HGS Articles RSS Feed

Guest Night 2012 to Feature Extreme Speaker May 19

Dave Reynolds - noemail@hgs.org — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:00:00 GMT

Most geologists have a natural wanderlust to see new places and different rocks. Imagine the thrill of exploring this planet’s last frontier - Antarctica - and doing this partially underwater! This year, the annual Guest Night event will feature Susan R. Eaton who will take us on a journey to the Bottom of the World, sharing her experiences of two Antarctic expeditions. Susan's multi-media presentation is entitled “A Geoscientist in Antarctica: Following in Shackleton's Footsteps One Hundred Years Later.”

Susan's first Antarctic adventure was in 2010, as part of the Elysium Visual Epic Expedition which followed Sir Ernest Shackleton’s route to Antarctica and South Georgia – 100 years later. Elysium's mission was to scout, record and analyze this pristine wilderness of ice and snow, and create a visual library – both above and below the water – documenting the impacts of climate change. One of two expedition geoscientists, Susan joined Elysium's science team, lecturing on the geology and plate tectonics of Antarctica and assisting with oceanographic field studies.

As an extreme snorkeler, Susan investigated Antarctica in -2^◦C waters, coming face-to-mask with leopard seals, top predators of the Southern Ocean. During the Elysium Expedition, Susan blogged to the AAPG and other geoscience organizations. Since her return from Antarctica, she's delivered ten public presentations and has published a dozen articles on Elysium's findings, including two articles for AAPG Explorer Magazine. Through her outreach educational activities, Susan conveys her passion for science and exploration, encouraging K-12 and university students to follow their dreams.

Susan’s next Antarctic expedition is happening as you read this! The 2012 International Antarctic Expedition and Leadership on the Edge Program travels to Antarctica from February 27 to March 12, studying climate change, renewable energy and global sustainability issues. It's hoped that the HGS can sponsor part of Susan’s work on this expedition, and that we can get progress reports (blogs) from Antarctica. The HGS will be one of the first groups that will hear Susan present her findings and pictures from this trip!

An Antarctic explorer-in-the-making, Susan will participate in a third expedition planned for December 27, 2012 to January 20, 2013. Organized by the Jackson School of Geosciences (University of Texas at Austin), the expedition is part of the 125^thanniversary of the Geological Society of America. Entitled “Antarctica and the Scotia Arc: Tectonic, Climate and Life,” the expedition will study the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the Western Antarctic Peninsula.

Susan is a professional geologist and geophysicist. She's developed a successful career in the Canadian energy sector, attaining the position of Vice President of Exploration in several junior oil and gas companies. Susan currently consults to the Canadian, American and international petroleum and financial sectors on exploration and production, technology innovation, and mergers and acquisitions. Equipped with a degree in journalism, she's been a reporter for CBC-TV. As a freelance writer, Susan successfully blends her scientific and journalistic skills to present engaging reports on business, science and technology, oil and gas, renewable energy, the environment and ecotourism.

Studies of Antarctica provide a useful window into the impacts of climate change -- as geologists, we know it is the norm not the exception that the climate changes. We hope that these Antarctic studies may not only provide images of what to expect but also insights on how to adapt to these changes.

Guest Night will be held at the Houston Museum of Natural Science on Saturday, May 19^th. Doors open at 5:45 for the buffet dinner and cash bar. At 7:30 we move into the IMAX theater to recognize the both our Science Fair winners and our sponsors. Then we will hear Susan R. Eaton’s talk with her stunning images and videos. After a short break, we return to see a special IMAX movie (title cannot be disclosed yet). Bring your friends and family as this is a wonderful night for all ages. Registration is only available on-line (mid-April 2012) and the deadline is Noon, Monday, May 14. Sign up early as this is sure to sell out.

Click here to go to the HGS Guest Night Registration page.

Icebergs etched by the seas near the Western Antarctic Peninsula – how will climate change affect us? Credit: Photo courtesy of www.susanreaton.com

31-Jan-12 7:00 AM

Exporting America's Natural Gas

Ron Waszczak - noemail@hgs.org — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:00:00 GMT

February Editor’s column

Exporting North America’s Natural Gas

By Ron Waszczak, HGS Bulletin Editor

During very recent months, several headlines in the business news grabbed my attention, and further reading the associated columns left me astounded. Here are a few of the headlines that impressed and surprised me: “Pipeline may reverse flow to move shale gas”. “Marcellus shale gas may soon be exported – to California”. “Pipeline reversals seen to result in a single price for natural gas”. Moreover, there were these headlines regarding liquefied natural gas (LNG) that confounded me: “LNG exports from northern America: When, not if” and “LNG terminal plans reverse from importing to exporting gas”. The later two stunning headlines challenged a long accepted tenet of our time, i.e. the United States meets energy needs through imports. Indeed, it has long been a fact that over 60% of the oil utilized and consumed in the U.S. is imported from other countries. But now, are the upstream natural gas industry and its downstream de-gas and re-gas partners beginning to lead the U.S. out of the energy dependence paradigm?

The emergence of plans to export LNG from North America follows the dramatic rise in North America's proven gas reserves over the past few years. Current estimates for recoverable gas in the United States exceed 2.5 quadrillion cubic feet. This is more than double the estimate of 1.1 quadrillion cubic feet in 1995. Recent shale gas discoveries in British Columbia have pushed estimates for recoverable reserves in Canada to more than 1.0 quadrillion cubic feet.

These events contributed to that change: bringing on-line the production of huge newly-discovered reserves of unconventional natural gas; technological advancements in production, particularly directional drilling and hydraulic fracking; and commercialization of compression and transportation methods that allow LNG to be moved around the world oceans.

Additionally, rapidly growing gas reserves have been met with slow and slowing demand for gas. Coincident with that circumstance, underutilized LNG infrastructure — built to manage once-predicted LNG imports which never largely materialized — became assets looking for new uses, e.g. LNG exports. Owners of stranded gas and stranded infrastructure are together now searching for fertile ground in their mutual quest to develop LNG import markets overseas.

Existing U.S. LNG terminals are at Sabine, Lake Charles and Hackberry, LA; Sabine Pass and Freeport, TX; Pascagoula, MS; the Gulf of Mexico; offshore Boston, MA; Cove Point, MD; and Elba Island, GA. Existing Canada LNG terminals are at Saint John, NB and Rivière-du-Loup and Quebec City, QC. Existing Mexico LNG terminals are at North Altamira, Tamulipas, and Baja California with a terminal at Manzanillo slated for construction. Other terminals slated for construction are at Corpus Christi, Freeport and Port Lavaca, TX; offshore Florida; Logan Township, NJ, Baltimore, MD, Long Island Sound, NY and Coos Bay, OR; and Prince Rupert Island and along British Columbia's West Coast.

