Journal of Petroleum Geology, Vol.

31(1), January 2008, pp 43-60

43

NEOGENE OIL AND GAS RESERVOIRS IN THE

PROGRESO BASIN, OFFSHORE ECUADOR AND PERU:
IMPLICATIONS FOR PETROLEUM EXPLORATION
AND DEVELOPMENT
J. A. Deckelman1*, F. X. Connors1, A. W. Shultz1, P. A. Glagola1,
W. M. Menard1, S .R. Schwegal1 and J. N. Shearer2
The Progreso Basin is an Oligocene to Recent forearc basin of pull-apart/translational origin. In
Peru, the basin contains proven petroleum reservoir sandstones of Early Miocene age at the
Albacora field and the Barracuda-4 well. In Ecuador, Middle Miocene sandstones tested oil at well
Golfo de Guayaquil1, and Middle/Upper Miocene and Pliocene (?) sandstones produce gas at the
Amistad field. Neogene sandstones are dominated by litharenites and feldspathic litharenites
derived from uplifted and eroded Andean, Amotape (metamorphic), and oceanic crustal terranes.
These are interpreted to have been deposited in neritic, brackish/coastal, and continental
environments with locally steep gradients. The oil-producing sandstones at Golfo de Guayaquil1
(~12,300 to 12,418 ft RKB) and a gas-producing sandstone of anomalously high porosity and
permeability at Amistad1 (9,870 to 9,895 ft RKB) are of interpreted fluvio-deltaic origin.
Sidewall core and wireline log data indicate that reservoir storage capacity is good to very good.
Porosity ranges from 15% to 30%, and is consistently greater than 20% where overburden is less
than 10,000 ft. Compaction is the principal porosity occluding mechanism; sequential precipitation
of authigenic chlorite, clinoptilolite (zeolite), and authigenic calcite has occluded porosity to a
variable extent. Porosity preservation is assisted by disequlibrium compaction related to
overpressuring throughout the basin.
Reservoirs at the Amistad field have variable flow capacity. While the permeability of many
sandstones is less than 20 mD, other sandstones, with probable Darcy-scale permeability, have
sustained commercial flows of gas since the onset of production in 2002. The flow capacity of
offshore Peruvian reservoirs is limited. The most productive well at the Albacora field flowed at an
average rate of only 451 b/d oil prior to abandonment.
DST data from the Amistad field and the interpreted fluvio-deltaic environment of deposition
of some sandstones indicate that stratigraphic compartmentalization can be expected locally.
Structural compartmentalization due to faulting occurs at Albacora field and is likely in other
tectonically active areas.The sands are multistoried; they are interbedded with mudrocks and they
typically are on the order of 100 ft or less in thickness.
Gross-sand thickness decreases westward and reservoirpresence risk increases westward
due to a number of factors including increasing distance from the sediment source; erosion of
Miocene strata and complete truncation of Pliocene strata at an intra-Pleistocene unconformity;
onlap of the Neogene sequence onto the accretionary complex; and the presence of local bathymetric
highs related to active mud diapirism.
1
ConocoPhillips Company, 600 North Dairy Ashford,
Houston, Texas, 77079, USA.
2
Applied Petrologic Technology, 505 Rimrock Rd., Billings,
Montana, USA.
*author for correspondence, email: james.a.deckelman
@conocophillips.com

Key words: Progreso Basin, Ecuador, Peru, Neogene

sandstones, oil and gas reservoirs, petroleum exploration
and development.

2008 ConocoPhillips Company. Journal compilation 2008 Scientific Press Ltd

44

Progreso Basin, offshore Ecuador and Peru

Fig. 1. Location of the Progreso Basin in relation to regional structural geologic elements. (a) altimiter-derived
bathymetry and SRT topography; (b) altimiter-derived free-air gravity.

INTRODUCTION
In this paper we characterize Neogene reservoirs in
the Progreso Basin, Gulf of Guayaquil, offshore
Ecuador and Peru. The purpose of this review is to
assess Neogene reservoir risk through an integrated
study of static and dynamic reservoir character.
Particular focus is placed on reservoir distribution,
lithology, provenance, environment of deposition,
quality and performance.
The study area is located in the Gulf of Guayaquil
where water depths range from 40 to 3,000 m (Figs 1
and 3). The Gulf is situated in the central part of the
Oligocene to Recent Progreso Basin, a fore-arc basin
of pull-apart origin (Fig. 1) . It is bordered to the north
by accreted oceanic crust, to the east and SE by the
Andean foothills and the Amotape Mountains, and to
the west by an accretionary complex related to
subduction of the Nazca Plate along the Peru-Chile
trench (Figs. 1a and 2b). The basin formed at the
trailing edge of the North Andean microplate as that
block separated from the South American Plate and
moved northeastward (Moberly et al.,1982).It
currently comprises two sub-basins, the Posorja subbasin to the north and the Esperanza sub-basin to the
south. These sub-basins are separated by an east-west
trending central ridge of possible mud-diapiric origin
(Figs. 1b and 2a).
Structure and stratigraphy
The Progreso Basins Oligocene (?) and Neogene fill
overlies accreted oceanic crust to the north of the
Dolores-Guayaquil shear zone, and continental crust
to the south (Fig. 1) (Moberly et al., 1982). South of
the shear zone, outcropping continental basement

