Various map tools from Oil Conservation Division (OCD) of EMNRD.

This data release contains spatial data on the location, number, size and extent of energy-related surface disturbances on the Colorado Plateau of Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico as of 2016. The database includes: 1) polygons of oil and gas pads generated from automated and manual classification of aerial imagery, and 2) polylines of roads derived from the U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line Shapefile, supplemented with additional oil and gas access roads digitized from aerial imagery. Pad polygons and road segments are attributed with a "spud year" date based on spud information from the nearest well point. Spudding is the process of beginning to drill a well in the oil and gas industry, and the spud year is a close approximation of when the access roads and pads were cleared for development. The spud year information can be used to develop a chronology of oil and gas surface disturbances across the study region. The remote sensing-based pad mapping captures bright soil of disturbed are ...

Oil and Gas Wells in NW New Mexico

This map shows the oil and natural gas wells across the United States. Oil and Natural Gas Well: A hole drilled in the earth for the purpose of finding or producing crude oil or natural gas; or producing services related to the production of crude or natural gas. Geographic coverage includes the United States (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming) as well Oil and Natural Gas wells in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Manitoba that are within 100 miles of the country's border with the United States. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) the following states do not have active/producing Oil or Natural Gas Wells: Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Idaho, Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Some states do have wells for underground Natural Gas storage facilities where these have been identified they were included. This layer is derived from well data from individual states and provinces and United States Agencies. This layer is complete for the United States but further development of data missing from two Canadian provinces and Mexico is in process. This update release includes an additional 497,036 wells covering Texas. Oil and gas exploration in Texas takes advantage of drilling technology to use a single surface well drilling location to drill multiple bottom hole well connections to extract oil and gas. The addition of Well data from Texas results in the addition of a related table to support this one surface well to many bottom hole connections. This related table provides records for Wells that have more than one bottom hole linked to the surface well. Sourced from the HIFLD Open Data Portal for Energy.

description: This data set contains the oil and gas communitization agreements, extracted from the US Bureau of Land Management's Case Recordation System, and geocoded (mapped) using the best available land grid, either BLM's GCDB or Public Land Survey System derived from USGS 7.5 - minute topographic maps.; abstract: This data set contains the oil and gas communitization agreements, extracted from the US Bureau of Land Management's Case Recordation System, and geocoded (mapped) using the best available land grid, either BLM's GCDB or Public Land Survey System derived from USGS 7.5 - minute topographic maps.

New Mexico has a rich legacy of petroleum and mineral exploration and production, most of which has involved subsurface investigations. Hundreds of thousands of holes have been drilled into the subsurface, some to depths of 20,000 feet or more. Considerable data have been collected from these wells in the form of electrical or geophysical logs, cuttings, and rock cores. These materials contain a rich lode of information about the kinds of rocks that lie below the surface, how porous and permeable they are, and even what types of fluids they contain.

Part of the Mission of New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources is to serve as a repository for these kinds of data. Data in our collections have been acquired from wells drilled throughout the state over the last 90 years. We currently have more than 15 million pieces of unique subsurface data in our collections, much of it stored in seven steel storage buildings on campus.

Core - 20,000+ boxes (oil & gas and mining) from 4,000+ wells Cuttings - 51,0000+ boxes from 16,600+ wells Geophysical Logs (some with mudlogs)- 50,000+ wells Porosity and Permeability Analyses Petroleum Source Rock Analyses Well records - 100,000+ wells Drillers logs - 17,000+ wells Sample descriptions and sample logs - 4,300+ wells Historic petroleum exploration maps with well locations in 26 counties Pool maps with locations of producing oil and gas pools by stratigraphic unit Historic production data - Pre-2002

This U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data release presents the geospatial data used to assess the hydrologic resources and the potential effects from oil and gas development in the Bureau of Land Management Tri-County Planning Area, Sierra, Doña Ana, and Otero Counties, New Mexico. The USGS, in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), conducted a study to assess the hydrologic resources and potential effects from oil and gas development in the Tri-County planning area, Sierra, Doña Ana, and Otero Counties, New Mexico. Publicly available data were used to assess these resources and effects and to identify data gaps in the Tri-County planning area. These data support the following publication: Reference for the SIR goes here ####.

