Currently

For our final luncheon meeting of the season we are honored and excited to present John Hoffmeister, former CEO of Shell Oil, founder of Citizens for Affordable Energy, and author of Why We Hate the Oil Companies. There will be a book signing prior to the luncheon beginning at 10:30 AM, so plan to arrive early. Be aware that the meeting date has been changed from our regular 3rd Wednesday of the month to Tuesday May 31st to accommodate Mr. Hoffmeister’s busy speaking schedule.

The EIA shrimp boil is set for May 5th at Desiree’s in the Art Center. This is always a relaxing and fun way to end the meeting season, and to find out what plans your colleagues have for the summer. See the announcement in this issue for details.

The annual Family Fossil Hunt is set for May 21st. This eagerly anticipated annual event is open to member’s families and their guests. Look for the announcement in this issue. And remember to bring your shovels and trowels!

Hunting is certainly popular in our part of the world. Deer, antelope, feral hog, duck, quail are popular game. So are geese. In this month’s “Life in the Patch” segment Dennis Taylor, the man responsible for “bagging” Mr. Hoffmeister, tells his story of a successful wild goose chase. If that sounds contradictory, you’ll just have to read his account – it may not be what you expect.

Recently

Your CCGS placed a booth on the exhibit floor at the recent AAPG convention in Houston. It was a terrific display, thanks primarily to member Sara Davis and all her hard work. I am extremely grateful to Sara's employer Seismic Ventures, who defrayed our entry fee by donating $550, and to Lone Star Exhibits for donating all the furniture. Without their support we would not have exhibited at this convention. See the photo page of our booth in this issue.

Our presence was an unqualified success. I'm told the preliminary registration numbers for the convention are over 8000 people and I believe it by the steady stream of visitors we spoke to. We sold enough products to net a small gain, but the big prize was generating interest in the Bones in Schools project to people and organizations throughout the Gulf and beyond. Most exciting was connecting with individuals who represent foundations looking for this kind of educational program to sponsor. Incoming president Mike Lucente and I will follow up on these conversations over the summer, and hopefully Mike will have good news to report in next season’s newsletters.

Commentary

Owen Hopkins

I am still struggling to accept the loss of our friend Owen Hopkins. Throughout the decades the CCGS has been blessed to have received outstanding and dedicated service from many members, but I don’t think it’s unfair to say none gave more of themselves to this Society than Owen. His many years of service as bookkeeper was only the beginning. Together with Frank Cornish, he started the education liaison committee in 1991, which promoted, among other things, the Jr. Rockhound program. For 15 years or so that was the Society’s flagship community outreach offering, and it remains wildly popular to this day. By the time he received the CCGS Honorary Member Award, our highest honor, in 1992, he had barely gotten started. He helped develop the "spinning wheel" mineral give-away which became a fixture at the Gem and Mineral show, and the Geologic Dig put on every year at Bayfest. Those ideas were signature Owen, crafting a simple, fun way to capture a child's interest and allow for a moment of discovery.

Then Owen retired. From Suemaur that is. Now the CCGS became his full-time job, and oh, what a career it was! Within months he was our President, and who can forget that year’s kickoff event held at the Science Museum when Owen presented, in his own inimitable, frenetic way, the 3 prong educational initiative: Maps in Schools, Bones in Schools, and Boulders in Schools. It’s hard to believe that was only 5 years ago. I remember thinking what an ambitious plan it was and seriously wondering if enough funds could be raised to carry it as far as Owen was aiming for. I should have known better. We all witnessed the incredible passion and energy Owen put into these projects. He was everywhere, selecting artists and framers, overseeing designs, gathering materials including quarry trips for fossils and boulders. He located graphic artists and printers, he lined up a science educator to write teaching curricula, he found student helpers, he made numerous presentations to the board for support of his ideas, and he raised money in the form of donations like no one else before. He went all over the countryside in south Texas and beyond promoting his educational programs, successfully garnering the interest and donations of businesspersons, civic groups, foundations, and citizens alike. He was determined to counteract the diminishing role of earth science in the primary schools by "planting the seeds of geologic curiosity".

But most of all, Owen was in the schools, interacting with thousands of kids, delivering his philosophy that "Science is fun, science is good", particularly the Earth Sciences. His attitude and enthusiasm was infectious and the kids were spellbound. If, between 5 and 10 years from now, there is a surge of earth science majors enrolling in college, I'll know who to thank. Other affiliated geologic societies saw his work and results and wanted to participate. His efforts culminated in the national Public Service Award presented annually by the AAPG in 2009. And the awards are still coming. At our most recent meeting your CCGS board voted to change the Library Exhibit and Continuing Education Fund to the Owen R. Hopkins Education Fund. And also, I am honored to report that the GCAGS, during its spring board of directors meeting April 9th, voted unanimously to rename its annual teaching award, the Owen R. Hopkins Outstanding Earth Science Teacher Award.

It was a wonderful and purposeful “second” career. Sadly, it was much too short.

Season Highlights

The CCGS accomplished much this year. Highlights include the scholarship fund, which grew by $28,000, helped by a $10,000 match from the GCAGS. Eight students received scholarships this season, totaling $6,500. We presented the Bones in School material to over 74 local schools this past season (Eddie Hrncir was instrumental in keeping this going while Owen was dealing with his illness), while Maps in Schools, now promoted by the AAPG, is in over 700 schools nationwide (that we know of). The Boulders in Schools got its start this season, with 3 local schools now displaying a boulder field in their schoolyard. The two high school paleo clubs, started by a grant from the CCGS, remain popular, and are now self funded. We still provide new aprons with logos, evidence of the clubs' popularity. For the first time we exhibited our outreach educational programs with booths at the GCAGS and AAPG conventions. Junior Rockhound visits were made throughout the season, and as always, received with wild enthusiasm. This valuable program could probably stand more attention next school year. We hosted a one-day industry course on Practical Salt Tectonics, and an evening "social" featuring Dinah Bowman describing her JOIDES deep sea coring expedition. The Sea Level Change video nears completion – I still hope to be able to premier it before the end of our season. The contract was signed to produce the Wooden Rigs/Iron Men video, expected to be released by early next year.

My thanks to all the volunteers who spread our educational programs throughout our community. To Dennis Taylor and Bob Critchlow for finding interesting and educational speaking and reading material (respectively) for our Society. I want to thank my fellow officers on the board for all their hard work, good ears, and better advice. Their support and guidance has made this season a great success, despite some trying circumstances. Lastly, the CCGS couldn’t function without the constant effort of all our committee chairs and I offer my heartfelt thanks to each and every one of you. You made my job so much easier and allowed our Society to remain viable and important. I am honored to have led such a worthwhile organization.

Rick Paige
CCGS President, 2010-11

Currently

Global climate change never ceases to generate controversy and debate. Satellite data shows average global temperatures have increased over most of the last 3 decades. The generally accepted values reported within the scientific community is an average global increase of 1 degree C over the last 125 years. Is this long-term warming trend due to natural causes, man-made causes, or both? This month's speaker, Terry Donze, will share his conclusions from years of climate study at our monthly technical luncheon, Wednesday, April 20th. It promises to be a lively presentation you won't want to miss.