rocks comprise Precambrian granitic gneisses and

Palaeozoic (Amotape Group) metasediments with
granitic intrusions. Some 12 km of Eocene and
younger sedimentary section has been recorded in the
area between Mancora and Tumbes in the Peruvian
Tumbes Basin. Seismic and gravity data suggest that
the Oligocene and younger section in the pull-apart
province north of the Dolores-Guayaquil shear zone
is greater than 10 km thick. The basin is thickest along
the axis of the Esperanza sub-basin (Figs. 1b and 2a).
The section thins rapidly westward toward the
accretionary complex where it is likely to be on the
order of 1 to 3 km thick (Fig. 2b).
South of the Tiburon Platform, the oldest
penetrated sediments in the Progreso Basin are
biostratigraphically dated as Early Miocene in age
(Fig. 4). Substantial sedimentary section of interpreted
Oligocene/Early Miocene age exists below the basins
stratigraphically deepest penetration.
Unconformities exist at base-Pliocene level, locally
within the late Miocene to Recent section in proximity
to mud diapirs, and within the Pleistocene section.
The latter surface truncates progressively older
Neogene sediments westward toward the accretionary
complex. The Pliocene sequence is absent in the
western part of the study area due to erosion at the
intra-Pleistocene unconformity (Fig. 5).
The penetrated Neogene section consists of
interbedded neritic and fluvio-deltaic siliciclastics
ranging in grade from claystones to very coarsegrained sandstones and conglomerates. Mudrock is
the predominant lithology. In some wells, wireline logs
define a general fining-upward trend in the Upper
Miocene interval, which is overlain by thick-bedded,
coarse-grained Pliocene sandstones. The Pleistocene

J. Deckelman et al.

45

Fig. 2. Seismic transects G83-N16 (a) and SIS-20 (b) (after Collot et al., 2000) showing sub-basin geometry in
the Progreso Basin. Inset box shows profile locations. Fig. 2 (a) shows the Progreso Basins two principal subbasins; Fig. 2 (b) shows the location of the Progreso Basin with respect to the continental margin as defined
by the Peru-Chile trench.

section consists of interbedded fine- and coarsegrained clastics which coarsen upward in the Amistad
area but lack distinct vertical grain-size trends
elsewhere. Although eustasy had an important
influence on the vertical and lateral distribution of
sand in this basin, regional and local tectonic
influences were probably dominant. The basePliocene unconformity and the overlying thick
sandstone interval at the Amistad field may be related
to a particularly significant pulse of the Andean
Orogeny which resulted in uplift and shedding of
sediments into basinal areas.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The database for this study (Fig. 3) includes:
Unwashed cuttings samples from wells
Esperanza1 and Golfo de Guayaquil1
(Shearer, 2002);

Measured sidewall-core porosity data and

estimated sidewall-core permeability data from
wells Tiburon1, Golfo de Guayaquil1,
Amistad1 and Amistad3;
Wireline logs from Tiburon1, Esperanza1,
Amistad1, Amistad3, Golfo de Guayaquil1
and Domito1;
Ten lines of digitized and reprocessed, 50-fold,
migrated, 1980s-vintage 2D seismic data,
namely: seismic lines G83SO-23E, G83SO23W, G83-200, G83-T008, G83-009, G83NO29, G83-028/28A, G83-SO 9, S-20 and
G83-N16);
Five lines (SIS-18, 20,70, 72 and 73) of deep
crustal seismic imagery (Collot et al., 2000);
DST-derived static- and transient-pressure data
from wells Amistad1, 3 and 4; and
Reports by Litton Resources Group (1986) and
AIPC (1993).

46

Progreso Basin, offshore Ecuador and Peru

Fig. 3. Database map. Study wells are indicated with solid black circles; 2D reflection seismic lines are shown
in green; deep-crustal seismic lines are shown in red; faults are shown in grey; oilfields are shown in black;
gasfields are shown in red; bathymetry (metres) forms the gradational blue background.

Fig. 4. Chronostratigraphy of the Progreso Basin showing the relationship of potential source rocks, proven
reservoirs and top-seals to eustasy and tectonism. Eustatic curve after Haq et al. (1987).

