugback, applied to the field in as early as 19327 when the field was shut in, has been one of the
most effective methods of preventing water production from wells.1, 7 Because the Woodbine fluvial-channel sandstone in the
north is commonly massive and relatively homogeneous, water is normally produced from the bottom of the sandstone,
which can be easily stopped by plugging the well back and producing from the upper interval. Two-thirds of the wells
penetrate only the upper interval to avoid the water problem.

Nevertheless, these shallow wells have missed some significant compartmentalized deep targets, and, since the late 1930s,
deepening has therefore been one of the production strategies for recovering untapped oil.1 As shown in Fig. 4b, there have
been more than 2,600 deepenings, with 448 conducted before 1951, detailed records of which are unavailable. Deepening
peaked at 114 in 1975, occurring mostly between 1956 and 1998. Fig. 6 shows an early deepening example.1 The well was
initially drilled to -3281 ft into an upper, thick channel sandstone and underlying, thin stringer sandstones. When the well
watered out in 1947, it was deepened to -3335 ft and two more stringer sandstones with favorable resistivities were found at
the interval between -3281 and -3309 ft. When perforated from -3301 to 3309 ft, the well produced 497 bopd in 1947 and
37,509 STB as of November 5, 1951. Deepening is still one of current routine operations; three wells deepened in the
Castleberry Survey from 2004 to 2007 had initial potentials of >60 bopd.19

Although deepening is still one of the most significant activities in ETOF, deepening targets have become more subtle and
difficult to find since 1999. More detailed studies on reservoir architecture are required to map the distribution of stringer
sandstones.
Waterflooding, Polymer Flooding and Mini-Waterflooding. Wireline logs, along with pressure, water level, and
production data, show that the south part of the field was more heterogeneous and lacked sufficient pressure support than the
north part. By the mid-1970s, reservoir pressure in some updip areas of the south end of the field had reached approximately
100 psig. To provide sufficient pressure support, since 1975 waterflooding has been implemented in the Daisy Bradford area,
the updip of the Pena-Cadena Survey and the South Kilgore unit. Waterflooding has improved lateral and vertical sweep
efficiencies and, hence, oil recovery.

Polymer flooding is used normally to enhance oil recovery by improving vertical profile through mobility control. The
viscous polymer solution can divert more water into tighter intervals and improve vertical sweep efficiency. Polymer
floodings were tested in the Hunt Pilot-Daisy Bradford area in 1982,20 the W.H. Siler Lease in 1984,21 and the Kinney, I.L.
#70 area in 1985.
4 SPE 115683

Recently, mini-waterflooding has also been used to improve recovery from the poorly connected lower stringer sandstones.19
This process can increase production by 3 to 5 times in normal wells and as high as 20 times in good wells.

Pilot Studies
Depositional Environments and Reservoir Architecture. Woodbine sandstone in the East Texas Basin, a fluvial-deltaic
complex, comprises fluvial/distributary channel, lagoon, channel-mouth bar, delta front and prodelta facies.6, 7, 12, 22, 23 Oliver22
in 1971 published a detailed study of Woodbine depositional environments in the East Texas Basin without including ETOF
data. No comprehensive study has previously been conducted on depositional environments and reservoir architectures of
ETOF.

Two pilot areas (Fig. 1b) were selected for study: (1) the Castleberry Survey in the north part (NPA) of the field, comprising
7.8 mi2 and more than 1,000 wells and (2) a south pilot area (SPA) in Pena and Cadena Surveys, covering 2.1 mi2 and more
than 200 wells and 16 cores. Objectives of these two pilot studies were to conduct detailed geologic and engineering
characterization on depositional environment, reservoir architecture, and their effects on ETOF production.

Northern Pilot Area. The N-S cross section across NPA in Fig. 7a shows that Woodbine sandstone consists of the Main
Woodbine sandstone and the lower stringer sandstone. The Main Woodbine sandstone consists of multistory, coarse-grained
fluvial-channel sandstones and conglomerates, and the lower stringer zone comprises fine-grained fluvial-channel sandstones
of a proximal delta-plain setting.12 Conglomeratic intervals at the base of some channels in Main sandstone are commonly
seen in cores (Fig. 8).5, 6, 12 In wireline logs, the response of conglomerate intervals is similar to that of wet sandstone, which
exhibits low SP, gamma-ray and resistivity responses. Moreover, many old well logs that have been marked with core or
cuttings information report the presence of conglomeratic (“gravel”) intervals (Fig. 7a). In wells completed without water,
these conglomeratic intervals can be readily identified as low-resistivity zones. Conglomeratic intervals commonly comprise
alternating thin layers of “gravel” and “oil sand” (Fig. 8).12 These oil-stained sandstones, which cannot be detected in
wireline logs, can increase net pay and OOIP to some degree.

