Page images
PDF
EPUB

the degree of maturity of hydrocarbons beneath the shelf if adequate source material has been deposited. We wish to compare these predictions with observations.

At present, deep multichannel seismic reflection data and the deep refraction information across most continental margins are inadequate for this purpose. For example, there is no deep refraction data from beneath the COST B-2 well in the Baltimore Canyon Trough area. The absence of this data prevents us from developing a good quantitative thermal model for this area of active oil exploration.

The Ocean Margins Drilling program recognized this deficiency and, I believe, $70 million over 10 years has been allocated for geophysical research. Though such a sum will cover the work around the four slope holes it is not sufficient for the broad based geophysical program that I believe is necessary to get the best results from a scientific drilling program.

The Continental Margins report estimated that geophysical traverses run by two ships across the margins would cost (including ship time) $18 to 22 million per year. To obtain a feeling of scale, the oil industry spends about $3 billion per year on offshore survey work. Personally though I believe a two ship program would be better. The academic community geophysical program could be trimmed to one ship costing $9 to 11 million per year. Allowing for inflation this produces a figure of about $150 million over ten years.

I support the Continental margins report which states (page 13) "We fully and emphatically concur with the recommendations of the JOIDES subcommittee on the Future of Scientific Ocean Drilling (FUSOD) that an ambitious drilling program be undertaken, but only if adequate funding is assured for scientific studies (italic from report) that include (1) broad scale problem definition, (2) small-scale site examination and preparation, (3) sample analysis and well-logging and (4) interpretation and synthesis.

In the present Ocean Margins Drilling program I see two problems. There is not adequate funding to cover the broad based problem definition and a limitation is placed on the scientific objectives by the necessity of drilling in water depths between 2000 and 4000 meters.

However, there is a simple solution which would answer my objections. Drop the hold in the Gulf of Mexico and put the money saved into the geophysics program. This would save $70 million in drilling costs which added to the present geophysics budget would give $140 million or enough for part of the geophysical program outlined in the Continental Margins report. This would also provide enough money for much of the survey work to be carried out prior to drilling. Further one of the three deep holes on the slope could be moved into much shallower water (less than 1000 meters depth). For the price of one deep hole one could get two or three shallow holes. These could be used to make a transect of wells over the most useful geophysical traverse.

If this were done I would feel much happier about the scientific merits of the program. I am not against ocean margin drilling as such but rather I think the program needs to be refocused to answer specific scientific problems. However, the solution of these problems by drilling should not be undertaken until adequate background geophysical data is available and some consideration is given to drilling in water shallower than 2000 meters. Both the broad based geophysical program and the lifting of the restrictions on the depth of drilling would benefit the interests of oil company scientists. For instance, more geophysical data in deep water would improve their ability to select the best areas for drilling. This and the removal of the restriction on depth might well result in the picking of single sites which might answer both industrial and academic objectives. Question 3. If funding were available, how long would it be desirable to continue the Challenger program and what should the program include?

Recently the Challenger program has had two major successes. First, the engineers have made a significant advance in sampling techniques with the hydraulic piston core. This allows, for the first time, the return of completely continuous samples from the soft uppermost sediments of the sea floor. It will permit scientists to extend their detailed studies of sedimentation from the present back to 5 to 10 million years before present. This information will yield more knowledge about sedimentary processes in the deep sea and ultimately may lead to a better understanding of the cause of long term climate changes such as the ice ages.

Second, in the young ocean floor near the Galapagos Islands the Challenger has obtained the deepest penetration of the oceanic crust on the International Phase of Ocean Drilling (IPOD) phase of the program. This hole, which is still

open and can be reentered, has penetrated over 500 meters of the hard basalt beneath the sediments. Deep crustal penetration was one of the principle objectives of the IPOD phase.

Personally I think that there is enough good science for the Challenger program to continue for at least another two years. I think this program should include drilling in high and low latitudes with the hydraulic piston core, the continuation of the deep hole near the Galapagos and drilling in the deep waters around Antarctica.

