8

Castillo, Veronica, Laszlo Benkovics, Carlos Cobos, Daniel Demuro, and Alejandro
Franco, 2017, Perla field: The largest discovery ever in Latin America, in
R. K. Merrill and C. A. Sternbach, eds., Giant fields of the decade 2000–2010:
AAPG Memoir 113, p. 141–152.

Perla Field: The Largest Discovery

Ever in Latin America
Veronica Castillo, Laszlo Benkovics, and Carlos Cobos
Repsol USA, 2455 Technology Forest Blvd., The Woodlands, Texas 77381, U.S.A.
(e-mails: mvcastillodeo@repsol.com, lbenkovicsb@repsol.com, carlos.cobos@repsol.com)

Daniel Demuro
Repsol Colombia, Calle 77 # 7 – 44 piso 13, Apto. Aéreo 110221, Bogotá D.C., Colombia
(e-mail: ddemur@repsol.com)

Alejandro Franco
Repsol, c/ Mendez Alvaro 44, 2, Madrid 28045, Spain
(e-mail: afrancog@repsol.com)

Abstract
Perla gas field is a world-class giant and one of the most significant in Latin America in
the last decade. The field was discovered in August 2009. It is the largest gas field in Latin
­America with approximately 17 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of gas in place, or 3.1 BBOE. The field,
located in the shallow waters of the Gulf of Venezuela, was discovered, and is operated by
Cardon IV S.A., a 50/50 joint operating company formed by Repsol and Eni.
The Perla discovery is important because it is a Play opener for the southern Caribbean do-
main, triggering a new exploration cycle in the region and proving a previously unknown Ter-
tiary thermogenic petroleum system. The discovery well encountered a thick carbonate section
(240 m [787 ft] thick) with excellent primary reservoir properties. The trap is a combination
structural and stratigraphic, defined by a northwest–southeast trending asymmetric faulted
structure and pinch-out of the carbonate reservoir rock to the north. The proven hydrocarbon
column exceeds 350 m (1148 ft) and is in complete hydraulic continuity, and the structural-
stratigraphic closure exceeds 100 km2 (39 mi2).

Introduction
The Gulf of Venezuela is located in the northwest
part of Venezuela and has an area of 20,000 km2 (7722 mi2),
where water depths range from 15 to 60 m (49 to
197 ft). To the north of the basin is the Caribbean Sea;
to the south, the Maracaibo Basin (the most important
hydrocarbon province of Venezuela); to the southeast,
the Falcon Basin; to the east, the Paraguana Peninsula;
and to the west, the Guajira Peninsula (Figure 1).

Copyright ©2017 by The American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

DOI:10.1306/13572004M1133683

141

13934_ch08_ptg01_hr_141-152.indd 141 06/27/17 7:26 AM

 142  Castillo et al.

Figure 1. Location of the Gulf of Venezuela Basin. The map shows: 1) the Maracaibo and Falcon basins, 2) the two ex-
ploratory wells (Noroca-1X and Lamparosa-1X) drilled in the Gulf of Venezuela before the Perla discovery, 3) the wells
drilled during the 2008–2009 exploratory campaign, and 4) other wells in the Guajira Peninsula and Aruba Basin. The
blocks offered in the Phase A of the “Rafael Urdaneta” bid round are highlighted in red, whereas the blocks offered
in Phase B are highlighted in yellow. Cardon IV block is outlined in red, and its darker western portion is the current
shape, after relinquishing the eastern part of the block at the end of the exploratory phase.

The Gulf of Venezuela Basin is one of the few un-
explored basins in Venezuela, yet it is surrounded by
areas that have been well studied during the past 80
years, including the well-known Maracaibo and Fal-
con hydrocarbon basins. This frontier basin had only
two wells drilled before the 2005 Rafael Urdaneta
bid round, Noroca-1X well and Lamparosa-1X well
(Figure 1).
The region records geological evidence of the
­tectonic interaction between the Caribbean and South
American plates since the Cretaceous. This geody-
namic history played an important role in the devel-
opment of petroleum systems through time. To define
this evolution, five major tectonic phases have been
described by several authors (Pindell and ­Barret, 1990;
Lugo and Mann, 1995; Audemard, 1993; Castillo, 2001;
Lugo, 2001). These tectonic phases are (1) Cretaceous
passive margin development, (2) late Paleocene–early
Eocene depocenter formation and erosion in the area
where tectonic compensation occurs, (3) late Eocene
tectonic flexure and block faulting, (4) Oligocene–late
Miocene transtensional block faulting, and (5) Plio-
cene to present Andean uplift.
The interaction of these tectonic events defined
the current configuration of the basement, with the
existence of a relatively stable area to the west, de-
fined as the Dabajuro platform, and a major subsid-
ence area to the east known as the Urumaco trough
(Figure 2). These two major tectonic elements define
two distinctive geologic provinces in the Gulf of Ven-
ezuela. The western province has an autochthonous
basement of continental affinity, covered by passive
margin successions ranging in age from Cretaceous
to early ­E ocene and showing similar stratigraphy
and petroleum system to those of the Maracaibo
­B asin. The eastern province has an allochthonous
basement of island arc affinity, covered by Paleogene
and Neogene rocks deposited under extensional and
transtensional stresses and showing similar stratig-
raphy and petroleum system to those of the Falcon
Basin (Figure 2).
The proximity to the petroleum-prolific Marac-
aibo and Falcon basins, together with the launching
in 2005 of the Rafael Urdaneta bid round, started a
new ­exploration phase in this unique tectonic ­setting
of the Gulf of Venezuela. Exploration companies fo-
cused on better understanding the region, specifically
on the coalescence of three very different petroleum
systems: the prolific and well-known Cretaceous–
Cretaceous and C ­ retaceous–Tertiary Maracaibo-type