If you enjoyed Roger Young's talk last month on extracting lithology, porosity, and fluid information from seismic data, but wanted to linger, or review his marvelous data slides a little longer, your wish has been granted. This month's technical article publishes Roger's entire presentation set. And don't forget, if you want to see or print the material in color, then access the Bulletin online at our website, www.ccgeo.org.

Recently

I hope you were able to attend the Dinah Bowman - Deep Sea Coring Expedition social event held at the Corpus Christi Art Center March 24th. This event, showcasing Dinah's expedition artwork, so intrigued the Art Center curators that they asked her to include it in their month-long Festival of the Arts. Many thanks to Dennis Taylor for organizing the event, Dinah for sharing her art and adventures, and our sponsors, Core Lab, SEI, and Schlumberger, for providing financing.

Continuing education chairman Mike Saenz scored a real coup when he brought us a 1- day, salt-tectonics short course March 30th taught by world renowned salt researcher and educator, Mark Rowan. Mike found a way to offer the course at a substantial discount to the industry standard. I hope you were able to take advantage of this valuable, and convenient opportunity. Thanks go to the BEG for subsidizing the course cost, and to our local sponsors, Jackie Hale and the Wilson Plaza, Dennis Moore of Baker Atlas, and Zorro Petroleum.

Commentary

Energy Reality in America, final entry.


Over the course of this Energy Reality in America series I have highlighted many energy forms in terms of raw resource abundance and output capacity. I have attempted to show the level to which each could, hypothetically, take over as our nation’s primary source of energy. Many of you have probably noted that, for the most part, I have not included a discussion of the economics of each fuel source. You might wonder the worth of describing an energy resource when its market value is not considered. That’s a fair question. I didn't leave the market side out of the discussion by error, however. It was deliberate for a couple of reasons. First, many of the United State’s energy sources are treated like commodities, and therefore subject to the whims of a (sometimes) volatile commodity trading market. Prices change daily, sometimes dramatically (for instance oil over the last month, or the previous 18 months for that matter), and often as much for political reasons as for true supply and demand fundamentals. Consequently, including an economic framework in my evaluation would have limited the conclusions to a snapshot in time.

Which leads to the second, more compelling reason I haven’t included an economic model in this energy discussion: regardless the price we pay, modern America requires a tremendous amount of raw energy to support our modern lifestyle (16 – 17 billion BOE/yr during the last decade¹). If this composite total energy level isn’t reached, something will have to go. Energy is not a luxury item we can choose to do without when prices go up. I’m not implying economics don’t matter. Quite the contrary, they are critical. Energy costs are probably the most basic and impactful element within any nation’s economy. But energy markets are extremely complex and variable, made even moreso by ever changing regulations, government fees and subsidies, and political instability. However, the bottom line remains: regardless what the trading markets are doing, our nation will need 45 million BOE in one form or another each and every day if we are to continue living as we do.

Now, I do believe there is a lot of waste and inefficiency in that composite energy total. Efficiency improvements and conservation measures available right now could, and I’m just guessing here, reduce total energy consumed by perhaps as much as 15%. That would mean we still need to produce and/or import a total of 14 billion BOE/yr. Which domestic resources can provide that energy? Are we going to continue to send a huge portion of our national capital overseas by importing 30% (currently) or more of the total energy we need?

Every Presidential administration since I reached voting age, including the latest, has promoted energy independence or "energy security" in some form. Those goals generally refer to more domestically produced energy and less imported. If that is truly our national objective (and I think it should be), then we need to be realistic about our domestic energy resources. As a nation we need to choose wisely which domestic energy resources receive substantial capital outlays. That decision, in my opinion, should be driven primarily (but not necessarily entirely) by the marketplace. Relative abundance of a resource is (or should be) factored into the market condition. With that in mind, the energy choices I've highlighted in the preceding months have attempted to determine each one's relative domestic abundance, now and in the future. Among those I’ve reported on, and even those I didn’t, it’s clear that some domestic energy resources have the potential to supply a large share of the national load, while others will remain minor contributors.

Among the latter, wind and solar energy are limited by low power output relative to the unit space required. There just isn’t enough available land surface in the U.S., with suitable wind and sun conditions to supply more than a fraction of our total energy need.² These industries need technological advancements that substantially increase electricity output per unit while simultaneously reducing capital costs.

Hydrothermal energy (deep, hot, geopressured water wells) can never achieve the number of wells necessary to supply more than a fraction of our energy demand for the simple reason that drilling a deep, highly overpressured well for the purpose of powering a hybrid power plant is uneconomic. It can only work serendipitously using someone else’s “sunk” money dry hole³.

Ethanol, particularly from corn, is generally a net energy loser. The best results are about break-even, but depending on soil, weather, and corn type, it frequently takes more energy to produce the ethanol than is received from it⁴. So corn ethanol doesn't make sense even before market value is considered. Other bio fuels, such as vegetable oil, wood, and agricultural wastes may be cost competitive in certain local areas, and they are certainly welcome in those energy markets. But they can never produce a national volume to supply but a small fraction of our energy needs.

Hydrogen and its related fuel cell technologies are wonderfully clean energy types, but like ethanol, are currently net energy losers. Despite being the most abundant element in the universe, hydrogen does not exist naturally in its elemental state, at least not on Earth. It must be extracted from larger molecules, like water or natural gas. Extracting hydrogen from natural gas (steam reforming process) is a bit of a circular method for gathering energy in that it is only 80 % efficient, gives off the same volume of greenhouse gases (compared to burning the natural gas directly), and still requires natural gas to be produced in the first place⁵. Another extraction process, electrolysis of water to separate hydrogen from oxygen, requires anywhere from 40 to 100% more energy than is produced by the recovered hydrogen gas⁶.

Hydroelectric power does have the potential to supply a significantly larger portion of our energy needs, even potentially all of our electricity demand⁷, and at competitive costs, IF we are willing to build hundreds to thousands more dams. I don't think, however, that is a realistic or wise proposition for obvious reasons.

Oil, while still abundant globally, is on the downward side of peak production in this country, ⁸ with long-term demand still growing. As you recall from my first Energy Reality installment we only produce 33% of our consumed oil, which represents only 13% of our total energy budget. Opening up areas currently off-limits for exploration can help, but even with new discoveries, we will, in all likelihood, not eliminate the need to import oil.

Which leaves only 3 readily available, domestic sources of energy that have the potential to satisfy the bulk of our energy thirst: natural gas, coal, and nuclear. Regarding the first, I am, of course, biased, but I think it's clear that with a resource base (estimate of ultimate recovery of known and yet-to-be discovered reserves) of around 15,000 Tcf in the U.S.⁹ (enough to hypothetically provide our total energy needs for 169 years), its proven advantages regarding emissions among fossil fuels, and its flexibility as a combustible fuel, natural gas should be a main focus of our energy plan. Additionally, a concerted, national, research effort into commercially capturing methane hydrates from the GOM seafloor could also have a huge impact on our energy security.