A global market is emerging for North American LNG exports to overseas destinations where buyers are seeking alternatives to oil and coal. It is predicted that demand from Asia and Europe will drive most worldwide natural gas export flows. Albeit, LNG exports will need to complete with other gas suppliers which include intra-continental pipeline gas. Ultimately, global and regional gas pricing will become the dominant force behind LNG bidirectional cargo movements.

While these changes that could lead the U.S. out of the energy dependence paradigm came seemingly rapidly, I am not certain that thoughtful due-diligence has been devoted to some critical questions. Questions that I hope strategy and policy makers have explored are: What are the implications for U.S. energy security of exporting North America’s natural gas? Are there sound land and sea security and safety standards for LNG terminals and ships? Will exports affect our national and regional economies? Perhaps most importantly: Have our federal, state and municipal governments created incentives for new domestic uses and increased domestic demand for natural gas? Why not use North America’s clean-burning natural gas to fuel North America’s power-generation plants, trains, trucks, buses, and automobiles?

27-Jan-12 5:00 PM

HGS President: Let’s Load Up Our Plate

Steve Earle - noemail@hgs.org — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:00:00 GMT

President’s Letter for February

By Steve Earle

Let’s Load Up Our Plate

I've spent much ink on these pages to talk about the new unconventional plays. Indeed, we have the Applied Geoscience Mudstone Conference scheduled this month and I hope you have signed up. This conference is the ultimate venue in which to learn about cutting edge geoscience technology in shale plays. I want to recognize Frank Walles' fantastic Conference Committee who include Bruce Martin, Dave Tonner, Jim Schuelke, Bruce Hart, Kathy McDonald, Mike Cameron, Mike Van Horn, Randy Lafollette, Rachel Osmos, Steve Macalello and Simon Hughes. Thanks to this outstanding group.

Unconventional plays are new, hot and exciting, and truly a critical part of our energy portfolio going forward. Ignore them at your peril. However, this month I'd like to examine what the role of conventional exploration might be in our energy mix. I’m going to argue that conventional plays still matter. Here’s why.

Majors’ exploration for and development of giant fields in the deepwater and other remote areas is necessary in order for them to continue in the style to which they have become accustomed. The size of the majors simply requires that they find these large reserves to replace their production. And new giants are more likely to be discovered in areas that were not accessible before. So while deepwater trends are one important area that has blossomed, the Arctic is another area that shows big promise. Once it became apparent that unconventional reserves also held significant quantities of hydrocarbons, the majors took notice and are buying their way in. In my mind though, remote areas are a better fit for major oil companies because the competition will be less due to the large upfront costs and long startup times required, elements which exclude most independents who don't have deep pockets.

The technology required to access these remote areas is just incredible. Consider a recent article about a new deepwater record set by Shell Oil. Their Tobago Field development well, tied into the Perdido Platform in the Deepwater Gulf of Mexico, is the deepest subsea completion at 9,627 feet water depth. Perdido holds the current record for water depth of a production platform at about 8000 feet. Perdido can handle up to 100,000 barrels of oil and 200 million cubic feet of gas production a day from the Tobago, Silvertip and Great White fields. These are significant reserves and it is really too bad that a story like this does not get the broader press coverage it probably deserves. In many ways, deepwater exploration is a modern-day equivalent to the space program in terms of the technological innovation required to work in these extreme environments.

The large upfront costs required to develop these giant discoveries means that companies are willing to invest considerable effort in reservoir simulation studies that require information ssuch as detailed seismic mapping, descriptions of the reservoir from cores and geological facies models that integrate the two. Shell's Upstream Americas Director, Marvin Odum, said, “Shell has applied its advanced seismic and drilling technologies at Perdido to produce additional sources of oil and gas.” This speaks to the important role that geoscientists have in both exploration for and development of these frontier discoveries.

Beyond the search for giants though, there is still plenty of running room for conventional plays in more mature areas. While individual prospects will probably be more modest in size, they should be very attractive for smaller operators. With majors chasing giants and most everyone rushing into shales and other unconventional plays, many of these traditional prospects will enjoy significant advantages such as reduced competition in the current environment, relatively low costs assuming minimal overlap with unconventional plays, ready access to infrastructure generally already in place so projects come online quickly, and quick payouts given success.

While the chances of success are significantly less than for unconventional plays, the costs can be significantly lower and successful wells typically have much better returns. There should be some real opportunities for small to moderate-sized companies with capital to test some very good conventional prospects. The NAPE prospect expo this month should be a good place to check the quality of such prospects currently on the market.

Given the scope of the unconventional resource, their development ties up tremendous amounts of capital in terms of cash, steel and manpower. The pursuit seems to have squeezed out most mature, conventional prospect generation to the dismay of many. I will point out that there are advantages to being counter-cyclical and companies that chase these mature plays largely “fly under the radar.” I think the successful companies that adopt this strategy may realize above average returns.

For all these reasons, I believe that conventional exploration should continue to be relevant for a long time. Given the sheer volume of the worldwide energy consumption, I would agree with Scott Tinker that we will need to pursue every available avenue if we hope to supply this demand.

So I say, no matter whether you work on conventional or unconventional plays, “Let's get out there and find some grease!”

27-Jan-12 5:00 PM

Legends of Unconventional Dinner Photos

Linda Sternbach - noemail@hgs.org — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 21:00:00 GMT

Photos from the January 16 Legends of Unconventional meeting.
Featuring Dan Steward, Mike Johnson, Gregg Robertson and Bill Zagorski with HGS leaders President Steve Earle and moderator Charles Sternbach.

see the photo album on the HGS albums site at ALBUM online photo album

here are some highlights

Legend of Unconventional speakers

David Curtiss Steve Earle Paul Weimer and Charles Sternbach

steve Earle Larry Spears Claudia Ludwig and Richard Howe

Mike Johnson

Dan Steward

Bill Zagorski

Gregg Robertson

19-Jan-12 3:00 PM

Energy Day Oct 20 2012

Jennifer Burton - noemail@hgs.org — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:00:00 GMT

http://energydayfestival.org

Houston Energy Day will be Oct 20 2012. Energy Day is a free, family-friendly festival on Saturday, October 20, 2012 that celebrates and highlights the importance of energy in our daily lives. This day-long festival takes place at Hermann Square in front of City Hall in Downtown Houston, Texas. There will be energy exhibits, live music, food, contests and fun for all ages. In 2011, the first annual Energy Day attracted more than 12,000 attendees. Great Website at http://energydayfestival.org/about/

18-Jan-12 4:00 PM

The Wise Report

Henry Wise - noemail@hgs.org — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 21:00:00 GMT

The Wise Report

Henry M. Wise, P.G.