J. Deckelman et al.

47

Fig. 5. West-east seismic transect G83-S09 across the Progreso Basin showing complete erosional truncation
of the Pliocene sequence and partial erosion of the Miocene sequence at the intra-Pleistocene unconformity.

Cuttings samples were analyzed petrographically

to determine composition, diagenetic history and
provenance. Wireline logs were interpreted
petrophysically and then integrated with petrographic,
measured porosity, permeability, and pressure data to
assess static and dynamic reservoir quality. Seismic
data, well data, wireline log motifs and
biostratigraphic data were then integrated to determine
reservoir distribution, environment of deposition, and
reservoir presence risk.
BIOSTRATIGRAPHY AND SEQUENCE
STRATIGRAPHY OF THE PROGRESO
BASIN
Biostratigraphy
Previous biostratigraphic age determinations (Nelson,
1970; Finch and Sturrock, 1984) have confirmed the
localization of the late Miocene-Pliocene depocentres
in the Esperanza and Posorja sub-basins, and the
thinning of coeval strata toward the SE (as shown by
the Amistad1 and Golfo de Guayaquil1 wells).
More pronounced Neogene thinning onto the Tiburon
platform to the north demonstrates the limited
subsidence of this area. Marine microfossils are
present in the Lower to Middle Miocene and in the
Upper Miocene to Pliocene, but these zones are
separated by a generally barren zone interpreted to be
non-marine.
A depositional break separating Lower Miocene
from Middle - Upper Miocene strata appears to be
detectable in most wells, and appears to correspond
to a significant tectonic event related to Andean uplift.
The Middle - Upper Miocene is undifferentiable in
terms of faunal zonation, but a distinct horizon can
be picked at the first downhole occurrence of Miocene
species. Seismic and log correlations suggest an

unconformity around the end-Miocene and earliest

Pliocene, also of possible of tectonic origin. Another
depositional break, possibly an unconformity, was
described by Nelson (1970) at a depth of
approximately 10,600 ft in well Amistad1, below the
main gas-productive sandstones in that well. The
presence of glauconite and fish bones suggest that this
is a condensed Middle-Upper Miocene interval
corresponding to a marine flooding event.
Sequence stratigraphy
The middle to upper Miocene succession recorded at
exploration wells in the Progreso Basin may represent
two or three third-order sequences, with higher-order
sequences possibly also identifiable. The general
pattern is one of increasing accommodation and
underfilling of the Progreso Basin during its
development. Coarse siliciclastics transported from
the east would not have been able to maintain or
extend the shoreline and bathymetric margin, with the
result that palaeoenviroments changed from
predominantly non-marine and coastal to
predominantly offshore marine. Sand deposition in
the western part of the basin was likely to have
occurred only in the early part of this time interval,
before backstepping shelf-margin deposits limited the
deposition of coarse sediment to the vicinity of the
eastern bounding faults. By Pliocene time, reduced
subsidence and infilling of the basin by marine mud
again allowed shelf and shoreline sands to extend
westwards.
RESULTS
Reservoir lithology and mineralogy
Inorganic petrographic analyses of unwashed cuttings
samples from wells Golfo de Guayaquil1 and

48

Progreso Basin, offshore Ecuador and Peru

Fig. 6. Thin section photomicrographs showing framework grain mineralogy in cuttings samples of the
Miocene sequence of Esperanza1 well. Depth: 12,120 ft; plane-polarized light. Note poor sorting.

Fig. 7. Thin section photomicrographs showing exotic framework-grain mineralogy (volcanic glass and
foraminifera) in cuttings samples of the Miocene section of Esperanza1 well. Depths: 10,680 to 10,700 ft (a)
and 12,360 to 12,377 ft (b); plane-polarized light.

J. Deckelman et al.

49

Fig. 8. Thin section photomicrographs showing framework grain texture in cuttings samples of the lower
Middle Miocene sequence of Esperanza1 well. Note extreme grain angularity and variations in sorting. Depth:
12,630 to 12,640 ft (a) and 12,660 to 12,670 ft (b); plane-polarized light.
.