Regarding coal, I believe a serious effort should be put into in-situ coal gasification (essentially an evolution of coalbed methane production techniques). Being able to economically extract methane from coal in place would allow us to use our most abundant domestic energy resource in a less impactful manner. If we don't invest in this research now, the day will come when out of sheer desperation we will mine and burn coal in shocking quantities that dwarf today's consumption.

And finally nuclear. Despite the frightening consequences of a tragedy such as that unfolding in Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, nuclear energy fits the criteria of abundant raw material, high output per unit area¹⁰, economic viability, and produces no emissions to boot. I think we need to be more open minded about breeder reactors, and spent fuel reprocessing. Also, we need to commit more research into the subject of safe nuclear waste disposal (we were so close at Yucca Mountain) AND plant operations, especially involving contingency plans during natural and man-made disasters.

Lastly, for the long-term future we should be willing to invest research dollars into “22nd ” century energy sources, preparing for that day when fossil fuels are no longer abundant enough to be economically viable. An example of one such possibility is fusion energy, which has showed promise in the lab, but is a long, long way from practicality. One of our illustrious speakers, astronaut Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt, told us of his idea to mine isotopic helium from the Moon to use in fusion reactions on Earth¹¹. If perfected, the beauty of this concept is it uses nonradioactive fuel, generates electricity directly through the release of protons thereby creating the potential for high conversion efficiency, emits no air or water pollution, and produces only minor low-level radioactive waste ¹². Other fusion design ideas utilizing deuterium/tritium reactions have been proposed; we need to fund research into all these areas for our own future security.

This, in my humble opinion, would be the best use of federal money spent on energy independence efforts. Cap and trade regulations, or repeal of oil and gas tax incentives put in place to offset risk, don't help, and in fact reduce energy independence. On the other hand, improvements in domestic energy viability (or 'sustainability', to use the latest buzzword) helps ALL Americans.

Focusing on, and improving the effectiveness of the resources we have in abundance now, while at the same time researching the power sources of the future, will enable us to once again achieve the energy independence we seek.

Next month: What does it all mean?

Rick Paige
CCGS President, 2010-11

--------
¹ CCGS Bulletin, President's Letter, Nov. 2010
² CCGS Bulletin, President's Letter, Dec. 2010
³ CCGS Bulletin, President's Letter, Jan. 2011
⁴ www.wikipedia.com; search "ethanol fuel energy balance" for a summary of recently published articles.
⁵ www.wikipedia.com
⁶ Ibid
⁷ Salvador, Amos; Energy: A Historical Perspective and 21st Century Forecast, AAPG Studies in Geology #54, 2005.
⁸ See any discussion of the Hubbert Peak. A particularly good one, if you can find it, is Silence. The Sound of the Coming Energy Crisis, by Warren L. Seal, , 2003.
⁹ USGS as reported in Salvador, Amos, Ibid.
¹⁰ CCGS Bulletins, President's Letter, Jan 2011, Feb 2011
¹¹ CCGS Technical Luncheon, May 2009
¹² Schmitt, Harrison H., Return to the Moon: Exploration, Enterprise, and Energy in the Human Settlement of Space, Copernicus Books, 2006.

Currently

Mark you calendars! March 24th, V.P. Dennis Taylor has set up wonderful, after-hours social event featuring local artist Dinah Bowman describing her "summer vacation" as a crew member aboard a deep sea coring vessel! This is a free, non-technical event for members and their spouses, and promises to be an evening of merriment and storytelling. See the announcement in this issue for all the details.

In oil and gas exploration the one data type we probably spend more time and money on is seismic. With that kind of investment who hasn't tried to process more information from this valuable commodity? From AVO to inversion to attributes, the choices in the seismic processing "supermarket" are numerous, and this month we are pleased to be able to offer another proven technique at the luncheon meeting, Wednesday March 16th. Roger Young, co-founder of eSeis will tell us how we can extract petrophysical data from our seismic data in his talk titled "Seismic Petrophysics - A Bigger Bang for the Buck". Continuing the theme of extracting rock properties from seismic, be sure to read Michael Smith's paper on using rock property inversion to detect porosity in the Edwards reef complex. Also in this issue, editor Bob Critchlow has acquired an entertaining story for the "Life in the Patch" series, submitted by the mysterious "Happy Mapper". Happiness for the "Mapper" is, apparently, a relative thing.

Recently

Reports I'm receiving is that the recent NAPE convention in Houston was a big draw with over 15,000 registered. If you were one of those attending, I hope you found the buyer or seller you were looking for.

The History committee, led by chairman Ray Govett, has taken stock of their financial status and decided the time has come to create the south Texas oil and gas history documentary film following the success of our 'Wooden Rigs, Iron Men' publication. Due to the severe recession recently endured, the project never was able to receive the major funding necessary to produce a video product marketable to national TV audiences via networks like PBS, the History Channel, or the Discovery Channel. Nevertheless we have raised enough to produce a high quality documentary, incorporating the invaluable video interviews of our senior members that Ray's group has been compiling throughout the last 10 years or so. We should have a finished product by early 2012 that will be offered to our local PBS station, schools, libraries, and interested civic groups. For more information, and to continue to help the cause, please contact Ray.

Commentary

Energy Reality in America, continued.
Coal

Coal is by far the most abundant fossil fuel in the world¹. According to the latest BP world energy report there are currently 909 billion short tons of commercial, technically recoverable reserves available worldwide. On a BTU basis, that is 3.5 times the 6,621 Tcf of proved global natural gas reserves². These figures predate much of the surging shale gas reserves, but even with those added reserves (and it remains to be seen, in the years to come, how many of the newly reported shale gas reserves will be economic), gas can’t equal coal. In this country we have enough known coal reserves to supply us for over 250 years at current consumption rates³. Coal, it would seem, is a marvelous resource to have at our disposal.

But coal has a (ahem..pardon the pun) dark side. It is the dirtiest of the 3 major fossil fuels. We’ve all heard the figures: burning coal on average releases twice as much CO2 as natural gas. It also gives off significant quantities of nitrous and sulfurous oxides, which, in high enough concentration, leads to acid rain. By contrast, natural gas produces 1/4 the nitrous oxides and virtually zero sulfurous oxides⁴. Further, 10 percent of burned coal remains as a solid residue, called fly ash. Fly ash is made up of mostly metal oxides and alkalis containing small amounts of mercury, lead, and arsenic⁵. Finding a suitable place to dispose of fly ash is not easy, just ask the citizens of Kingston Tennessee. On December 22, 2008 an earthen berm holding back billions of gallons of fly ash slurry failed, creating a 5.4 million cubic yard flash flood of heavy, viscous coal waste. Twelve homes were engulfed and 42 residences damaged⁶.

As if that isn’t enough, mining coal is no picnic either. Underground, open pit, or mountaintop removal, they all have serious downsides. And lastly because it is a solid, practical uses for coal are somewhat limited. I think it is safe to say that automobiles will never be made to run on coal, and the days of home heating with coal are over, hopefully forever.

