See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311358827

Gushers, science and luck: Everette Lee DeGolyer and the Mexican oil upsurge,
1909–19

Chapter in Geological Society London Special Publications · December 2016

DOI: 10.1144/SP442.37

CITATIONS READS

6 1,659

2 authors:

Francesco Gerali Paolo Riguzzi

The University of Western Australia Colegio Mexiquense, Mexico, Toluca
141 PUBLICATIONS 151 CITATIONS 24 PUBLICATIONS 92 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Francesco Gerali on 03 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Oklahoma on December 3, 2016

Gushers, science and luck: Everette Lee DeGolyer

and the Mexican oil upsurge, 1909 – 19
FRANCESCO GERALI1* & PAOLO RIGUZZI2
1
School of Humanities, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
2
Department of History, Colegio Mexiquense, Toluca, 51350, México
*Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Despite the political controversies surrounding it, in Mexico as in other countries, oil
exploration and production between 1900 and 1920 was primarily an economic activity developed
by scientists, technologists, skilled workers and entrepreneurs. The Mexican oil fields were both
drilling sites and ‘smithies of ideas’ where new cadres of oil professionals were producing fresh
knowledge on the oil-bearing formations. Along with Mexican and British professionals, young
US geologists with more books in their hands than oil on their shoes emerged and managed, in
spite of having little experience, to push Mexico in less than one decade to the top-three list of
petroleum-exporting countries. This article aims to present the business and scientific activities
of one of the most relevant individuals among them, Everette Lee DeGolyer, assessing his contri-
bution to petroleum exploitation and oil geology in Mexico.

The uncertain beginnings of the Mexican oil A severe impediment to petroleum exploration
industry in the first decade of the twentieth was the relative lack of knowledge on the com-
position of the Mexican subsoil and of the strati-
century graphic sequences for most of the country. By the
In the year 1900, Mexico lacked an oil industry. The end of the nineteenth century a certain amount of
initiatives taken from the 1860s after the Pennsylva- geological literature was available but it focused
nian oil boom – also called ‘the Drake Effect’ – did mainly on the mining districts, being more useful
not serve to create a modern oil industry as it did to mining engineers than for the scientific study
in other non-industrialized countries such as Peru. of the country’s subsoil (Gómez-Caballero 2005).
Oil production in Mexico was mostly an activity The Comisión Geológica de México (Mexican Geo-
conducted in a pre-industrial fashion: manual dig- logical Commission) was established in 1888 with a
ging of shallow shafts and asphalt harvesting. The staff of 6 geologists. In 1891, it merged with the
country was lit almost entirely by oil imported Instituto Geológico de México (Mexican Geolog-
from the USA (Gerali 2013; Gerali & Riguzzi ical Institute) and, by 1904, employed 11 geologists.
2013; Riguzzi & Gerali 2015). However, the scope of this institution was some-
During almost 40 years of intermittent efforts, what restricted and mostly oriented towards the
the progress of the national oil sector was hin- mining of precious metals. Only a few detailed
dered by a lack of experience, scarcity of capital, regional geological maps were available, and these
an inhospitable environment, an inadequate logisti- rarely pointed out the presence of petroleum
cal system, low local demand and the low quality (Gómez-Caballero 2005).
of the asphaltic crude (Day 1917; Munch 1977). In 1901 the meeting of the American Institute
The scant literature available on early attempts at of Mining Engineers took place in Mexico City.
exploration attests the presence of a thick and vis- During this international forum, Mexican officials
cous petroleum that was rather difficult to process and experts aimed to demonstrate the richness
and was not suitable for lighting. At the same and potential of the subsoil to professionals of the
time, the increasing imports of crude oil (almost world mining industry. The geologist Jose Guada-
entirely refined since the 1880s by the Waters- lupe Aguilera, director of the Instituto Geológico
Pierce Company, a loose affiliate of Standard Oil) de México, presented a long lecture entitled,
were constraining the development of local oil pro- ‘The Geographical and Geological Distribution of
duction. By 1900, Mexico was importing around the Mineral Deposits of Mexico’. He informed his
8 million gallons of crude oil, 4 million gallons audience that: ‘hydrocarbons occur in formations
of naphtha and minor quantities of lighting and ranging from the Upper Cretaceous to the Pliocene,
lubricating oil. along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, from

From: Mayer, W., Clary, R. M., Azuela, L. F., Mota, T. S. & Wołkowicz, S. (eds) History of Geoscience:
Celebrating 50 Years of INHIGEO. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 442,
https://doi.org/10.1144/SP442.37
# 2016 The Author(s). Published by The Geological Society of London. All rights reserved.
For permissions: http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/permissions. Publishing disclaimer: www.geolsoc.org.uk/pub_ethics
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Oklahoma on December 3, 2016

