Posts Tagged ‘Oil’

On November 21, 2014 the Governor of New York signed Chapter 475 of the Laws of 2014 which provides for the licensure of professional geologists under Title VIII of the Education Law. The Law does not take effect until November 21, 2016.  Under the provisions of the new law, Geology has been added to the current State Board for Engineering and Land Surveying (State Board). As of November 21, 2016, the State Board will be known as the State Board for Engineering, Land Surveying and Geology. To assist the Board of Regents and the Department in implementing geology licensing provisions, the Board of Regents appointed qualified geologists to the State Board. The State Board has assisted the Board of Regents and the Department in developing the regulations that establish the education, experience, examination, age, moral character and fee requirements for applicants seeking licensure as a professional geologist. These regulations were adopted at the July 2016 Regents meeting and will become effective November 21, 2016 and can be found on our web site (


The New York State Education Department is accepting applications for licensure under the grandparent provision or through endorsement for applicants who are licensed in another jurisdiction.  Applications will be accepted immediately and licenses will be issued to those applicants meeting the qualifications for licensure through the grandparent provision or endorsement starting November 21, 2016.  The grandparent provision of the law expires on November 20, 2017.  Therefore, all applications made under the grandparent provision of the law must be postmarked by the expiration date of November 20, 2017

The fee for licensure and first registration is $430.  Two hundred and twenty dollars is the application fee and $210 is for registration for first triennial registration period.  Renewals  will be $210 for each triennial registration period



Cable-free node deployed near Pecos in the Permian Basin in west Texas. Photos courtesy of FairfieldNodal

Seismic data acquisition systems dubbed cableless, wireless, cable-free, no-cable, etc. were viewed as a kind of novelty in the industry only a few years ago.

That has changed dramatically as the success stories emanating from increased numbers of field applications are being reported evermore often.

It had to happen, not just offshore but also on land in particular.

Think about seismic crew members traipsing around rugged, inhospitable terrain lugging the heavy, cumbersome cables and accompanying equipment required by cable systems, the longtime industry stalwart.

Then consider the cost and time to load and move all of this weight via helicopter – a transport frequently necessary to reach the often-inaccessible areas where data must be acquired.

There are other issues.

Besides the potential to leave an undesirable environmental footprint using cable systems, gnawing sharp-teeth varmints feast on these wires wherever possible – troubleshooting, anyone?

Even ordinary thunderstorms pose a risk.

“A lot of wire on the ground is a big problem where you have thunderstorm activity because of the static it generates into the cable,” said Darin Silvernagle, vice president of technology at SAExploration, or SAE, (nee NES LLC). “When you have 400 miles of wire laid out on the ground, static can be a big problem.”

The available cableless, i.e. nodal, land systems include the FairfieldNodal ZLand® system and its transition zone, shallow water counterpart Z700, INNOVA HAWK®, Sercel UNITE and OYO GSR, among others.

Nodal systems are designed to meet a number of industry needs:

  • More flexible acquisition geometries, e.g. wide and full azimuth for land surveys.
  • Reduced downtime and maintenance.
  • Increased productivity.
  • Improved health, safety and environment conditions (HSE).
  • Enhanced access to challenging locales.

To read more CLICK HERE

From Energy In Depth

1) Why the huge difference between what EPA found in its monitoring wells and what was detected in private wells from which people actually get their water?

  • Contrary to what was reported yesterday, the compounds of greatest concern detected by EPA in Pavillion weren’t found in water wells that actually supply residents their water – they were detected by two “monitoring wells” drilled by EPA outside of town.
  • After several rounds of EPA testing of domestic drinking water wells in town, only one organic compound (bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate) was found to exceed state or federal drinking water standards – an additive in plastics and one of the most commonly detected organic compounds in water. According to EPA: “Detections in drinking water wells are generally below established health and safety standards.”
  • Bruce Hinchey, president of Petroleum Association of Wyoming: “Let me be clear, the EPA’s findings indicate that there is no connection between oil and natural gas operations and impacts to domestic water wells.” (PAW press release, Dec. 8, 2011)
  • In contrast, EPA found “a wide variety of organic chemicals” in its two monitoring wells, with greater concentrations found in the deeper of the two. The only problem? EPA drilled its monitoring wells into a hydrocarbon-bearing formation. Think it’s possible that could explain the presence of hydrocarbons?
  • According to governor of Wyoming: “The study released today from EPA was based on data from two test wells drilled in 2010 and tested once that year and once in April, 2011. Those test wells are deeper than drinking wells. The data from the test wells was not available to the rest of the working group until a month ago.” (Gov. Mead press release, issued Dec. 8, 2011)

2) After reviewing the data collected by Region 8, why did EPA administrator Lisa Jackson tell a reporter that, specific to Pavillion, “we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk”? (video available here)