13934_ch08_ptg01_hr_141-152.indd 142 06/27/17 7:26 AM

 Perla Field: The Largest Discovery Ever in Latin America  143

Figure 2. Map showing the main tectonic elements in the Gulf of Venezuela area. The background is the first vertical
derivative of the Bouguer anomaly map depicting very clearly the basement trend in this region. The main transfer
fault zone in the central area is oriented northwest–southeast and defines the tectonic boundary between the autoch-
thonous geologic province in the west, and the allochthonous geologic province to the east. This transfer fault system
connects to the northwest with the Cuiza fault zone, which represents the leading edge of the allochthonous basement
on the Guajira Peninsula. The eastern limit of the Dabajuro platform with the major transfer fault zone continues to the
west toward the Guajira Peninsula and finally plunges to the southeast. The northwest–southeast-trending Urumaco
trough (gravity low) and the Paraguana Peninsula (gravity high) show very prominent gravimetric anomalies. The Falcon
anticlinorium, which is defined by west–east parallel-subparallel anticlinal structures extends toward the east from the
Dabajuro platform, developing a curved morphology near the coastline. The map also depicts a basement low north of
the Oca fault, perhaps related to a pull-apart basin developed during the lateral offset of the fault.

petroleum systems, and the less prolific Tertiary-­
Tertiary Falcon-type petroleum system.
The Perla discovery well encountered a thick car-
bonate section (240 m [787 ft] thick) with excellent
primary reservoir properties (Table 1) and proved
a previously underestimated Tertiary thermogenic
petroleum system. Four additional exploration/ap-
praisal wells were drilled after the discovery well in
2010 and 2011, confirming the areal extent and proper-
ties of the carbonate reservoir. This discovery defined
a new play concept in the southern Caribbean domain,
triggering a new exploration stage in the region. Pre-
vious exploration efforts were focused on the well-
known Cretaceous petroleum system.
Exploration History
Although the hydrocarbon exploration activities in
the Gulf of Venezuela began in the 1950s with the

