We think that these companies should have their right of eminent domain granted through an amendment to the Natural Gas Act. On the other hand, those companies which are regulated solely by a State body should receive their right of eminent domain through State legislation such as is the law in some States, and is now being worked out between the coal industry and the gas industry in Pennsylvania.

J. W. Woomer, Consulting Engineer, Pittsburgh, Pa.

In the last paragraph on page 145 Mr. Woomer is talking about the condemnation of coal or other mineral-bearing lands to protect pipelines and emphasizing the seriousness of taking coal for the support of the pipelines even as much as 1,000 feet or more in width. It is necessary to protect pipelines from breakage as a result of subsidence in coal mining areas; however, our company does not acquire coal by condemnation for this purpose. Whenever we acquire coal for any purpose it is done through negotiation. We have linewalkers whose duty it is to patrol our pipelines at regular intervals and look for earth slides, subsidence or any other condition which might cause pipeline breakage or other difficulty. We also have a mining engineer who contacts all coal operators in the area of our producing or transmission operations and who keeps a progress map of all coal operations and at the same time keeps the coal operators informed as to our drilling operations and transmission additions or alterations. When we discover evidence of subsidence we take necessary precautions to protect our line from breakage. These remedies depend upon the age and type of line with which we are dealing, whether it is a welded line, a dresser-coupled line, screw pipe or some other type of mechanical connection; in some instances, where there is subsidence, we remove the dirt from the line to protect it from breakage; in other cases we uncover only the joints of the line; and in other instances we lay a line bypassing the danger area and always patrol the trouble spot until danger of line breakage has passed. This sometimes takes as much as 2 years' time before we feel that it is safe to put our line back into normal operation. Therefore, since we do not find it necessary in many cases to acquire coal to protect our line we certainly would not resort to eminent domain for this purpose when it has been our experience that we can deal reasonably with the coal operators and that the exercise of eminent domain never results in any bargains. In the first paragraph on page 147, Mr. Woomer says: "The most desirable pools, from the standpoint of the gas industry alone, are those having the greatest storage capacity." The size of a storage pool is by no means the only measure of its value to our company. In some cases the capacity of the pool may be too great to make it suitable for the particular peakload for which it is needed. Quick deliverability of comparatively small quantities of gas over a short period of time is sometimes the measure of the value of a storage pool. believe that Mr. Woomer recognizes this fact later on in his statement; however, regardless of the size of a storage reservoir, the wells must be found, plugged or reconditioned with thoroughness and care in the interest of safety and economy. In the third paragraph on page 148, Mr. Woomer says: "The need for speed in testing storage reservoirs, coupled with the rapid reconditioning of old wells, much of it occurring as it did during the shortage of materials resulting from the Korean war, was not conducive to the use of first-class casing materials and auxiliary equipment in the rehabilitation of such old wells. As a result of these conditions, some of these installations undoubtedly are weak structurally of themselves and, perhaps more important, may not be able to withstand future ground movements or corrosive action of underground waters." We know from personal experience that the Petroleum Administration for Defense considered the reconditioning of underground storage pools of such great importance to the defense effort that they allocated new, scarce materials for these storage pools, even ahead of materials for the drilling of new wells in the Appalachian area or any other area in the United States. First-class casing and auxiliary equipment was available for storage reservoirs when it could not be had for other oil or gas industry purposes. The gas industry itself received high rating during the defense period even to the extent that it was represented in Washington by a division of the Petroleum Administration for Defense. This statement can be checked and confirmed through the Oil and Gas Division of the Interior Department in Washington, D. C.

I

On pages 149 and 150, Mr. Woomer says: "The inability to define storage pool limits with any degree of certainty and the chance of porous sand fingers' extending out from what seems to be the best defined perimeter is perhaps one of the greatest risks and causes of concern. This possibility of long, porous sand 'fingers,' due to to the conditions of the storage sand and to the migratory

characteristics of the gas, whether caused by increasing gas pool pressure, prevents both the gas company and the coal operators concerned from ever saying positively that conditions are stabilized and that all possible storage pool leaks have been eliminated.