I am not an expert on the fisrt two areas of research mentioned above and further I do not know of the present condition of the Challenger. If you wish more precise information on what such a dri'ling program should include and how it should be carried out I suggest you ask the planning committee of the JOIDES program which runs the Challenger.

Question 4. Are there significant differences in the scientific results likely from drilling "on structure" to drilling "off structure"?

Oil and gas normally accumulate "on structure". Drill holes for scientific purposes are located "off structure" to avoid drilling problems associated with these hydrocarbons and to obtain a deeper and more complete sedimentary record.

If the scientific objective is the complete sedimentary record then it is better to drill "off structure". If the objective is the sediment or rock beneath the structure then it is better, because the hole is shallower, to drill "on structure". As the objective of the OMD program is a complete sedimentary record I see no major reduction in the scientific objectives resulting from the requirement to drill "off structure".

Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, Mr. Sclater.

Now we have Mr. D. K. McIvor, who is the vice president for producing at Exxon Corp.

[The biographical sketch of Mr. McIvor follows:]

DONALD KENNETH MCIVOR

Donald Kenneth McIvor, Vice President Producing, Exxon Corporation, was born in 1928 in Winnipeg, Canada. He was educated in that city receiving an honors bachelor of science degree in geology from the University of Manitoba in 1950. Immediately after graduation he joined Imperial Oil Limited, Exxon's Canadian affiliate, as a geophysical trainee on a seismic crew in northern Alberta.

Mr. McIvor worked in a professional capacity between 1950 and 1958 on exploration ventures for Imperial in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Between 1958 and 1968 he held a variety of positions in Calgary, including assistant to the exploration manager, supervisor of exploration planning and manager of exploration research. During this time he also held brief overseas assignments in Angola and France, and spent a year as an employee of the Jersey Production Research Company in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Between 1968 and 1970 he was assistant manager and then manager of the Corporate Planning Department at Imperial headquarters in Toronto. He became exploration manager in 1970, senior vice president and director in 1973, and was appointed Executive Vice President in 1975. He was appointed to his current position in mid-1977.

Mr. McIvor is a graduate of Course XXVI 1972-1973 of the National Defence College, an intensive one-year exposure to economic, political and social issues in both Canada and the rest of the world, attended by senior military, government and industry personnel. He is a member of the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists and was a director of the Canadian Mental Health Association.

STATEMENT BY DONALD K. McIVOR, VICE PRESIDENT FOR PRODUCING, EXXON CORP.

Mr. McIVOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the capacity that you just mentioned that I filled at the Exxon Corp., I am responsible for the coordination of Exxon's worldwide oil and gas exploration and development programs.

I am appearing as a member of this panel at the request of the chairman. However, I wish to make it clear that I have not discussed any of the testimony with the other members of the panel and to emphasize that I am appearing solely on behalf of Exxon Corp.

Exxon Corp. has agreed to participate in the feasibility study for the National Science Foundation's proposed ocean margin drillingOMD-program at the request of Dr. Frank Press, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy. It is our understanding that the feasibility study will cost no more than $20 million, of which 50 percent will be provided by participating private companies. Exxon is willing to contribute its share of that 50 percent.

Exxon's interest in the marine environment is both historical and continuing. In 1979 the corporation spent $2.3 billion in the search for and development of offshore oil and gas. Exxon has been exploring for oil and gas in the marine environment for more than 50 years, and in 1979 we drilled more than 300 offshore wells.

Over the last few years Exxon has drilled wildcat wells in more than 3,000 feet of water offshore Surinam, Canada, and Thailand in the search for new sources of oil production, and we are currently drilling a well in 4,500 feet of water offshore Australia.

With regard to the proposed 10 year $700 million OMD program, Exxon is unable to determine a clear relationship between the presently projected costs of the OMD program and the potential benefits. Therefore, we have committed to join with others in the feasibility study but are unwilling at this time to commit to the full OMD program as currently envisioned. Depending upon the outcome of the feasibility study, we will be glad to reconsider our position.