F. GERALI & P. RIGUZZI

Tamaulipas to Tabasco. They consist of petroleum, 1916). In this capacity, in 1908 Hayes inspected the
grahamite and bitumen, the solids being formed Mexican oil regions with his USGS colleague David
by oxidation of liquid hydrocarbons. Petroleum is Talbot Day. While retaining his official post, he
also found in Oaxaca, on the Pacific coast, but we was hired in 1909 by the British entrepreneur, Weet-
have no data concerning the geology of that region’ man Pearson (later Lord Cowdray) as supervisor
(Aguilera 1902). for his Mexican petroleum search (Brown 1993).
The paucity of these words mirrored the still In the same year, when called by the US Senate to
low level of knowledge on the occurrence of petro- give a statement on petroleum fields in Mexico,
leum in Mexico. Significantly, in 1902 the British Hayes offered a gloomy picture. His main argu-
consul at Veracruz reported to the Foreign Office ments were as follows.
that, although news of petroleum discoveries in var-
(a) The fields promise to yield a large quantity of
ious parts of Mexico had been circulated, ‘neither
crude oil, but its quality is such that it cannot
the quantity nor the quality so far is of sufficient
compete under present conditions in the mar-
importance to merit more than a passing notice’
kets of the United States or Europe.
(Foreign Office 1902). As late as 1908, Juan Villar-
(b) The demand for fuel oil and refined products in
ello, a geologist working for the Mexican govern-
Mexico exceeds the supply available at present
ment, published a report based on his 1902 –04
or in sight in the near future.
surveys of the country’s petroleum regions. In this
(c) The geological conditions under which the oil
report Mexico was depicted as an uncertain region
occurs are such as to increase the hazards and
for petroleum development, due to the notion that
uncertainties encountered in the development
the geological structure did not allow for the accu-
of an oil field (US Senate 1909).
mulation of large deposits, and that more careful
inquiries were needed (Villarello 1908). At the It is worth noting, however, that Hayes’s statements
same time however another Mexican geologist, were made in the context of the ongoing discus-
Ezequiel Ordoñez, provided a different scenario sion by Congress of the Payne-Aldrich tariff,
in which the existence of commercial deposits of which imposed duties on petroleum imports fol-
petroleum was thought more probable, at least in lowing a request from a coalition of independent
southern Tamaulipas. After years of research on producers who perceived an imminent threat from
volcanism, Ordoñez noted in 1904 that there was a the exploitation of oil in Mexico. Hayes’ scep-
relationship in northeastern Mexico between volca- tical views reassured the independent producers in
nic activity and the migration and accumulation of the USA, already engaged in an unequal battle
hydrocarbons (Ordoñez 1904, 1907; Rubinovic & against the Standard Oil Company.
Lozano 1998). Based on these findings and his opti- The Hayes premise in the case of Mexican oil
mistic attitude, he established a personal and profes- sounded like the classic ‘glass half-empty’, but the
sional relationship with the successful California situation was not as bleak. Mexico was not a self-
oilman Edward Doheny who, at the time, was lead- sufficient oil producer, and the oil recovered was
ing the initial search for oil in the northeastern of low quality (heavy and asphaltic). Even in the
part of the state of San Luis Potosi. This relation- USA, however, many oil fields producing low-
ship led to the discovery of the El Ebano oil field, quality crude were profitably exploited. Much
which was the first successful drilling operation scepticism and concern arose from logistical and
of the Doheny’s Huasteca Petroleum Company, environmental constraints, in addition to the absence
and included the first well in Mexico that yielded of reliable geological evidence. Still, these unfav-
significant and continuous production of oil (Ansell ourable circumstances could have been overcome
1998). The El Ebano sparked a growth of interest and solved by a substantial increase in oil produc-
in Mexican oil resources by geologists and inves- tion. Mexico was a low consumer, and a larger oil
tors. Around 1906, after a few years of frustrated production would have been enough to satisfy the
attempts British entrepreneur Percy Norman Furber internal demand and to spark new ventures. The
achieved some results in the area of Papantla, Vera- oil business had clearly expressed the view that
cruz where the oil land, historically known as El petroleum provided a sort of ‘universal leverage’
Cuguas, was renamed Furbero (Furber 1954). that followed a specific pattern: the discovery of
Despite these encouraging developments in 1909 an abundant source of oil in any country was usually
Charles Willard Hayes, the prominent chief of the followed by the availability of fresh capital, the
US Geological Survey and the author of the pop- creation of infrastructure, and the deployment of
ular Handbook for Field Geologists, apparently technology and science to foster research and devel-
held a generally pessimistic outlook. In 1900, he opment for further drilling projects. Hayes’ analyses
had been placed in charge of the newly established of Mexico’s oil potential was based on the little evi-
non-metallic (including petroleum) section of the dence available at that time and, in spite of his appar-
Survey and in 1907 became Chief Geologist (White ent negativity, he stated that large quantities of oil
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Oklahoma on December 3, 2016

GUSHERS, SCIENCE AND LUCK

were expected to be found in Mexico. It therefore refining of US crude in Mexico for lighting since
appears plausible that Hayes, soon after the Senate the 1880s, moved to active drilling under the Mex-
hearing, did accept the supervision of oil explora- ican Fuel Oil label (Brown 1993; Ansell 1998).
tions in Mexico on behalf of Pearson because, to The other oil concerns did not go beyond prospect-
him, the glass had now begun to appear half-full. ing or were of negligible importance. What Table 1
shows however is that at this time, notwithstand-
ing the presence of other important interests, only
1910: On the eve of the oil boom Doheny was producing oil in commercial volumes,
being responsible for at least 85% of the output
During the first decade of the twentieth century, a in Mexico.
small number of US and British or British-con- In spite of a huge investment Pearson was at
trolled firms began to engage in oil exploration a standstill, particularly after the Dos Bocas well
and drilling, as well as in production and refining, caught fire in 1908 and burned for two months,
in the coastal regions of Tamaulipas and Veracruz. causing an ecological disaster (Santiago 2006). Nei-
Table 1 lists the oil companies known to have been ther the production of the Tehuantepec fields nor the
operating in Mexico together with their respective many other drilling operations conducted in other
locations at the beginning of 1910. zones provided a significant yield. In fact, in order
From a financial standpoint, the three significant to maintain a steady flow of operations at the big
players involved in the search for petroleum in Minatitlan refinery, Pearson had to import huge
Mexico were: Doheny’s Mexican Petroleum group, quantities of Texas oil. When the Briton hired Hayes
exploiting the heavy crude of the Ebano zone 40 in 1909 to act as consulting director for his Mexi-
miles west from the port of Tampico, which they can operations, he gave him the additional task of
sold to the Mexican railroads; the Pearson group recruiting young geologists. Hayes’s first pick was
(Mexican Eagle Company/Compañia Mexicana Everette Lee DeGolyer, at that time a geology stu-
El Aguila since 1908) and its affiliates (the Fur- dent at the University of Oklahoma (Mount 2014).
ber interests at Papantla and others such as the Penn- How did this state of the oil industry relate to the
sylvania Oil Company), who were engaged in a dramatic upsurge in Mexican oil production between
massive search for oil lands extending through 1909 and 1911? After producing 2 488 742 million
southern and northern Veracruz (including the states barrels in 1909, this increased to 3 332 807 million
of Chiapas and Tabasco), and who built a refinery barrels in 1910, all for domestic consumption; by
at Minatitlan in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec; and the end of 1911 however, production had reached
Waters Pierce Oil which, besides controlling the 14 051 643 million barrels, allowing for the export