While the EPA regulates only underground petroleum storage tanks, the State of New Mexico additionally regulates aboveground petroleum storage tanks. This map shows only active facilities.

no abstract provided

Cell maps for each oil and gas assessment unit were created by the USGS as a method for illustrating the degree of exploration, type of production, and distribution of production in an assessment unit or province. A cell map was not created for the Menefee Coal-Bed Gas (50220381) assessment unit because it was considered a hypothetical assessment unit. The Mesaverde Updip oil had production wells associated with it but resource totals were below the minimum and wasn't quantitatively assessed. Each cell represents a quarter-mile square of the land surface, and the cells are coded to represent whether the wells included within the cell are predominantly oil-producing, gas-producing, both oil and gas-producing, dry, or the type of production of the wells located within the cell is unknown. The well information was initially retrieved from the IHS Energy Group, PI/Dwights PLUS Well Data on CD-ROM, which is a proprietary, commercial database containing information for most oil and gas wells in the U.S. Cells were developed as a graphic solution to overcome the problem of displaying proprietary PI/Dwights PLUS Well Data. No proprietary data are displayed or included in the cell maps. The data from PI/Dwights PLUS Well Data were current as of October 2001 when the cell maps were created in 2002.

Cell maps for each oil and gas assessment unit were created by the USGS as a method for illustrating the degree of exploration, type of production, and distribution of production in an assessment unit or province. Each cell represents a quarter-mile square of the land surface, and the cells are coded to represent whether the wells included within the cell are predominantly oil-producing, gas-producing, both oil and gas-producing, dry, or the type of production of the wells located within the cell is unknown. The well information was initially retrieved from the IHS Energy Group, PI/Dwights PLUS Well Data on CD-ROM, which is a proprietary, commercial database containing information for most oil and gas wells in the U.S. Cells were developed as a graphic solution to overcome the problem of displaying proprietary PI/Dwights PLUS Well Data. No proprietary data are displayed or included in the cell maps. The data from PI/Dwights PLUS Well Data were current as of October 2002 when the cell maps were created in 2004.

This data release contains a geospatial database related to a digital 3D geologic framework of the Rio San Jose watershed, New Mexico. The geospatial database contains two main data elements: (1) input data to the 3D framework model; (2) interpolated elevations and thicknesses of stratigraphic units as a cellular array. Input surface and subsurface data for 18 stratigraphic units have been condensed to points that define the elevation of the top of each stratigraphic unit; these point data sets serve as the digital input to the framework model. The point data are derived from geologic maps, cross sections, oil and gas wells, water wells, structure contour maps, and thickness maps. Additional input geologic features that either cut or overlay the stratigraphic units in the model are provided as separate features classes, including the location of faults, volcanic dikes, and volcanic vents. The interpolated elevations and thickness of stratigraphic units are presented as a cellular array: essentially a “flattened”, two-dimensional representation of the digital 3D geologic framework, which defines the elevation and thickness of 18 geologic units within the geologic framework model. The elevation and thickness of the geologic units are contained within a single polygon feature class ModelCells, which contains a mesh of polygons that represent model cells that have multiple attributes including XY location, elevation and thickness of each geologic unit. The elevation and thickness of the geologic units are also provided as individual raster layers in geoTIFF format. The 3D model output is described in a file as an ascii array of points: the 3D model was sampled within a 3D modeling program with a 3D array of nodes with 500-m spacing in the X and Y directions and 50-m in the Z direction. The 3D model was sampled at each node and the model unit intersected at the node saved as a coded value. This array of X,Y,Z coordinates and the coded formation values is presented as a CSV ascii file. The spatial data are accompanied by non-spatial tables that describe the sources of geologic information, a glossary of terms, a description of model units, and a Data Dictionary that duplicates the Entity and Attribute information contained in the metadata file. Spatial data are also presented as shapefiles.

-Copy for VIDADescriptionThis map contains several layers to help understand the nature and potential impact of shale development in New Mexico, including:Name: Ground Water Contamination by PitsSource: New Mexico Oil Conservation DivisionDate Published: 11/19/2008Notes: This layer contains instances where pit substances contaminated ground water, according to the New Mexico Oil Conservation Division. This list was last updated over five years ago. Please note that location data are not exact, but are generally within 0.71 miles. 11 out of 369 pits in the dataset could not be mapped. The FracTracker Alliance has created a generalized layer of this file to show the extent of these pits at statewide scales without impacting map performance. Name: Shale PlaysSource: Energy Information AdministrationDate Published: 4-23-2015Notes: Shale plays are specific organic rich sedimentary rock formations, for which the possibility of extracting oil or natural gas is thought to be likely. This EIA layer has been clipped to the boundary of New Mexico.Name: Shale BasinsSource: Energy Information AdministrationDate Published: 2011Notes: Shale basins are broad depositional areas that may contain one or more shale plays. These could be arranged stratigraphically, such as in the Appalaichan basin, or laterally, as with the Williston basin. This EIA layer has been clipped to the boundary of New Mexico.

