as 3 days, while in the same field and under similar conditions legitimate producing companies require at least 3 weeks to accomplish the same plugging operation. Certainly wells plugged under these conditions constitute a hazard to mining operations. A well plugged by any but the most responsible parties should be drilled out and reconditioned if it is to be located within the pressurized area of a gas storage pool.

The next hazard which I would like to discuss is the possibility of the leakage of gas from a gas-storage pool. In order to appreciate this problem the difference between a producing and a storage well must be understood. A producing well operates to contain a steadily falling pressure. It must withstand the original rock pressure for but a short time as the pressure falls rapidly at first.

This condition of maximum pressure is encountered when the well is likely to be in the best physical condition as it is then new. Ordinarily, a producing well must withstand merely the line pressure except when the well is closed in. Thus, maximum pressure conditions are not likely to occur nor would the duration be long.

On the other hand, since storage contemplates the renewal of pressure often equaling or even exceeding the original rock pressure, a gas-storage well must withstand high pressures for the life of the pool. Wells deteriorate with age. Casing corrodes and often eats through. Corrosion is particularly severe where the casing penetrates coal seams, thus tending to weaken the well at the most critical points so far as coal mining is concerned.

Leakage can and has occurred from a storage well. The November 1953 issue of the magazine Better Heat quotes Mr. Remick McDowell, vice president and secretary of the Peoples Gas, Light & Coke Co. of Chicago, in part as follows:

During the last few days of July and the first part of August, evidences of gas in certain water wells and abandoned oil wells were noticed in the Herscher area. *** The first steps taken were to protect the community of Herscher. In the instances where abandoned water wells existed in the backyards, these were vented and standpipes inserted so that any gas which might be coming to the surface would be raised above the level of danger.

A series of vent wells were drilled to remove any gas which might be moving through semishallow strata. A program of drilling to recheck and retest the geological findings was followed. An intensive program of testing injection wells was pursued. At the present time the surface activities and indications are back to normal. The Herscher storage project is more promising today than before injection started on April 1. The leakage experienced was caused by mechanical, man-made leaks.

Such leaks are nothing new in oil and gas fields and in fields for storage. They happen now and then despite the best drilling techniques and the utmost vigilance. When they happen, they are found and cured, sometimes easily and sometimes with more difficulty. That such a leak should have happened at Herscher is unfortunate but of no great long-range significance.

Apparently the leakage subsided after repairs were made on one well, but reappeared after injection was resumed.

The December 1953 issue of Between the Lines, the house organ published by Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America and other subsidiaries of Peoples Gas, Light & Coke Co. states in part:

The Herscher storage project continues to be a rather difficult puzzle. We found the one casing leak that we thought was causing the difficulty. Apparently, there is another or others that contribute to an escape of around 7 million cubic feet daily that is being vented to the air from the old oil wells, the water wells, and the vent holes that we have drilled for the purpose of protecting the town of Herscher.

Further on the article states:

We are now looking for a casing shoe leak at the bottom of the casing where the cement is supposed to shut off the escape of gas upward along the outside of the casing. Remember this, we are looking for one or more very tiny leaks. At the pressures with which we are dealing, a hole 1 inch in diameter will let over a million cubic feet of gas escape in a day.

Fortunately there are no mines in the Herscher area. The volume of leakage was such that the operation of a mine in the vicinity would have been endangered seriously.

The greatly reduced pressure in gas-producing fields near coal mines and the improved ventilation in modern mines have combined to eliminate or minimize the leakage problem from producing wells. However, explosions of natural gas have occurred in coal mines.

During the early days of gas production before the gas pressure had fallen, there were a number of instances of leakage from producing wells into operating mines. I have records of 4 explosions resulting in 6 deaths from this cause.

Recently it has been determined that another cause for concern. exists in the Appalachian area. Previously I mentioned and defined the porosity lens type of reservoir in which the gas is trapped in a formation having variable permeability and the impermeable portions act as a barrier or seal preventing the migration of gas from the porous lens. I stated that this type of reservoir is the most common in the Appalachian region.

Different maps obtained by a coal company over a period of years from the gas storage company operating the Pratt storage pool in southwestern Pennsylvania show an extension of the limits of the pool indicating that the pool is not contained by truly impermeable barriers but probably only by less permeable material.