The Main Woodbine unit is composed of NE-SW-trending fluvial-channel deposits,12 which are the major producing
lithofacies. Permeabilities in the Main unit, as a whole, are high and relatively uniform laterally and vertically. Most of lower
Woodbine stringer sandstones are thin and shaly; exceptions are well-developed channel sandstones in the middle and
southern wells in Fig. 7a.12 In examples where the Main Woodbine sandstone is in erosional contact with a lower stringer
sandstone, fluid communication may exist. Stringer sandstones are not developed in the northern well in Fig. 7a. The net-
sandstone map of the lower stringer unit (Fig. 9a) shows that the sandstone is composed mainly of NE-SE-trending fluvial-
channel systems. Sandstones are best developed in the southwest part of the NPA.

Southern Pilot Area. Pressure data in 1931 and 1951show that reservoir pressure declined significantly faster in the south
than the north (Fig. 5).1 Differences in decline were are the result of differences in quality and continuity of reservoir
sandstones rather than the change in strength of the downdip aquifer. Because of poor aquifer support in the south, several
waterfloods in the South Kilgore unit, the Daisy Bradford area, the Griffin-Pinkston-Kinney area, and the W.H. Siler area
were implemented from the mid-1970s to the early 1980s. New water-injection wells were drilled, and many of them were
cored. Sixteen cored wells within the Griffin-Pinkston-Kinney area provided the most valuable data about reservoir quality in
the SPA.

Cores in SPA show that the Woodbine comprises stacked deltaic facies, including distributary channel, splay, delta plain and
delta front.12 The succession can be divided into upper, middle and lower units (Fig. 7b). In two wells that are 3,700 ft apart,
many more and thicker interbeded shales are present to the south than to the north (Fig. 7b), and reservoir quality of the south
well is significantly lower. The net-sandstone map of the upper units (Fig. 9b) shows that the sandstones mainly comprise
well-connected distributary- and splay-channel facies in the north and poorly connected distal-delta sandstones separated by
shales in the south. The middle unit is composed mainly of two NE-SW-trending distributary- and splay-channel trends
separated by widespread shales.12 These two channel sandstones, poorly connected in the E-W direction, are not well
connected to the downdip aquifer. Distributary-channel sandstones, the best reservoir facies in the SPA, are narrow and NE-
SW trending. Moreover, their connectivity to the downdip aquifer is poor, resulting in a rapid pressure decline.

Depositional setting of the Woodbine reservoir sandstones in ETOF varies from a relatively homogeneous fluvial-channel
complex in the north and west to heterogeneous deltaic sandstones in the southeast. Fluvial-channel sandstones of the NPA
are laterally and vertically more continuous than the delta-dominated facies of the SPA.
SPE 115683 5

Fluid and Reservoir Properties

Woodbine sandstones are high-quality reservoirs with excellent porosity, permeability and continuity. They produce high-
quality crude at 39o API with a solution gas-oil ratio of 357 scf/STB, a formation volume factor of 1.257 bbl/STB and a
viscosity of 0.983 cP at initial reservoir condition (Fig. 10).1 The formation volume factor increases to 1.2676 bbl/STB, and
viscosity decreases to 0.94 cP at a saturation pressure of 755 psia.

Core porosity and permeability data were available from 30 wells across the field (Fig. 1b) and 37 new measurements (Fig.
11a) were performed on core plugs from 17 cores. In general, the trend can be expressed as

k = 100.2667(φ −15) (1)

where
k: permeability in mD,
φ: porosity in percent.

One parameter that has puzzled ETOF engineers for decades is residual oil saturation. Because residual oil saturation is one
of the parameters affecting recovery, it is important to find the most reliable value. The residual oil saturation is expected to
be low because of the high porosity and permability of the Woodbine sandstones. Fig. 11c is a plot of residual (nonmobile)
oil saturation as a function of permeability. The three red squares are residual oil saturations measured in this study from
imbibition capillary pressure curves (Fig. 11b). Average residual oil saturation is 13.6%—its lowness being attributed to
mixed wettability.24 Uncertainty in residual oil saturation is high.