"As customer demand increases, the temptation of the gas companies to increase pressures, even beyond the original discovery rock pressures, and to expand the perimeters of the storage pools, is an ever-present challenge. The study of the pool-perimeter pressures creates a situation requiring the best engineering imagination and foresight to attempt to predict both the amount and the direction of pool expansion. This is a cause of great concern to the coal companies, because it is a well-recognized fact that, although gasstorage reservoirs may be of limited areas under certain storage pressures due to resistance of the sands, greater pressure will overcome the resistance and will spread the pool over far larger areas. In fact, gas-storage reservoirs which are now isolated from each other under existing pressures may become united under higher pressures." These statements by Mr. Woomer and by some of the other witnesses before this committee have left the impression that the outer limits of a storage reservoir are determined merely by the extent to which the pressure will push the gas. This is not the true situation at all. These natural-gas traps, whether they be water sealed as on domes, sealed against faults, sealed as sand lenses, or sealed by the lack of porosity in the outer edge or outer limits of the reservoir, were originally and still are sealed except for the wells which penetrate them. As some of the witnesses have pointed out, the wells drilled into these closed reservoirs for the purpose of removing the oil or gas which had been trapped there for millions of years are manmade. When a storage reservoir is reconditioned it is necessary to find these manmade faucets and effectively seal them or recondition them for storage purposes. Gas is then introduced into the reservoir through many reconditioned wells and builds up a settled pressure rather uniformly over the entire area of the reservoir until the desired pressure is reached. This company has never operated any of its storage pools at a pressure above the original rock pressure of the pool and, in many instances, due to special conditions or the lack of need for high pressures, has operated the wells at much lower than the initial rock pressures. We keep constant record of the amount of gas which is necessary to raise the pool pressure from 1 pound to the final storage pressure and measure the amount of gas which is taken from the reservoir and check that quantity against the corresponding drop in the reservoir pressure. This constant accounting for gas in and out of the reservoir, together with the corresponding pressures, gives us an accurate measure of our gas transactions and shows us whether or not there is any loss of gas from the reservoir. Increase of the settled gas pressure, especially as long as the pressure is kept below the initial rock prossure of the reservoir, does not force the gas beyond the original limits of the storage reservoir. These pool limits are determined by records of wells drilled in the area, together with detailed geological studies of the particular sand horizon in which the gas is being stored.

In the first paragraph on page 152 Mr. Woomer says: "The inadequacy of pillars left around gas wells, although these pillars were considered fully adequate to protect the mineworkings against the almost negligible pressure then remaining in the original gas. Such pillars, many of which are in inaccessible worked-out portions of a mine, may be either insufficient in size to stand storage pressures or may have partially or entirely crushed out due to the complete extraction of adjacent areas.' It has been a practice of the gas companies, in drilling through coal areas, to contact the owner of the coal, get his approval of the proposed location, establish the size pillar of coal which should be left in reserve around this well, pay the coal company for this coal reserved, and then drill and produce gas from the well. The pressure of the gas well has nothing whatever to do with the size of the coal pillar to be left around the well. The size pillar is determined generally by the depth of the coal under the ground and the type of overburden between the coal and the surface. We know from experience that there has been some careless mining done in the vicinity of these pillars and that in some cases a part of the coal purchased as reserve for the pillar has been mined by the coal operator. We are constantly checking our producing gas wells to determine whether or not there is any deformation of the casing at the coal-horizon depth and to determine whether or not there is any evidence of subsidence in the area of the well. In any event, a well located in a storage area will be drilled to the bottom of the hole and reconditioned or plugged before the storage reservoir is brought up to settled

operating pressure. Mr. Woomer has listed a number of risks in underground gas storage peculiar to mining companies. We cannot agree with him on all of his conclusions. He might, however, have added another and, in our opinion, the most important of all sources of danger and that is careful workmanship and complete cooperation on the part of both the gas and coal operators. We maintain that it is impossible to legislate danger out of two industries such as the coal and gas industries. We agree with Mr. Henry P. Wheeler, Jr., and Mr. William E. Eckard, authors of Underground Storage of Natural Gas in Coal-Mining Areas, Bureau of Mines Information Circular No. 7654, when they say: "The authors believe that the only satisfactory solution is complete cooperation between the two industries and their mutual enlightenment through free exchange of information."

Page 154: Mr. Woomer points out the impossibility of ventilating a mine against the gas which would enter it from a storage well which had been cut through during the mining operations. We agree with Mr. Woomer that it would seem impractical to try to take care of such an emergency through ventilation and suggest again that careful mining, when in the area of a storage reservoir, to prevent the cutting of any storage wells, is by far the best protection against accident.

In the last paragraph on page 154 Mr. Woomer gives 8 instances of explosions in southwestern Pennsylvania and in West Virginia since 1902 in which 100 or more men were killed. He also mentions that there is a long list of other explosions in which less than 100 men were killed. These terrible accidents have occurred in spite of the fine efforts of the coal operators and the legislative bodies, both State and Federal, to prevent them. They seem to have become a part of the hazardous industry of mining in spite of all of the efforts made to prevent them. We are always very sorry and upset when we read in the paper about one of these accidents but we must point out that not one of these accidents has been caused by underground storage.

