The Wise Report Provides Government Updates for Areas of Interest to HGS Professionals.
Check out the Latest Wise Reports below...
Release Date: 15 January 2012
Release Date: 1 January 2012
Release Date: 30 December 2011
Release Date: 26 December 2011
Release Date: 19 December 2011
Release Date: 12 December 2011
Release Date: 10 December 2011
Release Date: 8 December 2011
Release Date: 5 December 2011
Release Date: 30 November 2011
Release Date: 26 November 2011
Release Date: 19 November 2011
Release Date: 12 November 2011
Release Date: 25 October 2011
Release Date: 24 October 2011
Release Date: 24 October 2011
Release Date: 24 October 2011
Release Date: 23 October 2011
Release Date: 9 October 2011
Release Date: 5 October 2011
Release Date: 1 October 2011
Release Date: 27 September 2011
Release Date: 26 September 2011
Release Date: 26 September 2011
Release Date: 26 September 2011
Release Date: 24 September 2011
Release Date: 22 September 2011
Release Date: 22 September 2011
Release Date: 12 September 2011
Release Date: 12 September 2011
The Houston Geological Society is powered by a community that cares.
Your donation supports students, technical programs, outreach, and the partnerships that strengthen our geoscience community. If HGS has helped you learn or connect, please consider giving back
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:
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
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
Click here to download PDF of the January 2012 Bulletin
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
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:
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
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.”
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
From the Bureau of Economic Geology
10100 Burnet Rd., Austin, TX 78758
Tel: 512-471-1534
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. &nbs
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 TBPGAs 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 worthmentioning 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.
Click here to download PDF of the December 2011 Bulletin
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
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%20QUALIT...
Henry M. Wise, P.G.
The Wise Report
11/19/2011
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
Click here to download PDF of November 2011 Bulletin (high res)
Click here to download PDF of November 2011 Bulletin (low res)
Expanding the Vision of Our MindsIt 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.
What About Geothermal in the U.S. Energy Mix?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.
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
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wise Report
Henry M.
Wise, P.G.
October 9,
2011
On Thursday, October
6, 2011 Charles Knoblock met with representatives of the Houston Geological
Society (HGS), the Geophysical Society of Houston (GSH), the Society of
Independent Professional Earth Scientists (SIPES), the Texas Association of
Professional Geoscientists (TAPG), and several members of the Oil & Gas
Workgroup to discuss the rule-making process and how people can contribute to
it. Due to the complexity of the new proposed rules Mr. Knoblock was asked if
it would be possible to allow more time to make comments. Mr. Knoblock said
that he believed that the 30 days for comments is a statute, and therefore can't
be extended. However, after the comment period closes there will be at least
two additional times when comments could be made, in person. They are when the
General Issues Committee meets to discuss the propose rules and review the
written comments, and when the full PG Board meets. the General Issues
Committee will need to meet and review the written comments before passing their
recommendations on to the full TBPG board. The dates and times of these
meetings will be posted on the TBPG website (https://tbpg.state.tx.us/). The next
meeting of the General Issues Committee hasn't been scheduled yet. The next
full TBPG board meeting is scheduled for Friday, November 18, 2011. There is a
very good chance that the proposed rules will be discussed at several TBPG
meetings, although not guarrenteed.
Mr. Knoblock said
that the TBPG and Oil & Gas Workgroup have been working on these rules for
two years and wanted to get comments from the general public, which is the main
reason for publishing them in the Texas Register. They encourage you to make
constructive comments, the more specific the better. If you think things should
be added or removed state what and why. Make sure that your proposed changes or
comments are based on the statutes that authorized the TBPG in the first place.
The statutes can also be found on the TBPG website.
As a reminder, you
have until September 30, 2011 to make written comments to the TBPG, by mail to
TBPG, PO Box 13225, Austin TX
78711 or by e-mail to chorton@tbpg.state.tx.us.
Henry M. Wise,
P.G.