Original Oil in Place, Recovery Factor, and Remaining Oil

OOIP and EUR at ETOF range from 6.84 to 7.5 and from 5.4 to 5.7 BSTB, depending on the study source (Table 3) and
production cutoff criteria used (unavailable). Oil production from the field just surpassed the EUR of 5.42 BSTB estimated
by ETEA in 1953,1 which suggests that either OOIP or EUR was underestimated. In 1993, ETEA revised OOIP and EUR of
the field to 6.85 and 5.48 BSTB.16 Estimates in studies by Galloway and others (1982)25 and Casey Engineering11 were about
7.0 and 5.6 BSTB for OOIP and EUR, respectively, whereas a set of higher estimates of 7.5 and 5.7 BSTB for OOIP and
EUR, respectively, were reported by Gussow (1973).26

Because the field area extent is large, OOIP value is sensitive to both porosity and net-pay values (Fig. 12). A change of one
porosity unit results in a 0.27 BSTB change in OOIP, whereas a change of 1 ft in net pay results in a 0.17 BSTB change in
OOIP. If porosity is increased from 25 to 26% and net pay from 39 to 41 ft, estimated OOIP increases from 6.84 to
7.34 BSTB. All values are within measurement uncertainty.

Using a midrange OOIP of 7.0 BSTB, with 5.42 BSTB of oil produced, we can estimate remaining oil in the reservoir at 1.58
BSTB (Fig. 13). Assuming 13.6% residual oil saturation, 1.10 BSTB of residual oil will remain as immobile unless enhanced
oil recovery methods (EOR) are applied. According to decline curve analysis, about 70 MMSTB remaining reserves can be
produced under current operations by 2030. About 407 MMSTB of remaining mobile oil is left in the reservoir as untapped,
bypassed, and poorly swept oil. Only a fraction of the remaining mobile oil can still be produced and where it is and how it
can be recovered are crucial issues.

Effect of Depositional Trends on Production from Pilot Areas

Northern Pilot Area. The Main sandstone in the NPA, with its high-porosity fluvial-channel facies, is the best producing
zone in ETOF. Oil from the Main Woodbine sandstone has been fully produced. To delay water flooding of wells, two-thirds
of all wells were completed only in the upper Main sandstone and deep wells were plugged back. As a result, the lower
stringers have only been partly developed. Although lower Woodbine stringers have been produced since the late 1930s,
deepening is still the current routine operation in NPA. Because they were poorly produced back then, they still have the
potential for untapped targets and miniwaterfloods because
(1) the quality and thickness of stringer sandstones vary over short distances and each is compartmentalized,
(2) only one-third of all ETOF wells penetrate the lower stringer sandstones and
(3) oil from many wells that produce from the stringer interval has been commingled with the Main Woodbine sandstone.
Thin and shaly stringer sandstones could not be fully produced when commingled with the Main sandstone, but they can be
produced separately. The stringers can be tight and appear wet, but they could be productive as long as resistivity values are
higher than those of the Main sandstone.

Two wells in the John Spurrier Lease at the northwest corner (Fig. 9a) were deepened in 1996 to 1997 into a well-developed
channel sandstone in the lower stringer unit, and lease production tripled. The middle well in Fig. 7a was completed in 2005
for deep sandstones. The low resistivity of the Main Woodbine sandstone indicated that it was completely watered out, but
resistivity in the lower stringer sandstone was much higher than that in the Main Woodbine sandstone, suggesting a possible
6 SPE 115683

untapped potential.15 An adjacent well was deepened in 2006 and produced 125 bopd. The lower stringer sandstone is better
developed in the west part of the NPA (Fig. 9a). Because some of the lower stringer sandstones have been deepened and
produced (hatched areas in Fig. 8a), the potential for finding untapped zones is small. The two highlighted areas in Fig. 9a
still have good deepening potentials for untapped oil and miniwaterflooding.

Southern Pilot Area. By 1978, pressure in the SPA was low and most wells produced water. Because of channeling through
high-permeability streaks instead of the base of the sandstone, plugback procedures did not work for the area and
waterflooding was initiated. Waterflooding increased yearly production from 0.57 in 1978 to 1.5 MMSTB in 1983 and
cumulative production to >10 MMSTB.

