Oil and Gas Discoveries and Basin Resource

Predictions in Latin America

George E. Kronman

Sandra W. Rushworth

Keith Jagiello

Antenor Aleman
Amoco Production Company
Houston, Texas, U.S.A.

Abstract

M ore than 4500 wildcat wells were drilled from 1980 to 1990 in South America. Approximately 355 of
these resulted in hydrocarbon discoveries. An estimated 12% of the discoveries contain reserves
greater than 100 MMBO. Several of the larger finds (>500 MMBO), such as Cusiana (Colombia),
Furrial–Musipan (Venezuela), Caño Limón (Colombia), and Marlim (Brazil), are important among the giant
fields found worldwide since 1980. Most of the larger discoveries were made by national oil companies in
Venezuela, Mexico, and Brazil. The probability of finding large oil fields (>500 MMBO) is greatest in the
Campos, Llanos, Reforma-Campeche, Maracaibo, and Maturin basins. Smaller, but still significant fields
(50–250 MMBO) may still be found in the Neuquén, San Jorge, Austral, Tarija, Marañon-Napo-Putumayo,
Magdalena, and Tampico-Misantla basins. More than 170 BBO of proven reserves have been found in the
highest potential Latin American basins. Undiscovered oil resources of 40–80 BBO are estimated to remain in
the same group based on historical field size data and current geologic knowledge. Frontier and emerging
basins may also contain significant resources, but limited data makes it difficult to estimate their undiscovered
potential.

Resumen

M as de 4500 pozos de exploración se han perforado desde 1980 hasta 1990 en América Latina. Aproxi-
madamente 355 de estos resultaron en descubrimiento de hidrocarburo. Se estima que un doce por
ciento (12%) de los descubrimientos contienen reservas mayores que 100 MMBO. Varios de los hallazgos
mayores (>500 MMBO), tales como Cusiana (Colombia), Furrial/Musipan (Venezuela), Caño Limón
(Colombia), y Marlim (Brazil) clasifican entre los campos gigantes mas importantes descubiertos a nivel
mundial desde 1980. La mayoría de los descubrimientos mas importantes fueron hechos por compañias
nacionales en Venezuela, México y Brazil. La probabilidad de encontrar nuevos yacimientos gigantes de
petróleo (>500 MMBO) es mayor en las cuencas Campos, Llanos, Reforma-Campeche, Maracaibo y Maturin.
Yacimientos menores, pero aun importantes (50–250 MMBO) pueden todavía ser descubiertos en las cuencas
de Neuquén, San Jorge, Austral, Tarijas, Marañon-Oriente-Putumayo, Magdalena y Tampico-Misantla. Sobre
170 BBO de reservas probadas se han encontrado en el mismo grupo de cuencas. Se estima que los recursos de
hidrocarburo por descubrirse en las cuencas Latinoamericanas de mayor potencial, basado en los datos de la
historia del tamaño del campo y el conocimiento geológico actual, son de 40 a 80 MMBO. Las cuencas
nacientes y áreas exploratorias de frontera también pueden contener recursos significativos, pero los escasos
datos disponibles hacen difícil estimar su potencial.

Kronman, G. E., Rushworth, S. W., Jagiello, K., and Aleman, A., 1995, Oil and gas discov- 53
eries and basin resource predictions in Latin America, in A. J. Tankard, R. Suárez S., and
H. J. Welsink, Petroleum basins of South America: AAPG Memoir 62, p. 53–61.
54 Kronman et al.

INTRODUCTION
Latin America has the second largest oil reserves in
the world, after the Middle East (Figure 1). Increased
democratization, restructuring toward free market
economic systems, privatization, and growing confi-
dence in the potential for Latin America are attracting
significant interest in the area. As a result, many of the
world’s multinational petroleum companies are increas-
ingly pursuing exploration and production opportunities
in Latin America (Kronman et al., 1993).
This paper presents exploration wildcat well success
rates, estimated field discovery sizes, and competitor
information from 1980 to 1992 throughout Latin
America. We have used this information to estimate
remaining resources, as well as probabilities of finding
these resources in the larger producing Latin American
basins. The information presented here is based largely
Figure 1—Crude oil resources greater than or equal to
on an internal study done by Amoco on Latin America. 2 BBO recoverable by country as of January 1, 1991.
Data used for this study are complete through the end of (Source of information: Oil and Gas Journal Energy
1990. In some cases, our data base after 1990 is incom- Database.)
plete or unverified and thus is not used. For the purpose
of this paper, Latin America includes all countries from
Mexico to the southern tip of Latin America, including
the Caribbean nations (Figure 2).
The data used in this study are based on outside
resource estimates, Amoco’s proprietary database, and
estimates made by Amoco in-house experts in Latin
America. All field size data and estimates are recorded as
recoverable reserves. Gas reserves are converted to
barrels of oil equivalent (1 BOE = 6000 cf gas), and all
reserves are stated as barrels of oil or oil equivalent.