So what are we to make of this abundant blessing/curse? Well coal has become the fuel of choice for electrical generation. According the Energy Information Administration, in 2009 44.5% of US electricity was generated using coal for fuel, more than any other fuel type⁷. In this capacity coal does have some attractive features. Supply is predictable, source locations don’t change frequently, and transportation routes have been in place for generations. And, fortunately, many advances have been made in capturing some coal emissions at power plants using modern carbon sequestration and air scrubber technologies. But so far, even with emission control systems, the majority of coal-fired power plants can’t reach the lower emission levels of gas⁸, and the captured coal emissions still have to be disposed of.

As I have done in each chapter of this series, I ask and answer the question whether our nation’s coal supply is sufficient to hypothetically supply our nation’s entire energy demand of around 16 billion BOE/year⁹. Before getting to the math it’s probably pretty obvious by now that the answer is yes. So, by the numbers, proved recoverable U.S. coal reserves of all ranks has remained about 271 billion short tons each of the last 20 years¹⁰. This is the energy equivalent of 1.12 trillion BOE, enough to supply all our current energy needs for the next 70 years¹¹.

Probably the best thing that could happen for the coal industry would be advancement in coal gasification and liquefaction technology. These processes already exist, but are not yet economical¹². Ideally gasification of coal would occur in situ, leaving the solids in place and removing predominantly only methane. Successful in-situ gasification processes were conducted as early as the mid 1930's, primarily in the former Soviet Union¹³, but again, cost and efficiencies don’t warrant its use at this time. Liquefaction of coal hydrocarbons is simply the next refining step after coal gas is collected.

The benefits of converting solid coal hydrocarbons to gas or liquids is twofold: less emissions and greater flexibility in application and transport. If the federal government really wants to have an impact on our nation’s long-term energy security, this is an area of research that could have tremendous benefit.

Next month: What does it all mean?

Rick Paige
CCGS President, 2010-11

--------
¹ Salvador, Amos; Energy: A Historical Perspective and 21st Century Forecast, AAPG Studies in Geology #54, 2005.
² BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2010, www.bp.com
³ Salvador, Amos, Ibid; and www.eia.doe.gov
⁴ www.naturalgas.org
⁵ Window on State Government, www.window.state.tx.us
⁶ www.wikipedia.com
⁷ www.eia.doe.gov
⁸ www.world-nuclear.org
⁹ CCGS Bulletin, President's letter, Nov. 2010
¹⁰ Salvador, Amos, Ibid.
¹¹ Energy conversion factors from The Geoscience Handbook, AGI Data Sheet, American Geological Institute, 4th ed, 2009, pgs 249-251.
¹² Salvador, Amos, Ibid.
¹³ www.wikipedia.com

Currently

For those of us still looking for prospects in rock just a little more permeable than the ongoing shale craze, be sure to attend this month's luncheon talk, "Looking for Gas in All the Tight Places" by Dr. Thomas Davis of the Colorado School of Mines, Reservoir Characterization Project. His study of multicomponent seismic could have applications throughout south Texas' tight-gas sandstones. For a preview, take a look at the slides from his presentation published in this issue. Also in this issue, be sure to read an enlightening story of perseverance and determination submitted by one of own, Owen Hopkins. His summary of the critical elements that turned one of his early prospects into the highly successful Broussard field is a must-read, especially among our younger members looking for advice on how to "work" a prospect.

Recently

Speaking of Owen, he continues to battle health problems, although if any of you had been around him prior to his recent surgery you'd be hard-pressed to know it. His energy and enthusiasm are boundless and inspiring. For the past 5 years or so he has been the de facto face of the CCGS within the community, tirelessly bringing our educational vision to schools, businesses, and government. And not just here but throughout the nation! I'm sure I speak for the entire membership when I write our thoughts are with him, and we pray for his full recovery.

Commentary

Energy Reality in America, continued.
Nuclear fuel resources

Last month I described electrical generation capacity of the U.S. nuclear power industry and commented on its potential to add significantly to our total energy output. But what about the supply of nuclear fuel? Uranium is almost exclusively the source of nuclear fuel in the U.S., and to understand its availability and accessibility one must understand the nuclear fuel cycle. Uranium, it turns out, is a fairly common metal element within the earth's crust. About 0.00016 % by weight (1.6 ppm), which makes it about as common as tin, lead, and tungsten, and an order of magnitude more common than silver.¹ It is also widely distributed, found in a variety of concentrations within igneous (mostly pegmatitic granites), metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks. Igneous rock assemblages, particularly volcanic and hydrothermal veins, are generally considered the primary sources of uranium. Weathering of those primary sources dissolves and mobilizes the uraniferous minerals. Concentrated accumulations occur as detritus in surface deposits, as vein-like deposits formed in fault/fracture zones, and as precipitates in subsurface sandstones.² Consequently, mining for uranium minerals takes many forms, including open pit surface mining, underground tunneling, and in-situ leaching by wells. Regardless the type of native ore, the concentrated milled product sent off for enrichment is called yellowcake (U3O8) and typically contains around 75% uranium minerals.³ In the U.S. 90 % of the known uranium reserves are contained within sedimentary host rocks. ⁴ Uraniferous minerals form in conglomerates, sandstones, shales, and coals, but of these only the conglomerate and sandstone deposits have concentrations high enough to classify as commercial ore at today's prices.

To understand the next step in the nuclear fuel cycle requires a short primer on how uranium is used as a fuel. Uranium minerals naturally contain 0.7% of the isotope U235. This fissile component of uranium generates heat during radioactive decay, which is then used to generate steam in a nuclear power plant. However, for this process to work a sustained reaction must be induced, and for that to happen the uranium fuel must be "enriched" to a U235 concentration of between 4-4.5% (by contrast, weapons grade uranium is enriched to 90% U235). Suffice it to say, from 1000 metric tons (2.2 million pounds) of yellowcake, about 105 metric tons (231 thousand pounds) of enriched uranium fuel (UO2) is produced.⁵

How much yellowcake does our nuclear industry need to maintain its capacity? Exact numbers are a little hard to come by, but according to a variety of sources, a typical 1000 Mw civilian nuclear power plant in the U.S. produces between 25 and 27 metric tons of spent enriched nuclear fuel each year.⁶ This must be regularly replaced to maintain output capacity, which means that altogether the 104 operational nuclear power plants in this country need approximately 6 million pounds of fresh, enriched uranium fuel (UO2) each year. That translates to a raw supply of 57 million pounds of concentrated yellowcake (U3O8) each year.

So, how robust is the U.S. supply of yellowcake? According to the Department of Energy's (DOE) Energy Information Administration (EIA), in 2009 the U.S. mined 3.7 million pounds of concentrated yellowcake, not nearly enough to supply our national fuel need. Peak production was 4.5 million pounds in 2007, still well below the quantity necessary to keep our nukes running at full capacity. Some of the fuel consumed by U.S. nuclear power plant operators is purchased from Russia in the form of reprocessed and diluted weapons grade nuclear material, a result of the partial dismantling of former Soviet Union military stockpiles.⁷ But the bulk of the yellowcake supply is imported. Australia, Canada, and Namibia are the 3 largest international suppliers to the U.S.⁸

Currently Australia has the largest known recoverable commercial reserves of yellowcake, estimated at 1.67 million metric tons (3.7 trillion pounds). This is 2.5 times the next source country, Kazakhstan at 651 thousand metric tons (1.4 trillion pounds).⁹In the U.S. the DOE estimates that at current prices we have 539 million pounds of known yellowcake reserves, about enough to last 10 years without imports. But what is the prospectivity of significantly more undiscovered native reserves waiting to be found? I have my own non-expert opinion, which I'll share below.