13934_ch08_ptg01_hr_141-152.indd 143 06/27/17 7:26 AM

 144  Castillo et al.
Table 1. Perla field reservoir average properties.
Initial pressure (psi) 4608
Dew point (psi) 4135
Pe (psi) 4608
Depth (ft) 8899–10000
Reservoir temperature (°F) 208
Porosity (%) 16–31
Permeability (md) 0.06–517 (average 14)
Water saturation (%) 17–37
Type of fluid Gas and Condensate
API 46–48°
Initial GOR (scf/stb) 44930 Perla-1X
CO2 (%) 1–3.5
H2S (ppm) 0 seismic data. The identified exploration opportuni-
acquisition of gravimetric, magnetic, and seismic data,
it was not until 40 years later that drilling activities
began (Figure 1). The first well was Noroca-1X, which
was drilled onshore in 1994 in the southwestern part
of the basin and which tested 1000 BOPD of 33° API
from the early Cretaceous succession. The second well
was the Lamparosa-1X well, drilled offshore in 1995
12 km (7 mi) west of Paraguana Peninsula, which had
only minor gas shows in the early Miocene–Oligocene
successions. The results from these two wells con-
firmed the existence of an active petroleum system in
two very distinctive geological provinces of the Gulf
of Venezuela. These results were key for the recent
exploration success in recent years.
In 2004, the Venezuelan government through the
Ministerio para el Poder Popular de la Energia y el
­Petroleo (MPPEP) launched the Rafael Urdaneta gas
bid round in two phases (Figure 1). In 2005, during
phase B, the Eni-Repsol joint venture was awarded
the Cardon IV block license for a period of 30 years
effective February 2, 2006. The operator of this license
is Cardon IV SA (equally comprised by Eni and Rep-
sol), a Venezuelan company formed as required by
the government under the terms defined in the license
agreement.
The exploration period was of 4 years, with a possi-
ble extension of 1 year, divided into three phases. Dur-
ing the first exploratory phase, Cardon acquired and
processed 693 km2 (268 mi2) (700 km2 full fold) of 3-D
seismic data (Figure 1). Interpretation of the new data
confirmed the presence of two overlapping explora-
tory opportunities, previously identified with two-di-
mensional seismic data (the two-dimensional seismic
data were delivered by the Venezuelan government in
13934_ch08_ptg01_hr_141-152.indd 144
the data package for the bid round). The primary ob-
jective was an early ­Miocene–Oligocene target (main
exploratory objective and reservoir in Perla field) and
a secondary ­objective of possible middle Miocene age.
The second and third exploratory phases had one well
commitment each.
During the ­interpretation, an unconstrained elas-
tic inversion of the three-dimensional seismic volume
was done using a velocity model that incorporated
Repsol’s rock physics database. This work contributed
to a better understanding of the relationship between
reservoir properties and seismic signatures. Using the
seismic inversion, Cardon IV interpreters were able
to relate seismic signatures to different geologic sce-
narios and rock physical conditions to help reduce
exploratory risk. The study and analysis of these data
confirmed previous interpretations based on old 2-D
ties were defined as structural-stratigraphic prospects
in the Oligocene–early Miocene and middle Miocene
successions.
The first exploratory well, Perla-1X, was spudded
in June 2009 and reached total depth (TD) in Septem-
ber 2009. This well, drilled in 60 m (197 ft) of water
depth, encountered a 233-m (763-ft) hydrocarbon col-
umn. The second exploratory well, Perla 2 (January
2010) found 299 m (982 ft) of net pay in a carbonate
sequence with excellent reservoir characteristics. Dur-
ing 2010 and 2011, three appraisal wells were drilled.
During this drilling campaign, 573 m (1880 ft) of core
was obtained and studied; the conclusion was that
the field’s hydrocarbon section is over 350 m (1150 ft)
thick, with both horizontal and vertical hydraulic res-
ervoir continuity. Production from the Perla gas field
began in July 2015. The development concept includes
four platforms that connect to 26 wells, and the gas is
transported to coast facilities through a 30-in. (76-cm)-
diameter pipeline of approximately 72 km (116 mi)
long.
Tectonostratigraphy
The Gulf of Venezuela Basin is characterized by a
northwest–southeast trending steeply dipping trans-
form fault system, which defines the Urumaco Trough
(Figures 2 and 3). This fault system separates two
very distinctive geological provinces characterized
by different basement rocks and geologic history. The
western province has an autochthonous basement
consisting of Meso-Neoproterozoic to Paleozoic con-
tinental rocks, most probably made up of a diverse
mosaic of blocks, including fragments of the Putu-
mayo orogen (Baquero et al., 2015), Late Paleozoic
06/27/17 7:26 AM
 Perla Field: The Largest Discovery Ever in Latin America  145

Figure 3. Southwest–northeast oriented regional seismic profile along the Gulf of Venezuela. In the western area, the
Dabajuro platform shows the interpreted Cretaceous passive margin overlying autochthonous basement. The basement
is interpreted as consisting of a metamorphic Paleozoic folded belt and continental Jurassic redbeds. The platform is
bounded to the east by the transfer fault system that accommodates sedimentation along the northwest–southeast
trending Urumaco trough. In the eastern area, allochthonous Mesozoic basement is overlain by Paleogene rocks.
­Geologic interpretations suggest that the older rocks are Eocene in age, and possibly Paleocene. On basement highs,
older successions are interpreted as upper Oligocene (Chattian). In this seismic profile, the blue succession correlates
with both zones of the Perla reservoir rocks dated as upper Oligocene–lower Miocene (Chattian–Aquitanian).

granite and gneiss, similar to the rocks outcropping on
Toas island, in the northernmost part of the Maracaibo
Lake (Blaser and Dusembury, 1960; Pimentel, 1973),
and the Guajira Peninsula (Renz, 1960; Rollins, 1965).
The eastern province has a late Mesozoic island-arc
allochthonous basement.
In this basin, four major megasequences have
been defined based on the sequence stratigraphic
analysis, well and outcrop data correlation with
age-controlled formal successions, and seismic
interpretation. Many authors have integrated these
data to define the megasequences and to correlate
them with the major tectonic phases that shaped the
Gulf of Venezuela Basin from Cretaceous to Present
(Van Andel, 1958; Wheeler, 1963a, b; Coronel,
1967, 1970; Feo Codecido, 1968; Mac Donald, 1968;
Zambrano et al., 1970; Hunter and Bartok, 1974;
Cabrera, 1975; Diaz de Gamero, 1977; Gonzalez de
Juana et al., 1980; Pitelli and Molina, 1989; Boesi and
Goddard, 1991; Curet, 1992; Diaz de Gamero et al.,
1993; Macellari, 1995; Parnaud et al., 1995; Di Croce
et al., 2000) (Figure 4). These tectonic settings are
(1) Cretaceous passive margin, (2) Paleogene
collisional margin, (3) Oligocene–Early M ­ iocene
transtension, and (4) Middle Miocene–Present
transtension and Andean uplift.
The chronostratigraphic chart in Figure 4 shows the
four major megasequences within the two distinctive
geologic provinces that controlled the evolution of the
Gulf of Venezuela Basin. After the tectonic coupling in
the early Paleogene during the eastward escape of the
Caribbean plate, these two provinces shared a com-
mon sedimentary history until Present (Flinch and
Castillo, 2015).
In the western geologic province of the basin, the
sedimentary cycle started with the deposition of a pas-
sive margin succession that is very well preserved in
most of western Venezuela (similar sequences are in
the Maracaibo Basin and Guajira Peninsula; ­Figure 4).
It is assumed that the entire gulf area and the
­Maracaibo Basin were below sea level with continu-
ous marine sedimentation. This cycle began with a
transgressive phase during the early Cretaceous, be-
coming more influenced by marine processes with the
deposition of Cogollo Group carbonates and sand-
stones, followed by the deposition of euxinic facies
of the La Luna Formation and ending with the open
marine Colon Formation shales. Based on seismic