LATIN AMERICA FROM 1980 TO 1990

Wildcat Drilling
From 1980 to 1990, about 4522 wildcat wells were
drilled in ten principal oil-prone countries of Latin
America: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador,
Guatemala, Peru, Surinam, Trinidad, and Venezuela
(Figure 2). Mexican and Cuban wildcat well data were
unavailable. Approximately 82% of these wells were dry.
About 12% were considered “technical successes” to the
extent that they flowed some oil or gas on a production
test and reported an accumulation of less than 100
million barrels of oil equivalent (MMBOE). Many of
these wells were plugged and have questionable
economic viability. Another 4% of the wildcat wells led
to gas field discoveries. About 1% of the wildcats discov-
ered fields with resources between 100 and 500 million
barrels of oil (MMBO), and about 0.3% of the wildcat
wells led to the discovery of giant oil fields with reserves
greater than 500 MMBO.
When the percentages of wildcat success in Latin
America are compared with the rest of the world
(excluding the United States and Canada), there is a
strong correlation of results (Figure 3). The percentage of Figure 2—Map of Latin America showing major petroleum
wildcats in Latin America that discovered oil fields basins mentioned in this paper.
 Oil and Gas Discoveries and Basin Resource Predictions in Latin America
(a)
(b)
Figure 3—(a) Wildcat well field discovery percentages for
all wildcat wells drilled in 10 Latin American countries
(Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala,
Peru, Suriname, Trinidad, and Venezuela; data from Cuba
and Mexico not available). (b) Wildcat well field discovery
percentages for all wildcat wells drilled worldwide,
excluding the United States and Canada, for 1980–1990.
The field discovery percentages for Latin America are
similar to those worldwide.
between 100 and 500 MMBO and greater than 500
MMBO is comparable to worldwide discoveries. The
only significant difference is that the percentage of gas
fields discovered elsewhere in the world (7%) is higher
than in Latin America (4%). The reason for this difference
is unknown, but it may reflect the general lack of an
indigenous gas market or distribution system in parts of
Latin America, as a result of which some gas discoveries
are unreported.
The largest number of wildcat wells drilled in Latin
America during the 1980–1990 period was in Brazil,
followed by Venezuela, Argentina, and Colombia
55
(a)
(b)
Figure 4—Analysis of wildcat wells drilled in Latin America
for 1980–1990. (a) Total number of wildcat wells drilled in
10 Latin American countries, including a breakdown of
“successful” wildcat wells and percent success by
country. The same 10 countries listed in Figure 3 are
included here. (b) Total number and percent success of
wildcat wells drilled in the same countries shown on an
annual basis and as an average for 1980–1990. Note that
the largest number of wildcat wells were drilled in the early
1980s, but the average success percentage of wildcat wells
increased from 1985 to 1988.
(Figure 4a). Less than 100 wildcat wells each were drilled
in Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Trinidad, Guatemala, and
Surinam. No data were available for Mexico and Cuba.
The average “success ratio” for wildcat drilling during
this period was highest in Ecuador (about 60%), followed
by Brazil (about 38%), Trinidad (about 32%), and Peru
(about 30%) (Figure 4a).
During this 1980–1990 period in Latin America, the
largest number of wildcat wells were drilled from 1980 to
1982. Between 550 and 650 wells were drilled each year
during these 3 years (Figure 4b). Subsequently, the
number of wildcat wells drilled declined to about 210 in