Table 1. Oil companies operating in Mexico in 1910 and their activities

Companies and controlling interests Location of wells Estimate of total production

Mexican Petroleum Co. and Ebano, San Luis Potosı́; Tampico 85% (6000– 6500 bbs/day)
Huasteca Oil Co. (Doheny) district, Tamaulipas
Oil Fields of Mexico Ltd. Papantla, Vera Cruz N.A. (wells capped)
(P.N. Furber, allied to Pearson)
Mexican Eagle Co., Several places in northern and 8% (500 bbs/day)
S. Pearson & Sons southern Veracruz (Tehuantepec);
state of Tabasco and Chiapas
Mexican Fuel Co. Topila River, near 2% (150 bbs/day)
(Waters-Pierce Oil Co.) Tampico, Tamaulipas
Mexico Fuel Oil Co. Tamesi River, above Prospecting
(Leonard & Mount) Tampico, Tamaulipas
East Coast Oil Co. Tuxpam district, Veracruz 1% (only one well, 1600
(Southern Pacific interests) feet deep, producing)
Standard Oil Co. of Mexico Tuxpam district, Veracruz Drilling
American International Fuel and Los Esteros, Tamaulipas Drilling
Petroleum Co.
Texas-Mexico Asphalt and San José de las Rusias, 125 miles Prospecting
Petroleum Co. north of Tampico, Tamaulipas

Sources: Adapted from US Geological Survey (1909, vol. 2); Mennel (1910).
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Oklahoma on December 3, 2016

F. GERALI & P. RIGUZZI

of a significant volume of oil (US Geological Sur- DeGolyer, from the USA to Mexico
vey 1914). In relation to world production, the coun-
try passed from a tiny fraction (0.38%) to 4.5%, Everette Lee DeGolyer began studying geology
starting a trend of increasing importance in succes- in 1904 at the University of Oklahoma. In the sum-
sive years that led to Mexico becoming the third- mer of 1905, he had his first field experience in the
highest oil exporter, overtaking the Austro-Hungar- Arbuckle Mountains, Oklahoma and the following
ian and Romanian fields. summer was hired as cook during a field trip with
What had happened in just one year? The reason the US Geological Service in Wyoming. Here he
for this upsurge was the discovery of a giant field 25 had the chance to prove his skills in cartography
miles from the port of Tuxpam, the Potrero del in a fortuitous way. When the geologist in charge
Llano no. 4 well, in Pearson’s El Aguila fields of mapping did not show up at the camp DeGolyer
together with other important developments by revealed that he had already passed a cartography
Huasteca Oil. The Potrero no. 4 gusher yielded an exam, and this led to the beginning of his experience
astonishing 100 000 barrels a day, the greatest in in the field. Between 1907 and 1909 he worked
the petroleum history up to that time. It allowed on lignite and coal in Montana, where he first met
the Pearson group to become a significant player Hayes, in North Dakota and in Colorado (Mount
in the oil business (Chambers 1923; Brown 1993; 2014). DeGolyer soon gained credit for his talent
Garner 2011). by assisting senior geologists. In February 1908,
The discovery of Potrero no. 4 followed an the geologist Ernst Garman invited him to take the
assessment by DeGolyer, a 24-year-old field assis- qualifying exam to work for the USGS (DeGolyer
tant who had recently arrived from Oklahoma and Correspondence, Box 1. 0077). DeGolyer refused
who combined his intuition and fresh scholarship the offer because he wanted to complete his degree
with the experience and analyses developed by but, in 1909, he did accept Hayes’s offer to move to
his mentor, Charles Willard Hayes (Fig. 1). Mexico and in November of that year he reached

Fig. 1. Potrero del Llano, oil field well location sheet, signed by DeGolyer and Hayes. DeGolyer Library, SMU.
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Oklahoma on December 3, 2016