Average monthly production data for 2007 are posted on the net-sandstone map of the upper stringer sandstone in the SPA
(Fig. 9b). Red circles highlight wells producing 5 bopd or more. Most production came from the northern four leases, which
have thick high-quality distributary-channel reservoirs. Currently, best producers, located in the northwest corridor where oil
has been displaced from updip injectors and downdip water influx, have few water injectors.

Although waterflooding in the SPA has increased production to >10 MMSTB, too many water injectors have been used in
several poor-reservoir-quality leases. Can these waterfloods be better designed by using fewer injectors aligned with
depositional trends? Because most part of the field has never been unitized, operators have tried to maximize their lease
production instead of optimizing field production. Moreover, locations of water injectors have been limited by lease
boundaries. Planning of updip water injection or patterned waterflooding would probably have benefited from a better
understanding of sandstone trends. A second look at the geology of the highlighted area in Fig. 1b may enhance discovery of
poorly swept sandstone bodies.

Production Strategies
Currently, ~1.58 BSTB oil remains in the reservoir, with 0.48 BSTB of remaining mobile oil and 1.1 BSTB of residual oil. A
fraction of the remaining mobile oil can be produced using geology-guided recompletions and waterfloods, whereas residual
oil can be produced only by enhanced oil recovery methods such as CO2 flooding and surfactant/polymer flooding.

Production strategies require detailed depositional-trend mapping. Deepenings and recompletions target untapped lower
Woodbine stringers and oil at the top of sandstones, and water injections include miniwaterfloods and small- to medium-scale
updip and downdip water injection. Recovery can be improved by more efficient water-injection designs that are based on
depositional trends in the highlighted area in the south half of the field (Fig. 1b). Selective profile modification with polymer
gel can also be used to improve waterflooding performances.

Assessment of Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Methods. As one of the best fields in the world, the high-quality Woodbine
reservoir is also ideal for EOR applications. One of the issues hindering such strategies in ETOF is that remaining oil per
acre-foot is low, which is a result of low residual oil saturation and excellent recovery efficiency. The cost of incremental oil,
therefore, is high. Nevertheless, with the current trend of high oil prices, EOR methods have become more attractive at ETOF
than ever before. We therefore conducted a quick assessment of limitations of CO2 and surfactant/polymer floodings in
ETOF.

CO2 Flooding. Because CO2 is miscible with oil, it has been injected into reservoirs to mobilize residual oil through mixing.
When CO2 is injected into a reservoir, it first dissolves into oil to create a condensing zone, and remaining oil subsequently
dissolves into CO2, forming a vaporizing zone behind the condensing zone. CO2 flooding can be miscible or immiscible,
depending on oil gravity, reservoir pressure, and temperature. With ETOF’s 39o API oil at 146o F, minimum miscibility
pressure (MMP) for CO2 is ~1,850 psia. At a current reservoir pressure of 1,100 psia, it would be difficult to increase
pressure above the MMP of 1,850 psia, and CO2 flooding would most likely be immiscible. Estimated recovery from
immiscible CO2 flooding is about 50% of miscible CO2 flooding.

In addition, because the field is large, with >31,000 wells, lateral containment of CO2 and casing leaks are two critical issues
that need to be considered prior to CO2 injection. According to the ETEA 1976 report,27 25% of ETOF wells leak (Fig. 14a).
Because the number of leaking wells increases with time (Fig. 14b), the current number of compromised wells is much
higher than that estimated in 1976. In addition, most leaks occurred at depths of <500 ft (Fig. 14c)—where fresh-water
aquifers are—significantly increasing the chance of CO2 contamination.

Surfactant/Polymer Flooding. Similar to CO2 flooding, surfactant/polymer flooding mobilizes residual oil by reducing
interfacial tension between oil and water. Recovery is a complex function of type and concentration of surfactant and solvent,
slug size, salinity, etc. Surfactant/polymer flooding has a favorable mobility ratio, and leaking is a minor issue compared with
the issues regarding CO2 flooding. However, this process is more expensive than CO2 flooding.
SPE 115683 7

Conclusions
Depositional trends of the lower Woodbine sandstones in two pilot study areas in ETOF have been mapped, and reservoir
architecture has been studied. Potential for intra-field stratigraphic traps exists and merits additional study to determine
whether such opportunities have already been located and produced by existing well completions.