1990. The average number of wells drilled each year in
Latin America over the total 10-year period was 396.
Wildcat success rates were about 25% in 1980, declining
to less than 20% in 1983, and rebounding to almost 30%
in 1988 before falling again to 21% in 1990.
56 Kronman et al.
Figure 5—Major field discoveries for 1980–1990 greater
than 100 MMBO made (a) by country, (b) on an annual
basis, and (c) by company in Latin America. These discov-
eries are based on various external sources and the
Amoco Production Company Resource Assessment
Group. PDVSA (Venezuela), Petrobras (Brazil), and Pemex
(Mexico) are responsible for most of the major discoveries
during this period.
Field Discoveries
There were 355 reported oil field discoveries in Latin
America from 1980 to 1990. All occurred within the
countries previously mentioned, except for two discov-
eries in Chile and one in Panama (information was not
available for Cuba). Forty-four of the Latin American oil
field discoveries (12%) are estimated to contain resources
greater than 100 MMBO.
Most of the larger field discoveries (>100 MMBO)
were made in Venezuela (fifteen), followed by Brazil
(twelve), Mexico (seven), Colombia (five), Ecuador (two),
and one each in Peru, Trinidad, and Argentina (Figure
5a). All of the field discoveries in Venezuela, Brazil, and
Mexico were made by their national oil companies,
which have exclusive rights to the discoveries.
Most of the large field discoveries (>100 MMBO)
occurred in 1980 (six), 1988 (seven), and 1989 (ten).
Figure 5b shows that the annual number of large field
discoveries declined from six in 1980 to one in 1983,
remained relatively stable from 1984 to 1987 (three to
five), and increased to ten in 1989.
The largest oil and gas fields discovered in the
principal Latin American countries from 1980 to 1992 are
listed in Tables 1 and 2. Fields estimated to be greater
than 1 BBO include Marlim in Brazil, Furrial-Musipan in
Venezuela, Euch in Mexico, and Cusiana in Colombia.
Gas fields greater than 1 tcf were found in Peru, Brazil,
Colombia, Venezuela, and Argentina.
Competitor Analysis
Three groups of competitors have been identified in
Latin America. The national oil companies (NOCs) and
multinational oil companies (MNCs) are the major
competitors. The activities of the smaller independents
are more limited, but in general, they have become
increasingly active and successful. NOCs are separate,
identifiable businesses that are engaged in either the
upstream or downstream parts of the petroleum
industry whose interest is controlled by a national
government and that serve national interests (Kronman
and Smith, 1993). The larger NOCs in Latin America
include Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) in Venezuela,
Petrobras in Brazil, Pemex in Mexico, Ecopetrol in
Colombia, and Petroecuador in Ecuador. Multinational
companies with a significant commitment and invest-
ment in Latin America include Occidental, Texaco, Elf,
Exxon, Royal Dutch/Shell, British Petroleum, Amoco,
Mobil, ARCO, Chevron, and Conoco.
During the 1980–1990 period, the Latin American
NOCs had 35 significant discoveries (greater than or
equal to 100 MMBO), which is four times greater than
the 8 significant oil discoveries made by the multina-
tional oil company group (Figure 5c). Two NOCs,
PDVSA (Venezuela) and Petrobras (Brazil), each made
more significant discoveries in the 1980s in their
countries than the combined discoveries of all the other
multinational companies in all of Latin America. This
most likely reflects the quality of reserve areas to which
the NOCs maintain exclusive exploration rights.
 Oil and Gas Discoveries and Basin Resource Predictions in Latin America 57