13934_ch08_ptg01_hr_141-152.indd 145 06/27/17 7:26 AM

 146  Castillo et al.

Figure 4. Chronostratigraphic chart showing the northeast Maracaibo, northwest Falcon, and Gulf of Venezuela basins.
The chart integrates seismic data, recent exploratory well results in the Perla field, and information from nearby areas.
It also­includes the work of several authors cited in the manuscript. All integrated data record the lateral and vertical
­stratigraphic evolution of the sedimentary basins, as described in detail in the western and eastern areas of the Gulf
of Venezuela.

data, well correlation, and outcrops, we also inter-
pret the presence of Jurassic strata filling grabens in
some areas of the western province. These grabens
were probably formed during the rift stage that sepa-
rated the North and South American plates forming
the Proto-Caribbean (Mann, 1999) (Figures 2 and 3).
During late Cretaceous–early Paleogene time, the Car-
ibbean allochthonous terrane reached the Guajira area,
while the Dabajuro platform was exposed in response
to tectonic loading. These events caused erosion of the
complete Cretaceous megasequence in the southwest-
ern Gulf of Venezuela, leaving an erosional remnant in
the central part.
In the eastern geologic province of the basin, the
sedimentary history started with the deposition of
­E ocene sediments preserved along the Urumaco
Trough, capping the allochthonous basement. By this
time, the allochthonous Caribbean terrain reached
the eastern Maracaibo Basin and had already overrid-
den the eastern Gulf of Venezuela (Figures 2 and 3).
There is no sedimentary record of Eocene rocks be-
ing deposited on the Guajira Peninsula nor the Para-
guaná Peninsula. Eocene igneous bodies are believed
to have been emplaced at this time. In the Maracaibo
Basin, a thick sedimentary succession was deposited
in the foreland basin in response to oblique collision
between the Caribbean and South American plates
(Lugo, 1991).
During the Oligocene–early Miocene, the eastern
Gulf of Venezuela was part of a wide shallow-water
platform deepening toward the west. This moment
in time is especially relevant for the new Tertiary
play because the easternmost area of the basin was
under shallow water, resulting in the deposition
of carbonate reservoir rocks, while deposition and
preservation of source rocks occurred in the deeper-
water environments of the western part (Urumaco
trough).
The Perla field is located in the eastern prov-
ince of the basin, where shallow waters covered the
area and extended toward the southeast. This set-
ting f­ avored the development of the carbonate reser-
voir succession deposited on top of a basement high
defined by a northwest–southeast faulted anticline
structure (Figures 2 and 5). This basement structure
controlled the depositional geometry and facies dis-
tribution of the carbonate reservoir. A stratigraphic
pinchout of the carbonate succession developed to-
ward the northern part of the basement high during
late Oligocene–early ­Miocene time (Figures 5 and 6).

13934_ch08_ptg01_hr_141-152.indd 146 06/27/17 7:26 AM

 Perla Field: The Largest Discovery Ever in Latin America  147

Figure 5. Oligocene-early Miocene (Chattian–Aquitanian) paleogeographic configuration of the Gulf of Venezuela Ba-
sin and surrounding areas. The paleogeographic setting is dominated by the Dabajuro platform in the western area,
and the Urumaco trough in the eastern part of the basin. Perla field is located on the eastern part of the Urumaco
trough. The reservoir succession developed in a middle-external carbonate ramp, on a narrow platform surrounding the
­Paraguana basement high. The paleogeographic transition from Paleogene to Neogene shows a strong control of the
main tectonic elements shown in Figures 2 and 3, as well as on the depositional systems developed at that time.