Thus, as the gas within the pool migrates outward into the surrounding area it can reach operating, abandoned, or even unknown wells. The gas storage company cannot forecast the limits of its storage pool in the presence of gas migration.

These maps show fingers leading out from the main body of the pool. It is quite conceivable that such fingers exist or could grow by migration without the knowledge of the storage company and subject inproperly placed wells far away from the supposed limits of the storage pool to excessive pressure. The possibilities for gas to make its way into mines as a result of migration are stagge

Merely renewing the pressure in a former producing sand may be dangerous While exact data on this subject has been dificult to assemble, many competent mining engineers belleve that the presence of gas in a potential producing sand even at some death beneath a coal seam serious y afects the rate and amount of gas emission taking place within the coal seam.

While the economie benefits to be derived from drilling sporessful gas wells are of themselves more than suficient te warrant the expense of the operation, many c companies have drilled wells with the realitatiim that the depletion of the gas from beneath the coal seam wild and in safer mining of the co. Renewing the gas pressure by storage may place an unreasonable and unusual burden upon a

Recently, coe gis company has made the statement that gas storage constitutes no hazard for coal mining so long as the mines are operated

safely. The main factor affecting safety of coal mines is ventilation. Unfortunately, this statement shows a lack of understanding of the basic premise of coal-mine ventilation and thus safety. The basic premise is that fresh air shall be conducted in sufficient quantity to the working faces where methane is encountered to render such methane harmless. Immediately after coursing the working faces the air is considered return air and is returned to the atmosphere.

Thus, so far as the air is concerned, it is divided into two halves, intake and return, and the point of division is where the air is likely to encounter the emission of methane. There are possible sources of ignition on intake air such as trolley wires and open-type equipment. These sources of ignition are kept a required distance away from the working faces or any known sources of gas emission. Sources of ignition are not permitted at the working faces nor on return air. This basic method of ventilation has been proved to be sound, but cannot cope with a sudden outburst of gas such as can occur and has occurred from natural sources. I know of no responsible mining engineer who would claim that he can design a practical ventilation scheme which would render harmless all such outbursts of gas.

So far the discussion presented by the gas industry mainly have taken several arguments. First, the methods of locating and plugging old wells and the methods of drilling and cementing injection and recovery wells have been described in detail.

These operations have been described with the evident purpose of impressing the coal industry with the care and skill used in actually creating and activating a storage pool. The coal industry can have little faith in these methods now in view of the previously quoted statement by Mr. Remick McDowell that

such leaks are nothing new in the oil and gas fields and in fields used for storage. They happen now and then despite the best drilling techniques and the utmost vigilance.

Our industry's experience indicates the impossibility of locating all old wells with certainty. The spokesmen for the gas industry have described the testing of a gas-storage pool. I have not been able to appreciate any real difference so far as opportunity for gas leakage is concerned between testing and operating a gas-storage field, except in the quantity or rate of gas injected and thus pressure involved. In fact, the chance of leakage may be greater for a field under tests, as I understand that gas-storage companies do not recondition all old wells until the characteristics of the storage sand are determined by injection. A leak from a field under test might be just as disastrous as one from an operating field.

Another argument often heard is that to the present time there has been no disaster such as some of us fear, although storage has been practiced near operating coal mines for some time. There are but two ways to counter this argument. The first is to discuss those aspects of storage which might conceivably cause a disaster, to point out that they are present and to warn that such a disaster can occur. The other way to counter the argument is to have such a disaster. I cannot believe that the gas industry will insist that a disaster occur before it will take additional measures to prevent one.

I believe that the only certain protection is not to store gas near coal mines. I believe that the Department of the Interior agrees

with this view. Mr. Wormser, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, in his letter of February 11 to this committee, recommended:

*** that Congress in extending the right of eminent domain for the purpose of underground gas storage should restrict that right to areas where such storage would not increase the hazard to the safety or health of mine workers. The right of eminent domain for gas storage should therefore not be extended to facilitate the storage of gas in vicinity of active underground mining areas.

Coal mining is a depleting industry. Of necessity the locations of mining operations are never static but always moving. Thus, the coal lands which are in reserve today will be mined tomorrow. Storage of gas beneath these reserve coal lands can be just as hazardous to future mining operations as storage is hazardous beneath mines now operating.