Current production and reinjection of ~1 MMbbl of water per day is mechanically efficient but would be marginally effective
in mobilizing new oil reserves. About 477 MMSTB of remaining mobile oil exist in the field. Only about 70 MMSTB of this
total, however, can be produced under current operation procedures. Depositional-trend-guided deepening, mini-waterflood
and water injection can be applied to recovering a fraction of remaining mobile oil in untapped intervals or poorly swept
areas.

Residual (non-mobile) oil is about 1.1 BSTB assuming a residual oil saturation of 13.6%. This oil is not producible by
primary or secondary recovery techniques; its production would require tertiary recovery (EOR) approaches. EOR techniques
such as immiscible CO2 flooding and surfactant/polymer flooding might be effective, but front-end costs to effectively plug
unused wells will likely make their application prohibitive. In addition, casing leakage in the 25% of ETOF wells where most
leaks are within 500 ft of ground surface is an issue that must be considered prior to CO2 injection.

Acknowledgments
This research was done under State of Texas Advanced Resource Recovery project. The manuscript was reviewed by Dr.
Stephen Ruppel, edited by Lana Dieterich, and illustrations were prepared by John Ames, both under the direction of Joel L.
Lardon, Manager, Media Information Technology. Publication is authorized by the Director of Bureau of Economic Geology,
John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin. Special thanks are extended to
the East Texas Engineering Association for sharing its data and suggestions.

References
1. East Texas Engineering Association: The East Texas Field, 1930-1950, Internal Report, Kilgore, TX, 1953.
2. Levorsen, A. I.: “Relation of Oil and Gas Pools to Unconformities in the Mid-Continent Region,” AAPG Bulletin (1934)
18, 761-784.
3. Anonymous: “Thomas D. Barrow—A Legend in Wildcatting,” The Leading Edge (2003) 22, no. 12, 1218-1222.
4. McFarland, J.M.: “East Texas Oil Field,” AAPG Bulletin, Geological Notes (1931) 15, no. 7, 843-847.
5. Lahee, F.H.: “The East Texas Field,” Trans., AIME (1932) 98, 279-294.
6. Minor, H.E. and Hanan, M.A.: “East Texas Oil Field,” AAPG Bulletin (1933) 17, no. 7, 757-792.
7. Minor, H.E. and Hanan, M.A.: “East Texas Oil Field, Rusk, Cherokee, Smith, Gregg and Upshur Counties, Texas,”
AAPG Bulletin, SP 11: Stratigraphic Type Oil Fields, compiled by Levorsen, A.I. (1941), 600-640.
8. Snow, D.R.: “Water Encroachment in Bartlesville Sand Pools of Northern Oklahoma and Its Bearing on East Texas
Recovery Problem,” AAPG Bulletin (1932) 16, no.9, 881-890,.
9. Foran, E.V.: “Interpretation of Bottom-Hole Pressure in East Texas Oil Field,” AAPG Bulletin (1932) 16, no.9, 907-914.
10. Nye, G.L. and Reistle, C.E., Jr.: “Recent Changes in Reservoir Pressure Conditions in the East Texas Field,” Trans.,
AIME (1934) 107, 77-83.
11. Casey Engineering Inc.: “Woodbine Sand, East Texas Field,” Reservoir Engineering Report, Houston, TX, 1994.
12. Ambrose, W.A., Hentz, T. F. , Wang, F.P., Loucks, R.G., Bonnaffé, F., Potter, E.C., and Clift, S.: “Pilot Study of East
Texas Field: Geology, Engineering, and Potential Exploitation Workshop,” The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of
Economic Geology, State of Texas Advanced Resource Recovery and Petroleum Technology Transfer Council
Workshop No. SW0017, variously paginated, 2007.
13. East Texas Engineering Association: Factual Analysis of Water Level Rise to July1, 1966, Internal Report, Kilgore,
Texas, May 1968.
14. East Texas Engineering Association: Factual Analysis of Water Level Rise to July1, 1973, Internal Report, Kilgore,
Texas, September 1974.
15. East Texas Engineering Association: Factual Analysis of Water Level Rise to July1, 1983, Internal Report, Kilgore,
Texas, June 1984.
16. East Texas Engineering Association: Factual Analysis of Water Level Rise to July1, 1993, Internal Report, Kilgore,
Texas, July 1994.
17. Clark, J.A., and Halbouty, M.T.: The Last Boom, Random House Inc., New York, 1972.
18. Halbouty, M.T.: “East Texas Field−U.S.A., East Texas Basin, Texas,” in AAPG Stratigraphic Traps II, compiled by
Foster, N.H. and Beaumont, E.A., Treatise of Petroleum Geology Atlas of Oil and Gas Fields, AAPG, 1991.
19. Nault, P.: Personal Communication, 2007.
20. Marshall, F.: Personal Communication, 2007.
21. Oliver, W.B.: Depositional Systems in Woodbine Formation (Upper Cretaceous), North Texas, Report of Investigations,
No. 73, Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin, TX, 1971.
8 SPE 115683