The northwest–southeast trending faults were active
during the carbonate deposition, and they were also
reactivated later from Neogene through Present.
Reservoir AND SOURCE ROCKS
The Perla reservoir consists of a Chattian to Aquita-
nian carbonate succession, deposited on a distally
steepened ramp, bulging in the middle-outer ramp,
with a transgressive, deepening-upward stacking pat-
tern, which is overlain by deposition of glauconite
and pyrite related to the drowning of the platform.
Red algae and large benthic foraminifera are domi-
nant in the carbonate factory and are mainly repre-
sented by floatstones and rudstones of rhodoliths,
fragments of branching red algae, larger benthic fora-
minifers, echinoderms, bivalves, barnacles, bryozo-
ans and, locally, finger corals (Borromeo et al., 2011;
Pinto et al., 2011; Benkovics et al., 2012; Pomar et al.,
2015) (Figures 6 and 7). This carbonate succession
lies unconformably on the allochthonous basement,
and in some places, is underlain by basal siliciclas-
tic rocks. The latter consists of small synsedimentary
wedges of siliciclastic sandstone, siltstone, and mud-
stone deposited in grabens developed in the base-
ment. The clastic succession lacks diagnostic fossils;
however, based on their stratigraphic position and the
basin history, they might be Oligocene in age (Pinto
et al., 2011) (Figures 6 and 7).
The geometry and stacking pattern of the reservoir
succession in Perla field show a strong structural con-
trol during its depositional history. Evidence of this
structural control includes a sharp erosional surface
with siliciclastic sands present in the lower part of the
carbonate section (Pinto et al., 2011) and retrograding
and prograding depositional cycles of different orders
of magnitude, apparently controlled by synsedimen-
tary faults (Benkovics et al., 2012) (Figure 6). Pomar
et al. (2015) made a detailed depositional lithofacies
interpretation based on core analysis of textures, skel-
etal components, and vertical transitions into other
lithofacies. In general, the basal terrigenous domi-
nated facies is separated by a sharp boundary from
the carbonate facies that are transitional through the
column (Figure 7).
This reservoir is a continuous carbonate succes-
sion without interlayered mud. The main pore types
are primary, inter- and intraparticle porosity with
secondary biomoldic and microporosity. Pores have
a complex distribution caused by depositional and
diagenetic controls (Borromeo et al., 2011; Pinto et
al., 2011; Benkovics et al., 2012; Pomar et al., 2015).
The most important diagenetic event in terms of res-
ervoir property enhancement (best reservoir areas) is
late leaching. This leaching is most likely controlled

13934_ch08_ptg01_hr_141-152.indd 147 06/27/17 7:26 AM

 148  Castillo et al.

Figure 6. Maps and seismic sections illustrating the components of the Perla field. A) (Left) Structural map at the top of the
carbonate reservoir. The top of the reservoir shows a northwest–southeast-oriented, three-way closure faulted anticline, with a
stratigraphic pinch-out toward the north. This map was constructed after Perla-1X was drilled, and before the continuation of the
exploration/appraisal campaign. (Right) Isochore map interpreted after Perla-1X was drilled. The reservoir thickness decreases to-
ward the north, west, and eastern flanks of the structure. The thicker succession is located in the central part of the anticline and
extends toward the south. B) Seismic profiles indicated on the maps. Line 1 is a north–south seismic profile across the Perla field
and through wells Perla-1X and Perla-4. This profile shows the stratigraphic pinchout towards the north, as well as the structural
control during the deposition of the different sedimentary successions in this part of the basin. Some parts of the reservoir are
deposited directly above the basement, but others, on top of a basal clastic wedge, deposited in few areas directly on top of the
basement. Line 2 shows the east–west stratigraphic component of the trap for Perla field. A northwest–southeast-striking Paleo-
gene graben is interpreted on the eastern part of the seismic profile. This graben probably developed during the transtensional
event that generated the Urumaco trough. This same graben is also interpreted on the seismic transect in Figure 3.

13934_ch08_ptg01_hr_141-152.indd 148 06/27/17 7:26 AM

 Perla Field: The Largest Discovery Ever in Latin America  149

Figure 7. Distribution of the main facies of the Perla reservoir

and the interpreted depositional model (modified from Pomar
et al., 2015) that integrates the lithofacies transitions along the
contiguous facies belts shown in the upper diagram. According
to the information obtained during the study of cores (left), the
sedimentary cycle began with shallow-water coastal marine sand-
stones overlain by a mixed siliciclastic-carbonate (SS-MS) associa-
tion derived from the basement highlands, and reworked marine
skeletal grains. This dominantly terrigenous sequence is followed
by a marine deepening succession, little or no mud matrix in the
coarse-grained carbonates. This marine succession from bottom
to top consists of skeletal packstones and grainstones (SPG), fol-
lowed by coral floatstone-rudstone (CF), then branching red algae
(BRA) and rhodolith floatstone-rudstone (RF), and finally a rud-
stone composed primarily of large benthic foraminifera (LBFR).