The Wise Report
10/9/2011
Please note: New language is underlined; removed language has [brackets] These amendments were filed with the Texas Register and will appear in the 9/30 issue. The Texas Board of Professional Geoscientists (Board) proposes new rules and amendments to 22 TAC §851.10, 851.32, 851.33, 851.34, 851.104, 851.108, 851.152, and 851.156 concerning the licensure and regulation of Professional Geoscientists. CHAPTER 851. Texas Board of Professional Geoscientists Licensing and Enforcement Rules Subchapter A. Definitions. §851.10. Definitions. (1)-(38) (No change.) (39) A “workpiece” shall be defined as any report, map, survey, data collection, interpretative workstation product, computer-generated product, or other document that is related to the practice of geoscience, regardless of the type of workpiece format, including hardcopy and electronic media. Subchapter B. P.G. Licensing, Firm Registration, and GIT Certification. §851.32. Continuing Education Program. (a) – (b) (No change.) (c) Every license holder under the age of 65 is required to obtain 15 PDH units during the renewal period year. License holders that are 65 or over are required to obtain 6 PDH units during the renewal period year. (d) – (p) (No change.) §851.33. Permissive Professional Geoscience Practice. (a) The permissive practice of a licensed Professional Geoscientist in a professional geoscientist capacity in a professional setting shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) Sealing any workpiece; and (2) Making a written assertion in any workpiece that the work is being performed in a professional geoscientist capacity, including using in the workpiece the license title of “Professional Geoscientist” or the initials “P.G.” as part of a professional, business, or commercial identification or title or otherwise. (b) The act of: (1) Sealing a workpiece with a Professional Geoscientist seal in accordance with Texas Occupations Code §1002.263; or (2) Preparing any workpiece related to geoscience in the study of past, present, or future climatic conditions or climate change for use in, or intended use in, or reliance upon, any public primary educational institution or by any government agency or quasi-governmental agency, shall conclusively presume jurisdiction under this Act for the work performed that is related to the workpiece or other document, regardless of any exemptions identified under Texas Occupations Code §1002.251 or §1002.252(3). (c) Professional Sealing of Work. A licensed Professional Geoscientist who seals any workpiece with a seal under Texas Occupations Code §1002.263 implicitly and explicitly consents to jurisdiction under this Act. (d) Representations Made in Professional Sealing of Work. The act of affixing a Professional Geoscientist seal on a workpiece shall assert that: (1) All known data are included in the development of the workpiece unless there is a scientific basis for exclusion of any data not used in the development of the workpiece and the identification of and the rationale for the exclusion of data are documented in the workpiece and available for review; and (2) Professional documentation related to a sealed workpiece includes, but is not limited to, the following: (A) A reasonable data search has been conducted to ensure all available data have been identified, considered, evaluated and incorporated or referenced in the development of the workpiece; (B) All sufficient and valid geoscientific data have been used to develop the workpiece, unless otherwise found to be deficient based on lack of reliability, accuracy, completeness, or technical validity as determined by the Professional Geoscientist during data evaluation, where all excluded data must be identified as such and clearly identified as excluded through systematic review and based on sound scientific and well-documented reasons; and (C) Any and all technically valid data and data contours developed to represent geoscientific conditions have been incorporated into the development of the workpiece; and (3) Geoscientific interpretation, conclusions, findings, and recommendations have not been edited or influenced in any way by anyone not currently licensed under this Act, and that all attempts to influence or alter in any way geoscientific interpretations, conclusions, findings or recommendations by any non-licensed person or entity or without the express knowledge and approval of the Professional Geoscientist taking responsible charge, is promptly reported to regulatory agencies for sanction; and (4) All requirements under this subsection be distinctly and clearly set forth as part of the notes available for review, incorporated by reference, and made an integral part of the workpiece. (e) Gas Sequestration. The act of sealing a workpiece or other document that is related to identification or calculation of the geoscientific potential for subterranean storage or sequestration of gases, including CO2 sequestration, shall assert that: (1) A reliability assessment has been made as to any claim of volumetric holding capacity and that this volumetric reliability assessment is an integral part of workpiece; (2) A reliability assessment has been made as to the claim of the anticipated duration and control of subsurface gases (gas trap or seal) and that this trap and seal reliability assessment is an integral part of workpiece; and (3) A statistical certainty analysis has been performed with respect to any claims of volumetric holding capacity and sealing duration and that an analysis of cap seal and fracture potential has been performed. (f) Reliable Technologies. The act of sealing a workpiece or other document that is related to the assertion or certification that a technology is reliable for the purpose of imaging, monitoring, assessment, source, seal, or reserve determination, or the development of implementation of an interpretative technique, shall further assert, through demonstration or performance of an assessment that systematically identifies, fully discloses, and documents in writing as part of the initial work activities: (1) The potential, theoretical, or actual restrictions or limitations of use related to the implementation of the technology and due to ownership positions of the principal investigators or investors in the technology; (2) The restrictions on ownership of the technology; (3) The aspects of the technology available in the public domain; and (4) The known limitations of the technology as disclosed in public and patent literature. (g) Climate. The act of sealing a workpiece or other document that is related to geosciences aspects in the study of climatic investigations, including but not limited to, soil studies, measurement of sea level or sea level changes, ice or soil or rock core sampling, or
The Wise
Report
Henry M. Wise,
P.G.