The US Map of Suspected Well Water Impacts includes incidents in which oil and gas related events are suspected in events that have an impact upon ground water in the United States. There are multiple layers to the map, each with its own source, and therefore credibility.Visitor Submitted Impacts: This layer consists of viewer submitted form data describing suspected incidents of groundwater contamination by oil and gas extraction and related industries. The locations have been determined using the centroids or geometric center-points of the zip code in which the suspected incident occurred. If you are aware of additional incidents, please submit them here.Pipeline Incidents Contaminating Groundwater: This data layer includes hazardous liquid pipeline incidents that were indicated as resulting in groundwater contamination between 1/1/2010 and 3/29/2013. The data were obtained by the US Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). The data have been altered by the FracTracker Alliance in that it only includes incidents leading to groundwater contamination, and by the removal of several dozen columns of data about the incident.NRDC Suspected Contamination Events: Amy Mall of the Natural Resources Defense Council compiled a list of 37 incidents where hydraulic fracturing is suspected of contributing to groundwater contamination. The list was compiled in December 2011, and each entry is linked to news reports of the event. This layer was mapped by the FracTracker Alliance based on the centroids or geographic center-points of the municipality, county, or state of the incident, depending on the best information available.List of the Harmed Suspected Water Incidents: Jenny Lisak, co-director of the Pennsylvania Alliance for Clean Water and Air, maintains a list of people claiming to be harmed by hydraulic fracturing or related processes, called the List of the Harmed. This data layer is based on the February 23, 2013 update of the list, and contains only the events in which water is the suspected exposure pathway. This data was mapped by the FracTracker Alliance based on the centroids or geographic center-points of the municipality, county, or state of the incident, depending on the best information available. NM Pit Contamination Events: This layer consists of events where the New Mexico Oil Conservation Division determined that substances from oil and gas pits contaminated groundwater. Altogether, there are 369 incidents included in the data. The document on which this map was based was published in 2008.Complaints to PADEP: Laura Legere, a reporter with the Scranton Times-Tribune, submitted a Right-to-Know law request to PADEP for documents related to people complaining of their well water being impacted by oil and gas drilling, hydraulic fracturing, and related activities. Inclusion on this map layer just means that there was a complaint to PADEP, and should not be construed as proof of a causal relationship between the gas well activity and supposed ground water impact. However, 161 of the incidents have documentation where PADEP establishes a connection between drilling activity and well water impacts. Please note that locations are not exact. They were created by finding the centroid, or geographic center-point, of each municipality. Names of those claiming well water impacts are not included in the data for this map.