Table 1—Largest Oil Fields in Latin American Countries, Table 2—Largest Gas Fields in Latin American Countries,
1980–1992 1980–1992

BBO tcf
Country Field Year Operator (est.) Country Field Year Operator (est.)
Brazil Marlim 1985 Petrobras 5.40 Peru Cashiriari 1986 Shell 10.00
Mexico Uech 1986 Pemex 2.00 Brazil Marlim 1985 Petrobras 7.70
Venezuela Furrial- Colombia Cusiana 1988 BP 6.50
Musipan 1986 PDVSA 1.90 Venezuela Furrial-
Colombia Cusiana 1988 BP 1.70 Musipan 1986 PDVSA 5.65
Peru Cashiriari 1986 Shell 0.50 Argentina Ara-Hidra 1981 Total 0.98
Ecuador Ishpingo 1992 PetroEcuador 0.23 Mexico Cardinas 1980 Pemex 1.00
Argentina El Trapiel 1991 San Jorge 0.17 Trinidad Chaconia 1981 Tenneco 0.75
Trinidad NE Soldado 1981 Texaco 0.10 Bolivia Surubi 1992 Maxus 0.25
Surinam Tambarejo 1980 Statsole 0.06 Chile Lago
Mercedes 1992 Texaco 0.05

Based on the largest resources discovered per wildcat

well, the most successful multinational companies have
been Occidental, Royal Dutch/Shell, British Petroleum,
Total, and Conoco (Figure 6). A second group of
companies, including Mobil, ARCO, Chevron, Amoco,
Exxon, Elf, and Texaco, each found less than 5 MMBOE
per exploration well drilled.
Interestingly, the two most successful companies,
Occidental and Royal Dutch/Shell, have each partici-
pated in one major discovery (>500 MMBOE), Caño
Limón and Cashiriari, respectively, during the last
decade. Even without the benefit of this major discovery,
Occidental would still be among the more successful
companies. However, Royal Dutch/Shell would fall into
the second tier of companies.

Figure 6—Number of wildcat wells drilled in Latin America

BASIN RESOURCE ESTIMATES
The purpose of this analysis is to assess the prospec-
tivity of producing basins in order to establish priorities
for exploration. In 1989, Amoco began interpreting the
exploration maturity of a basin based on the field size
distribution and the exploration history of discoveries
using a methodology similar to that of the U.S. Geolog-
ical Survey (Dolton et al., 1981; Mast et al., 1989; Drew
and Shuenemeyer, 1993). Ideally, a minimum of 40
discoveries are required to do a rigorous trend analysis
(5% of 20 is one field). For this reason, we have applied
the statistical techniques toward emerging or mature
producing basins rather than frontier areas.
versus net oil found (by company) for 12 MNCs,
1980–1992. The points plotted on this graph give a semi-
quantitative assessment of the technical and oil-finding
success rate in each of the countries studied. Values are
plotted twice for Royal Dutch/Shell and Oxy to show the
effect that Cashiriari and Caño Limón had, respectively, on
the overall oil-finding success rate of each company.
(Wells drilled in Mexico, Cuba, and Brazil are not included.)
this evaluation were established by Amoco’s Exploration
Basin Analysis Group. Resource information from
commercial databases, as well as other scout informa-
tion, was used to analyze the discoveries.

Historical Field Size Analysis Exploration Efficiency

Historical field size analyses are estimates of the
remaining undiscovered field sizes in a basin. This statis-
tical analysis may be useful in focusing exploration
opportunities. The criteria for estimating a probability
that undiscovered fields exist is based on a combination
of basin analysis plots. These include exploration effi-
ciency, the 95th percentile of the most recent discoveries
from field size population statistics, and field size distrib-
ution plots. The population statistical techniques used in
Exploration efficiency is a measure of the historical
resource discovery success in a given basin. Tradition-
ally, the largest fields are discovered early in an effi-
