3

It is important that the scheduling of our ships and the site survey plans be carefully coordinated through an OMD Site Survey Panel. Carefully designed site surveys are a vital component of our activities.

Phase 3 Drilling

We would like to be ensured that when the OMD ship drills in U.S. territorial waters, the resulting core samples be made available to us for the following purposes:

Evaluation of the quality of source rocks, including the type of
organic matter and thermal maturity, using geochemical analyses,
to define the oil and gas generating potential.

Petrophysical analysis of cores in terms of porosity, permeability, grain-size, composition, and diagenesis, for the prediction of the quality of potential reservoirs.

Determination of seals that are capable of trapping hydrocarbons.

Regional geologic syntheses, wherein core data, well logs and other downhole measurments are used in the calibration of CDP seismic data, that in turn can be used to tie Slope and Rise Stratigraphy to the Continental Shelf and the onshore.

In addition we would be interested in downhole measurements during the drilling phase for the evaluation of the geotechnical engineering parameters of the sediments of the upper 600 ft of sediment cored. These data would fill an essential void in our knowledge, wherein problems related to mass movement, gaseous sediments, and other shallow subbottom hazards could be investigated with drillhole tools now available. The use of this information is very pertinent to our role in regulating offshore exploration and production.

2.

Was the OMD Project discussed with USGS during the planning stages? what was the nature of the discussions?

If so,

Discussions between NSF and the USGS have taken place regularly since 1977, both at the policy level (at OSTP) and on the working level (also at OSTP). Because the objectives of the Geological Survey are not far removed from those of JOIDES, the discussions centered on a joint JOIDES-USGS effort, together with the participation of other agencies, wherein the expertise brought together could be mutually beneficial, and the cost of the program could be shared.

Furthermore, the USGS has been, and is continually involved in the planning of scientific activities of the JOIDES program, as shown below..

Currently, the Survey is represented on the following JOIDES panels:

The extent of the participation of our scientists in the JOIDES panels is an indicator of both our interest in deep sea drilling, and the expertise we have been able to provide to this international program during the past several years.

3. What do you consider to be the advantages and disadvantages of USGS participation in and partial funding of the OMD Project, and what form would participation most suitably take?

The advantages of the OMD program to the USGS are (a) acquisition of data in frontier areas that are scheduled for resource development within national jurisdiction, (b) access to resource information on a global basis, and (c) information for setting guidelines for deep water drilling by industry.

With regard to national resource assessment, we believe the OMD program can provide us with unique data, that we know we will need to accurately assess the deep water oil and gas potential. The program can furnish us with such data at a cost substantially advantageous to the Survey.

With regard to global resource information, participation in the program would provide the Survey with guidance on the geologic settings of continental margins amenable to petroleum exploration. The USGS would benefit from results generated by site surveys and drilling on other margins where conditions may be similar to certain U.S. margins. This would add to the expertise within the USGS on worldwide marine resource assessment.

With regard to our regulatory role, the OMD program can offer us valuable experience in deepwater operations. Because leasing of offshore Federal lands is moving off the shelf unto deep water, the technological innovations associated with the OMD program can improve our procedures for issuing guidelines for drilling in deepwater and for supervising operations therein. We anticipate that NSF will consult and coordinate with us in regard to the safety requirements of the USGS pertaining to drilling operations. NSF has always demonstrated their willingness to comply with the USGS guidelines. With regard to the Geological Survey's role in the OMD program, we recognize NSF as the lead agency in a program designed to achieve scientific goals. In view of this, we suggest that the USGS join OMD and JOIDES in the same context as a U.S. academic institution, accepting voting membership in JOIDES, and being guaranteed a minimum number of berths available for USGS scientists on each cruise. This association could be established by a bilateral interagency agreement between NSF and the USGS; in this case, NSF will assume, for the drilling phase, all fiscal responsibility for the U.S. institutions and the USGS. The Geological Survey would be responsible for financing its own role in the program for the analyses of the data, as well as undertake, with its own funds, certain phases of the OMD program. These phases may include logging, geophysical surveys for site selection, petrophysical and geochemical analyses, and geotechnical experiments. The nature of these activities and their timing would be an integral part of the OMD program planning.

February 1979

2

In order for the Survey to become a full partner in the program, it needs to exercise a certain level of financial control. Such control is important, if we are to guide those aspects of the program that would be designated for resource assessment. By being full partners, we could be certain that we obtain quality data, and in turn, we could provide the Federal Government with quality resource estimates. Incremental funding of our existing programs can ensure our participation in, and partial funding of the OMD program. The Geological Survey would anticipate representation by the Director or his designee on the Executive Committee of JOIDES. The representative to the Planning Committee would be the Chief Geologist of the Geologic Division (or his designee) who would be responsive to the interests of all the Divisions of the Survey. The Geological Survey would be represented on all other appropriate committees, panels, or working groups.

We recommend that at the initial stages of the OMD program JOIDES invite the Survey to participate in a separate structure established for the single purpose of OMD planning. A Planning Committee and Site Selection and Site Surveying Panels dedicated to OMD planning might represent reasonable start. An active Site Selection/Survey Panel would provide the catalyst for establishing engineering criteria for subsea systems, site-survey requirements, and implementation of site investigations. We believe these coordinating activities should begin soon.

4. What do you consider to be most important reasons for going ahead with the OMD Project? What are the most important reasons for not going ahead with it?

We believe the most important reason for going ahead with the OMD program is, that from the viewpoint of the National interest, we must understand, as soon as possible, the petroleum potential of the offshore regions. Oil and gas reserves are declining, while consumption is not, owing to new discoveries not keeping pace with production. This task will be long and arduous, because the size of the offshore areas is large, our knowledge of them is incomplete, and the technological improvements that will have to be invoked to extract the resources require long leadtimes for development. Same as industry, we recognize that the OMD program is a very viable means to obtain oil and gas resource data on the Continental Margin in a scientifically conceived frame of reference. Joint industry-government activities can, at this time, offer an economical avenue to solve this problem of common concern. With leadership of the National Science Foundation, a multi-institutional, multinational operation can provide data at reduced costs to each participating entity. This program can also hold together an ocean drilling team (JOIDES), including its academic experts, that has kept, and could continue to keep, the U.S. in the forefront of marine geologic studies and engineering technology.

We recognize the merits of both the domestic and international aspects of the program and are willing to support it. Other than budgetary considerations, we see no reasons for not going ahead with ocean margin drilling; even there we think an argument based on resource potential and national security can override short-term budgetary considerations.

The subcommittee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m. the subcommittee was adjourned.]