13934_ch08_ptg01_hr_141-152.indd 149 06/27/17 7:26 AM

 150  Castillo et al.
by deep-seated faults that funneled ascending fluids
into the carbonate, from the basement through the res-
ervoir beginning in the middle Miocene. Table 1 sum-
marizes the Perla field reservoir properties.
Results of geochemical analysis show that the Perla
gas is mainly thermogenic; however, some minor in-
put of biogenic gas has likely contributed to the ac-
cumulated hydrocarbons. Estimated TOC (%) values
in the Perla field average 1 to 2%. Results suggest a
source rock maturity range between R o ~ 0.8 % and
Ro ~ 1.9 %. This diverse maturity information coming
from biomarkers suggest that different source rocks
or maybe one but very thick source rock sequence
generated the Perla fluids. The source rock organofa-
cies show a mixed marine-type kerogen (type II/III)
and a terrestrial kerogen (type III/II) of early Tertiary
age. Additional geochemical data indicate that the gas
was generated in the Urumaco trough from latest late
­Miocene to Present.
Production Data
Perla field was discovered in August 2009. The first
well, Perla 1X well, drilled in 60 m (197 ft) ­w ater
depth, encountered a 233-m (763-ft) hydrocarbon
column. During production testing, it produced 20.7
MMCFD of high-quality gas with a capacity of 600,000
cubic meters per day (cu m/d) (~3700 BOED) and 500
bbl/day of condensate. The second exploratory well,
Perla 2, drilled almost 60 m (197 ft) downdip of Perla-
1X, found 299 m (982 ft) of net pay in the same carbon-
ate sequence with excellent reservoir characteristics.
During production testing, the Perla 2 well flowed 50
MMCFD plus 1500 bbl/day of condensate. After these
two exploratory wells, three appraisal wells were
drilled to define the extension and characteristics of
the carbonate reservoir. The Perla 3 well was drilled
in 70 m (230 ft) of water and encountered 205 m (674
ft) of net pay carbonate sequence, with excellent res-
ervoir characteristics. This well is located in a faulted
block east of Perla-1X. During production testing, it
was determined that the two wells were in the same
hydraulic regime. The Perla-3 well flowed 68 MMCFD
of gas and 1350 bbl/day of condensate during the pro-
duction test. The Perla 4 appraisal well was drilled in
the most distal carbonate facies of the reservoir and
found a column of 95 m (313 ft). This well flowed 17
MMCFD of gas and 560 bbl/day of condensate dur-
ing a production test. Perla-5X, the first horizontal
well (lateral length less than 305 m [1000 ft]), has the
highest production rate. Today, this well produces 118
MMCFD.
13934_ch08_ptg01_hr_141-152.indd 150
Presently, the field is producing from five wells, one
vertical and four horizontal. Of these five wells, Perla-
1X and Perla 5 are from the exploration and appraisal
campaigns, respectively. Perla-1X, the only vertical
well in the field, produces 59.6 mmcsf/d. The three
horizontal wells produce a minimum of 118.36 and
a maximum of 182.12 MMSCF gas/day. In February
2016, the field production average was 510 MMSCF
gas/day and 13,857.4 b/d of condensate.
The three-phase development includes four off-
shore platforms connected to 26 wells, with gas ex-
ported to the coast through a 30-in. (76-cm)-diameter
pipeline of approximately 72 km (116 mi) long. Pres-
ently, the production of one platform is centralized
and transported to the coast trough this pipeline.
Conclusions
Perla field is the largest gas field ever discovered in
Venezuela and is considered to be a world-class giant
gas field (~17 tcf). The proven hydrocarbon column
exceeds 350 m (1148 ft), in complete hydraulic conti-
nuity, and the trap accumulates original hydrocarbons
in place in excess of 3.1 billion BOE.
This discovery opened a new exploration play and
proved the existence of a Tertiary thermogenic petro-
leum system offshore in the south Caribbean area. In
addition, this play incorporates a carbonate reservoir
succession that has not been described before in the
Gulf of Venezuela Basin.
The discovered reservoir unit consists of upper
Oligocene–lower Miocene (Chattian to Aquitanian)
limestone deposited in a distally steepened ramp.
It shows a continuous carbonate succession with-
out interlayered mud. The depositional f­ acies of
this carbonate unit can be described, from base to
top, as a carbonate succession deposited in a rela-
tively shallower middle ramp, with grainstone facies
with larger foraminifera and branching red algae
debris, overlain by outer ramp facies dominated
by rhodolith floatstones/rudstones and planktonic
foram-bearing grainstones, ending in a drowning
unconformity.
The excellent reservoir properties were enhanced
by diagenetic events controlled mainly by facies dis-
tribution and structural configuration of the basement.
Much of the porosity is facies-related, which has a
strong correlation with diagenesis. Leaching is con-
sidered the most important diagenetic effect in Perla
field, and leached areas correlate with the best reser-
voir areas.
06/27/17 7:26 AM