January 15, 2012

The General Issues Committee of the Texas Board of Professional Geoscientists will be meeting on January 27, 2012 in Austin, Texas. The proposed agenda includes:

Discussion and possible action on setting dates, times, and locations for continued public discourse on developing proposed wording to answer AOR #6, involving geoscientific research performed at universities and practice of geoscience as it relates to exemptions to the Texas Geoscience Practice Act. No action will be taken on AOR #6 at this meeting.
Discussion and possible action on AOR #8 regarding P.G. Seal Requirements and “bound reports”
Discussion and possible action on AOR #9 regarding UIC plugging reports
Discussion and possible action on AOR #10 regarding whether geologic cross sections need to be sealed by a P.G. if they are bound or unbound when submitted to TCEQ
Discussion and possible action on electronically generated signatures for P.G. seals
Discussion and possible action on permissive practice regulations for house foundation design development based on soil borings or geotechnical investigations and interpretation
Discussion and possible action on underground waste injection disposal and underground natural gas sequestration--review of current industry practices and regulation

The public is invited to attend. The complete agenda can be found at: http://www.tbpg.state.tx.us/GIAgenda01-27-2012.doc

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has revised Regulatory Guidance document RG-482Common Environmental Requirements for Regulated Oil and Gas Operations. This document explains TCEQ regulations on oil and gas exploration and production. It is not a comprehensive review of such regulations. The document is found at: http://www.tceq.texas.gov/publications/rg/rg-482.html

Henry M. Wise, P.G.

The Wise Report

1/15/2012

15-Jan-12 3:00 PM

The Wise Report- RRC Commission amendments

Henry Wise - noemail@hgs.org — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 19:00:00 GMT

The Wise Report

Henry M. Wise, P.G.

January 1, 2012

The Railroad Commission of Texas proposes amendments to §3.30, relating to Memorandum of Understanding between the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). The memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the TCEQ and the RRC was last updated substantively in August 2010. Article 2 of House Bill (HB) 2694, passed by the 82nd Texas Legislature and signed by the Governor, transferred from the TCEQ to the RRC duties relating to the protection of groundwater resources from oil and gas associated activities. Specifically, the law transfers from the TCEQ to the RRC, effective September 1, 2011, those duties pertaining to the responsibility of preparing groundwater protection advisory/recommendation letters.

After the transfer, the RRC will be responsible for providing surface casing and/or groundwater protection recommendations for oil and gas activities under the jurisdiction of the RRC. In addition, Article 2 of HB 2694 amended Texas Water Code, §27.046, transferring from the TCEQ to the RRC the responsibility of issuing to permit applicants for geologic storage of anthropogenic carbon dioxide a letter of determination stating that drilling and operating the anthropogenic carbon dioxide injection well for geologic storage or operating the geologic storage facility will not injure any freshwater strata in that area and that the formation or stratum to be used for the geologic storage facility is not freshwater sand.

For more information go to: http://www.sos.state.tx.us/texreg/sos/PROPOSED/16.ECONOMIC%20REGULATION.html#114-

RRC adopts new §4.635, relating to Memorandum of Understanding between the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) and the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) Regarding Radiation Control Functions, without changes to the proposed text as published in the October 28, 2011, issue of the Texas Register (36 TexReg 7224). The purpose of the new rule is to delineate areas of respective jurisdiction and to coordinate the respective responsibilities and duties of the RRC and the DSHS in the regulation of sources of radiation in accordance with Texas Health and Safety Code (HSC) §401.414, to provide consistency, effectiveness and efficiency in radiation control functions. For more information go to: http://www.sos.state.tx.us/texreg/sos/adopted/16.ECONOMIC%20REGULATION.html#801

The RRC adopts new §3.29, relating to Hydraulic Fracturing Chemical Disclosure Requirements, with changes to the proposed text as published in the September 9, 2011, issue of the Texas Register (36 TexReg 5765). The e new rule is adopted to implement Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 91, Subchapter S, §91.851, relating to Disclosure of Composition of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids, as enacted by House Bill (HB) 3328 (82nd Legislature, Regular Session, 2011).

For more information go to: http://www.sos.state.tx.us/texreg/sos/adopted/16.ECONOMIC%20REGULATION.html#797

Henry M. Wise, P.G.

The Wise Report

1/1/2012

1-Jan-12 1:00 PM

The Wise Report- Texas Board Regulations

Henry Wise - noemail@hgs.org — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 19:00:00 GMT

The Wise Report --December 26 2011

by Henry M. Wise, P.G.

The Texas Board of Professional Geoscientists (TBPG) has adopted amendments to 22 TAC §§851.104, 851.108, and §851.156, concerning the licensure and regulation of Professional Geoscientists.

The amendments to §851.104 and §851.156 are adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the September 30, 2011, issue of the Texas Register (36 TexReg 6440). Section 851.108 is adopted without changes to the proposed text and will not be republished.

The adopted amendments to §851.104 clarify the requirements regarding the designation of licensure, registration, and certification on printed items. The adopted amendments to §851.108 clarify the information regarding the application of a license or suspending or revoking an existing license due to conviction of a crime that directly relates to the duties and responsibilities of a Professional Geoscientist. The adopted amendments to §851.156 clarify the requirements regarding usage of a Professional Geoscientist's seal. For more information go to: http://www.sos.state.tx.us/texreg/sos/adopted/22.EXAMINING%20BOARDS.html#323

Henry M. Wise, P.G.

The Wise Report

12/26/20

26-Dec-11 1:00 PM

The Wise Report- Louisiana Registration

Henry Wise - noemail@hgs.org — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:00:00 GMT

The Wise Report

Henry M. Wise, P.G.

December 17, 2011

The following is update regarding professional registration of geoscientists in Louisiana came from Wendy Davidson, AIPG. If you wish to be grandfathered there, please read:

As some of you may recall, the Louisiana Board of Professional Geoscientists was created by Act 974 of the 2010 Legislative Session. Like most things run by government, it is underfunded and behind schedule. About the only thing done so far was the election of Dr. Madhurendu Kumar as acting Chairman of the Board, even though there is no board as of yet.

Unfortunately, there are several dates and deadlines involved with the board. Anyone applying for the Professional Geoscientist designation before January 1, 2012 will not be required to submit a written examination if they meet other statutory requirements. Here is the rub: At this time, there is no application, examination, or statutory requirements. Dr. Kumar is offering the following remedy, to “put everyone’s mind at peace.” If you submit a letter to him, stating your name and personal information, and that you intend to apply for Professional Geoscientist designation, he will consider that as an application that can be grandfathered in. And you can even email him. Dr. Kumar explained he is going to lobby to have the grandfather date pushed back, as the board is far from up and running, but that will take an act of the Louisiana 2012 Legislature.