In the first paragraph on page 156 Mr. Woomer refers to the explosion in the Hubbard mine on January 2, 1939. For our comments on this explosion see the second paragraph on page 3 of this report.

R. L. Wilhelm, consulting mining engineer, St. Clairsville, Ohio

In the first paragraph on page 164, Mr. Wilhelm is talking about the wells not being drilled where the State permits call for them to be drilled. I am wondering if the wells are not drilled close enough to the proposed location that the coal companies could find them and accurately locate them on their maps, thereby making it possible to keep from cutting into them during their mining operations. Pages 164 and 165: Mr. Wilhelm discusses the problem of locating old wells which have been abandoned for many years. Without repeating our previous statements concerning the location of old wells, we would just call attention to the fact that it does require diligent search for gas wells but we know from experience that they can be located.

In the second paragraph on page 165 Mr. Wilhelm says: "If a gas reservoir were to be established in depleted sand under the above-mentioned mine, and one of the coal cutting machines cut or broke into an uncharted well connecting the mine with the gas reservoir below, a sudden inrush of gas would occur which could result in a major catastrophe." We must admit that if all of these conditions were brought about, through lack of care in operation on the part of the mine operator, this condition could happen. I do not see any way to legislate accidents caused by carelessness from occurring in the coal industry, the gas industry, on the highway, or in any other type of business in our country.

Page 166, quoting Mr. Wilhelm: "In view of the facts stated above, it does not make sense for the Federal Government to encourage or facilitate the means by which storage of gas under minable coal seams would occur. This would create a potential danger for the miners working therein." There is one fact which has not been brought out in any of the statements which I have read in this hearing and that is the danger to human life caused by a failure of gas supply during a peak demand, perhaps in the dead of winter. When the gas supply in a community fails, and the pilot lights go out, even for a short period of time, there is extreme danger of explosion and loss of life in those homes if the gas is not shut off at each consumer connection and properly purged of air and lighted by people trained in that work. The prevention of this type of accident requires vigilant and careful operation on the part of the gas company just as protection against cutting into gas wells requires careful operation on the part of the coal companies.

Max H. Forester, vice president, Pittsburgh Consolidation Coal Co., Pittsburgh, Pa.

Page 168: Mr. Forester states that it is an important fact that none of the sales or leases of gas and oil rights by owners, of any type, permitted anything more than the right to drill for and remove the gas or oil which nature had accumulated in the ground, implying that the lease did not give the right to store gas. This was true in the early history of gas production, but I believe that a search of the records or an inquiry of gas companies today will show that gas leases have for several years carried a clause giving the right to store gas and providing for the payment of an annual rental for the storage privilege. Our company recognizes that it is necessary for it to make an agreement with the landowner, who is also the owner of the storage rights according to recent court decisions in other States, before storing gas under property belonging to other people. Under the "theory of capture," as laid down by the United States Supreme Court, gas belongs to the person who captures the gas. We do not want to take the risk of bringing gas from Texas, introducing it into the ground at tremendous expense, then having some individual, on whose land we do not have a lease of any kind, drill a gas well into our storage pool and legally use that gas or dispose of it as he sees fit.

Page 169: Mr. Forester says, "It has not been the custom for a gas company to give notice to a coal company of intent to store, where the properties overlapped." I believe that Mr. Forester is correct in this statement; however, I am sure that he will agree that neither has it ever been the policy of the coal company to give notice to gas companies of its intentions to extend its mining operations into territory where wells have been drilled. This again is a case for cooperation between the two industries and, as previously said, our company has experienced the finest cooperation on the part of the coal companies, through our mining engineer, whose duty it is to secure from the coal companies information on their operations and give to them any information which they want in connection with our operations. Closer cooperation and friendlier relations will do more to prevent accidents as the results of the operations of these two industries than legislation can possibly do.

Page 170: Mr. Forester is speaking of types of storage other than underground storage. The gas companies have experimented with other types of storage of gas such as gasholders, liquefaction of gas, and underground pipe storage fields and have found that underground storage in depleted gas reservoirs is the most economical and the safest for all concerned. A great deal could be said on the results of these experiments but space here does not permit.

Page 172: Mr. Forester is talking about coal left for the protection af a gas well. Mr. Forester is correct in his statement that approximately 1 acre of coal is normally required to be left for the protection of each well in each seam penetrated; however, before we drill through a seam of coal we have our proposed well location approved by the coal company and negotiate for the purchase of this block of coal which is to be left around the well. We pay the coal company for this coal protection and have generally found them to be cooperative and reasonable in their dealings.

