Minutes CORE Meeting
The Committee on Resource Evaluation met in conjunction with the AAPG Annual Meeting in Denver on June 2, 2001. Chairman Ben D. Hare called the meeting to order and introduced the CORE members and guests. Members present were:
Invited guests present were:
Also present for a portion of the meeting were AAPG president-Elect Robbie Gries and AAPG Executive Director Rick Fritz.
Chairman Hare announced Naresh Kumar had accepted a series of three 1-year appointments as the incoming Chairman of the Committee on Resource Evaluation. It was also announced that several new members had been invited to join the Committee. Those new members are:
Chairman Hare indicated some members had indicated a desire to rotate off the Committee. He asked that those members discuss this with incoming Chairman Kumar so he might have the opportunity to have continuity on the Committee.
The next topic discussed was testimony given by Naresh Kumar on March 21, 2001, to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources in Washington, D.C., and by Ben Hare on May 14, 2001, in New Orleans. Naresh testified on the value of resource assessments to formulating a national energy policy. Ben testified on resources believed to be present in the Atlantic OCS and Eastern Gulf of Mexico. Skip Hobbs, representing the Division of Professional Affairs, reviewed the testimony for CORE and discussed other DPA initiatives. Suzanne Weedman, of the USGS, was present at the Kumar testimony and offered insights as to how the Congressional Committees function. Jeff Eppink, Advanced Resources International, Inc., indicated the congressional staffers were key to getting AAPGs message across to the representatives. Jeff also suggested that it might be beneficial for CORE to address the resource potential and geology of the Atlantic OCS, perhaps in a position paper. He thought this should also include an assessment of the Canadian potential.
Ray Thomasson discussed the importance and impact of AAPG testimony before Congress. He told us the Advisory Committee had recommended the Executive Committee provide additional funding to the American Geological Institute for a congressional liaison to supplement the efforts of David Applegate, who currently serves in this function for multiple AGI member organizations. Ben Hare supported this idea and discussed the logistics, coordination, and time involved in preparing testimony.
Richard Nehring asked about the propriety of AAPG taking positions before congressional committees when AAPG has such a diverse membership. Both Ray Thomasson and Skip Hobbs said AAPG was trying to focus on technical and factual issues when testifying.
Suzanne Weedman complimented Naresh and AAPG for the professionalism of their testimony and believed it to be very supportive of the USGS. She also indicated that Dick Bishop and Vicki Cowart are going to participate with the USGS on June 21, 2001, in a forum about the value of hydrocarbon and coal resource assessments.
Wolfgang Schollnberger, BP, said he would be representing the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) in testimony before the European Parliament on June 21, 2001. OGP represents 60-70% of the worlds oil and gas production. Wolfgang also shared thoughts on the various political factions in Europe and their positions on nuclear energy, Kyoto protocols, and fossil fuels.
Bill Pollard asked how we could best educate policy makers on energy issues. During this discussion, we learned that the Energy Information Administration (EIA) has a pocket-sized card with energy facts on it. Also, AAPG has discussed doing something similar, but the Public Policy??? Committee has not taken action. John Curtis thought face-to-face contact was the most effective and discussed how effective and credible Dr. Mankin is when he appears before committees and agencies. Bob Gunn thought this was partly because of Charlies academic affiliations and that AAPG was, to some extent, viewed as "Big Oil." Bill Stanton said Yates Petroleum has put together a presentation that their employees have presented 80 times to city and county governments and school district audiences. Their goal is to do 300 presentations to educate the citizens of New Mexico on oil and gas issues and the magnitude of revenues from oil and gas activities that support state and local governments. Bill said with the influx of Californians to Santa Fe, many citizens didnt even know New Mexico had an oil and gas industry. It was suggested that Yates efforts be publicized in the Explorer.
Jeff Eppink discussed how information flows from congressional staffers to the representatives. Jeff is an ex-Chevron geologist who went to Washington on an American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellowship designed to bring science into the policy process. He indicated most staffers are economics or political science majors, but they are the key to getting information before congress. Jeff also discussed some recent work on gas resources tied up in "roadless" areas. He said about 11 TCFG is tied up in the Rockies in roadless areas comprising 5% of federal lands. He also discussed a new Greater Green River Basin study that identified 208 "stipulations," mostly biological, that restrict access to federal lands. Jeff referred us to a DOE group in the Office of Fossil Energy called the "Fossil Energy 30" staff, where most of the oil and gas science is done within DOE.
John Curtis presented the results of the Subcommittee Review of Continuous Reservoir Re-Assessment by the USGS. The subcommittee was chaired by John Ritter and included John Curtis, Naresh Kumar, Pulak Ray, and Rusty Riese as members. They recommended CORE endorse the methodology used and that CORE recommend the Executive Committee do so also. Because of the number of members absent and all had not reviewed the subcommittee report, Chairman Hare asked the CORE members to review the report and to e-mail him their concurrence with the Subcommittee recommendations. Chris Schenck, USGS, was most complimentary of the efforts and input by this subcommittee.
John Curtis also reviewed the release of the 2000 Potential Gas Committee report. He raised questions as to whether the resource base would support extraction in excess of 30 TCF/year (EIA) by 2010-2015. He indicated perceptions of the resource base have grown over time but that many of the models used to project gas supply are really "demand driven" and assume supply will match demand. John told us the Canadian Potential Gas committee would be releasing a new report in a couple of months.
Richard Nehring presented data that indicated MMS estimates for GOM shelf and deepwater resources may systematically be too high. He showed MMSs distribution curves for undiscovered, conventionally recoverable gas resources that showed MMS estimates are within ± 5% certainty on GOM gas (95%--180.4 TCF; 5%--207.2 TCF; Mean192.7 TCF). Richard indicated the MMS and NPC study means were more than three times greater than the Potential Gas Committee means. This led to a discussion of whether it would be beneficial for CORE to formulate a set of standards for evaluating the validity of resource assessments. Richard Bishop suggested a "Consumer Reports" approach, including evaluating the amount and type of data used by a particular assessment.
Chairman Hare then polled the members as to when the next CORE meeting should be held. Incoming Chairman Kumar proposed the week before Thanksgiving, perhaps in Dallas. The membership thought the week of November 12, 2001, might be appropriate. The week of November 5 conflicts with the Geological Society of America Annual Meeting.
Chairman Hare thanked the committee and guests for their support during the last 6 years and welcomed Dr. Kumar at the new chairman.