Esperanza1 indicate that litharenites, feldspathic

litharenites, and arkosic and lithic wackes are the
dominant sandstone types. Framework grains comprise
quartz, potassium feldspar and a variety of lithics
including polycrystalline quartz, metaquartzite, schist,
plutonics, volcanics, siltstone, sandstone and chert (Fig.
6). Volcanic glass, foraminifera, and minor glauconite
are also present (Fig. 7). Organic petrographic analyses
indicate that solid bitumen, amorphous kerogen and
vitrinite (Ro = 0.5 % to 0.6 % at sampled depths) are
locally present. This compositional immaturity is
consistent with deposition in a fore-arc setting in
proximity to uplifted and actively eroding mixed
terranes.
Reservoir texture
Petrographically examined sandstone samples in the
Miocene interval of wells Esperanza1 and Golfo de
Guayaquil1 are moderately to poorly sorted and contain
tabular to equant, angular to subrounded, very fine to
very coarse grained sand (Figs. 6 and 8). These data are
generally consistent with sieve analyses of the Neogene
interval in Amistad1 (Nelson, 1970). The apparent
gradation through all sand and silt size classes suggests

that little depositional winnowing or reworking has

taken place. This inference is supported by the
generally poor rounding of grains; some grains are
subrounded to rounded, but this may result from
polycyclic source contributions or variable
residence and transport times. In cuttings samples,
mixing of coarse and fine sands from segregated
beds or laminae will have taken place, but most
larger cuttings fragments in thin section are
themselves poorly sorted (Figs. 6 and 8). Some
intergranular fines are due to compactional
pseudomatrix and diagenetic clay.
Provenance of framework grains
The Progreso Basin is flanked to the east by an
actively uplifting and eroding Andean terrane, to
the SE by the Amotape metamorphic terrane, and
to the north by accreted oceanic crust (Fig. 9). The
Andean terrane includes several lithologic groups
including Tertiary and Recent volcanics, Cretaceous
volcanics and sediments, metamorphic rocks and
granite. Gross sand thickness data (Fig. 20) and
lateral facies relationships (Fig. 10) suggest that the
dominant sediment transport direction, at least from

50

Progreso Basin, offshore Ecuador and Peru

Fig. 9. Probable provenance for sandstones deposited in the Neogene sequence of the Progreso Basin based
on surface geology. Onshore areas covered by Neogene sediment are shown in grey.

late Miocene to Recent time, was from the ENE.

Sandstone compositional data (above) suggest that
most framework grains have mixed provenance and
this is consistent with the lithologic groups in the
surrounding Andean, Amotape and oceanic crustal
terranes. Textural data (above) suggest locally steep
gradients and relatively proximal deposition.
Environments of Deposition
A first-order interpretation of depositional
environments can be made for Mio-Pliocene strata in
the Gulf of Guayaquil on the basis of available
biostratigraphic analyses, lithologic descriptions and
log patterns. These data indicate that the section
generally comprises a fluviodeltaic complex, shed
from east to west. Rapid subsidence of the Progreso
Basin during the early Neogene created significant
accommodation space, thereby limiting the basinward
progradation of coarse clastics.

Interpreted water depths from micropaleontology

vary from neritic to brackish/coastal and continental
(Fig. 10). A more refined palaeo-environmental
interpretation was provided by Nelson (1970) who
utilized lithologic observations from cuttings samples.
He identified four zones in the Plio-Pleistocene
interval and thirteen zones in the Middle-Upper
Miocene interval in well Amistad1. Inferred
depositional settings range from continental
(floodplain and delta plain) through paralic (marsh/
swamp, estuarine, and bay/lagoon), with relatively
subordinate intervals of littoral-neritic marine
deposition (Fig. 12).
A combination of textural and compositional
immaturity is commonly observed in short fluvial
systems, alluvial plains and fan-deltas or braid-deltas.
Marine deposition of such material beyond the littoral
zone is possible, if deposition is unusually rapid and
sediment bypasses the zone of reworking by waves

J. Deckelman et al.

51

Fig.10. Map showing interpreted general environments of deposition during Miocene time based on available
biostratigraphic data.

Fig. 11. Amistad1 log motif showing upward-fining and upward-coarsening patterns and interpreted
environments of deposition.

52

Progreso Basin, offshore Ecuador and Peru

Fig. 12. Comparison of the log-interpreted environments of deposition of this study with those of Nelson
(1970), based on cuttings.

and tides. Significant environmental indicators

reported for well Amistad-1 (Nelson, 1970) include
coaly or lignitic deposits; mudrock colour; abundance
and morphology of pyrite, siderite and glauconite; and
mollusc shells and fish bones. Glauconite distribution

is restricted, and is often associated with marine

conditions under reduced sediment supply, as noted
around 10,600 ft, a probable marine flooding surface.
Pyrite and siderite are widespread and indicative of
sedimentation under brackish-water reducing

J. Deckelman et al.

53

Fig. 13. Porosity occlusion due to burial-induced compaction, illustrated by the deformation and emplacement
of mudstone into available pore space as pseudo-matrix. Well Esperanza-1, middle Miocene, depth: 12,440 ft,
plane-polarized light.