  • Of note, Administrator Jackson offered those comments to a reporter from energyNOW! a full week after Region 8 publicly released its final batch of Pavillion data. In that interview, Jackson indicates that she personally analyzed the findings of the report, and was personally involved in conversations and consultations with staff, local officials, environmental groups, the state and the operator.
  • After reviewing all that information, and conducting all those interviews, if the administrator believed that test results from EPA’s monitoring wells posed a danger to the community, why would she say the opposite of that on television?
  • And if she believed that the state of Wyoming had failed to do its job, why would she – in that same interview – tell energyNOW! that “you can’t start to talk about a federal role [in regulating fracturing] without acknowledging the very strong state role.” (2:46) A week later, why did she choose to double-down on those comments in an interview with Rachel Maddow, telling the cable host that “states are stepping up and doing a good job”? (9:01, aired Nov. 21, 2011)

3) Did all those chemicals that EPA used to drill its monitoring wells affect the results?

  • Diethanolamine? Anionic polyacrylamide? Trydymite? Bentonite? Contrary to conventional wisdom, chemicals are needed to drill wells, not just fracture them – even when the purpose of those wells has nothing to do with oil or natural gas development.
  • In this case, however, EPA’s decision to use “dense soda ash” as part of the process for drilling its monitoring wells could have proved a bad one.
  • One of the main justifications EPA uses to implicate hydraulic fracturing as a source of potential contamination is the high pH readings it says it found in its monitoring wells. But dense soda ash has a recorded pH (11.5) very similar to the level found in the deep wells, creating the possibility that the high pH recorded by EPA could have been caused by the very chemicals it used to drill its own wells.
  • According to Tom Doll, supervisor of the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: “More sampling is needed to rule out surface contamination or the process of building these test wells as the source of the concerning results.” (as quoted in governor’s press release, Dec. 8, 2011)


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced Thursday for the first time that fracking — a controversial method of improving the productivity of oil and gas wells — may be to blame for causing groundwater pollution.

The draft finding could have significant implications while states try to determine how to regulate the process. Environmentalists characterized the report as a significant development though it met immediate criticism from the oil and gas industry and a U.S. senator.

The practice is called hydraulic fracturing and involves pumping pressurized water, sand and chemicals underground to open fissures and improve the flow of oil or gas to the surface.

The EPA found that compounds likely associated with fracking chemicals had been detected in the groundwater beneath Pavillion, a small community in central Wyoming where residents say their well water reeks of chemicals. Health officials last year advised them not to drink their water after the EPA found low levels hydrocarbons in their wells.

To Read More Click Here 


FORT WORTH — Preliminary findings from a study of hydraulic fracturing and shale-gas development show no direct link between the controversial process and groundwater contamination, the University of Texas professor who led the study said Wednesday.

Problems in shale fields appear to be related to issues such as poor casing or cementing of wells, rather than fracking, UT geology professor Charles “Chip” Groat told about 150 people at the City Club in downtown Fort Worth. The audience included oil and gas industry representatives and city officials who regulate drilling in North Texas’ Barnett Shale.

The $300,000 study is being funded by UT’s Energy Institute. Groat said a final report is expected to be issued in the next two months. The institute looked at reports of groundwater contamination in the Barnett Shale, the Haynesville Shale in Louisiana and East Texas, and the Marcellus Shale in the Northeastern U.S.

Groat said a major goal of the study is to “separate fact from fiction” and produce accurate information that will help government policymakers adopt wise policies and regulations that “are grounded in science.”

He said the institute also plans an in-depth “case study” of the Barnett Shale, which would include water-related issues and other environmental concerns.

To Read More Click Here:

The Texas Board of Professional Geoscientists met on November 7, 2011 to consider Advisory Opinion #7.  This Advisory Opinion was in response to the reaction to the Proposed Rules published in the September 30th edition of the Texas Register.  These proposed rules dealt with the practice of Oil & Gas.  There were two sections to this proposed rule.  Section 33 dealt with “Permissive Practice” (Voluntary Practice by someone who is licensed) and Section 34 which dealt with unlicensed Practice.  These proposed rules were the result of months of work by an Oil& Gas advisory committee.  The intent was to publish them to gather greater input not to implement the proposed rules.  Yet that was not how the proposed rules were received by the public.

The resulting public fire storm lead the TBPG to initiate Advisory Opinion #7.  At the November 7th Meeting , there were about 30 people in attendance.  Some of the notable people were Dave Rensink, Richard How, Henry Wise, Peter Rose, John Mikels, Scott Daniels and Bruce Darling.  Chairman Kitchens opened the meeting by explaining the process and history of how the proposed rules came about and reassured that this was not a power grab by the Board.  He stated that the Governors office was aware of the activities of the Board.   After his statement the Board proceeded to withdraw the proposed rules.  The Board voted 8-0 to withdraw the rules.  Also as a result, the Oil and Gas workgroup was disbanded.  The Board then laid out the Advisory Opinion.  The Board voted 8-0 to adopt the proposal.  After that the floor was opened for public comments.  Very few people got up to speak.  Two of the people who did speak call for the Board to resign.  Talking to people afterwards they seemed satisfied with how things went.