This digital dataset was created as part of a U.S. Geological Survey hydrologic resource assessment and development of an integrated numerical hydrologic model of the hydrologic system of the Upper Colorado River Basin, an extensive region covering approximately 412,000 square kilometers in five states: Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico. As part of this larger study, the USGS developed this digital dataset of geologic data and a three-dimensional hydrogeologic framework model (3D HFM) that define the elevation, thickness, and extent of seven hydrogeologic units in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The hydrogeologic setting of the Colorado Plateau consists of thick Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic aquifers, predominantly sandstone and limestone, that are separated by regionally extensive confining units of fine-grained siliciclastic rocks, all overlain by generally thin Quaternary sediments. Based in part on the need to maintain consistency with previously published USGS hydrogeologic studies in the region (Craigg, 2001; Freethy and Cordy, 1991; Geldon, 2003; Glover and others, 1998), seven hydrogeologic units (HGUs) were modeled across the Upper Colorado River Basin: (1) TIPCG, Tertiary Intrusions and Precambrian Granite, a confining unit that includes crystalline igneous and metamorphic rocks of all ages; (2) PZAU, Paleozoic aquifer unit, including Mississippian and Pennsylvanian carbonate rocks and Permian sandstones and conglomerate; (3) CMCU, the Chinle-Moenkopi confining unit, including red Triassic fine-grained sandstone, siltstone and shale; (4) MZAU, Mesozoic aquifer unit, including thick, dominantly eolian Triassic and Jurassic sandstones of the Glen Canyon Group and overlying dominantly fluvial and alluvial sandstones and shales of the San Rafael Group; (5) MCU, Mancos confining unit, including thick sections of Cretaceous marine shale; (6) KTAU, Cretaceous-Tertiary aquifer unit, including marginal marine to continental siliciclastic sections with locally thick Cenozoic volcanic rocks; and (7) QAU, Quaternary alluvial unit, consisting predominantly of alluvial sediment along modern washes and drainages. Surface and subsurface data compiled include a digital elevation model, geologic contacts shown on geologic maps, reported formation tops from oil and gas wells, and structure contour and isopach maps. Input surface and subsurface data have been reduced to points that define the elevation of the top of each hydrogeologic units; these point data sets serve as digital input to the 3D framework model. Surfaces representing the elevation of the top of each hydrogeologic unit were created through standard interpolation methods of input data points using two-dimensional horizon gridding software. Data were interpolated using faults as two-dimensional boundaries that acted as a barrier to information flow during interpolation. Resultant HGU elevations were mapped to an x, y array of 1-km polygonal cells in geographic information systems (GIS) software. Each cell within the array was assigned attributes representing the top elevation thickness of each hydrogeologic unit. This polygonal cellular array is essentially a “flattened”, 2.5D (multiple z values stored at each x,y coordinate) representation of the digital 3D HFM, defining the elevation, thickness, and extent of each of the 7 HGUs at every cell centroid. The digital dataset includes a geospatial database that contains the following data elements: (1) a digital hydrogeologic map and map of fault locations for the model domain, (2) compiled digital input data to the 3D HFM for each hydrogeologic unit; (3) the 3D HFM, stored as interpolated elevation and thickness of the seven hydrogeologic as attributes of an XY array of polygonal cells; and (4) elevation surfaces of each HGU interpolated as triangular irregular networks (TINs) and extruded volumes (“multipatch”). The spatial data are accompanied by non-spatial tables that describe the sources of geologic information, a glossary of terms, a description of model units, and a Data Dictionary that duplicates the Entity and Attribute information contained in the metadata file. Spatial data from the geodatabase are also saved in shapefile format and nonspatial tables from the geodatabase are also provided in CSV format.

The US Map of Suspected Well Water Impacts includes incidents in which oil and gas related events are suspected in events that have an impact upon ground water in the United States. There are multiple layers to the map, each with its own source, and therefore credibility.Visitor Submitted Impacts: This layer consists of viewer submitted form data describing suspected incidents of groundwater contamination by oil and gas extraction and related industries. The locations have been determined using the centroids or geometric center-points of the zip code in which the suspected incident occurred. If you are aware of additional incidents, please submit them here.Pipeline Incidents Contaminating Groundwater: This data layer includes hazardous liquid pipeline incidents that were indicated as resulting in groundwater contamination between 1/1/2010 and 3/29/2013. The data were obtained by the US Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). The data have been altered by the FracTracker Alliance in that it only includes incidents leading to groundwater contamination, and by the removal of several dozen columns of data about the incident.NRDC Suspected Contamination Events: Amy Mall of the Natural Resources Defense Council compiled a list of 37 incidents where hydraulic fracturing is suspected of contributing to groundwater contamination. The list was compiled in December 2011, and each entry is linked to news reports of the event. This layer was mapped by the FracTracker Alliance based on the centroids or geographic center-points of the municipality, county, or state of the incident, depending on the best information available.List of the Harmed Suspected Water Incidents: Jenny Lisak, co-director of the Pennsylvania Alliance for Clean Water and Air, maintains a list of people claiming to be harmed by hydraulic fracturing or related processes, called the List of the Harmed. This data layer is based on the February 23, 2013 update of the list, and contains only the events in which water is the suspected exposure pathway. This data was mapped by the FracTracker Alliance based on the centroids or geographic center-points of the municipality, county, or state of the incident, depending on the best information available. NM Pit Contamination Events: This layer consists of events where the New Mexico Oil Conservation Division determined that substances from oil and gas pits contaminated groundwater. Altogether, there are 369 incidents included in the data. The document on which this map was based was published in 2008.Complaints to PADEP: Laura Legere, a reporter with the Scranton Times-Tribune, submitted a Right-to-Know law request to PADEP for documents related to people complaining of their well water being impacted by oil and gas drilling, hydraulic fracturing, and related activities. Inclusion on this map layer just means that there was a complaint to PADEP, and should not be construed as proof of a causal relationship between the gas well activity and supposed ground water impact. However, 161 of the incidents have documentation where PADEP establishes a connection between drilling activity and well water impacts. Please note that locations are not exact. They were created by finding the centroid, or geographic center-point, of each municipality. Names of those claiming well water impacts are not included in the data for this map.