22. Hobday, D.K. and Perkins, R.F.: “Paleoenvironments and Trace Fossil of a Large Aggrading Delta Margin Embayment:
Upper Woodbine Formation of Northeast Texas,” Trans. GCAGS (1980) XXX, 131-142.
23. Salathiel, R.A.: “Oil Recovery by Surface Film Drainage In Mixed Wettability Rocks,” J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1973), 1216-
1224.
24. Miglicco, T.P.: “Polymer Flood Operations: East Texas Field,” SPE #14658, presented at the East Texas Regional
Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Tyler, Texas, April 21-22, 1986.
25. Galloway, W.E., Ewing, T.E. Garrett, C.M. Jr., Tyler, N. and Bebout, D.G.: Atlas of Major Texas Oil Reservoirs, The
University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, Austin, TX, 1983.
26. Gussow, W. C.: “East Texas Field, the Classic Trap Has a New Interpretation”, Oil and Gas J. (1973) 71, no. 7, 134-136.
27. East Texas Engineering Association: Casing Corrosion Report, Internal Report, Kilgore, Texas, January 1976.
SPE 115683 9

Table 1. Reservoir parameters of East Texas oil field. Modified from ETEA (1953).1
Discovery Date September 3, 1930
Counties Gregg, Rusk, Upshur, Smith & Cherokee
Acreage (ac) 130,444 (5-10 mi × 45 mi )
Producing Formation Woodbine
Trap Type Stratigraphic
Drive Mechanisms Solution Gas and Water Drive
Top of Formation (ft) ~-3,200 (~3,500)
Dip (degree) 0.5
Original Water-Oil Contact (ft) –3324.5 ft
Gross Oil Sand Thickness (ft) 51 (max. 125)
Net Oil Sand Thickness (ft) 39
Formation Temperature (F) 146o at -3300 ft subsea
Initial Reservoir Pressure (psia) 1,635
Oil Gravity (API) 39o
Saturation Pressure (psia) 750
Formation Volume Factor (bbl/STB) 1.257
Solution Gas Ratio (scf/STB) 357
Oil Viscosity (cP) 0.983
Formation Water Salinity (ppm) 64,725
Original Oil In Place (BSTB) 6.82-7.03
Well Spacing (ac) 4.2 (0.05–15)
Porosity (%) 25.2
Permeability (mD) 2,098 (1,000–3,000)
Initial Water Saturation (%) 14.1
Residual Oil Saturation (%) 13.6
Oil-Water Contact (ft) –3,324.5
Cumulative Oil (Bbbl) 5.42 as of 07/31/2007
Estimated Ultimate Recovery (Bbbl) ~5.49 by 2030
Daily Oil as of 03/2008 (bopd) 10,571
Daily Water Production (MBOPD) 9,851.1
Daily Water Injection (MBOPD) 9,849.1

Table 2. Well statistics, January 2008.

Well Type Number

Producing Wells 4,567
Off-Production Wells 2,063
Plugged Wells 23,845
Dry Holes 768
Total 31,243

Table 3. Original oil in place, estimated ultimate recovery, recovery factor and remaining oil.

Name OOIP EUR RF (%) Remaining Reserve Remaining Mobile Oil

(BSTB) (BSTB) (BSTB) (BSTB)
Engineering Association, 1993 6.85 5.48 80.0 0.06 0.34
Bureau of Economic Geology, 1982 7.00 5.60 80.0 0.25 0.47
Casey Engineering Inc., 1994 7.03 5.64 80.2 0.25 0.50
W.C. Gussow, 1973 7.50 5.70 76.0 0.61 0.89
This Study 7.00 5.49* 78.5 0.07* 0.48
* DCA: Decline curve analysis
10 SPE 115683

(a) East Texas Basin (b) East Texas Field

Upshur Co.

Woodbine outcrop
Dallas (4) Lanthrop #1

Zone X’ North
Pilot Area
Fault

East Texas
field
lc o

Sabine
– Ta

Uplift Gregg Co.

