JULY 5, 1968. Hon. RAYMOND P. SHAFER, Governor, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, DEAR GOVERNOR SHAFER: This is to advise you that the Columbia Gas System Service Corporation is undertaking a reevaluation of Project Ketch. As a consequence, Columbia is unconditionally withdrawing its proposed lease to conduct the project on a site in the Sproul State Forest. We will notify Dr. Morris Goddard, Secretary of Forests and Waters, of this action. Columbia continues to believe that Project Ketch can be conducted in a completely safe manner that will benefit the long-range energy requirements of Clinton and Centre Counties and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. However, the re-study by Columbia will involve consideration of other potential sites and will not be limited to this region or to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, but may encompass other Appalachian areas. Sincerely yours, SY ORLOFSKY. SOUTHERN INTERSTATE NUCLEAR BOARD, Mr. JOHN S. KELLY, Director, Division of Peaceful Nuclear Explosives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. KELLY: The July 3rd issue of the National Coal Policy Conference newsletter reported a statement by Congressman John Saylor, Republican, Pennsylvania, that he has received a petition signed by 15,000 residents opposing the planned nuclear formed underground gas storage area in his state. Since the principal gas conveyance lines from the Texas and Oklahoma fields serving the industrial northeast pass through Kentucky, and since the general geologic conditions are similar in that state to those in Pennsylvania, we would like to suggest consideration of a Kentucky site or a possible site in other states within the region served by the Southern Interstate Nuclear Board. Even if plans continue for the Pennsylvania site, despite public reaction against the gas reservoir, we would urgently invite your consideration of a site in this region. We are of the belief that the required supporting participation by the gas companies, state government, and the technical institutions would be extremely favorable in Kentucky and other potential site areas. Moreover, we would pledge the full resources of this agency to the effective sampling and preconditioning of public reaction which we believe would lend itself to the assurance of a more favorable citizen response. We would appreciate your treating this communique as an official proposal from the Southern Interstate Nuclear Board and the Commonwealth of Kentucky and advising us as to your reaction. Sincerely, Mr. ROBERT H. GIFFORD, ROBERT H. GIFFORD, U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, Executive Director, Southern Interstate Nuclear Board, DEAR MR. GIFFORD: I was very pleased to read your letter of July 9, 1968, proposing Kentucky as a location for a nuclear gas storage experiment. The interest and support of the Southern Interstate Nuclear Board is greatly appreciated. As you are by now aware, the Columbia Gas System Service Corporation, the industrial partner proposing the gas storage project to which you refer, Project Ketch, informed Governor Shafer by letter of July 5 that it was withdrawing its request for a lease of state forest land in north central Pennsylvania for that project. Mr. Orlofsky, Vice President of Engineering and Research, in his letter to the Governor, went on to say that Columbia will continue to investigate sites in Pennsylvania and elsewhere in the Appalachian area. In developing experimental and demonstrative projects for industrial applications of nuclear explosions, the AEC is guided by the interest which private industries demonstrate. More particularly, after the feasibility of the application has been studied this interest takes the form of a proposal for a joint Government-industry project which identifies the specific site the proposer is able to make available. Traditionally, providing a suitable site is the responsibility of the industrial partner or proposer. At the present time, Project Ketch, proposed by the Columbia Gas System Service Corporation, is the only gas storage project proposed to the Commission. By copy of this letter I am making your offer for a Kentucky site available to Mr. Orlofsky. I am certain the Southern Interstate Nuclear Board can be of great service to the development of Plowshare in that area and provide immeasurable assistance toward public acceptance and coordination with state agencies concerned. I am encouraged by your belief that the public and private institutions in Kentucky will support a Plowshare project, and I look forward to continued correspondence on this and other matters of mutual interest. Sincerely yours, JOHN S. KELLY, Director, Division of Peaceful Nuclear Explosives. APPENDIX 9 PROJECT GASBUGGY A feasibility study concerned with nuclear explosive stimulation of a natural gas reservoir, prepared by El Paso Natural Gas Company, the United States Atomic Energy Commission and the United States Bureau of Mines. ABSTRACT The United States Atomic Energy Commission, the United States Bureau of Mines, Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Livermore, and El Paso Natural Gas Company have jointly investigated the feasibility of fracturing natural gas reservoirs with nuclear explosives and designed an experiment to test this concept. The beneficial effects of a nuclear explosion in a gas reservoir should be: 1. A network of fractures radiating out from the shot point that will permit more effective drainage of the reservoir; 2. An expanded wellbore that will allow higher sustained rates of production after initial drainage of the fractured zone; and 3. An effective storage volume for short-term high deliverability. The Pictured Cliffs formation, a gas reservoir in the San Juan Basin of northwestern New Mexico, was selected for analysis to determine if a field test in this area is feasible. This analysis resulted in the finding that nuclearexplosion stimulation of a Pictured Cliffs formation well at the proposed location may increase stabilized deliverability and gas recovery during the initial 20-year producing period by substantial factors over that obtainable by present completion methods. It is also concluded that an effective field test can be designed which would satisfy all safety requirements so that neither the possibility of radioactive contamination of the atmosphere or ground water nor the resulting ground shock would be a serious hazard. Furthermore, calculation of the level of radioactive contamination of the gas resulting from explosion of a fission device suggests that flaring some of the recoverable gas and employing other techniques could reduce the level of radioactivity to safe limits for transmission and ultimate consumption. Total cost of the experiment, exclusive of the cost of the explosive, is estimated at $3,000,000.00. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The preparation of this report was a joint effort of El Paso Natural Gas Company (EPNG), the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), the U. S. Bureau of Mines (USBM), and the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory (LRL), coordinated by Sam Smith and edited by Harry Gevertz (EPNG). Principal authors were Harry Gevertz, R. F. Lemon and W. T. Hollis (EPNG), M. A. Lekas (AEC), Don C. Ward and Charles H. Atkinson (USBM), and Dr. Norman Bonner (LRL). Important technical assistance, guidance and advice were contributed by Ben R. Howell, Sam Smith and A. M. Derrick (EPNG), J. Wade Watkins (USBM), John F. Philip (AEC) and Dr. Gerald W. Johnson and Dr. Gary H. Higgins (LRL). A project of this size and scope required the efforts of many people in the organizations listed that have not received mention, but whose contributions are reflected in this study. The cooperation of all was essential and is appreciated. |