There is no way of knowing if and when that will happen. So we are recommending to everyone that is interested in having the Professional Geoscientist designation, they should go ahead and act now.

USPS ADDRESS:

Dr. Madhurendu Kumar

LADNR-Office of Conservation

617 N. Third, 9th Floor

Baton Rouge, LA 70802

EMAIL:

madhurendu.kumar@la.gov

PHONE:

225-342-5501

I've sent in my information, including a resume to Dr. Kumar.

Henry M. Wise, P.G.

The Wise Report

12/27/2011

19-Dec-11 8:00 AM

Let There Be Peace on Earth, And Let Peace Begin with Rare Earth Minerals

Ron Waczczak - noemail@hgs.org — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:00:00 GMT

Editor’s letter December 2011

Let There Be Peace on Earth And Let Peace Begin with Rare Earth Minerals

By Ron Wasczcak, Conoco Phillips

There have been a number of articles recently published in Geology, Scientific American, and National Geographic that call attention to rare earth elements (REE) and their hosts, rare earth minerals (REM). On the periodic table, the rare earths are elements 57 through 71, and have these less than familiar names: lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, neodymium, promethium, samarium, europium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, holmium, erbium, thulium, ytterbium and lutetium. Some researchers also consider scandium 21, and yttrium 39, to be rare earth elements. Rare earth elements are contained primarily in the minerals bastnasite and monazite. Secondary resources are apatite, cheralite, eudialyte, loparite, phosphorites, xenotime, rare-earth-bearing clays, and spent uranium solutions. Though rare earth minerals are relatively abundant in the Earth’s crust, it is unusual to find them in concentrations high enough for economical extraction, and discovered minable concentrations are far less common than most other ores. Hence, the descriptive word “rare”.

During the past few decades, the demand for many items that utilize REEs has been rapidly rising. Items that are common and familiar include: rechargeable batteries and batteries for hybrid automobiles, automotive pollution control catalysts, and portable electronics such as laptop computers, cellular telephones, digital cameras, camcorders, compact disk and video disk players, and MP-3 players. Medical applications include dental and surgical lasers, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), medical contrast agents and isotopes, and positron emission tomography (PET) scintillation detectors. Other perhaps less familiar applications of REEs in manufacturing include: light alloys for aerospace, ceramic capacitors, high-temperature superconductors, microwave filters, amplifiers in fiber-optic data transmission, chemical catalysts for self-cleaning ovens and catalytic cracking in petroleum refining, laser-range finders and precision-guided weapons systems, phosphors for televisions and monitors, fluorescent and mercury-vapor lamps and carbon arc lighting, permanent magnets stable at high temperature, high-refractive index glass and glass polishing, camera lenses and night-vision and welding goggles, and as colorants in glasses, ceramics and enamels.

The rapid rise in demand for REEs is coincident with new increasing concern over the geopolitics of discovered and undiscovered REM reserves and resources.

National Geographic has reported “China supplies 97 percent of the world’s rare earth needs and has 48 percent of the world reserves. The United States has 13 percent of world reserves, and Australia, Canada and Russia have substantial deposits as well. Until the 1980s, the United States led the world in rare earth production, thanks largely to the Mountain Pass mine in California. American dominance ended in the mid 1980s when China entered the world market with a roar. With government support, cheap labor, and lax or nonexistent environmental regulations, its rare earth industries undercut all competitors. The Mountain Pass mine closed in 2002. Over the next decade, China is expected to steadily reduce rare earth exports in order to protect the supplies of its own rapidly growing industries, which already consume about 60 percent of the rare earths produced in the country. Fears of future shortages have sent prices soaring. The world is now scrambling to find other sources of supply. “

The United States is the second largest importer of REEs; Japan is the largest importer.

Geology reported on the dangers of a dominant world producer of REEs, as is China: “Supply and demand normally determine the market price of a commodity. As supplies shrink, prices go up. If a single country controls almost all of the production, and makes a firm decision not to export, then the entire supply of a commodity can be quickly cut off. That is a dangerous situation when new sources of supply take so long to develop.”

But hark the herald, there is news of hope in regard to potential and long term accessibility to newfound deposits of REEs. This past September the U.S. Geological Survey released its report “Resource Estimate for Afghanistan Rare Earth Prospect”, a study funded by the U.S. Department of Defense’s Task Force for Business and Stability Operations (TFBSO).

USGS reports that Afghanistan’s Khanneshin carbonatite contains a major potential source of rare earth elements. The prospect’s principal ore mineral is bastnasite, the same mineral that harbors most of the world’s rare earth reserves. The prospect is comparable in grade to world-class deposits in China and Mountain Pass, California. The cconservative estimate for the tonnage of this deposit puts Afghanistan sixth on a list of countries with the largest rare earth reserves, and with enough reserves to supply the world’s rare earth needs for 10 years based on current consumption. Ambassador Marc Grossman, U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, said “The United States will continue to support the Government of Afghanistan’s efforts to develop these resources through private-sector investment in a responsible, transparent, and sustainable manner that benefits the Afghan people, expands markets, and promotes regional prosperity.”

Scientific American reported on the USGS assessment: “Under military cover, U.S. geologists have mapped Afghanistan’s deposits of critical minerals. The geologists were delivered to the site in Black Hawk helicopters, and armed soldiers watched over them as they scoured the ground for clues… The embattled country could fulfill the world’s requirement for rare earth and critical minerals and end opium’s local stranglehold in the process. Overcoming the country’s opium and Taliban strongholds with a mining bonanza could change U.S. foreign policy and world stability.”

12-Dec-11 5:00 PM

The Wise Report

Henry Wise - noemail@hgs.org — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 02:00:00 GMT

The Wise Report

Henry M. Wise, P.G.

December 10, 2011

The Texas Board of Professional Geoscientists (TBPG) has received two advisory opinion requests (AORs), both from Emmeft Rushing, PG.

AOR #8 (2011) asks: "Is P.G. supervision and/or a seal required for certain items if they are included in a bound report that is to be submitted to TCEQ? What is a "bound report"? May TCEQ request a P.G. seal on documents that it deems appropriate?"

AOR #9 (2011) asks: "Whether Underground Injection Control (UIC) plugging reports have to be sealed by a P.G.?"

These AORs haven't been assigned to a committee yet, so nothing's been discussed or recommended at this time.

Henry M. Wise, P.G.

The Wise Report

12/10/2011

10-Dec-11 8:00 PM

Houston Geological Society Publication list

Sandra Babcock - noemail@hgs.org — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 22:00:00 GMT

From the Bureau of Economic Geology

10100 Burnet Rd., Austin, TX 78758

Tel: 512-471-1534

www.beg.utexas.edu/pubs

Directory

Directory of Oil Company Name Changes HGS 002D

20th Edition, April 2010 $15.00

All Authors / Contributors: William K Peebles; Houston Geological Society.