October 1, 2011
The Texas
Board of Professional Geoscientists (TBPG) has published the proposed rules
discussed in last week's Wise Report in the Texas Register. It can be found
at:
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/texreg/sos/PROPOSED/22.EXAMINING%20BOARDS.htm...
Editorial
Comments Follow:
There has been quite a bit of controversy that's
developed over Section 851.33 Permissive Professional Geoscience Practice and
Section 851.34 Non-exempted Geoscintific Work. Both of these sections represent
a major revision and help to define what are considered to be geological
practices that will or will not require a PG seal. These rules incorporate
recommendations from the Oil and Gas Workgroup. The PG board is looking to the
geological community of Texas to help improve the wording of these proposed
rules. I believe this is badly needed, as several geologists, including myself,
misunderstood the intent, based on the way things were worded, and thought they
were planing on regulating O&G, minerals, and climate change studies.
Upon re-reading the rules, I
remembered a discussion I had a couple of weeks earlier, after the last TBPG
board meeting, when I saw a preliminary version of the rule changes, that the
proposed rules under Section 851.33 Permissive Professional Geoscience Practice
were supposed to be voluntary. That is, if O&G, mineral, and other exempt
geologists want to seal their work, those listed here are what should be sealed.
Section 851.34 Non-exempted Geoscientific Work lists work that must be sealed by
a PG.
I think what we're dealing with,
for Section 851.33, is a situation where there is insufficient definition of
what a permissive professional geoscience practice is and why it needs a rule. I
believe most people will look at it and at first glance assume, like we did,
that O&G, etc. geologists will need to be registered to conduct their
business. This is not the case. This section lists reports that may be sealed
on a volutary basis. It is not required. The wording for this section needs
revision to make it perfectly clear.
Section 851.34 is supposed to
clarify which geologic reports in the exempted fields, when used in the Public
Sector, need to be sealed. I also believe that some, if not most of this is
coming from complaints to the SEC in recent years about bad reserve estimates
estimates resulting in inflated stock prices, etc. Again, I'll remind you that
these rules were written after consulting with the Oil & Gas Workgroup.
It's my understanding that the
major oil companies are infavor of these changes and that the independants/small
O&G companies are not.
I believe that much of this
controversy could have been avoided by more preliminary outreach by the TBPG to
the geologic community. It's great that they did form an O&G Workgroup for
this, but most people didn't know there was an O&G workgroup, let alone
who's on it. You have until October 30, 2011 to make comments to the TBPG.
Please make all comments as specific as possible, including improvements in any
or all wording, and your reasons for it. I know the TBPG will welcome your
comments and will take them into consideration for improving these
rules.