But first, as many of you are aware, south Texas has a major hand in the yellowcake supply game. Since October 2005 local operator, Mestena Uranium, LLC, has been producing yellowcake from the Alta Mesa Project in Brooks county using the in-situ leaching (ISL) method.¹⁰ To help me understand the geology and engineering of the Alta Mesa field I contacted Kevin Frenzel, senior geologist with Mestena, and supervisor of Alta Mesa field development. Kevin explained that in Alta Mesa the uranium ore lies in sandstone units of the Goliad formation less than 800' deep, and forms narrow, elongate mineralized deposits called "roll fronts". These roll fronts form where uranium- charged mobile groundwater encounters a change in Eh/pH causing the dissolved uranium to precipitate. Injecting oxygen changes the water chemistry from reductive to oxidizing, redissolving the uranium. The uranium-bearing groundwater is pumped out, put through a process to reprecipitate and extract the uranium oxide, and then the uranium-depleted water is returned to the productive formation. In Alta Mesa field a good well will produce 40 -50 gal/min groundwater containing 300 ppm dissolved U. It can produce up to 50 -60 pounds/day of concentrated yellowcake. Depletion is fairly quick by oil and gas standards, with a typical well producing commercial quantities for 6 months to a year. A roll front is commonly 30 to 35' wide (along depositional dip), and long and sinuous in the depositional strike direction. Field development will involve drilling many wells, both injectors and extractors, typically on 75' spacing, following the front much like a hard rock miner follows a vein. But unlike oil and gas wells, uranium leach wells are inexpensive as they can be drilled with water well rigs, and cased with PVC.

Currently the Alta Mesa Project is one of only 3 operating ISL sites in this country.¹¹ Add to that a total of 14 underground uranium mines operating at the end of 2009 (zero open pit mines) and you can see we don't have a very large production capacity in this nation. This brought my discussion with Kevin to the prospect of undiscovered potential for uranium mining in south Texas. Based on this conversation and additional reading, it is my understanding that regional proximity to volcaniclastic mountainous uplifts, such as the Eocene/Oligocene Sierra Madre Oriental in northern Mexico and west Texas, is key. A heavy ash-fall component blanketing large portions of watershed drainage systems increases the potential for uranium enrichment in surface and groundwaters.¹² High transmissivity also plays a strong role, meaning that alluvial fan and fluvial depositional systems (the latter found in abundance within Tertiary south Texas depositional systems, such as the Goliad, Oakville and Catahoula formations) are likely hosts for uranium mineralization fronts.

So, in my non-expert opinion, there is high potential for significantly more uranium reserves in south Texas. Supporting this viewpoint, most of us in the oil and gas industry have observed "hot" gamma-ray signatures of radioactive sands within the Tertiary section, which may represent preserved roll fronts. Determining the commercial value of any of these is simply a matter of depth, areal extent, and price. Furthermore, I believe the nature of uranium dissolution and transport bodes well for the likelihood of additional commercial production in sedimentary basins flanking other orogenic belts in the U.S., including the Rocky Mountains, Sierra Nevadas, and maybe even the older Ouachitas and Appalachians.

It just might behoove those of us in the oil and gas drilling biz, as we explore and develop the Gulf Coast onshore province, to run an open-hole log over the fresh-water, surface- cased interval from time to time. We just might find a commercial uranium resource to promote along with an oil and gas field!

Next month: coal.

Rick Paige
CCGS President, 2010-11

P.S. My thanks to Kevin for educating me on ISL mining in general and Alta Mesa field development in particular.

--------
¹ Press, F., and R. Siever, Earth, W.H. Freeman & Co., 1978.
² Galloway, W.E., and D.K. Hobday, Terrigenous Clastic Depositional Systems, Springer-Verlag, 1983.
³ www.areva.com
⁴ Galloway, W.E., and D.K. Hobday, Ibid.
⁵ www.wise-uranium.org, Nuclear Fuel Material Balance Calculator.
⁶ www.eia.doe.gov. Also, www.world-nuclear.org. And, Press, F, and R. Siever, Ibid.
⁷ www.usec.com/megatonstomegawatts.htm
⁸ www.wise-uranium.org
⁹ www.world-nuclear.org
¹⁰ Tanner, G., and P. Goranson, Newest in situ Uranium Mine in South Texas, CCGS Bulletin, Feb 2007.
¹¹ www.eia.doe.gov
¹² Galloway, W.E., and D.K. Hobday, Ibid.

Currently

To each and every one of you I wish a happy and prosperous New Year. For those of us working in the petroleum industry, I have a couple of wishes. I hope 2011 brings some gas price improvement like it did for oil in 2010. And I hope all our prospects get drilled, new fields are discovered, and development is successful. To help us in the latter, Michael Smith with Geotrace will speak to us this month on extracting rock properties in resource plays from high resolution seismic. And our paper this month, by Lowell Waite of Pioneer Natural Resources, brings new insights into the distribution and predictability of reservoir properties in the Stuart City reef trend.

Recently

The CCGS has committed the financial resources to finish our ambitious Sea Level Change video. Estimated release date is March. This promises to be a tremendously valuable teaching tool, describing the local effects of prehistoric climate change on sea level throughout the last full glacial episode. It will be geared for 7th grade through adult and offered to many venues including area schools, libraries, the Natural History Museum, the Aquarium, KEDT, and Padre Island National Park visitor's center. It will establish for the general public the fact that climate and sea level change is not new, and in fact has changed dramatically even within human prehistory. I envision having a grand premier at the start of one of our technical luncheon meetings, so stay tuned for the announcement!

Commentary

Energy Reality in America, continued.
Hydrothermal

An interesting alternative energy proposal has reappeared in recent years - hydrothermal. Not the electricity produced from hot springs, which I refer to as geothermal. No, this proposal should be of interest to anyone who has ever drilled a dry hole in the geopressured Gulf Coast. The idea is to build a hybrid binary power plant at a well that has penetrated an overpressured, high temperature (> 220F), high permeability (15 md or better), thick reservoir rock ( 60' gross interval or more. Think Frio, Vicksburg, Yegua)¹. Electricity could be generated from 3 potential energy sources at the same time: mechanical from high water flow rates, thermal from the hot brine, and chemical from entrained low-saturation gas. Talk about turning a lemon into lemonade! You lose an oil and gas prospect but gain a power plant!

Sound far-fetched? Well it's already been tried, over 20 years ago in Brazoria County. A DOE-sponsored pilot program built just such a power plant at the DOE Pleasant Bayou #2 well. It was designed to capture all 3 energy sources, but in practice was only able to process the heat exchange (BHT 309F/ Surface 277F), and the entrained gas (estimated at 440mcf/d). The plant ran for 121 days, operated 97% of the time, and flowed at an estimated 20M BW/day with 22 scf gas/Bbl. It produced a net 905 kW/day, 45% thermally and 55% gas-generated². Now 905 kW is not much, about enough to supply 21 homes. But in the case of a dry hole drilled for oil and gas, it's better than nothing.