Special Volumes

Deltas in Their Geologic Framework HGS 102SV

M. L. Shirley, Editor, J. A. Ragsdale, Assistant Editor. 11 papers, 252 p., 1966, 3rd printing 1981, Hardbound book. $5.00

Deltas—Models for Exploration HGS 103SV

M. L. Broussard, Editor, 23 papers, 555 p., 1975, 2nd printing 1981, Hardbound book.$5.00

HoustonArea Environmental Geology: Surface Faulting, Ground Subsidence, Hazard Liability HGS 103SV

E. E. Etter, Editor. 164 p., 1981. $17.00

Finding Deep Sands in the Gulf Coast Tertiary HGS 106SV

by D. M. Curtis.

Short course notes, HGS Continuing Education Committee. 72 p., 1984. $8.00

Typical Oil and Gas Fields of Southeast Texas, Volume II HGS 107SV

G. K. Burns, Editor. 90 field reports, over 400 pages. 1987. $20.00

Continuing Education Seminars

Dry Hole & Disappointing Seismic Seminar Notes Available at BEG

Ring binder HGS 001CN

HGS in cooperation with the Houston Energy Council. November 2000 $40.00

Disappointing Seismic Anomalies, Dry Hole Symposium #2 HGS 002CN

October 2003. Ring binder. $40.00

Sizing Up International Petroleum Ventures HGS 004CN

by S. S. Moran. April 2001. Ring binder. $20.00

from the Bureau of Economic Geology - Continued

Field Trip Guidebooks

Lower Tertiary of the Brazos River Valley HGS 202G

D. G. Kersey, Editor, 1979. $8.00

Oil Fields, Subsidence and Surface Faulting in the Houston AreaHGS 203G

by M. M. Sheets, 1979. $3.00

Petroleum Reserves: Avoiding Write-Downs 4 CD-ROM set, PC only

HGS Short Course Series, Format: CD-ROM/Workbooks $120.00

Legends in Wildcatting Video

Author: HoustonGeological Society $23.00

Technical Papers of the HGS Bulletin Marketing Partner DVD

HGS Bulletin Volume 1 (1958-1959) through Volume 49 (2006-2007) $145.00

Applied Geoscience Conference, Oct. 2007 Product Code DD0039

U.S.Gulf Region Mudstones as Unconventional Shale Gas/Oil Reservoirs $50.00

Applied Geoscience Conference (AGC) – Feb. 2009 Product Code DD0040

U.S.Gulf Region Mudstones as Unconventional Shale Gas/Oil Reservoirs $50.00

Applied Geoscience Conference Feb, 2011 Product Code DD0041

U.S.Gulf Region Mudstones as Unconventional Shale Gas/Oil Reservoirs $100.00

AFRICA: New Plays - New Perspectives Conference Product Code : DD042

Second International Symposium in Houston, Texas - September 3-4, 2003

This digital download contains 67 abstracts, Basins, Stratigraphy, Seismic, Petroleum Systems and more $50.00

2010 HGS AFRICA: A Multifaceted Promise Conference Product Code : DD043

Published by Houston Geological Society (HGS) and Petroleum Exploration Society of Great Britain (PESGB): Ninth International Symposium in Houston, Texas - September 7-9, 2010.

This digital download contains 39 abstracts and 9 extended abstracts containing onshore and offshore topics. $50.00

8-Dec-11 4:00 PM

President's Letter December 2011

Sandra Babcock - noemail@hgs.org — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 21:30:00 GMT

by Steve Earle

Happy Holidays, everyone! December is a good month to reflect on the past year and to start thinking about our plans for the upcoming year. The HGS hosted a very successful AAPG Convention and Exhibition last April and we have kicked off another exciting series of technical talks. Of course, we have already been hard at work planning for a successful 2012 and I’d like to suggest some upcoming events you don’t want to miss as you think about your schedule for the new year:

• The Holiday Ho-Ho-Hoedown party on Monday, December 5, organized by Kelly Limbaugh.

• Legends Night on January 16 features pioneer explorers of the Barnett, Eagle Ford, Bakken and Marcellus shale plays. Charles Sternbach and John Tubb have put a great program together for you.

• “The Mudstone Conference”, officially the Applied Geoscience Conference, on February 20-21. Frank Walles and his committee have put together another outstanding group of talks.

• Our Grand Canyon Field Trip in July is an opportunity to see some classic geology — every geologist should seethe Grand Canyon!

Update on TBPG

As we are going to press, the Texas Board of Professional Geoscientists has called a Special Meeting to consider the proposed rules changes. In light of the overwhelming negative response and political pressure from the entire geoscience community, it is expected that they will scrap these rules in their entirety. There is good reason to believe that they will issue a directive that further clarifies the exemption for oil & gas and minerals geoscience work. I hope you saw the announcements we sent via e-mail, LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter.

We hope you responded as well. There are however some issues with broad implications that are worth

mentioning here. First, we’re all rather busy, so it’s nice to know that HGS watches your back. The proposed rules have the potential to alter the way in which a large part of our work is done, whether you are licensed or not. Being blindsided by something like this is not pleasant, especially as it may relate to one’s ability to earn a living. The HGS Board of Directors identified, in these rule changes, possible threats and took an opportunity to notify our members and provide comments back to the TBPG. I trust that we will have some impact, but it is important to realize that your individual voice is also very important during these government agency discussions. Yes, we represent a 4000 member society, but your Board of Directors comments still count as only one voice.

Multiple individual comments to the TBPG could matter more.

Second, licensed Professional Geologists or Geophysicists (PGs) are bound by the set of rules as determined by the TBPG. PGs should know and understand these rules since they are required to follow them. Certain work products must be sealed; other products may be sealed, but are not required to be. The act of sealing a map or report has implications about the manner in which the work was performed. It also means that the TBPG has jurisdiction to review it. PGs should understand the full implications of using their seals on any work product.

Third, it is not clear how long those of us in the oil and gas industry can stay exempt from this regulatory trend. This particular set of rules includes work done in support of reserves estimation, pore pressure prediction (think Macondo), shale fracturing, and monitoring of hydraulic fracturing operations, any work used to sell prospects to the public, and CO2 sequestration tax credits. Clearly all this would cut a wide swath through the petroleum exploration and development work that is being done by our members. State of Texas requirements could become federal rules, but the interstate mechanisms have not been established.