ciently explored basin, and additional discoveries are
generally smaller through time. A basin with a 100%
exploration efficiency is demonstrated graphically on
curve A in both graphs in Figure 7. In an inefficiently
explored basin, large and small fields are discovered
randomly. Curve C in Figure 7 shows an exploration effi-
58 Kronman et al.
(a)
(b)
Figure 7—Exploration efficiency graphs for the (a)
Maracaibo basin and (b) Maturin basin, Venezuela. The
Maracaibo is an example of a basin with a high exploration
efficiency (54.3%), while the Maturin has a low exploration
efficiency (15.5%). Discoveries are listed chronologically
along the horizontal axis, and their corresponding field
sizes (vertical axis) are plotted cumulatively (curve B). An
idealized cumulative field size is shown in each graph
(curve A), which assumes that the largest fields are discov-
ered first in a basin and that smaller additional discoveries
are made over time. Curve C represents a hypothetical
basin with a 0% exploration efficiency.
ciency of 0%. The actual exploration efficiency value is a
measure that compares a basin’s exploration history
(curve B, Figure 7) with the idealized efficiently explored
basin (curve A). A high exploration efficiency implies
that the largest fields in a basin have already been found
and that a new play type or introduction of new tech-
nology is needed to find additional large fields, such as
the Maracaibo basin (Figure 7a). A low exploration effi-
ciency, such as the Maturin basin (Figure 7b), indicates
the possibility of discovering large fields because existing
play types may not have been fully exploited. Low
exploration efficiencies may be the result of successful
new technology or a play concept introduced late in the
history of the basin, licensing policy, or physical accessi-
bility such as drill depth or geopressure.
Figure 8—Comparison of (a) worldwide (excluding the
United States and Canada) and (b) Latin American field
sizes (median and 95th percentile) grouped by “sets” of
chronologically ordered discoveries. In (a) , set 1 contains
the first 400 discoveries, followed by set 2 which contains
the second 400 discoveries. In (b), Latin American fields
have 200 discoveries per set. A comparison of these two
graphs shows that the median and 95th percentile field size
declines over time.
Latin American basins can be divided into a two-
tiered classification of high (>50%) and low (<50%)
exploration efficiencies. The Middle Magdalena, San
Jorge, Marañon-Napo-Putumayo, Maracaibo, and
Reforma-Campeche basins are in the high tier, sug-
gesting that the bigger fields were found early in the
exploration of these basins. The Neuquén, Tampico-
Misantla, Llanos, South Basin (Trinidad), Austral, Upper
Magdalena, Maturin, and Campos basins have the
lowest exploration efficiencies, suggesting that large
fields remain to be discovered there.
Field Size Population Statistics
Field size population graphs record the change in field
size discoveries through time. Known fields are consecu-
tively ordered and chronologically grouped in sets and
plotted against the log of the field sizes discovered.
Various size percentiles for discoveries are calculated for
each set. The 95th percentile trend is significant because
it suggests the top 5% of the largest field sizes yet to be
discovered.
The worldwide field size statistics for liquid discov-
eries, excluding the United States and Canada, illustrates
the overall decrease in the 95th percentile or the top 5%
of the discoveries through time (Figure 8a). These discov-
eries are grouped in sets by consecutive discoveries of
 Oil and Gas Discoveries and Basin Resource Predictions in Latin America 59