GUSHERS, SCIENCE AND LUCK

Tampico to start work with the Mexican Eagle Com- Dos Bocas shocked the executives of the company,
pany (Tinkle 1970; Mount 2014). concerned Mexican political authorities and placed
Mexican oil fields in the limelight of the world oil
El Aguila and the geologists industry. Following this episode, the boilers were
moved away from the mouth of the well to avoid
When Hayes and DeGolyer arrived in Mexico, Pear- future accidents. Dos Bocas influenced perceptions
son’s oil ventures were in financial difficulties. Up of the risks in oilfield work and technology.
to that time the company had invested some US$
7 million without achieving results. That sizable
figure bestowed on Weetman Pearson the dubious Potrero no. 4 and DeGolyer, a
distinction of being the only oil entrepreneur in discovery myth?
Mexico to have suffered such a large loss. However,
his interests in Mexico aside from oil included large It is commonly believed that DeGolyer chose the
engineering projects, railways and electricity, so well site and directed the drilling; he was therefore
that these losses could be absorbed. Pearson was a credited with a prominent role in its discovery.
resolute tycoon and a practical entrepreneur. When While we do not wholly reject this claim, evidence
writing to his son in March 1908, he admitted that suggests that the credit should be shared with
his usual methods were not working out in his C.W. Hayes and the British geologist Geoffrey Jef-
attempts to find oil: freys (Owen 1975; Mount 2014). In fact, DeGolyer
I entered into it [the oil business] lightly, not realizing never claimed to have chosen the site. He did how-
its many problems . . . now I know that it would have ever claim to have played a role in the drilling of
been wise to surround myself with proven oil men, another giant well, Los Naranjos at Amatlán, Vera-
and not to rely, as I did, on commercial knowledge cruz in 1913, which yielded more than 100 million
and hard work, coupled with a superficial knowledge barrels (DeGolyer 1914, 1916; Owen 1975).
of the trade. (Brown 1993; Garner 2011) After graduating from the Cambourne School of
He, as well as others in the industry, had been scep- Mines in 1904, 19-year-old Jeffreys went to Mexico
tical of the usefulness of geologists, as the little suc- to work as assistant field geologist with no formal
cess he had achieved came largely from wells drilled experience in petroleum geology. This young pro-
near oil seeps. In this context, Pearson’s words take fessional supplied geological information for the
a special meaning: he acknowledged that the lack of Pearson interests for almost five years. He travelled
actual oilmen had probably played a part in his to Tamaulipas, Veracruz, Tabasco, Campeche and
failed attempts. Yucatan, where he described and named the geolog-
The lack of experienced drillers was the likely ical formations including the Mendez and San
cause of the greatest misfortune suffered by his Felipe shales (Harrell 1954). His study of these
company. On 4 July 1908, San Diego de la Mar stratigraphic units made an important contribu-
no. 3 well (later renamed Dos Bocas) was being tion to solving the puzzle of the Tertiary rock forma-
drilled by the Pearson controlled Pennsylvania Oil tions in Mexico, a puzzle created by the German
company, supervised by the company geologist geologists Emil Böse and Carl Burckhardt who,
Geoffrey Jeffrey, when the oil gushed abruptly and around 1905–06, identified and proposed the name
caught fire (Harrell 1954). Before that time, no well of Tamasopo limestones for the Upper Cretaceous
in North America had gushed with such massive strata, the principal oil-bearing rock of Mexico
force. What seems indisputable, however, is that the (Dumble 1915; Belt 1925). Between 1908 and
gusher caught fire because the boiler used to power 1909 Jeffreys located Potrero #1; it gushed in Febru-
the derrick was placed too close to the mouth of ary 1909 and impressed DeGolyer, as it was the first
the well, as was confirmed in a report by the chief oil gush he had seen (Tinkle 1970; Mount 2014).
of the Mexican army engineering corps deployed As a result of Jeffreys’s surface exploration,
to contain the spill. The magnitude of the explosion Hayes had selected areas of interest for drilling in
shot pipes and machinery into the sky with a column early 1910, leaving the responsibility of deciding
of fire and smoke that reached 300 m and burned where to site the actual wells to DeGolyer; Hayes
for almost two months. It stopped only when the was asked by Pearson to leave this crucial task to
deposit was completely drained, leaving two holes DeGolyer. Drilling began in June only to be sus-
(the bocas) in a surreal crater, 200 m wide. This pended after approximately 40 days at a depth of
unheard-of environmental and economic disaster 1856 feet. Meanwhile DeGolyer had written the
caused an average spill of 1 380 400 barrels of first report on the area, which reflected his uncer-
oil, bitumen and muddy and sulphur-bearing waters, tainties about its geological structure (Tinkle 1970;
in addition to an unknown quantity of natural gas Mount 2014). During 1910, wells #1, 2 and 3 in the
which poisoned workers who had arrived to quench Potrero del Llano field guaranteed a moderate yield,
the fire (Garcı́a & Valdez 1995; Santiago 2006). and it was decided to proceed with the digging of
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Oklahoma on December 3, 2016

F. GERALI & P. RIGUZZI

a fourth well despite low expectations. Opera-

tions resumed on December 23, with Hayes and
DeGolyer leaving the field immediately after to
inspect another zone. At 2 am on December 27, a
long dull hiss of gas announced the ‘bringing in’
of the gusher that paved the way to Mexico’s quick
rise as an important oil exporter (Fig. 2). The man in
charge at the mouth of the well was an experienced
driller, who understood that those noises were an-
nouncing a massive gusher and managed to shut
down the machinery and the boilers. The gusher
came, throwing away the casing pipes, the machin-
ery and the derrick into a flow of crude that reached
400 feet, spraying the surrounding land black within
a 1 mile radius. The oil flowed uncontrolled for two
months (DeGolyer estimated that at least 300 000
barrels of crude were spilled) before the Potrero
del Llano was ingeniously capped with a cement
structure, on top of which DeGolyer was portrayed
in a famous photo (Fig. 3), sitting in a relaxed and
confident manner (DeGolyer 1914, 1916; Cham-
bers 1923; Tinkle 1970; Brown 1993; Mount 2014).
The credit for the gusher was initially given to
Hayes only, most likely on account of his seniority.
The US Geological Survey’s Mineral Resources for
the year 1910 stated that the work at Potrero had
been conducted under the supervision of Dr Hayes
who, two days before the flowing, had to ‘cheer
the hopes of the somewhat discouraged driller with
the opinion that a good supply of oil would be struck
12 feet deeper’ (US Geological Survey 1910). In the
same fashion, David T. Day wrote in his ‘The Petro-
Fig. 2. Potrero del Llano well #4 gusher. DeGolyer leum Industry of Mexico’ (1917) that Potrero No. 4
Library, SMU. ‘was located by Dr. Hayes’, who had to encourage

Fig. 3. Oil workers standing on well #4. DeGolyer Library, SMU.

 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Oklahoma on December 3, 2016