Finally, notification of our members on breaking issues is evolving as the use of social media increases. As of the end of September, HGS had 511 members with LinkedIn, 257 Facebook fans, and 136 followers on Twitter. The ability to quickly get important messages out is essential. I’d like to recognize Dianna Phu for helping HGS set up and appropriately use these new social media. We are starting to build a following and we are learning how to best use this technology. These social media should encourage more interaction. They are not just one-way communication devices, so the members using them can have an impact on how they actually get used by HGS. As always, your HGS officers and directors are here to help you and to promote the profession. Any feedback is always welcome. Have a safe holiday and see you here next year.

5-Dec-11 3:30 PM

The Wise Report

Henry Wise - noemail@hgs.org — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 20:00:00 GMT

The Wise Report

Henry M. Wise, P.G.

November 26, 2011

At the regularly scheduled Board meeting held on November 18, 2011, the Texas Board of Professional Geoscientists reviewed public comments that had been submitted and heard public testimony regarding the draft Advisory Opinion (AOR #6), which can be found at https://tbpg.state.tx.us/Advisory-Opinions.html. The Board unanimously approved taking no formal action on the draft opinion that was published in the September 23, 2011edition of the Texas Register. The Board instead referred the draft Advisory Opinion (AOR #6) back to the General Issues Committee for follow up with the academic community and/or state and local professional organizations to develop a recommended response to the question posed in AOR #6. The General Issues Committee will be working with TBPG staff to set up meeting forums to invite interested stakeholders to work with the Committee to draft a response to the question posed in AOR #6 that considers issues raised by the geoscience community.

It appears that the TBPG has taken the advice of the Texas geological community and is reaching out for additional information. This is our opportunity to help them improve relations with the community and the PG license in general. Take advantage of it.

Henry M. Wise, P.G.

The Wise Report

11/26/2011

26-Nov-11 2:00 PM

The Wise Report

Henry Wise - noemail@hgs.org — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 23:00:00 GMT

The Wise Report

Henry M. Wise, P.G.

November 19, 2011

The TCEQ Sunset legislation, House Bill (HB) 2694, was adopted during the 82nd Legislature, 2011, and signed by the Governor on June 17, 2011. Included in the legislation were statutory changes addressing petroleum storage tank (PST) regulation. This rulemaking is required to address several of the statutory changes: underground storage tank (UST) delivery prohibition; State Lead tank removal authorization; and the setting of the PST delivery fee. The most interesting change of the three is that the TCEQ PST State Lead will now be able to remove UST systems at facilities which meet certain criteria, including a determination of financial inability of the tank owner or operator to remove the tank and the assessment of the potential risk of contamination from the site. This change is being made to implement HB 2694, §4.17 and §4.18. The statutory change to TWC, §26.351 was intended to clarify that section of the statute. Under that section, the commission was clearly authorized to undertake corrective action "in response to a release or a threatened release" under certain conditions. The conditions were: if the owner or operator "is unwilling," "cannot be found," "is unable" or "more expeditious corrective action is necessary." However, the term "threatened release" was not defined. In addition, TWC, §26.351(a), the subsection defining corrective action to include tank removal, referred only to corrective action being done "in response to a release." This subsection did not mention "threatened release." One interpretation was that the TCEQ State Lead program was authorized to remove tanks only as part of corrective action where a release had already been confirmed (by another party). However, additional ambiguity existed since the statute already defined, "risk-based corrective action" in TWC, §26.342(15) as including "site assessment or site remediation (emphasis added)." Thus, it was questionable whether "corrective action" by State Lead could include "assessment" to determine whether tanks had leaked. The TCEQ Sunset legislation clarified the authorization for the TCEQ to undertake corrective action to remove an underground or aboveground storage tank.

In accordance with the legislation, rules will authorize tank system removal when the tank: 1) is not in compliance with the requirements of this chapter; 2) is temporarily out of service or out of operation; 3) presents a contamination risk; and 4) is owned or operated by a person who is financially unable to remove the tank. The proposed rules describe the factors for determining financial inability and for the assessment of the potential risk of contamination from the site. Also, the term "out of service" in the statute is being clarified in the rule as referring to "temporarily out of service as described in 30 TAC §334.54(a) or out of operation as defined in 30 TAC §334.2(71)." This language is intended to avoid confusion because the phrase "out of service" is not defined; however, commission rules already have several defined terms relating to tank status, such as "in operation," "in service," "out of operation," "temporary removal from service," and "permanent removal from service." For more information go to: http://www.sos.state.tx.us/texreg/sos/PROPOSED/30.ENVIRONMENTAL%20QUALITY.html#145

Henry M. Wise, P.G.

The Wise Report

11/19/2011

19-Nov-11 5:00 PM

The Wise Report

Henry Wise - noemail@hgs.org — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 23:00:00 GMT

The Wise Report

Henry M. Wise, P.G.

November 12, 2011

Unless you've been living under a rock, I'm sure you're all aware of the controversy at the Texas Board of Professional Geoscientists with the Oil & Gas geologists. Executive Director Charles Horton sent out an email to all registered Texas geologists stating that the Board unanimously approved an immediate withdrawal of proposed new rules 22 Texas Administrative Code, Sections 851.33, and 851.34, and proposed amendment 851.10 in a vote of 8-0, with one member absent. The Board also unanimously approved a draft Advisory Opinion (AOR #7) that re-affirmed the exemption of geoscientists working in the exploration and development of oil, gas, or other energy resources, base metals, or precious or non-precious minerals, including sand, gravel or aggregate from licensure under the Texas Geoscience Practice Act. The draft Advisory Opinion (AOR #7) is currently available on the TBPG website at https://tbpg.state.tx.us/Advisory-Opinions.html and will be posted in the November 18, 2011 issue of the Texas Register for a thirty (30) day public comment period. Comments on the draft opinion may be sent to Charles Horton chorton@tbpg.state.tx.us. Please submit comments by December 18, 2011.

Approximately 25 people attended the special Board meeting on November 7, 2011. Chairman Ron Kitchens stated that the Board wanted to resolve the question of public vs private practice of O&G because over the past several years they had received 13 complaints about O&G oversight, and one inquiry from the SEC. The O&G Workgroup was set up to get input from the O&G industry on this issue. The O&G Workgroup furnished their recommendations to the Board with a petition for rule proposal. The Board published it in the Texas Register to get input from the geologic comunity. As sever persons pointed out, both prior to and during the meeting, this was probably the worst method for obtaining comments. The General Counsel to the Board felt that the Board could publish this rules.

The Board received 375 comments through their email portal, and only four were in favor of the rules. Two of the letters against the proposed rules had a total of 170 signatures on it, 14 letters suggested changes, and 20 letters were from professional organizations, state legislators, or agencies. Several comments accused the Board of a power and money grab, a charge that Chairman Kitchens categorically denied. Another comment was made that the proposed rules infringed in academic freedom by placing Board policy above academic freedom. Another individual called for the resignation of Mr. Horton and unnamed members of the Board in favor of those more knowledgable and interested in these problems.