conditions. Attribution of pyrite and siderite

morphology to particular environments is complicated
by environmental non-specificity and possible
diagenetic modification.
Interpretation of depositional environment from
wireline logs was based principally on SP and
resistivity logs. Three primary classes of log motifs
were identified: (1) upward-coarsening shale-sand
cycles; (2) blocky sand and upward-fining sand-shale
cycles; and (3) shale-dominated intervals.
Upward-coarsening patterns (Figs. 11 and 12) may
result from deposition by prograding coastal systems
in shallow-water environments. In the absence of
more detailed information (such as near offset wells
and whole core), it is difficult to distinguish deltaic
progradation from interdeltaic shoreface progradation.
The vertical scale of these cycles (ca. 100 ft) is typical
of shoreface or shelf delta systems in regions with
rapid subsidence. More restricted water bodies, such
as bays, lagoons or estuaries, may also host
progradational deposits of this scale, although
typically they are somewhat thinner.
Upward-fining, serrated and blocky patterns (Figs.
11 and 12) are typical of many channelized systems
in both deep-water and non-marine (fluvial) settings.
The association here with probable non-marine
lithologies such as coal and varicolored mudstones,
together with the general Neogene stratigraphy of the
region, is not consistent with a deepwater origin.
Coastal-plain and delta-plain deposits commonly
contain channel sands which are tens of feet thick,
and separated by overbank, floodbasin, marsh or bay

mudstones interbedded with crevasse-splay sands.

Lithosomes are laterally impersistent over distances
of hundreds of metres in this setting, but this character
is not discernible at the wider spacings of these
exploration wells. Thicker intervals (100 ft or more)
with a high ratio of sand to shale may result from: (1)
locally or temporally decreased accommodation
resulting in decreased preservation of overbank fines;
(2) localization of a sediment-supply system, e.g. by
inherited extrabasinal topography or syndepositional
intrabasinal structures; or (3) deposition within incised
valleys in a shelf or coastal-plain setting, possibly as
a result of (1) or (2).
Shale-dominated intervals (Fig. 12) are relatively
non-diagnostic environmentally, but in this setting
appear to be more prevalent in intervals following
candidate flooding surfaces and in relatively more
basinal positions, so are probably neritic to bathyal
marine in origin.
Static Reservoir Quality
Compaction is the principal porosity-occluding
mechanism in Progreso Basin sandstones. This results
in the mechanical deformation of ductile grains such
lithics, particularly mudrocks, and emplacement into
available pore space as psuedo-matrix (Fig. 13).
Sequential precipitation of authigenic chlorite,
clinoptilolite (zeolite), and authigenic calcite also
occludes porosity to a variable extent (Fig. 14).
Complete porosity occlusion by cementation is rare
within the depth and stratigraphic ranges represented
by Progreso Basin wells.

54

Progreso Basin, offshore Ecuador and Peru

Fig. 14. Thin section photomicrographs showing porosity occlusion due to cementation, and the typical
Progreso Basin paragenetic sequence in well Golfo de Guayaquil-1. Depth: 12,660 to 12,670 ft; plane polarized
light.

Fig. 15. Plot of shale density versus depth. Note that Domito1 shale density is consistently lower than that in
other wells, possibly due to overpressuring. Note also the density reversal that occurs in most wells below
7,000 to 8,000 ft measured depth.

J. Deckelman et al.

55

Fig. 16. Plot of sidewall-core porosity vs. permeability, by age of reservoir. Lower Miocene data are largely
from Peru; Middle and Upper Miocene and Pliocene data are largely from Ecuador.

True vertical depth (ft, ss)

Pressure (psia)
2,000
4,000
76
5
5,000
6,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

4
3

7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000

6,000

5 - DST number
Amistad-1
Amistad-3
Amistad-4
Normal water gradient
Gas gradients
Water gradient
Depletion

7
46
3

5
4
1

Fig. 17. Plot of Amistad field DST pressures versus depth. Note overpressuring and the test intervals that
exhibited pressure depletion from DST production.

Precipitation of early chlorite grain coatings (Fig.

14) and burial-induced overpressuring are possible
porosity preserving mechanisms (Bloch et al., 2002).
Although chlorite is known to inhibit the formation
of quartz overgrowths in many areas worldwide,
petrographic analyses carried out for this study suggest
that quartz overgrowths are rare and that early chlorite
rim cements are not effective in inhibiting zeolite and/
or calcite precipitation.
An association of anomalously high porosity with
excess pore pressure suggests that the principal
porosity preserving mechanism in this area is
overpressuring, probably related to disequlibrium
compaction. Overpressuring is suggested by the need

for high mud weights used in some wells (14 to 16

PPG), shale density trends (Fig. 15) and DST-derived
pressure measurements (Fig. 17).
Sidewall-core data were used to investigate
relationships between porosity, permeability and
depth. Although no clear relationship between
porosity and depth is apparent, sampled porosity data
range from 4% to 34% and suggest that porosity in
the Middle and Lower Miocene interval may be
greater than that in the Upper Miocene and Pliocene
interval.
The veracity of available permeability data is
uncertain. It is unknown whether these data were
derived by algorithm rather than measurement;

Progreso Basin, offshore Ecuador and Peru

56

Fig. 18. Amistad3, DST No. 2 transient pressure data showing significant pressure depletion during the test.