GUSHERS, SCIENCE AND LUCK

the drillers despite the fact that ‘it was generally information available during 1910, the formal
believed that the well would be a failure’. A few knowledge of the Mexican territory was scant and
years later, geologist Burton Hartley recognized relatively inadequate, allowing geologists to pro-
that ‘Dr. Hayes is largely credited with the discov- vide little more than hints about the subsoil of the
ery of the famous Potrero del Llano field and Tampico-Tuxpan region (DeGolyer 1912, 1914).
E. L. DeGolyer is mainly responsible for the Los Hayes began to outline the general instructions for
Naranjos field’ (Hartley 1921). In a history of the Eagle’s geological fieldwork as soon as he
Potrero no. 4 presented at the London Institution of arrived. For example, the geologist had the autono-
Petroleum Technologists in 1923 in a ‘Solomonic’ mous task of drawing the topographic map. With
fashion, A.E. Chambers made no mention at all of that as a base and with the logs generated by explor-
the persons involved in the discovery of the well atory drilling, he was expected to draw the outlines
(Chambers 1923). of a geological map (DeGolyer 1912 in Hamilton
It is worth noting that, since Hayes fell ill and Papers, Box 1). Working on the Potrero fields,
died in 1916, his testimony was lost even before DeGolyer was somewhat frustrated with the lack
Potrero went completely to salt water at the end of of precise data obtained from well logs and the dif-
1918, after producing almost 100 million barrels. ficulty of appraising them with the crude method of
A few decades after, however, a reversal in the measurement available. He admitted that the inter-
award of credit for deciding the Potrero location pretation of the geological structure at Potrero was
occurred, giving DeGolyer the exclusive credit. In giving him no small amount of trouble. The truth
the authoritative book American Oil Operations is that the geological assessment at Potrero del
Abroad, Fanning (1947) wrote bluntly that Potrero Llano contributed in only a limited way to the suc-
No. 4 was located by American geologist E. L. cessful location of well #4. DeGolyer’s modest
DeGolyer. The same notion, ‘location was staked stance was genuine when, many years later, he
by DeGolyer’, appeared in one of the first chrono- claimed that in Mexico ‘We had very good fortune’
logical histories of the international petroleum (Mount 2014).
industry (Clark 1963). Despite the scant evidence, Even assuming that at Potrero del Llano
his first biography (Tinkle 1970) consolidated the DeGolyer had the best of luck, the events that fol-
story of the biggest oil well in the world as a one- lowed in the oil fields leased by Mexican Eagle
person achievement. This information was assumed did not boil down to a matter of chance. Instead
to be the definitive version. all of the experience he had gained matured into use-
Two more recent scholarly contributions on ful knowledge that proved beneficial to the industry
the Mexican oil industry during the revolutionary and to science. DeGolyer called ‘luck’ what oil
period (Brown 1993), and on the cultural and sci- industry executives define as ‘margin of operational
entific trajectory of DeGolyer (Mount 2014), offer a risk’. The job of the geologist is to use science to
slightly different rendering of the Potrero feat. The reduce the rate of risk by as much as possible, as
former suggests that the young geologist helped well as translate probability into certainty which
choose the drilling sites for four exploratory wells entrepreneurs need before investing in drilling oper-
and located the fourth well; the latter states that ations, the most expensive segment in oil produc-
he was the one that approved the final location of tion (Day 1917). In 1911 DeGolyer was ready to
the well after modifying the drilling scheme drawn undertake the job. This first great achievement in
by Hayes. In both cases, however, the evidence of Mexico assured him of the unconditional trust of
his unique responsibility is far from conclusive, Pearson who appointed him Company Chief Geolo-
although the reference to teamwork in the back- gist; Hayes then became vice-president. DeGolyer’s
ground makes the historical reconstruction more acceptance had a surprising condition attached,
credible. however. Graduation in the field was not enough
While the quick historiographical inquiry on for him; he asked for leave to attend the last semes-
DeGolyer’s participation in this watershed for petro- ter at the University of Oklahoma and obtain his
leum in Mexico points to a shared responsibility, geology degree, which he accomplished with a dis-
it is our contention that it does not subtract any- sertation on the Colorado coal fields (MacNaughton
thing from his extraordinary trajectory and achieve- 1957; Robertson 1986, 2007).
ments which we proceed to highlight in the next
sections.
DeGolyer company manager: learning the
pros and cons of the business
Science, luck and risk
DeGolyer (company manager and strategist; the
While DeGolyer offered the Mexican Eagle Oil scientist that would pioneer geophysical technol-
Company expert advice based on the best ogy in oil exploration; founding member of the
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Oklahoma on December 3, 2016

F. GERALI & P. RIGUZZI

American Association of Petroleum Geologists; document by stating that even if some of the evi-
consultant to the USA and other governments on dence he is asking the geologists to collect during
oil policies; and oilman) started on this remarkable fieldwork is somewhat foreign to usual geological
path in Mexico at the most prestigious desk of the work, it might be of value to the Exploration and
Eagle company. After the Potrero well #4 discovery, Lease Department.
Eagle together with Doheny’s Huasteca Co. Eagle In those years DeGolyer collected an impressive
ruled the Mexican oil industry. From 1912, the suc- amount of geological and palaeontological infor-
cess of the company under DeGolyer’s geological mation and acquired great familiarity with explora-
direction generated such a turnover of capital and tion and production technology (e.g. the rotary
job opportunities that many young US oil appren- system and the collection of drill cuttings). Starting
tices were attracted to work in Mexico, including in 1912 he wrote important contributions on Mexi-
his friend from the University of Oklahoma, Charles can oil geology, shedding new light on the corre-
Walter Hamilton. After his work experience with lation between igneous dykes and oil deposits
the Eagle company, Hamilton became president of in the so-called Faja de Oro, the Golden Lane, on
the Mexican Gulf Oil Company and then the execu- the east Mexican coast. He paid special attention
tive of US Gulf Oil (Hamilton 1966). to the importance of salt domes and the information
DeGolyer, in his capacity of Chief Geologist of that it was possible to infer the presence of oil fields
the company, was called to organize and coordinate from water temperatures (DeGolyer 1915, 1918a, b,
all the activities of field geologists. The personal c, 1919).
papers of Hamilton, preserved at the University of In 1914 DeGolyer was put in charge of the com-
Oklahoma, include the document ‘Instruction for pany’s managerial activities, mainly dealing with
geologic and topographic work of the Cia. Mex. legal disputes on land leases. This tedious work
de Petroleo El Aguila, S.A.’ (DeGolyer 1912 in was disrupted in April by revolutionary tumults
Hamilton Papers, Box 1). This typewritten paper is and the consequent dangers for foreign oil workers,
a compendium of the procedures that the in-field especially for US citizens (Edwards 1971). Forced
operative personnel of the Eagle’s Exploration to rapidly leave Tampico, DeGolyer first evacuated
Department were required to follow. The 1912 to Galveston, Texas where most of the US oil refu-
report begins by asserting that ‘The following gees from Mexico gathered. Briefly sent to New
instructions are a revision and amplification of the Orleans, DeGolyer was ordered by Pearson to
general instruction to field geologist, which were move to Cuba with Hayes, where he again demon-
issued by Dr. C.W. Hayes upon his taking charge strated his expertise and downgraded the alleged
of the geologic work of the company in 1909’ oil potential of the island (DeGolyer 1918a, b, c).
(DeGolyer 1912, Hamilton Papers, Box 1). To His advice was instrumental in the pullout of Pear-
DeGolyer, the aim of the geologists under his super- son’s interests from Cuba (Brown 1993; Mount
vision was clear: ‘Since the sole purpose of this 2014). After a trip to Washington while looking
work is the development of oil in commercial quan- for government employment, DeGolyer and Hayes
tity and the acquisition of lands suitable for such were summoned by Pearson to London to discuss
development with the least possible expenditure, their future. DeGolyer’s position in the company
neither time nor money should be spent in any way was uncertain and Pearson decided to send him to
which does not contribute directly to this end’. The Spain to assess oil lands, but the plan fell through
report stresses the idea that even with limited geo- due to the outbreak of World War I. Following
logical evidence it was possible to strike oil. By that, he was commissioned to draw up a report on
1912 however, DeGolyer had apparently changed the geology of the Mexican oil fields including the
his mindset, trading luck for the notion that ‘. . . regions not yet exploited, and was authorized to
intelligent conclusions regarding the probable loca- travel to Tampico to collect the material (reports,
tion of oil pools can be reached only through a datasets and maps) needed to prepare the report.
fairly comprehensive study of the geology . . .’ DeGolyer reached Tampico in early October 1914;
DeGolyer left nothing to chance or improvisation. he completed the task quickly upon realizing that
This vademecum described the types of fieldwork the forays of the different revolutionary factions
(e.g. detailed and reconnaissance work) and the were leading to increasing insecurity in the Huas-
methodology to follow; topographic and geolog- teca region. When the Mexican Revolution gave
ical surveys, with instructions on how to draw way to bloody internal strife between the victorious
maps; how to complete a detailed report and the armies during 1914–16, funded by oil revenues,
mandatory data and information included; and Mexico became a dangerous place for the oil in-
the nomenclature to use. He clearly underlined the dustry and its foreign workers (Hamilton 1966;
confidentiality of all information regarding the Keene 1969; Edwards 1971; Brown 1993). Oil
company’s activity and ordered maximum dis- field facilities were repeatedly subjected to raids
cretion outside the office. DeGolyer concludes the from revolutionary militias and other armed groups.
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Oklahoma on December 3, 2016

