Montana oil and mining journal. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1931-1953, 1932-11-26

Again comes the time for the
Montana OH industry to give thanks
for the United States Geological
Survey and Mr.. Eugene stebinger IN
particular.
Back in 1918. before a CONNER
ciaI oil fiSld had been found in
Montana. Mr. stebinger surveyed
Northern Montana and told the
world in what formations oh pro-
duetlon would be found Fourteen
years later. the Cut Bank field is
producing from the sands which
Mr.. stebingsr said would produce
although It has been determined"
many times IN the interim that Mr.
stsbinger was erroneous in his
conclusions
It was Eugene stsbanger who
surveyed the area along the East
face OF the Rocky Mountains. He
declared IL years ago that this vast
territory had tremendous possibili-
ties although there were geologists
in the employ Of the Standard
groups who at that time agreed to
drink all the oil ever produced in
the State Of Montana. That state
ment involves the drinking Of
around 100000. 100000 worth OF
crude oil, for in the year following
the Stebinger survey OF the Birch
Greek Sun River ares. the first
Montana oil field was brought in.
It now follows that inasmuch as the
geologist who made the bold asser-
ton is now highly regarded in geo
logical circles, It becomes apparent
that he was paid TO make that
flamboyant statement, just as he
was employed to otherwise serve
the best interests Of his company.
Be that as It may. the fact re-
mains that stebingsr's work Is
checking out item by item. The
greatest error he made, everyone
has believed. was the statement
that the sands OF the lower Creta-
ceous would produce oil. In those
days the Cloverly sands we're the
principal producing horizon Of
Wyoming and thus his conclusion
that the Blackleaf member Of the
Colorado formation, which correlates
as to stratigraphic location with the
CIoverly, would produce in Northern
Montana.
stebinger was thought TO be
RIGHT when Cat Creek came in,
producing from the sands In the
base OF the Colorado and the Koot-
email. But when Keyin-supburst
came in, producing from sands
BELOW the Kootenais everyone
thought stebinger definitely wrong.
T6ere has been but little oil pro-
duced from the lower Colorado and
Kootenai sands an Northern Montana
and II follows that none should be
expected along the east face OF the
Rocky Mountains.
when Cut Bank came in, there
was considerable confusion regard
ing the sands. They were called
Darling sand, Stewart sand and
other names, after members Of the
oNeii organisation which brought
in the Cut Bank gas field. These
sands were so named because they
could not be readily correlated with
sands in the adjacent Kevin-sun-
hurst field. They were thicker than
any sands found in Kevin-sunburst
and their exact location was some
tbt1p in doubt. Now it becomes
Kpown that these sands are in the
lower cretaceous and are the sands
wbieh steIbinger referred to in MS
bulletins on the sharD-dip area.
when this came to light, We again
dug out our U s. G. s. publications
10 see what stebiuger said about
these sands His statements are
baaad on careful measurements Of
sections in the mountains; where
the formations are exposed ana
where each sand can be measured
accurately with a tape measure.
We find that greatly thickened
sands may be expected as drilling
progresses westward. not only west
Of Cut Bank but along the western
edge Of the sweetgrass Arch. It -
u. s..,o.s4,,la chat Che escarpment