(a)

Figure 9—The 95th percentile of field sizes for selected

Latin American basins, in MMBO. The 95th percentile is
extrapolated to predict the top 5% of the next set of discov-
eries for each respective basin.

400 fields. The 95th percentile decreases sharply from 1

BBO prior to about 1970, to 650 MMBO in the 1970s, and
to 150 MMBO after 1980. Figure 8a shows that it is
increasingly more difficult to discover giant fields greater
than 500 MMBO. The Latin American discovery size (b)
statistics, grouped in sets of 200 discoveries, show a
similar trend in the decrease in the 95th percentile over
time (Figure 8b). The 95th percentile also starts at 1 BBO,
falls to about 600 MMBO in the 1970s, and decreases
further to 100–250 MMBO in the 1980s.
The most important basins are ranked by their 95th
percentile field size in Figure 9. These 95th percentiles can
be extrapolated to predict the top 5% of the next set of
discoveries. Campos, Maturin-Furrial, Llanos, Maracaibo,
and Reforma-Campeche have 95th percentiles greater
than 1 BBO. Trinidad has 600 MMBO, and Tampico-
Misantla, Marañon-Napo-Putumayo, and Neuquén have
95th percentiles between 100 and 250 MMBO.

Field Size Distribution (c)

Arps and Roberts (1958) were the first to report a

lognormal distribution of oil field sizes with respect to
frequency above an economic threshold on the eastern
flank of the Denver basin. Other mature basins have also
shown a lognormal distribution of field sizes with
respect to frequency, such as the Western Canada sedi-
mentary basin (McCrossan, 1969; Kaufman et al., 1975),
the Gulf of Mexico (Schuenemeyer and Drew, 1983), and
the Permian basin (Schuenemeyer and Drew, 1983).
Undiscovered field sizes in a basin can be predicted
on the basis of theoretical field size population distribu-
tion and the exploration history of discoveries within the
basin. The overall distribution of hydrocarbon fields is
lognormal for a large number of smaller fields and a
decreasing number of larger fields (Figure 10a). The
economic truncation or avoidance toward finding
smaller fields causes the observed population to be
Figure 10—Theoretical population distribution of discov-
eries by field size class in a basin. (a) Field size distribu-
tions in basins generally approach a lognormal pattern.
Smaller fields commonly fall below the economic “trunca-
tion” or threshold. An exponential decrease is generally
seen in the number of fields as field size increases. An
underrepresented field size class along the lognormal
curve suggests that additional fields of that field size are
yet to be found. (b) Field size distribution for the Maturin
basin (Venezuela) prior to 1980. Based on this graph, the
number of fields in those field size classes with an arrow
over them are believed to be underrepresented. (c) Addi-
tional field discoveries made in the Maturin basin after
1980, many of which occurred in the underrepresented
field size classes.
60 Kronman et al.
Figure 11—Map of Latin America showing estimated
remaining discovery sizes by class for the major petroleum
basins. The estimated remaining discovery sizes are based
largely on field size statistical analysis. Frontier basins, or
those basins with limited data, are not included.
skewed in favor of larger fields. Some techniques use
these lognormal distributions to estimate undiscovered
resources and potential missing field sizes (Schuene-
meyer and Drew, 1983). For example, Figure 10b
displays the field size distribution in the Maturin basin
prior to 1980. Arrows denote possible missing field sizes
that fall below the lognormal curve. The fields discov-
ered after 1980 fill in the predicted distribution pattern
(Figure 10c). Undiscovered field sizes reinforce and
increase the confidence for prospects of a predicted field
size.
Basins that have a high probability of containing addi-
tional fields greater than 500 MMBO (Figure 11) are the
Maracaibo, Campos, Maturin, Llanos, and Reforma-
Campeche. Smaller but potentially economic discoveries
in the 50–250 MMBO range may yet exist in the
Tampico-Misantla, Neuquén, San Jorge, Astral, Tarija,
Marañon-Napo-Putumayo, and Magdalena basins.
Prediction of Undiscovered Resources
Estimates of the number and size of fields remaining
to be discovered that are above an economic threshold
are the undiscovered resources for that basin. These
estimates are integrated with the exploration efficiency
and field size population statistics before being evaluated
by experts familiar with the drilling history and hydro-
carbon system of the basin.
Basins with estimated undiscovered recoverable
resources exceeding 5 BBO are the Maturin, Reforma-
Campeche, Maracaibo, and Campos basins. A large
second tier of basins includes the Llanos, Ucayali,
Magdalena, Marañon-Napo-Putumayo, and Neuquén
basins, with undiscovered recoverable resources ranging
from about 1 to 5 BBO. A third tier of basins includes the
Tampico-Mislanta, Austral, Isthmus-Saline, San Jorge,
and South Basin (Trinidad), with remaining undiscov-
ered recoverable resources ranging from 0.5 to 1 BBO.
There are estimated to be 40–80 BBO of remaining recov-
erable resources in this group of 15 Latin American
basins. Approximately 170 BBO of ultimate reserves
(cumulative and proven) are estimated to occur in the
same basins.
The values for these undiscovered field size estimates
and resources must be used with due caution. There is an
obvious danger of overestimating a basin’s potential and