For those of you who don't believe that these
rules are needed, you should state your reasons to the Board at this time. I
would remind you that, in my opinon, unfortunately, the day is coming whereby
reserve estimates will need to be sealed by either a PE or a PG. The PE's are
already positioning themselves for this. As reported in a previous Wise Report,
HB 2067 (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/history.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=HB2067)
was passed and signed, and allows out-of-state PE's to perform reserve
estimates. Geologists aren't mentioned in this bill. While geologists may
still be allowed to perform reserve estimates, if the Federal Government ever
decided that a licensed individual needs to sign and seal these estimates, PEs
are the only ones in this state that could legally do it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TCEQ has several new
publications of interest:
Cl
Each year, HGS recognizes outstanding students from seven area universities. Students are selected for recognition based on nomination of their faculty. HGS awards each outstanding student with $500, publication of their biographical sketch in the HGS Bulletin, and a plaque given at the October HGS General Dinner Meeting. This year, the following students have been selected by faculty for outstanding academic achievements and contributions to geology. Carolyn BraneckyRice UniversityCarolyn Branecky started at Rice University two years ago with every intention of becoming a biochemistry major. After all, she had been working in biochemical labs during most of her high school career and had already competed and won research competitions both statewide and regionally. But that plan was entirely upended this year when she took her first two Earth Science courses—Earth System Evolution/Cycles with Professor John Anderson and Quantitative Hydrogeology with Professor Brandon Dugan. By the end of the semester, she had switched her major to the field. “Climate change and water issues will affect everyone this century,” she says, “and I find that studying and researching these topics endlessly fascinating. I am excited about working on complex problems on a macro level and hope that my work will help generate a fuller understanding of these important changes in our planet.” Professor Dugan has commented that although the course she took was designed for senior-level undergraduates and graduate students in geoscience and engineering, Carolyn was allowed to enroll because of her enthusiasm and motivation. He reported that she excelled in the course, and that she received the second highest grade in the class, slightly behind a graduate student in environmental engineering. “She demonstrated control of the fundamentals,” he said, “and showed the ability to apply them. She is inquisitive, passionate and driven, which makes her an excellent student. All of these qualities that I observed lead me to believe she will be an excellent researcher as well.” Professor Anderson was so impressed by her motivation and engagement in his class that he offered her a position as an undergraduate research assistant in his lab where she works on a geomorphology project focusing on swath bathymetry data acquired from Pine Island Bay, Antarctica. He has stated that although she has been on the project for only a few months, she has already done an impressive job and generated significant results. “Her report was well thought out and constructed,” he commented. “She will continue her research next fall which I am sure will result in a paper.” Carolyn also applied for and was selected to participate in a NSF sponsored Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) project this summer. She was one of eight students selected nationwide to work on the Dune Geomorphology Project offered through the University of Wisconsin at Platteville and the University of Nebraska at Lincoln. This work is projected to result in a group publication. Carolyn grew up in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, and is the oldest of seven sisters. She received many awards in high school including the Award for Excellence in Scientific Research from the Divine Savior Holy Angels High School, U.S. Army, and the U.S. Navy. She was selected for the National Honor Society and was a National Merit Scholar. Upon entering Rice, she served as the Cancer Education Chair for Colleges Against Cancer, was an Office Assistant for the Rice Student Judicial Program and for the Rice Study Abroad Program, and was a Phone Ambassador for the University Telefund. Curtis JohnsonLamar UniversityCurtis Johnson is a senior at Lamar University pursuing a Bachelor of Science in Geology. He plans to attend graduate school to study geophysics. Curtis is currently a physical geology lab teacher and is on the Lamar University President’s List and the Dean’s List. He participated in a Big Bend National Park field excursion with Dr. Roger Cooper this past spring and will participate in geology field camp through Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and west Texas with Drs. Joseph Satterfield and Donald Owen this summer. Curtis is active in the Lamar University Geologic Society as Treasurer and is a student member of the AAPG. His other interests include football, ultimate Frisbee and wakeboarding. He is also an Eagle Scout. Vishal MaharajUniversity of Texas at AustinVishal Maharaj is a native of Trinidad and Tobago and is a Ph.D. candidate at the Jackson School of Geosciences at the University of Texas at Austin. He has found success in the field of sedimentary geology through his pursuits in academia and geology around the world. Vishal received his B.S. degree in Geology with Honors at the University of the West Indies in Jamaica, following which he devoted time to seek the best graduate school to develop his academic background in sedimentary geology. He decided to pursue his M.S. degree in Geological Sciences with the Quantitative Clastics Laboratory (QCL) at UT Austin, headed by his advisor, Lesli Wood. His work on the Atoka Group of north-central Texas was the primary focus of his M.S. research, after which he continued on to pursue his doctorate in Geological Sciences. During Vishal’s academic career, he has successfully pursued internships at BP, ConocoPhillips and BHP Billiton, and was the captain of the UT Imperial Barrel team in 2010. He has also actively participated at numerous industry conferences and has received numerous industry-related awards based on his research in