Below is part of the Advisory Opinion from which the TBPG Chairman read:

The Board has had questions for many years concerning the intent of the word “exclusively” and the phrase “for the benefit of private industry” that is included in the above cited section of the Texas Geoscience Practice Act (Act).  The Board has attempted to determine if this word and this phrase were included in the statute with the intent that some oil and gas activities would not be exempt from the requirements of the Act.  For example, is geoscientific interpretation presented for the sole purpose of securing financing from the public exclusively part of the exploration and development process?  Could the fact that the benefits of oil and gas exploration are not exclusively for the benefit of private industry since the public also benefits in the form of severance tax paid to the state be a cause to require a license?  These are the types of questions that have been posed to the Board in the form of inquiries and complaints over the years.

The Board has had an ad-hoc Legal Interpretation Committee explore the question and this activity did not conclusively resolve the issue.  The Board also encouraged the development of an advisory workgroup to involve the oil and gas community to assist with answering the issue.  Attempts were made to secure wide participation in the workgroup, and included liaison representatives with involvement in the Houston Geological Society, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, and the Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists.  Over a period of more than a year, the workgroup met and finally petitioned the Board with a rule proposal that would define that certain activities involving oil and gas exploration and development would not be exempt.  All members of the workgroup had ample and equal opportunity to provide input to the rule proposal.  The workgroup members felt that the issue should be made available to a broader audience for further review. 

The Board finally agreed to publish the rule proposal for the purpose of receiving more widespread public input to help with the determination of exemption applicability but only if certified by legal counsel that the proposal was within the Board’s authority to adopt.  Based on the subsequent overwhelming public opinion against adoption of the proposal, and legislative intent brought to the attention of the Board, the Board has withdrawn the proposed rulemaking.

Special Board Meeting

 November 7, 2011 at 1:00 p.m.

333 Guadalupe Street, Room 100 (tentative)

Austin, Texas 78701


  1. Call to order
  2. Roll call and certification of quorum
  3. Consideration and possible action on immediate withdrawal of the Board’s proposed rules 22 Texas Administrative Code §851.33 and §851.34 and the Board’s proposed amendment to 22 Texas Administrative Code §851.10
  4. Consideration and possible action on posting of a Board initiated Advisory Opinion concerning the re-affirmation of the exemption of exploration and development of oil, gas, or other energy resources described in Section 1002.252 of the Texas Geoscience Practice Act
  5. Public comment.  Limited to five (5) minutes per person who has signed up to speak using TBPG’s speaker request form (time may be extended at the discretion of the Board Chairman)
  6.  Adjournment

The Board  may meet in closed session on any agenda item listed above as authorized by the Texas Open Meetings Act, Texas Gov. Code Chapter 551.

If you require auxiliary aids, services or material in an alternate format please contact the Texas Board of Professional Geoscientists at least five working days prior to the meeting date.  Listed below is helpful information if assistance is required. Phone: (512) 936-4401, Fax: (512) 936-4409, email:, TDD/RELAY TEXAS: 1-800-relay-VV (for voice), 1-800-relay-TX (for TDD).

The Texas Board of Professional Geoscientists has proposed new rules that have been published in the Texas Register.  The Proposed Rules and Amendments were published in the September 30, 2011 edition of the Texas Register. Some of these proposed rules are  related to oil and gas community.  These rules have been under development by an Oil and Gas Workgroup for almost two years.  The intent of the publication of these rules is to garner constructive comments so that a wider discussion of the topic would be possible.  TAPG encourages all its members whether or not you practice in the oil and gas industry to read and provide comment on these rules.  If you have questions then please feel free to email TAPG at  I will do my best to find an answer or get an explanation.

Comments on the proposed rules may be submitted in writing to Charles Horton by mail to TBPG, PO Box 13225, Austin TX 78711; by fax to 512/936-4409; or by e-mail.  Please submit comments before October 31, 2011. If you would please send TAPG a copy of your comments as well.  Stay informed and check the TAPG Blog,, and the website TAPGONLINE.ORG for more information.

There is a 40-fold difference between what the United State Geological Survey believed was the potential of the Marcellus Shale a decade ago and what its scientists now know about the rock formation.

Today, USGS released an updated Marcellus estimate of how much gas is in the ground and how likely it is that gas companies can get to it using current technology.

It’s a lot — an average of about 84 trillion cubic feet. Plus, there’s about 3 billion barrels of natural gas liquids in the ground that have a reasonable chance of being recovered.

To read more Click Here.

Houston-based Goodrich Petroleum Corp   .and Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. and Fort Worth-based Range Resources Corp  received subpoenas in New York inquiring about some of their natural gas wells, Reuters reports.

The subpoenas — issued by New York’s attorney general and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission — seek whether the firms accurately described how much gas their wells are likely to produce in the coming decades.

The investigation will be closely watched by the industry because the New York attorney general is using a New York law called the Martin Act, which gives broad power over businesses and allows an unusual amount of information to be obtained and publicly disclosed.