But could this resource ever have a measureable impact on our national energy budget? To estimate I determined that over the last 20 years, among onshore Gulf Coast wells drilled deeper than 12,000' (making for a pretty good certainty of TD in geopressure), there were 1881 outright dry holes.³ If as many as 50% of these encountered suitably thick, overpressured, brine-filled reservoirs (may be overly optimistic), then we had the potential for 940 hybrid binary power plants. And if they all had a net 905 kW/day output, the combined cumulative addition to the electrical grid would be 851 mW/d (assuming no depletion, and at least a 20 year plant lifespan). This represents about 7% of the nation's total net generation of 11.3 gigaWatt hours/day. Not enough to redirect our energy search, but maybe enough to turn a well from non-commercial to commercial.

To be sure there are many obstacles to overcome before this proposal can work, most of them legal. For instance, who owns the produced water (and therefore the energy extracted from it) - surface or mineral owner? What should the primary term be for a "brine" lease, and if longer than the gas lease, what happens to the gas interests after the primary gas term expires? How many acres should a producing "brine" unit well hold, and for a well that produces both brine and gas, which unit prevails? And there would, of course, be issues of downhole brine disposal. But these are all questions that can be answered, either in bureaucratic offices, legislative halls, or the courts. The main inquiry, the engineering question, has already been answered. The technology is available and the resource is waiting. All it takes now is the right set of economics and entrepreneurship.

Nuclear Energy

Nuclear fission used for the generation of electricity has been both hailed and reviled in this country since its commercial inception in 1958. Its potential is enormous but its perceived risks are considered extreme by some. To put nuclear energy in its appropriate national energy context requires a summary of the entire U.S. electrical generation capacity by fuel source. I'll use 2008 as a type year (latest year I can find complete data)⁴. That year our nation produced 3895 terrawatts of electricity from all sources, representing 34% of all the energy we consumed. Nuclear plants accounted for 19.6% of the electricity total. Renewable supplies contributed 9.2 %, dominantly from hydroelectric power plants. The remaining 71.2 % came from the burning of coal, natural gas, and oil. The breakdown was 48.4% from coal, 21.5% from natural gas, and only 1.1% from petroleum (it's too valuable as transportation fuel and petrochemical feedstock to be used to make electricity).

Currently

Shale resource plays continue to dominate our industry in cap ex, rig utilization, service company resources, and G&G. Regarding the latter, it behooves us all to learn as much as practical about how to high-grade these plays, and this month's talk focuses on just that. David Paddock of Schlumberger will show us how to better utilize our seismic data to delineate shale sweet spots. Be sure to RSVP ahead of time to avoid paying the higher walk-up cost.

Continuing in the shale theme, Technical Editor Bob Critchlow has secured permission to publish a follow-up to last month's talk on the discovery of Eagle Ford Hawkville Field by Gregg Robertson. "The Discovery, Reservoir Attributes, and Significance of the Hawkville Field and Eagle Ford Shale Trend, Texas", by Charles Cusack, et al, created a huge buzz at the GCAGS convention last month when it was first presented, and we are pleased to be allowed to publish it here.

Recently

One of the two pilot schools in the "Boulders in Schools" project has been finished. The new Gloria Hicks Elementary School has three boulders on permanent display, with descriptive signage, located right beside the front entrance. Now an example of the three major rock types will be seen each and every day by all the students as they enter school. This is the kind of high visibility we strive for with all of our donated educational materials. It can't help but spark curiosity and questions from the students. And to help the teachers feed that curiosity and answer those questions we plan to have a "Rock" curriculum written. Many thanks to all who helped get this test program underway, especially Dennis Moore who built and installed the signposts.

Currently
If you've ever been frustrated with your seismic resolution and depth ties be sure to come to this month's technical luncheon meeting November 17th. Morgan Brown's talk, "Applications of Wave Imaging Technologies to Improve Onshore U.S. Prospecting" will offer insights on how to get more out of your data. And if that sparks your interest, you'll be very interested to review Morgan's slides reprinted in this issue. Also in this issue the "Life in the Patch" entry is an entertaining story with the curious title "The Land that Will Always Be Water" by Bernard Dietz. Finally, to local college students reading this - note the scholarship announcement posted in this issue. The application deadline has been extended to December 3, 2010, with awards presented at the December 15th luncheon meeting.

Recently
I just returned from the 60th annual GCAGS conference held in San Antonio. Not surprisingly, shale resource plays, highlighted by the Eagle Ford, was a dominant topic, but there was a good mix of sessions providing a variety of worthwhile topics. Attendance was strong with over 1100 registered. While attending the convention board of directors meeting, I was reminded that scholarship donations to affiliated societies (like us) are matched up to $10,000 by GCAGS. So, if you have procrastinated about making a contribution to the CCGS scholarship fund, let this be your incentive! And, finally, as if there was any question about the popularity of shale plays, the DUG (Developing Unconventional Gas) conference, underwritten by Hart Energy Publishers, was held in San Antonio a few days prior to GCAGS. Over 2000 attended - see Technical Editor Bob Critchlow's notes on that event in this issue.

Commentary
Energy production and consumption in this country is an extremely complex mix of choices and subsequent consequences. And yet for all its intricacies, it is generally taken for granted, much like air or water. In an effort to put national energy use in perspective, and to provide our members with energy reality facts, I began reviewing energy production and consumption by source type. The numbers, as we all know, are huge (see below). We require a tremendous energy infrastructure to keep our modern lifestyle up and running. That got me wondering about the comparative basic energy content of our 'primary' energy sources without regard to market value (a primary energy source is one that provides direct power output like oil, gas, and coal, or solar photovoltaic and windgenerated electricity. On the other hand, electricity created from generators run by the combustion of fuel is an example of a secondary energy source). And that led me to try and relate the energy content of different primary sources using comparisons we can all get our arms around. For instance, how many "typical" oil or gas wells would we actually need to meet our entire national energy requirements? How many windmills equal the same energy output as an average local oil and gas well? How much coal must be produced to generate the same electrical output as a nuclear power plant? This letter, and those to follow, will attempt to answer those kinds of questions. To make the comparisons more meaningful, I have converted the energy from each source into barrels of oil equivalent (BOE), a unit familiar to those in and out of the energy business.

This month I present the big picture. Here's the modern energy reality in America: each year the U.S. consumes the energy equivalent of 16.8 billion barrels of oil from all primary sources of energy ¹(data as of 2000, latest year tabulated). No two ways about it, that's a lot of stored energy being consumed. That works out to 59.25 BOE/person/year consumed in this country. What are the sources of all that energy? Well, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, domestically in 2000 we produced 2.1 billion barrels of oil², leaving a 14.7 billion BOE energy hole to fill. Fortunately we have other plentiful primary energy sources in this country to help meet our needs. That same year we also produced and consumed 3.4 billion BOE of natural gas, 4.4 billion BOE of coal, 403 million BOE electricity from nuclear power plants, and 1 billion BOE from renewable energy sources³. That results in a total DOMESTIC primary energy supply of 11.3 billion BOE, which still left us with a 5.5 billion BOE shortfall. So, in 2000 we made up most of the difference by importing 4.2 billion barrels of oil and 680 million BOE of natural gas⁴.