graduate school. Vishal’s current doctoral research at the QCL involves the investigation of the development of sedimentary fill within minibasin provinces through applications in physical modeling experiments and subsurface data analysis in deepwater Morocco and the Gulf of Mexico. Yuribia MuñozUniversity of HoustonYuribia Muñoz is a senior at the University of Houston where she has pursued a degree in Earth Science. She is currently working on her senior honors thesis on modern sedimentation rates in Flandres Bay, Antarctic Peninsula with Dr. Julia Wellner. She is a member of the Honors College and has received Dean’s List honors. She is also a member of Phi Kappa Phi and Golden Key Honor Societies. Last year, Yuribia spent two months on a research cruise to the Antarctic Peninsula working with scientists and students from the U.S., England, Belgium, Spain, and Korea. This summer she will attend geology field camp in Montana and in the Fall 2011 she will begin her graduate studies with a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship and a Merage Foundation Fellowship. Jason OestreichSam Houston State UniversityJason Oestreich is a senior at Sam Houston State University a
Click here to download PDF of October 2011 Bulletin (high res)
Click here to download PDF of October 2011 Bulletin (low res)
Get Out and Have Some FunI’ll start off this month’s column by encouraging everyone to get out and have some fun. Enjoy one of our outstanding technical programs or social activities going on this month. There is a lot to choose from. These activities are the heart and soul of HGS. There has been quite a bit of discussion recently, occasionally even informed discussion, about the process of hydraulic fracturing. This technology has helped transform oil and gas development activity in the U.S. onshore over the past few years. Many of us have seen our jobs as explorationists rapidly transformed as mudstones and other unconventional reservoirs have become increasingly important. While there have been some contrarian voices, most people in the industry seem to think that these unconventional resources are real and constitute a “game changer” in the energy sector. These resources would have significant ramifications for policy makers; however, they seem reluctant to embrace this new energy source. Perhaps this is because many of them are heavily, albeit conceptually, invested in “green energy.” Exactly how “green” this energy is depends on how you wish to total up the environmental footprints of each. It’s not clear that natural gas doesn’t compare favorably with other environmentally friendly energy sources, but I’ll defer to the experts. Outside of the oil and gas industry, we are treated to controversy about the “new” fracking technology. In a real sense, this has become the latest vehicle by which people who want to limit use of hydrocarbons advance their agenda. The state of New York placed a moratorium on fracks for over a year. According to an independent study, it cost the state billions of dollars in lost economic activity and millions in lost tax revenues, during a time of severe budget crises at the local level. Shortly after this study came out, the state started to reverse its course. Each energy source has its own particular environmental footprint and set of economic costs. The market is pretty good at determining some of these costs, but virtually has no mechanism to capture other costs. For this reason many want to dictate energy policy, which gets subjective in a hurry. Most objective facts seem to fly out the window and discussion becomes driven by halftruths and fear. The lack of a meaningful energy plan for our country hurts our economy and our aspirations for the future. It would help if the general public had a better understanding of science. Teaching science as a priority in the schools again is an important step though indications are that Texas may be moving in the wrong direction. Besides hand wringing, what can we do about it? Over the past few years HGS has engaged in a number of programs to help promote science education. HGS members assisted the State Board of Education write the earth science portion of study plans for an updated high school science curriculum. We also have a number of successful ongoing programs. At the primary and secondary level, HGS provides judges in science fairs through the Engineering Council of Houston and scholarships for winners. Our representative here is Claudia Ludwig. We have bought a number of the USGS Tapestry of Time and Terrain geological maps that members can take to local schools as part of the Maps in Schools program. We are regularly asked for classroom speakers and supply these as we have volunteer resources available. Our big push this month is Earth Science Week with a number of activities October 8-16. Martha McRae is chair of this committee. An important resource in the city is the Houston Museum of Natural Science, and the HGS supplies volunteers there as well. Anyone interested in learning more about these programs can contact Inda Immega. At the university level, the HGS has its two scholarship programs, the HGS Foundation Fund and the Calvert Memorial Fund. This year, the HGS Board has once again agreed to provide matching funds up to $10,000 each to these two funds, and I urge you to consider making an individual contribution. We also support the regional Imperial Barrel Award competition, with judges and mentors to the local teams. It speaks to the quality of our region that the University of Texas at Austin team won the global competition last April. Our volunteer efforts for this activity are coordinated by Connie Mongold. Director Jennifer Burton works to pull all these programs together under the umbrella of the Educational Outreach Committee. Their goal is to continue successful programs and expand those where appropriate interest exists. What we need more than anything are additional volunteers. We were encouraged when 55 people responded to our initial request and have already held the inaugural meeting of this group. More about their activities is reported below. The committee plans to update its classroom materials, and make these kits available for members to check out. I encourage anyone who wished to help promote earth science, either in the schools or to the general public, to contact Jennifer. I hope you will join us. Contribute your time in support of these programs. Our jobs and the economic future of our kids and grandkids may depend on it. See you here again next month.