Well

DST No.

Amistad-1

3
4
6
7

Amistad-3

Amistad-4

Permeability estimates (mD)

Sidewall Core
DST (1970)
DST (2003)

444

32 to 40
33 to 44
10 to 40
51 to 142

1
2
2a
3
6

321
418
300
112
234

1 to 3
6 to 47
1 to 24
2
43 to 153

1
2
4
5

43
117
129
142

13 to 27
1

398

1
6 to 19

13 to 18

4 to 7
15

Table 1. Comparison of DST-derived permeability with sidewall core-derived permeability.

potential differences in sampling and/or analytical

methods also are unknown. This notwithstanding,
Middle and Upper Miocene and Pliocene data from
Ecuadorian wells form a trend that shows increasing
permeability with increasing porosity (Fig. 16). A
similar trend is apparent in Peruvian data (Ameripex
International, 1980, Fig. 16) derived mainly from the
Lower Miocene Zorritos Formation at Albacora field.
For similar porosity values, Lower Miocene samples
have poorer permeabilities than younger sands
sampled to the north in Ecuador. It is noteworthy that
the Amistad1 sand referred to above (9,870 to 9,895
ft) is the highest in the permeability range sampled
(Fig. 16). Permeability uncertainty will be highlighted

in the following section in the discussion of well-tests

analyses.
DST data from wells Amistad1, Amistad3 and
Amistad4 were available for analysis. Multiple DSTs
were performed on each well, with multiple flow and
build-up periods, and three downhole gauges to record
pressures. Because of the multiple build-ups and
gauges, there were several permeability estimates for
each DST. Comparison shows that DST-derived
permeabilities are consistently lower than average
sidewall-core permeabilities from DST intervals
(Table 1). DST analysis undertaken for this study also
resulted in permeability estimates as low as, or lower
than, original estimates (Table 1).

J. Deckelman et al.

57

Fig. 19. East-west stratigraphic correlation diagram showing the vertical and lateral distribution of sandstone
in wells available for study. The line of section is shown in black on Figs 20 and 21.

Well

Production Life (Days)

Cum. oil (brls)

Cum. gas (MM scf)

Cum. water (brls)

A-9-F
A-12-F
A-13-E

112
408
53

35,748
40,103
23,899

63
10
34

3,702
1,321
4,816

99,750

107

9,839

Total
Table 2. Albacora field production test results.

Dynamic Reservoir Quality

Little reservoir performance data were available in
the study area. The most important performance data
are from Amistad field drill-stem tests and from the
nearby Albacora field.
Fig. 17 is a plot of initial static DST-derived
pressures in wells Amistad1, 3 and 4 versus true
vertical subsea depth. Amistad-4 DSTs 1 and 3 were
positioned in water zones; all other pressures were
recorded in gas zones. The wide scatter of data
suggests that several separate reservoirs were tested.
Some of the intervals are significantly overpressured,
raising the possibility of small, isolated sandstone
bodies. This is consistent with the pressure depletion
observed in five DSTs (Fig. 17) after producing a small
amount of gas on DST.
Fig. 18 shows the results of pressure-transient
analysis of Amistad3, DST 2, one of the tests that

showed depletion (Fig. 17). The DST was best

matched with a radial model containing a gas-filled
radius of 114 ft surrounded by water of undetermined
extent. The interval thickness is 10 ft, the porosity is
25%, the permeability is 6.3 mD, and the gas in place
is 32 MM scf. The second build-up was used for the
permeability match, and the overall depletion was used
to adjust the radius of the model.
Despite the poor performance of zones evaluated
in the aforementioned tests, the Amistad field contains
other reservoirs that are capable of commercial
production. In the Amistad- 6, 7 and 8 development
wells, sandstones of the Progreso Formation are
reported to have produced nearly 20 MM scfg/d each
on DST. The field was commissioned in August, 2002,
and was producing at a reported rate of 20 MM scfg/
d in 2004.
The first well in the Albacora field (8X1) was

58

Progreso Basin, offshore Ecuador and Peru

Fig. 20. Gross sand (<50% Vshale) thickness (ft) and sand presence relative risk in the Middle and Upper
Miocene interval (a) and the Pliocene interval (b). ND - no data.

drilled by a Tenneco-operated consortium in 1971.