In the first paragraph on page 174: Unfortunately we have no means by which we can look into the ground and see exactly what the physical condition of the storage sand really is. We do not know whether or not it is disturbed by the mining operations which are carried on perhaps 2,000 or 3,000 feet above this layer of sandstone. Our belief is that it has not been disturbed by the mining operation and our experience with underground storage bears out this belief since we have not experienced any leakage which we could attribute to storage horizon disturbance resulting from normal mining operations.

Page 175: Senator Monroney, in speaking of the depth of storage sands, asks the question "Do you have them as deep as 3,000 and 4,000 feet?" Mr. Forester replied "Oh, yes. These wells are even located in coal seams. There are 2 areas in West Virginia and 1 in western Pennsylvania in that region in the coal seam, the gas is in the coal seam and they got so much gas that they left the coal mine and left the gas in the coal seam." I do not believe that Mr. Forester meant to leave the impression that gas is ever stored in a coal seam because this is not the case. I believe Mr. Forester meant to say that many coal seams do produce considerable quantities of gas. We, too, know of cases where gas wells produce from coal seams in sufficient quantites to make them commercially profitable. In the second paragraph on page 176 Mr. Forester says: "S. 525 as written uses the terms 'land' and 'interest in land' without definition of meaning. Some

gas companies have already expressed their desire to condemn large sections of existing coal mines or an entire mine-even whole reserve areas if it suits their purpose." I do not know whether or not these companies were seriously contemplating such wide use of eminent domain in acquiring complete coal mines but I will say that our company, knowing that we never get bargains through condemnation, have never felt that we could afford any such use of eminent domain. I am sure that we would never find it economically feasible to indulge in such use of the right of eminent domain since we are spending the public's money and operating under State public-utility regulations. As previously stated, our company does not find it necessary in many cases to buy coal support for its pipeline operations and I am sure we would rarely ever use the right of eminent domain for that purpose.

In the first paragraph on page 177: Mr. Forester is talking about the mine operators not appreciating the importance of gas storage until a great many of them had been established near coal mines. Our company has never made any effort as to secrecy in its underground storage operations. We have taken these pools more or less as a part of our normal business and have and are giving any information concerning them to any coal company who wants the information.

In the second paragraph on page 177 Senator Schoeppel says: "You understand that there was testimony produced here by way of amendments that would protect the coal industry from that possibility. We are not going to be unmindful of the property rights of other people in a different industry. It would be patently unfair to say to one section of the industry of the country that you can go in and because it suits your purpose to root out other public interests and other mining operations that have potential value." We certainly agree with Senator Schoeppel in this fair and logical conclusion.

In the last paragraph on page 179 Mr. Forester says: "Under these circumstances, it is our belief that the passage of S. 525 would be both untimely and undesirable. It is a State problem, and both the jurisdiction and the solution thereof should remain vested in the State." Again we repeat that those companies operating under the jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission should have the right of eminent domain through amendment to the Natural Gas Act. Those companies operating under State regulation should have their eminent domain power from the State. It therefore appears desirable that the Congress pass S. 525 as modified by my latest amendment and that we also have State legislation on this subject of eminent domain.

We agree with Senator Schoeppel's statement on page 181.

Bernard D. Brocker, assistant vice president, Bethlehem Steel Corp., Pittsburgħ, Pa.

In the second and third paragraphs on page 185 Mr. Broeker has again brought up the question of whether or not the right of eminent domain should come from the State or Federal Governments. Again we feel that the right should come from each of them to take care of Federal as well as State regulated companies. Page 186: Mr. Broeker calls attention to the fact that the States have specialized departments who are concerned with mining and with oil and gas operations. The Interior Department also has specialized departments dealing with

these two subjects.

In the second and third paragraphs on page 187 and on page 188 Mr. Brocker appears to be apprehensive of the loss of entire coal reserves and the resulting crippling of the steel industry. I have recommended certain amendments which I believe will take care of this feeling of apprehension. Certainly no gas company could give serious thought to the condemning of entire coal mines, together with the reserve of coal.

Page 191: Mr. Broeker has again brought up the question of gas companies condemning entire coal seams and says that one company representative has suggested that probably that would be the best solution for our problem. I cannot think of any situation in our area where this procedure would be economically feasible since gas companies know from experience that there are no bargains to be had by exercise of the right of eminent domain and that it must be resorted to only when the public welfare absolutely demands it.

In the next paragraph Mr. Broeker brings up again the question of a network of coal reserve as support for pipelines leading from wells in a storage area or in an operated gas field. Again we want to say that it is rarely ever necessary for this company to acquire coal for the support of its pipelines because we have found other practical and more economical methods for dealing with this problem.