Initiatives in the Sedimentary Geology and Paleontology Community
A workshop on major initiatives in sedimentary geology and paleontology (SGP*) is scheduled for October 2011, at Marymount College, Washington, D.C. This workshop is a followup to a workshop that met during March 2011 to review decades-worth of academic and institutional white papers and reports on the current and future state of sedimentary geology and paleontology research. The conveners proposed that the initiatives outlined in the white papers and reports point to this common SGP community challenge: “Understanding the full range of Earth processes as recorded in deep time is vital for addressing urgent societal issues, and these Earth processes must be addressed in a systematic and interdisciplinary fashion”. The intent of these workshops is to develop and demonstrate unity of vision of the SGP community, its focus on critical research questions, and its strategy to garner funding to address this research. A few of the important themes under the unity-of-vision umbrella are paraphrased herein.
It is argued, and I agree, that we can best understand Anthropocene climate and ecosystems by first understanding how climate and paleobiological and geological processes functioned in different deep-time states. Deep-time records — those >2 million years before present — provide unique baseline data on pre-Anthropocene conditions that (1) contribute to true geologic models of Earth systems and (2) provide input to assessment of environmental perturbations and climate variation that are coincident with human land-use practices, energy and mineral resource extraction and consumption, marine harvesting, etc. Deep-time records also permit sampling over the lengths of time that allow consideration of multiple generations, even of long-lived species, throughout various kinds of climatic perturbation of decadal durations, e.g. multiple warming events and multiple anoxic events. The SGP’s overarching fundamental research focus i s the development and refinement of paleoenvironmental proxies toward development of paleoenvironmental models of modern-day utility.
The SGP workshop identified this opportunity: Although drilling lakes and oceans have proved important to understanding Earth systems, drilling and sampling of continental basins is now particularly crucial for the advancement of deep-time science. Continental drilling recovers core in which the effects of modern weathering are minimized, which is valuable for many baseline geochemical, biogeochemical, and geochronologic studies.
The SGP workshop identified this emerging strength: The combination of new sidereal, radioisotopic, and astrochronologic (<0.03% error) methods contribute to improved age models to calibrate Earth systems proxy records whether they are thousands of years or hundreds of millions years old. The power of new radiometric ages, incorporated with astrochronologic and biochronologic records, can produce continuous deep-time age models with Milankovitch-band resolution.
Nearly every white paper and report emphasized the need for significant increased funding for graduate and post-doc research. Because of inadequate research funding, university-level sedimentary geology and paleontology programs have been closed, and attrition among SGP faculty has been substantial. According to statistics from the American Geological Institute, the number of faculty members in SGP declined 51% between 1999 and 2010. Faculty attrition, along with a paucity of grant funding, has made it more difficult to attract and train master and doctoral degree students and to maintain post-docs. And subsequent to graduation, many pursue careers in the energy sector — drawn there by large salaries — thus making it even more difficult to attract researchers to academic careers. These trends, recognized domestically as well as internationally, threaten the viability of the very SGP disciplines and workforce described here as vital to society.
Importantly, the SGP workshops recognize that the physical stratigraphy of the Earth holds deposits of oil, gas, coal, coal, uranium, and minerals such as rare earths and clays, and that stratigraphic architecture controls much of the present distribution and recovery of those resources. Also, the SGP community recognizes that the U.S. will be largely dependent on those resources for many decades to come, though shifts in the global economy and politics are constant variables that affect resource sustainability and access to reserves.
A question begs to be answered: How will the energy and minerals industries partner with the academic and institutional sedimentary geology and paleontology community to optimize humanity’s relationship with these resources into the future? A townhall at the Geological Society of America meeting in Minneapolis in October is planned to present results of these workshop and to publicize the SGP community’s efforts. For more information see the website “Workshop on Major Initiatives in Sedimentary Geology and Paleontology” at http://www.uidaho.edu/sci/geology/sgpworkshop [password - workshop].
* SPG sciences include sedimentology, physical stratigraphy, sedimentary petrology, petroleum and coal geology, specialities in paleontology such as micropaleontology, invertebrate and vertebrate paleontology, palynology, paleobotany, paleoecology, and paleobiogeography, geomorphology, paleopedology, shore and nearshore processes, general soil science, and low-temperature geochemistry and stable isotopes.