East Texas
ia

(3) L. D.Crim #1
Smith Rusk Co.
Basin
Mex

Co.
Area with
Potential for
Sand-Trend-
Flexure
ldwell
Guided

— Ca
Waterfloods

ina
(2) Ashby #1

ngel (1) Discovery Well

A 20 mi D Daisy Bradforf #3

South
Pilot Area

Basin axis Cherokee

Co.

Figure 1. Location maps of (1) East Texas Basin and (b) East Texas oil field. Red circles show the first four
producers; black circles are cored wells; squares show the two study areas; and brown-colored area is the area
with potential for depositional trend-guided water injection.

(a) Top of Woodbine Sandstone (b) Thickness of Woodbine Pay (c) Wedge-Type Stratigraphic Trap

y
m formit
Umco
n Chalk
Austi Oil
W e
bin
od
Wo le
ha
ss
-3324.5 ft
nes a
d
Original Oil-Water Ma Bu
Contact, 1930

Aquifer
100 ft

1 mi

Pay (ft)
100

Modified from ETEA (1953)

Figure 2. (a) Structure map (b) netpay and (c) E-W cross section showing wedge-type stratigraphic trap. Data
from ETEA (1953).1
SPE 115683 11

1993
1983
1973
1966

1951

-3,150

Water Level (ft below Sea Level)

-3,200

Oil -3,250

Water encroachment -3,300

Aquifer
-3,350
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year

Figure 3. Movement of water encroachment from 1951 to 1993. Data from ETEA.1, 14-16

(a) Completion, Shut-in and Abandoned Wells

6000

Completed
No. of Completed or Shut-in or

"Shut-in"
Abandoned
(c) Pressure, Production and Injection
Abandoned Wells

4000
2000 800

Production
Reservoir
Pressure

Yearly
1500 600

days
(psia)

Reservoir pressure
1000 400
2000 500 Yearly production days 200

400 6,000
Annual Oil, or Water Production or

Cumulative Production (MMSTB)

0
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year 300
Injection (MMSTB)

4,000
(b) Deepened Well
150
Oil production rate
200
Water production rate
Water injection rate
No. of Deepened Wells

Cumulative oil 2,000

100
100

50
0 0
448 pre-1951 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010
deepenings Year
not available.
0
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year

Figure 4. Statistics of (a) completion, shut-in and abandoned wells, (b) deepened well and (c) pressure and
production history. Data from ETEA and Casey Engineering Report (1994).11
12 SPE 115683

(a) 1932 (b) 1951

Figure 5. Pressure distributions in (a) 1932 and (b) 1951. Modified from ETEA Report (1953).1

SP -3230 Resistivity
Unconformity

Upper Watered out in 1947

Initial td -3281 ft

Poorly swept zone?

Middle

-3300
Deepened from -3281 497 BOPD in 1947 and
Lower ft and perforated from 37,509 STB produced
-3, 303 to -3,309 ft as of Nov. 5, 1951

-3330

Figure 6. Deepening history for well in the south part of field. Modified from ETEA Report (1953).1
SPE 115683 13

(a) North Pilot Area (b) South Pilot Area

X X’ N S
SP Resistivity
SP GR
SP Resistivity Uncomformity
3500

Top of
Austin

Austin
Chalk
Chalk Uncomformity
SP Resistivity Woodbine
Top of 3550
Uncomformity
Top of Woodbine
Uncomformity Woodbine

Austin
Chalk
Top of Woodbine
Ash 3500 3600
Upper
Main Woodbine
Fluvial-Channel

3600 Uncomformity

Main Woodbine
Fluvial-Channel
Upper
Sandstone

Sandstone
Ash Top of Woodbine

Main Woodbine
Fluvial-Channel
Sandstone
Gravel 3600
Middle Middle

Gravel Gravel
3600 Gravel
Lower Lower
Stringer
Lower

Stringer
Lower
3650

3600
3700
3700

Figure 7. (a) N-S cross section (X-X’) showing Main Woodbine fluvial-channel and lower stringer sandstones
in NPA and (b) N-S cross section in SPA. Logs from ETEA.