The trap shows a strong structural overprint, but a
clear stratigraphic component is locally recognizable,
and its proven closure is larger than 100 km².
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions
of the Exploration Departments of Repsol and Eni
during the exploration phase of the project. We have
to express our appreciation to Claudio Bartolini and
Mikel Erquiaga for their comments on earlier versions
of the manuscript. We thank Robert Merrill for his
help in editing the manuscript.
References Cited
Audemard, F. A., 2001, Quaternary tectonics and present
stress tensor of the inverted northern Falcon basin, north-
western Venezuela: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 23,
p. 431–453.
Baquero, M., S. Grande, F. Urbani, U. Cordani, C. Hall,
and R. Armstrong, 2015, New evidence for Putumayo
crust in the basement of the Falcon basin and Guajira
peninsula, northwestern Venezuela, in C. Bartolini and
P. Mann, eds., Petroleum geology and potential of the
Colombian Caribbean margin, Tulsa: AAPG Memoir
108, p. 31–40.
Benkovics, L., V. Castillo, A. Asensio, M. Esteban, C. Cobos,
V. Barletta, et al., 2012, Descubrimiento del Campo Perla:
Un nuevo campo gigante en el Mar Caribe: 11th Simposio
Bolivariano, Exploracion Petrolera en las Cuencas Sub-
andinas, p. Extended abstract.
Blaser, R., and A. N. Dusembury, 1960, The geology of Toas,
San Carlos and Zapara islands, Maracaibo, Venezuela:
Sociedad Venezolana de Geologos, p. 8.
Boesi, T., and G. Goddard, 1991, A new geologic model re-
lated to the distribution of hydrocarbon source rocks in
Falcon basin, northwestern Venezuela, in K. T. Biddle,
ed., Active margin basins: AAPG Memoir 52, p. 303–319.
Borromeo, O., S. Miraglia, D. Sartorio, E. M. Bolla, O. Andrea,
S. Reali, et al., 2011, The Perla World-class Giant Gas
Field, Gulf of Venezuela: Depositional and diagenetic
controls on reservoir quality in early Miocene Carbon-
ates: AAPG Search and Discovery Article 90135, accessed
October 3, 2016, http://www.searchanddiscovery.com
/abstracts/html/2011/ice/­abstracts/abstracts066.html.
Cabrera, E., 1975, Evolucion estructural de Falcon Cantral:
Geologic engineer thesis, Universidad Central de
­Venezuela, Caracas, 125 p.
Castillo, M. V., 2001, Structural analysis of Cenozoic fault
systems using 3D seismic data in the southern Marac-
aibo basin, Venezuela: Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas at
Austin, 188 p.
Coronel, G., 1967, A geological outline of the Gulf of Ven-
ezuela: VII World Petroleum Congress, p. 799–812.
13934_ch08_ptg01_hr_141-152.indd 151
Perla Field: The Largest Discovery Ever in Latin America  151
Coronel, G., 1970, El Golfo de Venezuela y sus problemas
geológicos: Boletin Sociedad Venezolana de Geologos
(SVG), p. 1–13.
Curet, E. A., 1992, Stratigraphy and evolution of the ter-
tiary Aruba basin: Journal of Petroleum Geology, v. 15,
p. 283–304.
Di Croce, J., B. De Toni, A. Navarro, R. Ysaccis, E. ­Alvarez, S.
Gosh, et al., 2000, Key petroleum system elements
of the Venezuelan basins in an improved chron-
ostratigraphic framework (abs.): AAPG Annual
Meeting, accessed October 3, 2016, http://www
.searchanddiscovery.com/abstracts/html/2000/annual
/abstracts/0168.htm.
Diaz De Gamero, M. L., 1977, Estratigrafia y micropaleon-
tologia del Oligoceno y Mioceno Inferior del centro de la
cuenca de Falcon, Venezuela: GEOS, Universidad Central
de Venezuela, v. 22, p. 3–60.
Diaz De Gamero, M. L., G. Giffuni, and M. Castro, 1993,
­Biostratigraphic sequence analysis of two lower Miocene to
Pliocene sections, eastern Falcon, northwestern Venezuela:
AAPG International Meeting and Exhibition, p. 313–314.
Feo Codecido, G., 1968, Geologia y recursos naturales de la
Peninsula de Paraguana: Coloquio sobre investigraciones
del Mar Caribe, p. 7.
Fioretta, A., A. Schiroli, and V. Barletta, 2011, The Perla world-
class giant gas field, Gulf of Venezuela: An overview on
successful case history in a virtually unexplored basin:
AAPG International Conference and Exhibition, accessed
October 3, 2016, http://www.searchanddiscovery.com