Currently
The 2010-11 CCGS season is now fully underway with the first of a slate of excellent luncheon talks. Our first technical luncheon, Wednesday, Oct 20th, features Gregg Robertson of First Rock Inc. describing the discovery of Petrohawk's Hawksville field, which kicked off the entire Eagle Ford shale play. Over the last 12 months or so the Eagle Ford has become the hottest resource play in the country. Dennis Taylor, our VP/Program Chair has lined up this very timely talk you won't want to miss, so please RSVP promptly. Bob Critchlow, Technical Editor, has received an exclusive paper on the 32 Bcf Kilroy Wheeler #1 well in McMullen County, written by micropaleontologist Woodson Godfrey. Read how what we all thought was Sligo production may in fact be from the Austin Chalk and Edwards formations. Also, check out this month's "Life in the Patch" entry submitted by an anonymous member. Feel free to try and guess the author, but be forewarned, you'll never know if you are correct unless the author chooses to "out" himself (and you'll note when you read the piece I have given nothing away by identifying his gender!). If you have an entertaining or unusual episode related to geology in your life please share it with the rest of us - anonymously or not!

Recently
Our annual Kickoff event was a success as 79 people enjoyed a fun social evening at the BBQ Man Cantina. Many thanks to CGG Veritas for sponsoring the bar. During the evening festivities we unveiled our "Boulders in Schools" pilot project. This is the 3rd part of the wildly successful educational initiative started by Owen Hopkins 4 years ago. The idea is to place 1 large boulder of each of the 3 major rock types in local schoolyards with descriptive signposts next to each. At the Kickoff, large posters of the boulders substituted for the real thing, while the actual engraved signposts stood nearby. We are testing this program at two area schools, Schanen elementary, and the brand new Gloria Hicks elementary. Delivery and dedication at both schools are scheduled for later this month. I will send out an email notification of the dates for those wishing to attend.

During the Kickoff we also unveiled another project your Society has been working on this year, a graphic display documentary chronicling local changes in sea level during the latest ice age cycle. Dr. Jim Garrison, recently a faculty member at our own Texas A&M CC and now with Texas A&M Galveston, conducted the literature review (some of which included his own research), created the maps and cross-sectional displays, and also wrote the dialogue for the documentary. This is another creation inspired by Owen Hopkins from an idea suggested by Alan Costello. Currently the material is in PowerPoint format. Alan is talking with Quadrant Productions about high-grading the material into either an animated PowerPoint display or a full-blown video. The goal is to make the finished product available to schools, libraries, museums, and other public institutions as a teaching tool. Sea level and climate changes are not new!

Commentary
Last month I suggested we as an industry need to communicate more effectively to the general public about all aspects of our business. Ours is an industry vital to the security, economy, and high standard of living of our nation. And yet I would wager that the average American has little idea about the technical, economic, and political complexities we deal with every day. Not that the average citizen needs, or even wants, a detailed primer on our business. I don't need to know, for instance, the complete manufacturing sequence of the microchips that run the computer I am using to write this. But it is useful to understand the basics, such as what a semiconductor is, why it is useful, and the materials used to make it. Likewise a basic understanding of reservoirs and traps, how wells are drilled and completed, costs, energy content of oil and gas compared to alternatives, how the product is priced, etc, would help all Americans make better decisions about our energy future.

Outside of investment forums, the only time our business gets in the news is when it's bad. I think we need a 'national face', an industry expert that can appear on TV and radio news broadcasts, news commentary programs, and printed news reports explaining the realities of all forms of energy production and consumption. Goodness knows we sure could have used such a spokesperson during the BP Macondo well blowout. Many other news sectors have experts that appear regularly to offer insights on complicated issues in law, business, weather, environment, health and medicine, consumer advocacy, and politics (there seem to be more of these kind than any other). Some have become household names. Do you remember Dr. Neil Frank of the National Hurricane Center, who could be seen on just about every media outlet interpreting complex weather data? Or Jack Ford, who made a career as a network legal analyst, breaking down complicated legal issues for general TV audiences. Currently, Judge Andrew Napolitano is a well known legal expert in the broadcast media. Dr. Sanjay Gupta is another familiar figure currently seen providing medical expertise in both television and print media. Jack Hannah is another household name frequently seen on television promoting animal issues. And if you're of my age, you probably remember Wally Schirra, the astronaut who provided years of expert analysis to CBS during the Apollo space missions. Such a person representing the oil and gas business could provide the general public with insights not currently available on issues such as alternate energy, resource plays, hydraulic fracture stimulation, common drilling and completion practices, targeted tax changes, and a whole host of other critical topics affecting our industry that are currently in the news.

Now, it's true that dialogue regarding these topics goes on behind the scenes in Washington in the form of lobbying by various PACs and trade associations, including AAPG and API. And while that is essential, I would argue that a more informed public will also influence legislation and policy, not to mention possibly improve our image. Recently, T. Boone Pickens has been making the media rounds to promote natural gas and wind utilization, and he certainly qualifies as an energy expert, but his focus is much narrower than my proposal.

The Division of Professional Affairs within the AAPG, and the Media Center within the API are staffed with very accomplished professionals, that work in all aspects of our business. I suggest one or more of them could be groomed to effectively provide expert analysis to the general media. Or perhaps a joint effort between AAPG, API, SEG and SPE to sponsor a nationwide "talent search" could be conducted among the combined membership, and provide funding to support the winning candidate. Our industry has within its ranks many qualified candidates. I know. In my career I've met or worked with quite a few. Surely one of our colleagues would be eager for such a high-profile opportunity.

I think we have a very good story to tell, and I think it's time the American public heard it. In the meantime, keep telling your friends, neighbors, and children the realities of energy in the modern world.

Rick Paige
CCGS President, 2010-11

Welcome to the first Bulletin issue of the Corpus Christi Geological Society's 2010-11 season. I want to thank last year's president, Juan Cabasos, for his able stewardship of our great Society. He has handed off to me a healthy and active organization and I pledge to do my best to keep it that way.

Currently

Your officers and chairpersons have been very busy this summer preparing for another fun, interesting, and educational year. Don't miss our annual Kickoff event at the BBQ Man Cantina September 9th from 5:30 to 8:00 PM, once again generously supported by CGG Veritas. See the announcement in this Bulletin and RSVP to Beth Priday, this season's arrangements chairperson. Bob Critchlow and Bill Maxwell are busy screening interesting articles to publish. Check out this month's article on the lower Cretaceous Sligo, a trend familiar (and confounding) to many of us. Bob has also started a new feature called "Life in the Patch" which I think you'll find very entertaining. Consider contributing a story from your own experiences. Sarah Miller, advertising chair, has established a plan for placing digital ads on our web page. Contact her and be one of the first advertisers on our website (www.ccgeo.org - which is, incidentally, one of the best websites representing a smaller geologic society I've ever seen).