The second well (8X2) tested 5,246 b/d oil and 18.5
MM scfg/d from five comingled zones in the Miocene
Zorritos Formation. The field was appraised during
1972 to 1976, and in 1977 three development wells
were drilled, completed, and production-tested. Oil
and gas production was limited, and water and sand
production occurred (Table 2).
Reservoir Distribution
Neogene reservoir distribution was assessed using
wirelinelog data, composite-log data from wells
drilled offshore northern Peru, seismic data, available
cuttings data and our understanding of present and
past tectonic elements. For mapping purposes, the
penetrated section is divided into four intervals: Lower
Miocene, Upper and Middle Miocene, Pliocene, and
Pleistocene (Fig. 19). For each interval, gross sand
thickness was calculated using a Vshale (volume of
shale) cut-off of 50%. Those zones having a Vshale
of less than 50% were considered to be sandstone,
and were included in the gross sand estimation. Where
digital logs were not available, gross sand estimates
were derived manually from the SP curves and/or from
cuttings descriptions.
Only three wells in the dataset penetrated the
Lower Miocene interval. As all were partial Lower
Miocene penetrations, sand distribution in this interval
cannot be mapped accurately. It is known, however,
that this interval was oil-productive at Albacora field
and produced oil on DST at Barracuda-4 (Fig. 3). It
is greater than 810 ft thick at Albacora-4. At Golfo
de Guayaquil1, no logs or other data were available
for the Lower Miocene interval. At the Domito1 well,
no sand is present in the penetrated Lower Miocene

section. Due to the paucity of data, mapping of the

risk of reservoir presence also was not attempted.
Wireline-log data suggest that a substantial
thickness of sand is present in the Middle and Upper
Miocene interval, particularly in the SE part of the
Gulf of Guyaquil (Fig. 20a). In this area, as much as
2,000 gross feet of sandstone may be present. The
amount of sandstone may decrease westward. At well
Domito1, only 45 ft of sand is present. This may be
related to the wells position near a palaeo-bathymetric
high, if mud diapirism was active during Middle and
Upper Miocene time, or to the location of the well in
the core of a mud diapir where little or no sand can be
expected. More favourable locations for sand
deposition are in palaeo-bathymetric lows, such as
Esperanza1, where more than 767 ft of sandstone is
present. The abundance of sand west of the DoloresGuayaquil Shear zone in locations such as Barracuda4 (< 2,175 ft gross) suggests that this shear zone had
little control on sand distribution.
On the basis of measured sand thicknesses at the
available wells, Middle and Upper Miocene sand
presence risk is considered to be low east of the
Domito1 and Barracuda-4 wells, moderate in the
area immediately west of these wells, and high further
west, where the Middle and Upper Miocene section
thins onto the accretionary complex and is eroded at
the intra-Pleistocene unconformity (Figs. 2 and 5). In
the area affected by accretion, sand is unlikely to have
been deposited because of continual uplift and
tectonism resulting in a time-persistent bathymetric
high.
Complete Pliocene penetrations at several wells
define a progressive WSW decrease in sand in that
interval. Gross sand thickness decreases from 950 ft

J. Deckelman et al.

59

Fig. 21. Gross sand thickness (ft) in the Pleistocene interval. ND - no data.

at Amistad1 to 0 ft at Domito1, Barracuda-4 and

Albacora 8X4 (Fig. 20b). West of these wells, sand
is expected to be absent or rare in this interval.
Although the absence of sand in Domito1 can be
explained by its proximity to a mud diapir that was
active during Pliocene time, it is also consistent with
a westward decrease in sand content as defined by
other wells. The absence of sand at Barracuda-4 and
Albacora 8X4 cannot be explained by mud
diapirism or other local phenomena. The trend of gross
sand values in the Pliocene interval suggests that sands
deposited during this time may have been derived from
a precursor to the present-day drainage system on the
basis of its apparent similar orientation.
On the basis of measured sand thicknesses,
Pliocene sand presence risk is considered to be low
in the eastern part of the Progreso Basin, moderate in
the east-central part (Fig. 20b), and high in the central
and western parts. Risk is high in this area because it
is distal to a sediment source, and because the Pliocene
section thins onto the accretionary complex before it
is completely eroded at an intra-Pleistocene
unconformity (Fig. 5). In the area affected by
accretion, sand is unlikely to have been deposited
because of continual uplift and tectonism resulting in
a time-persistent bathymetric high.