Of those testifying at the meeting, all reiterated that the intent of the original PG legislative was to omit the O&G and minerals geologists. It was intended to level the playing field with engineers who were practicing geology.

Chairman Kitchens acknowledged that the Board has a lot of fence mending to do and will work harder on outreach to the Texas PG community. In addition to the withdrawal of the offensive rules and proposing Advisory Opinion #7, the Corpus Christi Geological Society has met with Representative Hunter to open the Statute to add/remove language to make it perfectly clear that O&G and minerals are exempt from the Board in all cases. Unfortunately, this can't be done until the 2013 legislative session. If you are interested in helping in this endeavor, contact the Corpus Christi Geological Society.

Henry M. Wise, P.G.

The Wise Report

11/12/2011

12-Nov-11 5:00 PM

From the Editor- November 2011

Sandra Babcock - noemail@hgs.org — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:00:00 GMT

What About Geothermal in the U.S. Energy Mix?

Editor's Letter by Ron Waszczak

Production of unconventional oil and gas from shales and sands has afforded North America a mega change in regard to the source and the reliability of supply of hydrocarbons. I often wonder if the latest technologies established to economically produce unconventional gas and liquid from the subsurface — principally hydraulic fracturing and steam-assisted drainage — could transfer to new applications in the geothermal industry. Leveraged by the hydrocarbon industry’s unconventional technologies, could geothermal break through as North America’s next energy resource for large-scale exploration and development? Can and will geothermal energy contribute to North American energy supply with significant impact in the near future and for decades to come?

Concern about the security of our domestic energy supply and postulated relationships between global climate change and consumption of fossil and biomass fuels are factors that have contributed to recent expansion of the geothermal industry in the U.S. What is the current U.S. utilization of geothermal energy, and where are U.S. geothermal resources? The Geothermal Energy Association indicates “The United States currently leads the world’s countries in online geothermal energy capacity and continues to be one of the principal countries to increase its geothermal growth. As of April 2010, geothermal electric power generation occurs in nine U.S. states: Alaska, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. Other states, such as Colorado, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas are soon to be added to the list.”

The United States is advantaged with widespread accessibility to domestic “hot rocks”, principally in the Basin and Range and Gulf Coast sedimentary provinces. The land surface used to access and produce energy from hot rocks is small. Also, the energy produced has low emissions, the energy supply is dispatched through the electrical grid and can swing with demand, and the energy resource is sustainable. There are, however, recognized disadvantages to geothermal energy. Groundwater and surface water are expended to transfer heat in geothermal systems, and those waters, through contact with hot rocks, become contaminated with trace amounts of gasses such as carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide and methane, and elements such as mercury, arsenic, boron and antimony. Hotspots, the areas in which hot rocks are found, are often associated with geologically recent or active or ongoing tectonic or volcanic activity, thus raising concern and risk for geothermal facilities at the surface.

The focus for growth of the U.S. geothermal industry is on fully engineered “conventional” systems where heat mining produces the primary energy to generate hydrothermal energy that in turn produces clean electricity. Enhanced geothermal systems often involve two wellbores, where in the first well, water is injected into the hot host rock, and if not naturally permeable, fractures are hydraulically induced to stimulate fluid saturation and fluid flow. A second well intercepts hot fluid from the fractured rock and circulates the fluid from one well to the other. Another focus of the industry is to produce electricity from “unconventional” or sub-commercial production of hydrothermal fluids which are a co-produced byproduct with oil and gas from wells that tap stratigraphically deep and/or geopressured zones.

It is apparent that the oil and gas industry currently employs a workforce with the subsurface skills and access to technologies that will prove vital to moving the hydrothermal industry forward. It is easy to project which petroleum geology and engineering skills and tools are transferable to hydrothermal. The technical specialties are many: stratigraphy and sedimentary petrology; seismic imaging, specifically in hard rocks with faults and fractures; rock mechanics, fracture generation and confined fracture systems; basin modeling, fluid flow, connectivity and pore pressure analysis; high-temperature wellbore geophysics; high-temperature material and fluid engineering; and high-temperature drilling, directional drilling, logging, casing and stimulating. And the list goes on…

So the oil and gas industry does have the science and engineering capabilities to grow the geothermal industry, an industry that has recently demonstrated increasing numbers of successes. However, I sense certain challenges attenuate the opportunity for the oil and gas industry to more aggressively tap geothermal resources for economic power generation. I propose the challenges the oil and gas industry needs to overcome include: antipathy, or a lack of knowledge, thought or reason to explore for and develop geothermal resources; and a predilection for the “familiar” hydrocarbon energy. As I believe that geothermal energy has an important niche to fill in the U.S energy mix, I ask that geothermal resources be given an eyes-wide-open look by the oil and gas industry and by our government.

24-Oct-11 3:00 PM

Letter from the President- November 2011

Sandra Babcock - noemail@hgs.org — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:00:00 GMT

Expanding the Vision of Our Minds

President's Column by Steve Earle

It was the legendary Wallace Pratt who famously said, “Oil is found in the minds of men.” If this is so, then we as explorationists should always work at expanding our skills and the vision of our minds. The Continuous Improvement process used by successful businesses then can then also work for us and our careers.

The nature of onshore exploration has dramatically shifted over the past few years due to the “Shale Revolution.” The rapid increase in drilling in these unconventional reservoirs requires a different skill set than what traditional prospect generation uses. Suddenly previously niche topics like geochemistry and rock mechanics are critical aspects of what makes a play work. To be successful in finding oil and gas now, we find that we need new skills and new understanding about geological processes; we need to expand the vision of our minds.

It was not so long ago that any fine-grained rock got labeled a “shale” and was immediately ignored. Now we are going back with an improved understanding about these mudstones and can ask meaningful questions: What is the organic carbon content? Where are the kerogens? What is the maturation? Where are the pores and how are they distributed? Are there more brittle units that can be fractured? What is the distribution of these brittle units in the formation? Are natural fractures present? What is their orientation? What is the current stress field? Where do the fractures go when we hit the rock with our hydraulic frack?

One good thing in all this is that it has forced us to go back to the rock for answers to some of these important questions. Cores have always been critical data, but are more so now than ever. We need to understand everything the rock can tell us. At the same time, new logging tools are being developed and used. Seismic techniques that have been slow to develop are suddenly relevant and are being deployed in a major way—techniques like multi-component, full azimuth, and microseismic. If you like change, these are indeed exciting times.

So, how do we gain these new skills? How can we expand the vision of our minds?