You should have by now received the annual dues renewal statement. Due to increased printing and mailing costs we have found it necessary to institute a $10/yr fee for mailed Bulletins. As always, a digital version of the Bulletin, in color, is available for free download online at our website. Please renew your membership promptly so that your Society may continue to offer the valuable services it now provides.

Summer Recap

Just because the monthly technical luncheons and Bulletins take a break over the summer doesn't mean the rest of the CCGS does. Among the activities to report, academic liaison chairperson Owen Hopkins and member Eddie Hrncir presided over the donation of "Bones in Schools" murals, posters, the associated activity books and display fossils to quite a few organizations. Included was the 2-day Texas Council of Teachers of Mathematics and Science conference attended by 55 local teachers held at TAMUCC in June. Dan Pedrotti, co-chair academic liaison committee, reports that our professionallyprepared teaching curricula for the "Bones" program is nearly complete. We can now better 'teach the teachers' about the last ice age in south Texas. On July 24th the Texas State Aquarium hosted the first Texas Coastal Expo, a daylong event sponsored by the General Land Office. Alan Costello, assisted by his wife Katie and Sarah Paige, manned a CCGS booth that promoted our primary school educational initiatives. They report turnout was high, interest was strong, and many "South Texas Ice Age" posters and activity books were sold. Lastly, the first CCGS Saltwater Fishing Tournament was held August 6th. Chairman Ed Egger assembled a great planning and operations team that included Ryan Egger, Leighton Devine, Patrick McCullough, Jeff Osborn, Paul Hatridge, Becky Egger, David Hammer, and Pete Graham. It was a great success! See the article and photos in this issue. The numbers are still coming in, but Leighton tells me this event has generated at least $5000 for the CCGS Scholarship Trust Fund! If you missed it this year, be sure to set aside time next year. The event team is already making plans for it!

Commentary

Now if you will allow me the opportunity to editorialize.... The oil and gas industry news that has dominated the media this summer has, of course, been the blowout of BP's Macondo #1 deepwater oil well, drilled by Transocean's doomed Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. Over the course of this nearly 4 month saga I have frequently observed a lack of perspective when the subject is discussed, particularly within the mainstream media. I suppose that's not too surprising as nothing sells papers and airtime like a disaster. And now that television news commentary (e g. Fox, MSNBC, CNN) is often posing as news reporting, it's often hard to get the correct factual background to a story from those sources. And it certainly doesn't help when the administration's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, publically claims that no politician should ever let a good crisis go to waste. What's the general public to think?

So here's my perspective on some aspects of this tragic event: overall the U.S. offshore drilling industry has an enviable safety record during its 73 year history. One has to go back over 40 years to the Santa Barbara blowout to find the previous significant offshore well failure in U.S. waters. No other heavy industry can claim a record like that: not the airlines, shipping, construction, mining, manufacturing, refining, or petrochemical, to name a few. However, a lack of perspective, in my opinion, resulted in an immediate moratorium on offshore drilling. Can you imagine our country's economy if every time we suffered a devastating train derailment, plane crash, ship disaster, or mine collapse, we shut down the bulk of those industries nationwide?

As a nation we should always strive for a contamination-free Gulf. A blowout like this harms our marine ecosystems in the short-term, and may have the potential to cause permanent damage to the environment, although that aspect has not been effectively studied. The immediate impact ripples through the human community as it affects all whose livelihoods depend on healthy marine ecosystems. I believe all efforts to remove or disperse the spilled oil has been justified. Contamination of the Gulf is simply not good, for anyone, ever.

However, unwarranted hyperbole is also not good. President Obama declared that this is "the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced". Few in the mainstream media disagreed with him. And yet follow-up observations of past spills, including Santa Barbara, seem to indicate few long-term ramifications. Venerable Time magazine, no stranger to journalistic spin themselves, recently questioned the grave damage predictions of the BP blowout in their Viewpoint section¹. Reasons for this include the enormous area of the Gulf, its warm temperatures and active currents, and a pre-existing hydrocarbon-munching microbial community that has evolved over the ages, consuming the estimated 1 million barrels of crude that enters the Gulf each year via natural seeps². A summary article from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies regarding PEMEX's 1979 Ixtoc #1 oil well blowout referenced the few available studies, and concluded that after severe, short-term, localized impacts the marine community rebounded "robustly"³. The article quotes Jeff Short, Pacific Science Director for the environmental group Oceana, who predicts that in 5 to 10 years the northern Gulf ecosystems will be indistinguishable from pre Macondo blowout conditions. The article also quotes local researcher Wes Tunnel of the Texas A&M Corpus Christi, Harte Marine Research Institute. Wes points out the need to fund follow up research on the long-term effects of this spill, and with BP recently agreeing to put $20 billion into a trust fund for recovery, maybe some financing will be available to conduct this kind of research. Wes in fact did much of the early reconnaissance work following the Ixtoc spill, and has just returned from Campeche looking for evidence of the spill and its effects 31 years later. Check out his observations and the rest of the Harte Institute's work on oil spill research, at their website, http://www.harteresearchinstitute.org.

Let's keep this disaster in perspective: in recent decades the Gulf annually develops a growing hypoxia region (the "dead zone") due to phosphate and nitrate rich Mississippi River output generated primarily by fertilizer runoff. This year it's the size of Massachusetts. As bad as the BP oil spill is, it remains a one-time event, while the dead zone is recurrent and growing each year. If one wants to sound the trumpet for improving the quality of our Gulf, here is a subject that most assuredly has long-term implications. However, I fear the Rahm Emmanuel types in the administration want to use the oil spill disaster as a lightening rod to pass misbegotten legislation like 'Cap and Trade' or repeal of 'intangible drilling cost expensing'.

Regardless how the blame for the blowout is finally distributed, it's clear to me, based on publically available information, that a series of critical blunders were made in the completion of this well. This blowout simply should not have happened, and it is fair and reasonable to make the negligent parties pay. Perhaps the lesson learned here is the deepwater exploration and drilling industry needs to create a consortium in order to conduct research into designing the tools and technologies necessary to cap and/or minimize an uncontrolled deepwater well, and put in place a quick-response containment service. Sort of a "Boots and Coots" in the deepwater. Toward that end Chris John, president of the Louisiana Midcontinent Oil and Gas Assoc. reports that 4 offshore operators have jointly committed $1 billion to build and deploy containment systems to anywhere in the Gulf, with 24 hours notice⁴. These containment systems will have the capability to work in up to 10,000' of water, and collect oil and gas at rates up to 100,000 Bbls/day. He also reports that immediately following the blowout, the offshore drilling industry formed task forces to study offshore equipment, operational practices, spills, and well control issues. Their conclusions were submitted to the Dept. of the Interior and many are now incorporated into new well and BOP designs required of all offshore operators.

The other lesson I see here is that more than ever we as a nation need an educated public in order to maintain proper perspective, especially when it's sometimes hard to find in the mainstream media. We all need to press our schools to keep well-rounded science curricula, including earth science. And we also need to take personal opportunities to inform those around us of the technical and political issues of our business (more on this next month). I believe that in our own small way, the various educational initiatives of your CCGS helps move our community and our nation in that direction.

See you at the Kickoff!

Rick Paige
CCGS President, 2010-11