GUSHERS, SCIENCE AND LUCK

Requests for money became more frequent and per-

sistent, and at some point the company found it nec-
essary to pay informal taxes to guarantee safety
around the camps. In spite of these arrangements,
the situation was believed to be unsustainable and
the solution was to leave the country. Having lost
his last hope of returning to Mexico, DeGolyer
went back to Norman, eager to start work on what
was to become the most authoritative source of
information on petroleum in Mexico.

DeGolyer geologist, scientist and advocate

for the circulation of knowledge
DeGolyer manifested in his actions the proclivities
of a man of science rather than of business. Soon
after the success of Potrero del Llano, he challenged
the patience of Pearson by going back to the Univer- Fig. 4. DeGolyer’s copy, The Oil Fields of Mexico
sity of Oklahoma to receive his BSc. Since 1912, he with Particular Reference to the Fields of the Tampico-
had been struggling with his superiors in order to Tuxpam Region, by E. DeGolyer, chief geologist,
publish the findings of his geological investigation; Mexican Eagle Oil Co., dated New York, 1 July 1916.
DeGolyer Library, SMU.
eventually, the heavily reduced field activities and
the unwelcome offer of a desk job from Pearson dis-
appointed the young professional who was hoping the chance to combine into a comprehensive mono-
for personal advancement in the industry. In this graph the geological assessments, edited by his
context, DeGolyer enthusiastically committed him- former team of explorers, together with the observa-
self fulltime to the Mexican report. Hayes, still tied tions he made during five years spent in Mexico’s
to Mexican Eagle as its Vice-President, expected to oil regions.
receive the final draft within 6–8 months. In his DeGolyer’s volume opens with geographical and
blueprint, the Chief Geologist meant to compose a historical essays on petroleum in Mexico starting
set of reports and maps bound together into a com- from the pre-Hispanic age, a history based on very
pendium of geological-geographical information, rare literature. The following five sections focus
to be shared with a restricted circle of executives. respectively on the oil regions of Tampico-Tuxpan,
While in Norman however, DeGolyer had a differ- mid-Veracruz, Tamaulipas, the Isthmus of Tehuan-
ent idea; he saw in this manuscript the chance to tepec and a detailed catalogue on the oil seepages
unleash his genuine scientific interest and develop recorded in every state of the Mexican Republic.
new scholarship on Mexican oil geology. He there- The section on Tampico-Tuxpan takes up almost
fore ignored the guidelines received from London three-quarters of the whole text. It begins with a
and started to work on what he defined as ‘the Ency- general account on the topography, hydrology, geol-
clopedia Britannica of the Mexican oil fields’ ogy, oil indications, land selection, well location
(Mount 2014). In early 1916 the company decided to practice and drilling and exploitation operations
send DeGolyer to New York where, after 20 months in the region (Fig. 5). DeGolyer then provides a
of work, he completed the 857-page volume The Oil detailed analysis (history, geology, operations and
Fields of Mexico: with particular reference to the statistics) on the 15 main producing wells of the
oilfields of the Tampico-Tuxpan region (Fig. 4). Eagle Company, followed by a detailed account
His work must be considered unique for two of the 39 wells in the process of exploration. The
reasons. First, until then the knowledge on Mexican author proceeds later toward a macroscopic
oil geology came from a limited number of arti- approach, analysing 27 areas divided into separate
cles published in English and Spanish, mostly edited quadrangles. This was the standard unit of the US
by company geologists, constrained and filtered Geological Survey which, depending on the scale,
in accordance with the rules of professional confi- may cover surfaces of 49–70 square miles.
dentiality. Second, Oil Fields was almost entirely DeGolyer follows the same rationale in outlining
conceived and developed using first-hand, unpub- the oil geology of the other regions, displaying 70
lished information gathered from documents, figures (photographs and drawings) and 123 plates
reports and correspondence about the exploration and charts, almost all hand-drawn. The variety and
and exploitation activities of several companies the quality of the information are indisputable; the
engaged in the Mexican oil fields. DeGolyer had study on the underground influence on the rock
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Oklahoma on December 3, 2016