Although only a partial Pleistocene sequence was

logged in wells available for study, these data suggest
that sand content decreases westward in this interval
(Fig. 21). Sand is present east and SE of the study
area and in the Tiburon1 well. No sand is present in
the logged Pleistocene interval in the Domito-1 well
or in Barracuda-4. In Domito1, the absence of sand
may be related to active mud diapirism.
CONCLUSIONS
Neogene sandstones of interpreted fluvio-deltaic and
neritic origin are the principal reservoir objectives in
the Progreso Basin. These sandstones are
compositionally immature yet have good to very good
storage capacity. Porosity ranges from 15% to 30%,
and is consistently greater than 20% where overburden
is less than 10,000 ft. Compaction is the principal
porosity-occluding mechanism; sequential
precipitation of authigenic chlorite, clinoptilolite
(zeolite) and authigenic calcite has occluded porosity
to a variable extent. Porosity preservation is assisted
by disequlibrium compaction related to overpressuring
throughout the basin. Although production-test and
DST data indicate that these sandstones have generally
low flow capacity, Amistad field demonstrates that

60

Progreso Basin, offshore Ecuador and Peru

commercially viable gas flow rates are possible.

DST data from the Amistad field and the
interpreted fluvio-deltaic environment of deposition
of some sandstones indicate that stratigraphic
compartmentalization can be expected locally.
Structural compartmentalization due to faulting occurs
at Albacora field and is likely in other tectonically
active areas. The sands are multistoried, they are
interbedded with mudrocks, and they typically are on
the order of 100 ft or less in thickness.
Gross-sand thickness decreases westward and
reservoirpresence risk increases westward due to:
increasing distance from the sediment source; erosion
of Miocene strata and complete truncation of Pliocene
strata at an intra-Pleistocene unconformity; onlap of
the Neogene sequence onto the accretionary complex;
and the presence of local bathymetric highs related to
active mud diapirism.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge ConocoPhillips
for its support and permission to publish. We also
appreciate the cooperation and support of
PetroEcuador and PetroProduccion. Special thanks are
due to Andrew Weinzapfel, whose enthusiasm for the
project area resulted in the initiation of this work. We
also thank Richard Mountfield for his geophysical
contributions and critical review of the manuscript.
Khalid Soofi prepared the digital topographic and
bathymetric images.
An early version of this work was presented at the
V INGEPET Conference in Lima, Peru in November,
2005. Review comments on an e previous version by
Martin Keeley are acknowledged with thanks.

REFERENCES
American International Petroleum Corporation (AIPC),
undated (1993 ?). Report on exploration results during
first stage of exploration program, Block Z-1, Peru, 60 pp.
and five volumes of enclosures (I through V). Unpublished
company report.
Ameripex International, undated (1980 ?). Exploration
significance and interpretations of geochemical data from
Block Z-1, Tumbes basin and surrounding area, northwest
Peru, 15 pp. plus figures and tables. Unpublished company
report.
BLOCH, S., LANDER, R.H. and BONNELL, L., 2002.
Anomalously high porosity and permeability in deeply
buried sandstone reservoirs: Origins and predictability.
AAPG Bull., 86(2), 301-328.
COLLOT, J.-Y., CHARVIS, P. and BETHOUX, N., 2000. La
campagne sisteur, sismique reflexion et sismique refracion
sur la marge dEquateur et de Colombie, 18 pp. and displays.
FINCH, E.M., and STURROCK, S., 1984. The biostratigraphy
of six wells, Gulf of Guayaquil, offshore Ecuador: BP
Stratigraphy Branch, EPD, Sunbury, United Kingdom, 11
pp. Unpublished company report.
HAQ., B.V., HARDENBOL, J. and VAIL, P.R., 1987. Chronolgy
of fluctuating sea levels since the Triassic. Science, 235,
(4793), 1156-1167.
LITTON RESOURCES GROUP, 1986. El estudio de la cuenca
Golfo de Guayaquil, informe integrado, para la corporacion
estatal petrolera ecuatoriana (CEPE), ten volume report.
Unpublished contractor report for CEPE.
MOBERLY, R., SHEPHERD, G.L. and COULBOURN,W.T., 1982.
Forearc and other basins, continental margin of northern
and southern Peru and adjacent Ecuador and Chile. In:
LEGGETT, J.K., (Ed.), Trench-Forearc Geology. Geol. Soc.
Lond., Spec. Publ. 10, 171-189.
NELSON, D. O., 1970. A report on the micropalaeontology
and stratigraphy of the well Amistad No. 1. Unpublished
report for Ada de Exploracion Petrolera C. A.
SHEARER, J. N., 2002. Petrographic description of cuttings
samples from Golfo de Guayaquil #1 and Esperanza #1
wells, Golfo de Guayaquil basin. Unpublished report for
ConocoPhillips, Inc., 73 pp.