We are participating in the feasibility study because we support the commonly held view that the ocean margins represent one of the Earth's least scientifically explored frontiers. We are interested in seeing a continuing scientific effort devoted to this little known segment. We believe the feasibility study will better define the preferred approach to the overall investigation. Our support of this study will supplement other contributions we make to worthwhile scientific programs headed by several oceanographic institutions.

Exxon has been closely associated with the Government-sponsored deep sea drilling project-DSDP-since its inception in 1968. Our scientists and engineers have participated not only in the project's onsite drilling, but have also served on various advisory panels and committees of the project, including those of the National Science Foundation, the Joint Oceanographic Institutions for Deep Earth Sampling, and the international phase of ocean drilling. In our view, the DSDP is an important and successful geologic research investigation. Its basic scientific findings have not only enhanced knowledge of the oceans, but have also revolutionized previous concepts regarding Earth history and processes. These fundamental new concepts, while not directly applicable to oil and gas discovery, are useful in the broader interpretation of geologic data.

An extension of the DSDP to the ocean margins may be the logical next step. Earth scientists now have a reasonably good basic understanding of the geologic history and processes of the deep ocean basins and of the continental shelves out to the 6,000-foot water depth. However, they know very little about the fundamental geologic nature of

the continental margins which lie between these major crustal elements. The OMD program is designed to bridge this gap in knowledge. Like the DSDP, the OMD program will be of basic scientific nature, aimed at increasing fundamental knowledge and understanding of the origin, nature, and evolution of the continental margins. While such basic information may prove to be useful in assessing the petroleum potential of the margin, such assessment is not the primary objective of the project.

The feasibility study is useful because it will provide further definition of the objectives and greater insight into cost and timing of the OMD program. The study may also indicate that the same deeper water scientific objectives could be obtained in shallower water depths. Additionally, the study will provide data on the cost-benefit relationships involved in drilling in water depths beyond current drilling technology. Technology is now in use for drilling in water depths up to 6.000 feet, and the technology for extending drilling capability for certain vessels from 6,000 to 8,000 feet is available. The study could provide new insight into the technology and feasibility of extending this capability further, perhaps to as much as 13,000 feet.

Exxon has participated in many deepwater studies in the past. We view this feasibility study as a continuation and extension of previous scientific investigations. For a program of this magnitude-involving expenditures currently estimated at some $700 million over a period of 10 years we believe that the $20 million feasibility study is a prudent. and businesslike first step. Whether. following that study, we will find additional steps of the program to be deserving of our further investment remains to be seen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McIvor follows:]

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUB-COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

STATEMENT OF DONALD K. McIVOR

My name is Donald K. McIvor.

FEBRUARY 6, 1980

I am Vice-President of the Producing Department

for Exxon Corporation. In this capacity I am responsible for the coordination of Exxon's worldwide oil and gas exploration and development programs.

ever,

I am appearing as a member of this panel at the request of the Chairman. HowI wish to make it clear that I have not discussed any of the testimony with the other members of the panel and to emphasize that I am appearing solely on behalf of Exxon Corporation.

Exxon Corporation has agreed to participate in the feasibility study for the National Science Foundation's proposed Ocean Margin Drilling (OMD) Program at the request of Dr. Frank Press, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy. It is our understanding that the feasibility study will cost no more than $20 million, of which 50 percent will be provided by participating private companies. Exxon is willing to contribute its share of that 50 percent.

Exxon's interest in the marine environment is both historical and continuing. In 1979 the Corporation spent $2.3 billion in the search for and development of offshore oil and gas. Exxon has been exploring for oil and gas in the marine environment for more than 50 years, and in 1979 we drilled more than 300 off

shore wells.

Over the last few years Exxon has drilled wildcat wells in more than 3,000 feet of water offshore Surinam, Canada, and Thailand in the search for new sources of oil production, and we are currently drilling a well in 4,500 feet of water offshore Australia.

« PreviousContinue »