F. GERALI & P. RIGUZZI

Fig. 5. Generalized section of Potrero del Llano showing DeGolyer’s idea of transmission of heat by circulating
water and oil. From The Oil Fields of Mexico. DeGolyer Library, SMU.

mechanics of the reservoir, together with the record of the new firm, and accepted. He learned much
of the temperatures in the oil fields, would became from this experience (which would open unexpected
standard features in oil exploration (DeGolyer 1915, doors for him) but he never shrugged off the mantle
1918a, 1918b, 1919). The volume closes with an of a scientist (DeGolyer 1919).
impressive bibliography on the geology of Mexico The end of World War I allowed him to pur-
of more than 500 references – books, journal arti- chase a torsion balance, developed in Budapest
cles, conference proceedings, technical reports and by the physicist Loránd Eötvös de Vásárosnamény.
manuscripts – in four languages. The innovative knowledge on wave refraction and
The quality of the contents would have made this reflection, perfected by military physicists for
manuscript a remarkable academic publication. localizing the position of artillery batteries, was
However, as too much classified information was soon applied by the German seismologist Ludger
included, that did not happen. The report was com- Benedikt Mintrop to explore the subsoil for
missioned by the company for internal use only and minerals (Lawyer et al. 2001). At the beginning
only a few typewritten copies were made. The report of the 1920s, DeGolyer’s work was on the cutting
consulted by the authors is held in the DeGolyer edge of applying geophysical methods in petroleum
Library at the Southern Methodist University in exploration.
Dallas. No information is available about the where- DeGolyer’s outstanding contribution to such
abouts of other copies. varied fields as petroleum geology, geophysics and
The reason why DeGolyer was allowed to com- business can be regarded as a unique achievement
pile such detailed records on the properties of the by a single person, as well as representing a turning
company and the oil fields in Mexico is unknown. point in the transition from the old-fashioned nine-
It is reasonable to assume that Pearson, worried teenth century oilman to the new managing class,
about the Mexican situation and the danger of los- more attentive to science and to the benefits that
ing the company records, was eager to secure an can arise from it in business. Among his contempo-
accurate ‘snapshot’ of the assets which he could raries, DeGolyer’s reputation grew to the point
show to interested people. that he was credited with the development of a
personal style in finding oil, with an effective tech-
nique which he was able to adapt to different cases.
The closing of the Mexican season of Mexico had been an important training camp; it was
the platform from which he was launched to the top
DeGolyer levels of the oil business.
The year 1919 represents the end of the Mexican
venture for DeGolyer, as Pearson sold his properties This study was completed thanks to the endowments
(2012/2013) from the William P. Clements Center for
to Royal Dutch-Shell (Forbes 1957). He invested Southwest Studies to work at the DeGolyer Library of
the proceeds to form the Amerada Oil Company the Southern Methodist University. The authors thank
in the USA, planning to develop a new business in Andrew Graybill and Ruth Elmore (Clements Center);
the USA and Canadian markets where the increas- Russell Martin, Pamalla Anderson and Anne Peterson
ing demand for motor spirits promised a success. (DeGolyer Library); and Cindy Boeke and Katie Dzi-
DeGolyer was offered the office of Vice-President minski (Fondren Library). The History of Science
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Oklahoma on December 3, 2016