/abstracts/html/2011/ice/abstracts/abstracts160.html.
Flinch, J., and V. Castillo, 2015, Records and constrains of
the eastward advance of the Caribbean plate in northern
South America, in C. Bartolini and P. Mann, eds., Petro-
leum geology and potential of the Colombian Caribbean
margin: AAPG Memoir 108, p. 1–20.
Gonzalez de Juana, C., J. M. Iturralde, and X. Picard, 1980,
Geología de Venezuela y de sus Cuencas Petrolíferas:
­Caracas, Ediciones Foninves, v. 1, 407 p. and v. 2, 624 p.
Hunter, H., and P. Bartok, 1974, Age and correlation of the
tertiary sediments of the Paraguana peninsula, Vene-
zuela: VII Caribbean Geologic Conference, p. 497–503.
Lugo, J., 1991, Cretaceous to Neogene tectonic control on
sedimentation: Maracaibo basin, Venezuela: Ph.D. thesis,
University of Texas at Austin, 219 p.
Lugo, J., and P. Mann, 1995, Jurassic-Eocene tectonic evolu-
tion of Maracaibo basin, Venezuela, in J. Tankard, S. Su-
arez, and H. J. Welsink, eds., Petroleum basins of South
America: AAPG Memoir 62, p. 699–725.
Lugo, J., 2001, Tectonic model for northern Venezuela: Sim-
posio Norte de Monagas, p. 42.
Macellari, C., 1995, Cenozoic sedimentation and tectonics
of the southwestern Caribbean pull-apart basin in Vene-
zuela and Colombia, in A. J. Tankard, R. Suarez, and H. J.
Welsink, eds., Petroleum basins of South America: AAPG
Memoir 62, p. 757–780.
Mann, P., 1999, Caribbean sedimentary basins, in K. J. Hsu,
ed., Sedimentary basins of the world: Amsterdam, Else-
vier Science B.V., p. 3–31.
06/27/17 7:26 AM
 152  Castillo et al.
Parnaud, F., Y. Gou, J.-C. Pascual, M. Capello, O. Truskowski,
and H. Passalacqua, 1995, Stratigraphic synthesis of west-
ern Venezuela, in A. J. Tankard, R. Suarez, and H. J. Wel-
sink, eds., Petroleum basins of South America: AAPG
Memoir 62, p. 681–698.
Pimentel, N., 1973, Falla de Oca, Isla de Toas y San Carlos.
Guia de excursion No. 3: II Congreso Latinoamericano de
Geologia, p. 19.
Pindell, J. L., and F. Barrett, 1990, Geological evolution
of the Caribbean region: A plate-tectonic perspective,
in G. Dengo and J. E. Case, eds., The Caribbean region:
The geology of North America: Geological Society of
­America, p. 405–431.
Pinto, J., S. Ortega, Z. Martin, I. Berrios, A. Perez, and M.
Pirela, 2011, Controls on the newly-discovered gas accu-
mulations in the Miocene “Perla” carbonate bank, Gulf of
Venezuela: A preliminary assessment: I South American
Oil and Gas Congress, p. 1–4.
Pitelli, R., and A. Molina, 1989, El Grupo Agua Negra
de la Cuenca de Falcon, Boletin Sociedad Venezolana
de ­Geologos (SVG), p. 5–12.
Pomar, L., M. Esteban, W. Martinez, D. Espino, V. ­Castillo,
L. Benkovics, et al., 2015, Oligocene–­Miocene carbonates of
the Perla field, offshore Venezuela: Depositional model
13934_ch08_ptg01_hr_141-152.indd 152
and facies architecture, in C. Bartolini and P. Mann, eds.,
Petroleum geology and potential of the Colombian Carib-
bean margin: Tulsa, Memoir AAPG 108, p. 647–674.
Renz, O., 1960, Excursión de los Andes suroccidentales, sec-
ción Santo Domingo a San Antonio (Estado Táchira): III
Congreso Venezolano de Geología, Publicación Especial,
p. 87–91.
Rollins, J. F., 1965, Stratigraphy and structure of the Goajira
peninsula: Northwestern Venezuela, and northeastern
Colombia: University of Nebraska Studies, Lincoln, Uni-
versity of Nebraska, p. 102.
Van Andel, T., 1958, Origin and classification of Cretaceous,
Paleocene and Eocene sandstones of western Venezuela:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 42, p. 734–763.
Wheeler, C. B., 1963a, Estratigrafia del Oligoceno y Mioceno
Inferior de Falcon occidental y nororiental: III Congreso
Geologico Venezolano, p. 407–465.
Wheeler, C. B., 1963b, Oligocene and lower Miocene stra-
tigraphy of western and northeastern Falcon basin, Ven-
ezuela: AAPG Bulletin, v. 47, p. 35–68.
Zambrano, E., E. Vasquez, B. Duval, M. Latreille, and
B. Coffinières, 1970, Synthèse Paleogéographique et
Petroliére du Venezuela Occidentale: Publication Tech-
nique, v. 25, p. 1449–1499.
06/27/17 7:26 AM