The Wise Report
Henry M. Wise, P.G.
September 24, 2011
The Texas Board of Professional Geoscientists (TBPG) has proposed
amendments and new rules to the Texas Register. The proposed rules and
amendments can be found at https://tbpg.state.tx.us/RuleProposal9-19-11.doc and will
appear in the September 30, 2011 edition of the Texas Register. These new rules
represent a major revision and help to define what are considered to be
geological practices that will or will not require a PG seal. These rules
incorporate recommendations from the Oil and Gas Workgroup. I highly recommend
that all geologists, including those involved in oil and gas and minerals
exploration and extraction, climate change, and gas sequestration, review these
rules and make recommendations, if you think they are needed. Comments on the proposed rules may be submitted in
writing to Charles Horton by mail to: TBPG, PO Box 13225, Austin, Texas 78711;
by fax to 512/936-4409; or by email to chorton@tbpg.state.tx.us. Please
submit comments before October 31, 2011.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TBPG has posted Advisory Opinion #5, regarding the practice of
geoscience and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) in the
September 23, 2011 Texas Register. This advisory opinion can be found at: http://www.sos.state.tx.us/texreg/sos/in-addition/in-addition.html#156.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TBPG has posted Draft Advisory Opinion #6, "Does any and all
geoscientific work that is conducted through an academic institution or
non-profit research institution or for-profit organization automatically qualify
as "geoscientific research" for purposes of Texas Occupations Code
§1002.252(4)?" The draft advisory opinion can be found at: http://www.sos.state.tx.us/texreg/sos/in-addition/in-addition.html#158.
Henry M. Wise, P.G.
The Wise Report
9/24/2011
Registration is now open for the 2012 HGS Applied Geoscience Mudrocks Conference (AGC) "Integrated Approaches to Unconventional Reservoir Assessment and Optimization." Sold out in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011! Take advantage of the early bird registration! Click here to register.
2012 HGS Legends Night will be held on January 16, 2012. The topic will be "Unconventional Wildcatters." Registration will open on November 1, 2011. Please keep tuned for more information!
HGS members can help geoscientists affected by the Texas Wildfires near Houston and Austin. If you know of an HGS member or geoscientist that has been affected by the Texas Wildfires, please make them aware of this information. If you think HGS can help email webmaster@hgs.org. People can register for FEMA assistance online at www.disasterassistance.gov or via smart phone at m.fema.gov. Applicants may also call 1-800-621-FEMA (3362) The toll-free telephone numbers will operate from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. (local time) seven days a week until further notice. The Texas Disaster Relief Fund gives Texans the opportunity to donate money directly to Texas communities struck by disaster, and donations may be made by calling 1-866-463-7982, or view: http://www.texasdisasterrelieffund.org for more information. Waller County Fair Association is looking for bedding for people who have evacuated fires. They are offering shelter for people and animals. Call 979-826-2825. Waller County Annex is accepting donations of non perishable food clothes and pet food. Call 979-826-7745. Montgomery County Food Bank is accepting non perishable food donations. Call 936-539-6686.