GUSHERS, SCIENCE AND LUCK

Collections grant program (2011/2012) allowed them to DeGolyer, E.L. 1918b. The significance of certain
carry out research at the Western History Collections, Mexican oil field temperatures. Economic Geology,
University of Oklahoma. Warm thanks are extended to 13, 275 –301.
Kerry Magruder, JoAnn Palmeri and Jackie Slater Reese. DeGolyer, E.L. 1918c. Origin of the Cap Rock of
Our gratitude goes to Professor Houston Mount, East Cen- the Gulf Coast Salt Domes. Economic Geology, 13,
tral Oklahoma University who kindly agreed to share his 616– 620.
scholarship on DeGolyer. His support and encourage- DeGolyer, E.L. 1919. The theory of volcanic origin of
ment have been of great benefit. Special thanks to Wolf salt domes. AIME Transactions, 61, 456– 477.
Mayer, Chief Editor of this volume, for the numerous sug- Dumble, E.T. 1915. Tertiary deposits of northeastern
gestions that allowed us to improve the general quality Mexico. Proceedings of the California Academy of
standards of our English language edition. Sciences, 4th ser., V, The Academy, San Francisco,
165– 193.
Edwards, W.R., III, 1971. United States – Mexican
Archives relations, 1913–16: revolution, oil, and intervention.
PhD thesis, The Louisiana State University and Agri-
† Western History Collections, The University of cultural and Mechanical College.
Oklahoma, Norman. Fanning, L. 1947. American Oil Operations Abroad.
Charles Walter Hamilton Papers, Box 1, 2, 4; McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
Forbes, R.J. 1957. A Chronology of Oil, with Special
† DeGolyer Library, Southern Methodist Univer- Reference to the Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Compa-
sity, Dallas. nies. Bataafse Internationale Petroleum Maatschappij
Everette Lee DeGolyer, Sr. Papers, Box 16, 102, Royal Dutch/Shell Group, Leiden.
104, 107, 114, 236. Mss 0060. “Oil fields in FOREIGN OFFICE, DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR REPORT 1902.
Mexico,” album. Ag2006.0002. Manning Texas Report on the Trade and Commerce of Veracruz for
and Mexico collection. Ag1981.0004. the Year 1902, no. 3039, London.
Furber, P.N. 1954. I Took Chances: From Windjammers
to Jets. Edgar Backus, Leicester.
References Garcı́a, A.F. & Valdez, M.E. 1995. Dos bocas: una con-
tribución a la historia de los desastres en Veracruz.
Aguilera, J.G. 1902. The geographical and geolog- Anuario Universidad Veracruzana, X, 105–121.
ical distribution of the mineral deposits of Mexico. Garner, P. 2011. British Lions and Mexican Eagles. Busi-
Transactions of the American Institute Of Min- ness, Politics, and Empire in the Career of Weetman
ing Engineers, XXXII, 497. Pearson in Mexico, 1889– 1919. Stanford University
Ansell, M.R. 1998. Edward L. Doheny and the Develop- Press, Stanford.
ment of the Petroleum Industry in California and Gerali, F. 2013. Environment, economy, politics and
Mexico. Ohio State University Press, Columbus. technology. A brief analysis on Mexican petroleum
Belt, B.C. 1925. Stratigraphy of the Tampico district of up to early 20th century. Oil Industry History, 13,
Mexico. Bulletin of the American Association of Petro- 237– 260.
leum Geologists, 9, 136– 144. Gerali, F. & Riguzzi, P. 2013. Los inicios de la actividad
Brown, J. 1993. Oil and Revolution in Mexico. University petrolera en México, 1863– 1874: una nueva cronolo-
of California Press, Berkeley. gı́a y elementos de balance. Boletı́n del Archivo Histór-
Chambers, A.E. 1923. Potrero No. 4. A history of one of ico de Petróleos Mexicanos, 13, 63– 87.
Mexico’s earliest and largest wells. The Journal of the Gómez-Caballero, J.A. 2005. Historia e ı́ndice comen-
Institution of Petroleum Technologists, 9, 141–163. tado del Boletı́n del Instituto de Geologı́a de la
Clark, J.A. 1963. The Chronological History of the UNAM. Boletı́n de la Sociedad Geológica Mexicana.
Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries. Clark Books, Volumen Conmemorativo del Centenario, LVII,
Houston. 149– 185.
Day, D.T. 1917. The petroleum industry in Mexico. In: Hamilton, C.W. 1966. Early Day Oil Tales of Mexico.
Proceedings of the Second Pan American Scientific Gulf Publishing Company, Houston.
Congress III. Government Printing Office, Washington. Hartley, H. 1921. The Petroleum Geologist in Mexico.
DeGolyer, E.L. 1912. Petroleum industry of the Tampico Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum
region. Petroleum Review, 27, 93– 94. Geologists, 5, 463– 466.
DeGolyer, E.L. 1914. The oil industry in Mexico, a histor- Harrell, D.C. 1954. Memorial: Geoffrey Jeffrey (1855–
ical sketch. Petroleum Review, 30, 439–440; 469–470. 1953). AAPG Bulletin, 38, 686– 688.
DeGolyer, E.L. 1915. The effect of igneous intrusions on Keene, F.W. 1969. Geology and Politics in Frontier
the accumulation of oil in the Tampico-Tuxpam region Texas, 1845– 1909. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Mexico. Economic Geology, 10, 651– 662. Lawyer, L., Bates, C.C. & Rice, R.B. 2001. Geophysics
DeGolyer, E.L. 1916. The Oil Fields of Mexico with par- in the Affairs of Mankind: A Personalized History of
ticular reference to the fields of the Tampico-Tuxpam Exploration Geophysics. 2nd edn. Society of Explora-
Region. Mexican Eagle Oil Co., New York, 1 July tion Geophysicists, Tulsa.
1916. DeGolyer Library, SMU. MacNaughton, L.W. 1957. E. L. DeGolyer, father of
DeGolyer, E.L. 1918a. The geology of Cuban petroleum applied geophysics. Science, 125, 338–339.
deposits. Bulletin of the American Association of Mennel, J.L. 1910. Oil in Mexico. Mining Magazine,
Petroleum Geologists, 2, 133–167. June, 448– 450.
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at University of Oklahoma on December 3, 2016

F. GERALI & P. RIGUZZI

Mount, H.F. 2014. Oilfield Revolutionary: The Career of Robertson, H. 2007. The ABC’s of De: A Primer on Ever-
Everette Lee DeGolyer. Texas A&M University Press, ette Lee DeGolyer, 1886– 1956. DeGolyer Library,
College Station. Southern Methodist University, Dallas.
Munch, F.J. 1977. The Anglo-Dutch-American Petro- Santiago, M. 2006. The Ecology of Oil Environment,
leum Industry in Mexico: the formative years during Labor, and the Mexican Revolution, 1900–1938.
the Porfiriato, 1900–10. Revista de Historia de Amér- Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
ica, 84, 135– 187. Tinkle, L. 1970. Mr. De; a Biography of Everette Lee
Ordoñez, E. 1904. Ejemplos probables de tubos de erup- DeGolyer. Brown, Boston.
ción. Memorias de la Sociedad Cientı́fica Antonio UNITED STATES, SENATE, 61 CONGRESS, 1ST. 1909. Doc. No.
Alzate, 22, 141 –150. 79, Petroleum Fields in Mexico. Government Printing
Ordoñez, E. 1907. Oil in the State of Veracruz. Mining Office, Washington.
and Scientific Press, 95, 247– 248. US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1909. Mineral Resources of the
Owen, E.W. 1975. Trek of the Oil Finders: A History of United States. Calendar Year 1909. Vol. II. Govern-
Exploration for Petroleum. American Association of ment Printing Office, Washington.
Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa. US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1910. Mineral Resources of the
Rubinovic, R. & Lozano, M. 1998. Ezequiel Ordoñez, un United States. Calendar Year 1910. Vol. II. Govern-
geólogo de vocación. In: Ezequiel Ordoñez. Vida y ment Printing Office, Washington.
Obra. I. El Colegio Nacional, México. US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1914. Mineral Resources of the
Riguzzi, P. & Gerali, F. 2015. Los veneros del empera- United States. Vol. II. Government Printing Office,
dor. Impulso petrolero global, intereses y polı́tica Washington.
del petróleo en México durante el Segundo Imperio, Villarello, J. 1908. Algunas regiones petrolı́feras de
1863–67. Historia Mexicana, LXV, 747– 808. México. Instituto Geológico de México, México.
Robertson, H. 1986. Everette Lee DeGolyer. The Lead- White, D. 1916. Charles Willard Hayes. Science New
ing Edge, 5, 14–21. Series, 44, 124– 126.

View publication stats