I believe that storage beneath reserve coal lands lessens or destroys the value of these reserves so long as such storage exists. If the right of eminent domain could be exercised upon reserve coal lands, the right would endanger the property rights of the owners of the coal lands. While I appreciate that the storage company could be required to reimburse the coal owner, if there was a provable loss of value, still I do not feel that it is equitable or in the national interest that gas-storage companies condemn our reserve coal lands and drive us out of business.

As now constituted, S. 525 would give gas-transmission companies the right to condemn coal beneath pipelines which are a part of the storage pool. Such condemnation could make orderly development and operation of coal mines nearly impossible.

I believe that the gas companies have not exhausted the possibilities for storage in locations where mining is not a factor. Distant storage requires a big investment in larger pipelines; but it must still be profitable, for there is now pending an application to the Federal Power Commission for permission to transport gas from a huge storage pool about 30 miles east of Pittsburgh to the metropolitan New Jersey

area.

Naturally it is cheaper to store gas close to the area of consumption; but I am sure the additional cost is preferable to the hazard and liability of storage in mining areas.

Because of the many varied natural problems involved and because of the many complex interrelationships between gas storage and mining of all types, I feel that it is impossible to draft brief legislation on a national basis that would accomplish the purpose of S. 525 and still adequately protect these other industries.

In addition the economic effects of such legislation vary immensely from State to State. Storage could have little effect in a State where mining is of minor importance; but in West Virginia, for example, where coal mining is by far the primary industry, passage of S. 525 and its unrestricted use could bring economic disaster.

The States themselves are not adverse to nor are they being remiss in granting the right of eminent domain for gas storage. The States can more easily recognize special safety and economic problems within their borders than can the Federal Government. If the need for change should arise within a State, then that State can act on its own more easily and quickly to effect a remedy. If regulation of the right of eminent domain or regulation of gas storage be necessary, a State can set up procedures, administrative and enforcement ma

chinery with the assurance that its citizens will have a better chance to be heard.

Senator PURTELL. Thank you, Mr. Jamison.

Do you have any questions, Senator Schoeppel?

Senator SCHOEPPEL. No questions.

Senator PURTELL. Do you have any questions, Senator Monroney? Senator MONRONEY. No questions.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Jamison.

The next witness is Mr. J. W. Woomer, consulting engineer, of Pittsburgh, Pa.

STATEMENT OF J. W. WOOMER, CONSULTING ENGINEER,

PITTSBURGH, PA.

Mr. WOOMER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is J. W. Woomer. I reside in Wheeling, W. Va., and maintain consulting mining engineering offices in Wheeling, W. Va., and Pittsburgh, Pa.

I am a graduate of Pennsylvania State University and am a registered professional mining engineer in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and Indiana.

I have been engaged in the consulting mining engineering profession since 1940 after spending 15 years as coal-mine superintendent, chief mining engineer, and manager of mines.

My experience in mining consulting work has been in coal, potash, and copper in eight foreign countries and in most of the States of the United States.

My purpose here today is to speak about certain aspects of the technical problems of underground gas storage and its complementary operations. By so doing, it is my hope that the complexity of underground gas-storage technique and the resultant property and mining personnel problems can be set forth.

My statement, therefore, covers an objective evaluation of the problems and then ends up with a list of specific convictions as to what must be done as remedies for the best interests of all parties concerned.

The natural-gas industry is a vital part of the Nation's needs. There is no question but that the practical way to carry on this important industry is to utilize underground gas-storage reservoirs provided they are so located as not to jeopardize the safety or the property of others. There is not in the Nation nearly 1 trillion cubic feet of developed gas-storage pool capacity, with additional capacity available in other exhausted natural-gas areas.

However, in evaluating the gas industry as a national asset, it must be understood that the natural-gas reserves in the United States constitute only about 2 percent of the remaining total fuel reserves and that the maximum potential reserves of 500 to 600 trillion cubic feet seem to be adequate to supply the projected gas consumption for only about 50 years.

It follows, therefore, that the long-range future United States national industrial economy and standard of living must be predicated on the use of solid fuel to produce steam, steel, and electricity. These products are also necessary to process many other vital commodities, including the pipe, equipment, and machinery necessary to carry oк

47560-54—5