Oil and Gas Map

The Paradox Basin of Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico contains nearly 100 small oil fields producing from carbonate buildups within the Pennsylvanian (Desmoinesian) Paradox Fonnation. These fields typically have one to 10 wells with primary production ranging from 700,000 to 2,000,000 barrels (111,300-318,000 m3) of oil per field and a 15 to 20 percent recovery rate. At least 200 million barrels (31.8 million m3) of oil will not be recovered from these small fields because of inefficient recovery practices and undrained heterogeneous reservoirs. Several fields in southeastern Utah and southwestern Colorado are being evaluated for horizontal drilling from existing vertical field wells based upon geological characterization and reservoir modeling case studies. The results of these studies can be applied to similar fields in the Paradox Basin and the Rocky Mountain region, the Michigan and illinois Basins, and the Midcontinent region. This report covers research activities for the second half of the first project year (September 6, 2000, through April 5, 2001). This work includes description and analysis of cores, correlation of geophysical well logs, reservoir mapping, petrographic description of thin sections, cross plotting of penneability and porosity data, and development of horizontal drilling strategies for the Cherokee and Bug fields in San Juan County, Utah. Geological characterization on a local scale foc\lt)ed on reservoir heterogeneity, quality, and lateral continuity, as well as possible compartmentalization, within these fields. This study utilizes representative core, geophysical logs, and thin sections to characterize and grade each field's potential for drilling horizontal laterals from existing development wells. The typical vertical sequence or lithofacies from the Cherokee and Bug fields, as determined from conventional core, was tied to its corresponding log response to identify reservoir and non-reservoir rock and detennine potential units suitable for horizontal drilling projects. Structure contour maps on the top of the upper Ismay zone and the Chimney Rock shale and isochore maps of the upper Ismay and lower Desert Creek for Cherokee and Bug fields, respectively, were constructed to show carbonate buildup trends, define limits of field potential, and also indicate possible horizontal drilling targets. In order to detennine the diagenetic histories of the various Ismay and Desert Creek reservoirs, petrographic descriptions of 44 thin sections were completed from representative core samples. The diagenetic fabrics and porosity types found at Cherokee and Bug fields are indicators of reservoir flow capacity, storage capacity, and potential for horizontal drilling. The reservoir quality of Cherokee and Bug fields has been affected by multiple generations of dissolution, anhydrite plugging, and various types of cementation which act as barriers or baffles to fluid flow. The most significant and unique diagenetic characteristics were intense, late-stage microporosity and early-stage micro-box-work porosity. Based on cross plots of penneability and porosity data, the reservoir quality of the rocks in Cherokee and Bugs fields is most dependant on pore types and diagenesis. Strategies for horizontal drilling include the following targets: depositional facies in the Ismay and Desert Creek zones, microporosity in the Ismay zone, and micro-box-work porosity in the Desert Creek zone.

This map shows the relationship between natural resources and oil extraction Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the US by counties, states, regions, and nationwide. Natural resources and oil is defined by the North American Industry Classification System NAICS) 11, 21. Includes agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting; and mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction.GDP is the value of goods and services produced within a county. The underlying Living Atlas layer contains 2019 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) estimates from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) for the nation, regions, states, and counties. Breakdowns by industry available, using North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) groups. Table CAGDP2, downloaded ‎February ‎2, ‎2021.https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gdp-county-metro-and-other-areas Null values are either due to the data being unavailable, or not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information (in these cases, estimates are included in higher-level totals).The percentages of the next highest geography level's GDP are also available, i.e. regions have percentages for nation's GDP, states have percentages of their region's GDP, and counties have percentages of their state's GDP. If the GPD estimate is unavailable, so is the percentage. If a percentage of state is listed as 0.0 but there is a value for GDP, then this value is <0.1, which rounds to zero. Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding and null values.Combined Counties:Kalawao County, Hawaii is combined with Maui County. Separate estimates for the jurisdictions making up the combination areas are not available.Virginia combination areas consist of one or two independent cities with 1980 populations of less than 100,000 combined with an adjacent county. The county name appears first, followed by the city name(s). Separate estimates for the jurisdictions making up the combination area are not available. Bedford County, VA includes the independent city of Bedford for all years.Boundaries used to create regions and counties:Boundaries for this layer were created using the Dissolve geoprocessing tool in Pro and the regional and combined county definitions from BEA.