an even greater danger of ignoring a basin where the
next giant discovery has yet to be made. Mature basins
whose resource distribution is allegedly well understood
may offer new opportunities when a new play concept,
technological breakthrough, or political change opens
important new trends. In contrast, frontier basins
generally have too few data for rigorous analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
From 1980 to 1990, Latin America had an estimated
17% success rate in the more than 4500 wildcats drilled.
This percentage, as well as the percentage of significant
oil and gas discoveries (>100 MMBO) and giant oil and
gas fields (>500 MMBO), is comparable to the success
rates for the 19,790 wildcats drilled worldwide over the
same time period (excluding the United States and
Canada).
In the 1980s, ten major discoveries containing more
than 1 BBO each were made in four countries: Brazil
(three), Mexico (three), Venezuela (two), and Colombia
(two). These four countries account for 87% of the 70
significant discoveries greater than 100 MMBO. Three
NOCs—PDVSA of Venezuela, Petrobras of Brazil, and
Pemex of Mexico—have made 35 discoveries, four times
the number of discoveries made by the MNCs combined.
This most likely reflects the quality of the basins to which
the NOCs have exclusive rights.
Historical field size analysis based on exploration effi-
ciency, 95th percentiles, and historical field size distribu-
tion indicates that significant economically attractive
opportunities may still exist in Latin America. The 95th
percentile, or the top 5%, of the most recent discoveries in
all of Latin America is 100–250 MMBO.
Potential giant discoveries greater than 500 MMBO
may yet exist in the following basins:
• Campos basin in Brazil
• Llanos basin in Colombia
• Maturin and Maracaibo basins in Venezuela
• Reforma-Campeche basin in Mexico
 Oil and Gas Discoveries and Basin Resource Predictions in Latin America
Smaller but potentially economic discoveries in the
50–250 MMBO range possibly remain to be made in the
following basins:
• Neuquén, San Jorge, and Austral basins in
Argentina
• Tarija basin in Bolivia and northern Argentina
• Marañon-Napo-Putumayo basin in Ecuador,
Peru, and Colombia
• Tampico-Misantla basin in Mexico
• Magdalena basin in Colombia
Based on the statistical techniques used in this study,
about 40–80 BBO of undiscovered recoverable resources
remain in the basins analyzed. These basins at present
have approximately 170 BBO of proven and probable
reserves.
Acknowledgments Many colleagues at Amoco have
contributed to this study: Josh Rosenfeld, Carol Kazmer, Bob
Erlich, Don Felio, Larry Parks, Richard Steinmetz, Joe
Malagowicz, Peter Carragher, Lee Distefano, Don Regan, Jon
Blickwede, Robert Marksteiner, Eric Green, Bob Harper, Mike
Deming, Claudio Manzolillo, Wendy Hale-Erlich, Marcos
Roberto, Wolfgang Schollnberger, and Grant Emms. Informa-
tion was also provided by Amoco’s Resource Assessment and
Exploration Analysis groups. We thank Anthony J. Tankard,
Peter Aukes, and Robert A. Meneley for their excellent review
of this paper. Technical help from Lori Fortner, Joe Tunnell,
John Cain, Zoila Torres, and Jeff Suiter and drafting by Teresa
Holmes is also appreciated. We would also like to thank Amoco
for permission to publish this paper.
REFERENCES CITED
Arps, J. J., and T. G. Roberts, 1958, Economics of drilling for
Cretaceous oil on the east flank of Denver-Julesburg basin:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 42, p. 2549–2566.
Dolton, G. L., K. H. Carlson, R. R. Charpentier, A. B. Coury, R.
A. Crovelli, S. E. Frezon A. S. Khan, J. H. Lister, R. H.
McMullin, R. S. Pike et al., 1981, Estimates of undiscovered
61
recoverable conventional resources of oil and gas in the
United States: USGS Circular 860, 87 p.
Drew,L. J., and Schuenemeyer, J. H., 1993, The evolution and
use of discovery process models at the United States
Geological Survey: AAPG Bulletin; v. 77, p. 467-478.
Kaufman, G. M., Y. Balcer, and D. Kruyt, 1975, A probabilistic
model of oil and gas discovery, in J. D. Haun, ed., Methods
of estimating the volume of undiscovered oil and gas
resources: AAPG Studies in Geology 1, p. 113–142.
Kronman, G. E., A. M. Aleman, S. W. Rushworth, 1993, Oil
discoveries and basin resource predictions in Latin
America: past, present, and future: AAPG Bulletin, v. 77,
p. 329.
Kronman, G. E. and K. D. Smith, 1993, The rise of National Oil
Companies: the new Seven Sisters?: 78th Annual AAPG-
SEPM Convention, April, New Orleans, Louisiana,
Abstracts with Program, p. 132.
Mast, R. F., G. L. Dolton, R. A. Crovelli, D. H. Root, E. D.
Attanasi, P. E Martin, L. W. Cooke, G. B. Carpenter, W. C.
Pecora, and M. B. Rose, 1989, Estimates of undiscovered
conventional resources of oil and gas in the United
States—a part of the nation’s energy endowment: USGS
and Minerals Management Service, 44 p.
McCrossan, R. G., 1969, An analysis of size frequency distrib-
ution of oil and gas reserves of western Canada: Canadian
Journal of Earth Sciences; v. 6, p. 201–211.
Schuenemeyer, J. H., and L. J. Drew, 1983, A procedure to
estimate the parent population of the size of oil and gas
fields as revealed by a study of economic truncation: Math-
ematical Geology; v. 15, p. 145–161.
Authors’ Mailing Address
George E. Kronman
Sandra W. Rushworth
Keith Jagiello
Antenor Aleman
Amoco Production Company
501 WestLake Park Boulevard
Houston, Texas 77253-3092
U.S.A.