Figure 8. Core and wireline logs showing gravel at base of fluvial channel.
14 SPE 115683

(a) Lower Stringer in NPA (b) Upper Sandstone in SPA

15 Deepening
Deepened Potential

r
o
Tests

rid
0
0 0
(BOPD) Griffin N
5

or
10 11.8 2,818
5

lC
10.1 STB
Deepened 0

Downdip Aquifer
15 28.5

Oi
10 5 11.0 Pinkston - Pinkston
5 5 0
12.0 B- “C”
g N 12.1
5in 589 STB 2,603 STB
Deepening en l 18.7
e p n ti a 12.2
Potential De ote 0
22.0
Pinkston “D”
P 2,918 STB
0
1

12.8
12.8
22.0
0
5 0 15.1
11.3 Kinney
Deepened 14.1 712
5 Kelly
5 5 16.1
939 STB STB
17.4
10
12.1
0 10.0
15 Deepening
Potential Schuyle Kinney
10 r
0
10 0 -A-

ing
en l 0
15 15 ep10 tia 5
Schuyle -B-
Deepened 10 De oten
5
P

QAd6335(e1) Mason, T.O.

Net 1023 STB Strickland
Deepened wells
Sandstone
No production
Wells fully penetrating interval (ft)
since 1996
Wells with TD in interval or not deep >20
15-20
enough to penetrate interval
10-15
C.I. 5 feet 5-10
>= 5 BOPD C.I. 10 feet
0 2000 4000 ft 0-5
0 Previous off-production well
0 2000 4000 ft
0 400 800 1200 m Water injector
xxxx STB 2007 monthly production 0 500 1000 m

Figure 9. Net-sandstone distributions and production analysis of (a) lower stringer sandstone, NPA, and (b)
Upper Unit, SPA.

(a) Formation Volume Factor and Solution Gas-Oil Ratio (b) Oil Viscosity vs. Pressure
1.3 400 2.5
Formation Volume Factor (rb/STB)

Solution Gas-Oil Ratio

300 2
Oil Viscosity (cP)

1.2
(scf/STB)

200 1.5

1.1
100 1

1 0 0.5
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
Pressure (psia) Pressure (psia)

Figure 10. PVT data: (a) formation volume factor and solution gas-oil ratio, and (b) oil viscosity. Data from
ETEA.1
SPE 115683 15

(b) Capillary Pressure Curves

5
(a) Core Porosity and Permeability
10000 0

Capillary Pressure (psi)

-5

Kinney #88
-10 Lawson #1
Watson #55
1000
-15
Permeability (mD)

-20

-25
100 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Water Saturation (frac)

(c) Residual Oil Saturation

80

10

Residual Oil Saturation (%)

Property Name Mean
Residual oil saturation 13.6%
60 Permeability 2459 mD

40

1
0 10 20 30 40 20

Porosity(%)
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Permeability (mD)

Figure 11. Core data: (a) porosity and permeability correlation, (red circles from special core analysis, green
squares from petrographic study, and the remainder from ETEA), (b) imbibition capillary curves and (c) residual
oil saturation as a function of core permeability (red squares from this study and the remainder from ETEA).

(a) Porosity Effect (b) Effect of Net Pay

8.0 8.0

7.57
7.5 7.30 7.52
O riginal O il in Place (BSTB)

Original Oil in Place (BSTB)

7.03 7.5
7.34
7.0
6.76 7.17
6.49 6.99
6.5 7.0
6.22 6.82
5.95 6.64
6.0
6.47
6.5
5.5 6.29

6.12

5.0 6.0
0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
Porosity (frac) Netpay (ft)

Figure 12. Factors affecting OOIP estimate: (a) porosity and (b) netpay thickness.
16 SPE 115683

OOIP= 7.0 BSTB

Cumulative Production,
5.422 BSTB, 77.5%

Residual Oil
1.10 BSTB, 13.6%
Remaining Reserve
Remaining Mobile Oil 0.07 BSTB, 1.0%
0.407 BSTB, 5.8%

Figure 13. Distribution of oil production, remaining reserve, remaining mobile oil and residual oil.

(a) Locations of (b) Frequency of Casing-Leak Wells vs. Year

Casing-Leak Wells 300 4000

Cumulative Number of Leaks

Yearly Number of Leaks

3000
200

2000

100
1000

0 0
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980
Year

(c) Frequency of Casing-Leak Wells vs. Depth

1000

800
Number of Leaks

600

400

200

0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Depth (ft)

Figure 14. Wells with casing leaks: (a) distribution map, (b) statistics and (c) relationship to depth. Data from
ETTA, 1976.27