You won’t be surprised when I tell you that the Houston Geological Society has a number of resources available to help. We offer the equivalent of an annual convention’s worth of technical talks spread out over the year. Maybe the most popular of our meetings is Legends Night, and for the coming January, Charles Sternbach and John Tubb have collaborated to put together an outstanding evening. The HGS Bulletin is an outstanding publication that captures all the abstracts and provides several other features. We also offer multi-day events like the popular Mudstone Conference coming up in February and the Africa Conference, and we run several continuing education classes throughout the year. Throw in one of our field trips and you can see we offer a fairly complete package. We are able to run all these at bargain prices for you because we keep our overhead low.

Since you are reading this in our Bulletin or on our website, there is a fairly high probability that you are already an HGS member. If so, tell your friends who are not. If not, you are missing out on a great value and you and your colleagues should sign up immediately.

HGS’s ‘parent’ organization, AAPG, offers a very complimentary set of resources for its members. They have an excellent set of publications, from their technical journal, the AAPG Bulletin, and Explorer newsletter to a broad assortment of books. They offer access to an online library of reference material. AAPG runs its own set of continuing education classes and field trips. And of course, AAPG also organizes the Annual Convention and Expo (ACE) and the International Convention and Expo (ICE).

While it amazes me that we have members who belong to the HGS but not the AAPG, and there are geologists who belong to the AAPG but choose not to join their local society, it dismays me that there are geologists who choose not to join either society. Personally, I don’t think you can call yourself a petroleum geologist and not belong to one, preferably both (just my opinion).

What I have ignored in this discussion so far is the value of networking. I worked for major oil companies for almost 30 years, so I understand that networking may not seem like a high priority to some folks. I can promise you that at some point in your career, you will realize a strong network truly is an invaluable asset. I can’t emphasize this point enough to young professionals. Again, both HGS and AAPG can help by providing many networking opportunities.

Taken together, the HGS and AAPG provide a rich menu of resources to help its members stay current with new technology, to be involved with new ideas, and to actively expand the vision of our minds. They are great means to network and to earn educational credits as well. I suggest that you make the HGS and AAPG your partners in this career you have chosen. Geology is a wonderful and fascinating science. I can't think of a happier way to make my living.

If I can leave you with one thought, it is this: being a professional means that you must be continually improving your skills and continually expanding the vision of your mind. Enjoy the upcoming holidays.

24-Oct-11 3:00 PM

An open letter to the HGS membership

Steven Earle - noemail@hgs.org — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:00:00 GMT

As many of you are aware, the Texas Board of Professional Geoscientists (TBPG) have published proposed new rules which are so broadly stated that they would potentially bring a significant amount of the oil & gas and minerals activity under their jurisdiction. If passed and depending on how these rules are interpreted, a licensed Professional Geoscientist could be required to seal any and all work that is shown outside of one's own shop.

The TBPG was established to provide legal stature to geoscience work being done on the environmental and geological engineering side of our profession. Licensure has been critical in the continued success of these geoscientists to function as professionals. When the TBPG was conceived, oil & gas and minerals geoscience work was specifically exempted and it was "promised" that this would always be the case.

In the HGS Board's opinion, the proposed rules violate this promise and will add significant regulatory burdens on all oil & gas and minerals companies doing business in the State of Texas. As such there is significant risk of harm to the state's economy.

We formed an ad hoc committee to put together a response and have sent a letter to the TBPG. If you agree that these rules constitute an infringement on your ability to fully function as a geoscience professional, I suggest that you also write to the TBPG to voice you objections.

Thank you for your time on this issue of great concern to all of us.

Steven Earle

HGS President

24-Oct-11 11:00 AM

The Wise Report

Henry Wise - noemail@hgs.org — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 03:00:00 GMT

The Wise Report

Henry M. Wise, P.G.

October 23, 2011

For those interested in speaking directly to the General Issues (GI) Committee of the Texas Board of Professional Geoscientists (TBPG) regarding the proposed new rules, the GI committee is now scheduled for 2:00 pm on Wednesday, November 9, 2011 at 333 Guadalupe Street, Tower 2, Suite 500, Austin, Texas 78701.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opinion Piece Follows: It appears that the proposed new rules by the TBPG has stirred up quite a hornet’s nest. I know of at least two persons in Texas who've already written to the Governor asking him to dissolve the Board, calling it, among other things, "power grab" and a desire to increase revenue. Let's not forget that not only did Perry sign the legislation that created the Board and appoints its members, but he tried to get rid of it this past legislative session.

I think calling for the dissolving of the Board is pre-mature. Nothing’s been finalized yet, so you should give your opinions directly to the Board, in writing and/or during their meetings. Personally, I believe the Board did a poor job of outreach on this one. Yes, they did base it on the Oil & Gas Work Group, which is commendable, but they should have gone around Texas to the various Geological Society Meetings to discuss these proposed new rules prior to publishing them. If this had been done I believe the general reaction wouldn't have been as virulent.

As far as the O&G folks trying to get rid of the Board, I think they'd be shooting themselves in the foot eventually. While I fully support their being exempt, I can see the day's coming when the Federal Government, as a result of the SEC reserve problems in the past and the BP blowout last year, will say they want someone to seal reserve reports and other documents. In today’s political climate the Federal Government could make such a ruling or law. Right now, that would mean only Engineers would be able to do this work, since O&G geologists are exempt in Texas. Do you really want an engineer doing geology?

The O&G folks I've spoken with appear to have no problem with voluntary signing, but not mandatory. The way things currently stand, if the Federal Government required those documents to be sealed starting tomorrow, the Board would be forced to change the rules to include O&G geologists. At this time, that would require at least two years or so to implement because the statute that created the Board can't be changed until the next legislative session, a little over a year away, and then another year or so to write the rule and get it approved. In the meantime, O&G geologists would have to work under engineers. If the current proposed rule is approved, with the amendments that most groups appear to be making (voluntary sealing only, no mandatory sealing), the O&G folks who already are PGs could voluntarily sign without fear of being accused of misusing the PG seal (sealing a document that was exempt from the rules).

The Board could also help the situation, if the Federal Government were to require PG stamps on O&G work, by allowing O&G geologists with the proper credentials to obtain the PG without taking the ASBOG exam, similar to the original Grandfathering period. After all, they have been told all this time they're exempt, and it'd only be fair, if the Federal Government started to require it. The TBPG rules allow the Board waive requirements if they wish it, and they have for some.

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I don't believe that the Board should be requiring O&G geologists to register on their own. It wasn’t part of the original intent of the statute. It should only be done if the Board is forced to by the Federal Government. In that case, the Board would simply be modifying the regulations to match Federal Law.

Henry M. Wise, P.G.

The Wise Report

10/23/2011

23-Oct-11 10:00 PM