The Houston Geological Society is pleased to once again offer its popular Grand Canyon Field Trip. This “Journey Through Time” will start in Las Vegas on July 8, 2012, and finish there on July 16. We will have the chance to become immersed in the stratigraphy of the Four Corners area from the Triassic back into the Precambrian. We will also see and discuss more recent events that have shaped the canyon and continue to do so. This trip involves seven nights of camping along the Colorado River and physical activity that ranges from white water rafting to hikes up to 6 miles, steep slopes, and occasional scrambling. Participants should be in reasonably good physical condition to fully enjoy the trip. Highlights of the 2010 Trip The last time this trip was offered was in June of 2010, when it was enjoyed by twelve HGS members, their guests, and four families who joined us. After gathering our possessions at McCarran Airport in Las Vegas, we boarded our vehicles and drove to Zion National Park to look at the impressive Navajo Sandstone outcrops there before continuing on to Marble Canyon and our motel. In the morning we were picked up by our outfitter, Hatch River Expeditions, and taken to Lee’s Ferry, where we finished loading our two motorized rafts that would be our main transportation for the next seven days down the river. The Vermilion Cliffs formed a beautiful backdrop here for our launch and we were quickly whisked into the canyon. The canyon here consists of Permian limestones, sands, and shales as we drift down-section with a few stops along the way to view fossil lizard tracks in the Coconino Sandstone and exfoliation jointing in sandstones of the Supai Group. Day two of our river trip finds us in the Mississippian Redwall Limestone as we raft down Marble Canyon. Sights include Vasey’s Paradise, Nautiloid Canyon, and a steep climb to visit an Anasazi Indian granary. Our pleasant ride down-river is punctuated by the rapids encountered at every side creek. Each evening our river guides fixed us a fine feast. Nature, however, provided the ambiance. Our third day is perhaps my favorite of this trip, as we descend into the classic transgressive Cambrian sequence and arrive at the Little Colorado River. Here we have a chance to play in the water and run a few “rapids” on our own. The water here is the most incredible sky blue color because of the significant amount of calcium carbonate dissolved in the water. Continuing on, we enter into a significant section of Precambrian sediments known as the Unkar and Chuar groups. On the 2010 trip we had time to walk up Carbon Creek to observe these ancient rocks and the Butte Fault before returning down Lava Creek. This was our longest hike of the trip. The next day our rafts enter the Inner Gorge. The canyon narrows as the steep walls, formed by Precambrian schist and granite, close around us. Almost every side-creek now causes a major rapid and we thrill in this exciting white water. A short walk up Clear Creek to a wonderful waterfall is very welcome and then we float down to Phantom Ranch and a little taste of civilization in the bottom of the canyon. Our evening is spent farther down river. Day five starts with more big rapids before we exit the Inner Gorge. A stop at Elves Chasm is a must. This gem of a side canyon requires a little scrambling, but we thoroughly enjoyed the beautiful pool here. This day also includes a stop at Blacktail Canyon, where we put our hands on the Great Unconformity, representing over one billion years of time missing from the rock record.The next day offers two wonderful hikes, the first being up Deer Creek. There is some fascinating geology to see and the scenery is exceptional as well. The second is up Matkatamiba Canyon and provides an opportunity to do our most interesting scrambling yet. We performed an impressive flash flood experiment here. Our final day in the rafts includes a short walk to play in Havasu Creek and then down to Lava Falls Rapids, perhaps the most exhilarating rapids of the trip. The lava seen in this part of the canyon is part of a series of basalt flows that dammed the ancient Colorado River as many as 13 times, starting about one million years ago and continuing to about 100,000 years ago. Our final night on the river is bittersweet and the next morning we say goodbye to our river guides and board helicopters that take us to the Bar 10 Ranch and real showers. From here we fly back to Las Vegas and the conclusion of this fine trip. The 2012 Trip Please join us next year and consider bringing your family members. There is a wealth of geology to see and discuss. We will try to keep the main discussion at a level that can be appreciated by the layman, but there is also time to delve deeper into the geology and other aspects of this fascinating area. We will also discuss its natural and human history. The scenery is of course phenomenal and different from the experience of looking down at it from the rim. The white water is as thrilling as you care to make it, depending on where you sit on the raft. Our rafts are big and very stable in the water and the river guides are quite experienced in navigating these rapids. They also are helpful during the hikes and are great cooks. This trip offers something for anyone who enjoys the outdoors, and it is particularly great for high school or college students who have an interest in the sciences. Your trip leader has had plenty of experience in the Grand Canyon. I graduated from the University of Arizona with a B.S. in Geoscience in 1974. During my time there, I had the opportunity to hike many areas in the Grand Canyon, getting to know it intimately. This will be my third raft trip down the river. This field trip was originally put together by Dave Lazor who ran it for many years before retiring and turning it over to me. You may contact me with questions at steve.hgs@gmail.com or at 281-435-5020. Cost of this trip is $3,100, which includes all transportation from Las Vegas to the canyon and back, one night in a motel, food and drink while on the river, and a sleeping kit for camping. Not included are airfare to Las Vegas, your first dinner on our travel day, any special libations you feel you need, and optional tips for the river guides. A $300 deposit is all that is required at this time to hold your spot, with the balance due by January 10, 2012. You can register here. The rafts hold a maximum of 28 participants and registration for the trip commonly fills fairly quickly so you are encouraged to sign up early to avoid disappointment. Don’t miss this chance to experience the magnificence and grandeur of the Grand Canyon up close.