Our blog has moved!

You should be automatically redirected in 6 seconds. If not, visit
http://www.saltwaterdisposalinstitute.com
and update your bookmarks.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Economics of Disposal Projects




 
SWDI Investors’ Guide – Economics of Disposal Projects               January 22, 2013

Introduction
Income, costs, and profits from saltwater disposal (SWD) wells fit into a complex equation. If the investor is careful, costs and net revenue can be remarkably stable, leading to steady profits and reliable forecasts. This current post will take an abbreviated look at typical costs, market trends, potential problems and due-diligence issues for the careful investor.

CAPEX: Capital costs for disposal well projects can be listed in several categories:
      1. Well costs – whether drilling and completing a new well or purchase of an existing bore-hole – these costs can be very easily be into the millions. At least one well is needed but a back-up well is essential to provide constant service at a large disposal facility.
      2. Surface equipment – these items might range from several steel or fiberglass tanks, transfer and injection pumps, to extensive concrete pad and full electronic tracking systems.
      3. SWD operator may elect to use his own transport trucks to pick up and deliver water.
      4. Pipelines – long-term customers will want to be serviced by underground pipelines to avoid problems and cut costs; these might be installed by the customer or by the disposal well operator.
      5. Water treatment facilities – might include filters, oil separators, polymer breakers, and paraffin blocks. Generally treatment is meant to improve injection efficiency.

OPEX: Operation and Maintenance costs will of course be on-going throughout the life of the project.
      1. Power consumption by the facility for pumps, lights, and secondary equipment.
      2. Personnel costs can be large if 24-hour operation is adopted, if trucks are used, or if water treatment must be extensive. Heavy equipment must be used by staff but operations are not  routinely hazardous.
      3. Motor fuel, lubricants, and chemical costs can be significant.
      4. SWD well and equipment maintenance will be significant over the life of the well; working  over the well to repair bad casing or a bad packer can cost a half-million dollars.
      5. Regulatory compliance will vary between agencies but monthly and annual reports and tests are usually required. An annual mechanical integrity test of the well will require that the well is shut-in for the day with resultant loss in revenue.
      6. Environmental liabilities are unlikely but real, tanks are protected by fire-walls but wellheads are usually not and they can have leaks. Trucks can suffer leaks while loading or unloading.  Pipelines can leak at the surface or below the surface. Insurance and rapid-response need to be arranged before operation starts.

Revenues: Several profit streams may be present at the disposal facility:
      1. Disposal of produced water is of course the principal source of revenue for the well; revenue will depend upon the amount of production in the area, the average water cut (percentage of water in the production stream), and the other disposal wells in the area.
       2. Captured crude oil is also an important economic factor. The amount of entrained oil in the water will vary by region and by formation but is often close to 1% of the produced water volume. Revenue is important since the sale of this recovered oil is without royalties.
       3. Storing and selling heavy brine can be a source of profits if local operators use heavy brine for drilling or completing wells.
       4. Some produced water can be easily treated for a specific re-use such as drilling or fracking.  
Trucking: Saltwater hauling can readily be incorporated into the SWD project as a way to increase traffic to the SWD and an added profit stream. A fleet of tank trucks in several sizes can be purchased to insure access to most well site locations. Trucks and trailers are expensive, require frequent maintenance to continue to be efficient, require an adequate truck shed and yard but CAPEX and OPEX for the trucking equipment can be recouped through trucking charges to the area’s oilwell operators. Indeed, if his competitors choose to use trucks, our SWD operator will very likely be forced to add trucking to his repertoire in order to maintain customers.

Landfilling: New drilling wells and older producing wells spin-off liquid wastes that are best injected into an SWD, but they also produce copious volumes of solid wastes that cannot be injected. For example, drill-cuttings are generated while drilling a well; these cuttings are high in salinity and high in oil & grease content. Cuttings are coarse and cannot be liquefied; they are not to be injected into an SWD well except under very unusual conditions. Cuttings and other solids such as contaminated soil are best landfilled and this can be done on-site into a small, lined trench or at a large commercial facility. An oil & gas landfill can be merged with an SWD facility when there is sufficient acreage available and sufficient working capital can be arranged. Regulators usually require that a commercial landfill be equipped with an appropriate geo-membrane liner to isolate the fill contents from groundwater and surface water runoff. The incorporation of a solid waste landfill with the SWD will allow the project owners to accept and bill for all the wastes generated by E&P facilities.

Market Trends: Any business must seek to match its facilities to the demands of the market – if the restaurant is over-built to the clientele, efficiency and net revenues suffer. At the same time the businessman must be knowledgeable of market trends – are demands growing every year or are they shrinking? If a new SWD project has high CAPEX demands it will likely require several years to pay-out and accurate knowledge of the local produced water trends is vital. Following are aspects that need to be considered to understand the local market (note that the word “local” will vary from project to project, its radius is determined by the distance commonly traveled by water trucks in the area):

- Number of producing wells making water in the area. This count can be made from government records, either by county or by an easily-defined polygon. Active and shut-in wells are usually listed so that tabulations can be made.
- Change in the number of producing wells in the past 10 or 20 years. Depending upon the agency, monthly or annual totals can be retrieved and plotted in a simple graph to identify changes and current trends.
- Number of new wells drilled this year. New wells will involve large volumes of drilling waste needing to be managed. Older wells will show increases in the amount of water produced every day.
- Number of SWDs in the area and the changes in the past 10 or 20 years.
All of these trends have their own causes and implications for the current and future SWD market. The SWDI specializes in the interpretation of market trends and can help investors.

Potential Problems: There are issues that can exist in area or that can happen in the future that will have a significant effect on the economics of the SWD project:
Inadequate injection zone. The injection zone is one of the most important aspects of the SWD; it needs capability (the ability to take fluid at a given pressure, as measured by permeability) and capacity (the ability to store fluid over a long period as defined by porosity). Without both properties, the SWD may not be a suitable candidate. If the well exists and has a history of injection, certain forecasts can be attempted but if the well has not yet been drilled, the forecast will need to be extrapolated from nearby wells.
Scale and fouling in the well. Some injection zones are sensitive to certain saltwater chemistry, their permeability can be fouled with precipitating scale; this must be removed by periodic flushing with acid. At other times customers can submit waste water that contains drilling mud or cement, fluids that can permanently damage the injection zone. The SWD might need to be re-perforated or re-drilled.
Seismic activity can of course happen anywhere in the United States on any day of the year but an earthquake near an SWD has a certain implication for the news media and people who are exposed to that media. This subject has been dealt with in other blog-posts so details are not needed here. It appears to be true that some SWDs cause some earthquakes in some areas of the country. If a string of quakes is linked to an SWD, the operator may wish to perforate a different zone, cut the rate of injection, or drill a new well at another location.
Impact to nearby water well can have a myriad of causes but an SWD is a common target. Analyses of the impacted well and surrounding water wells are a must in order to identify the contaminants. The contaminants can then be related back to the impacting source which might be percolating fertilizer run-off or oilfield brine. After the point-source of the contamination is traced down, the SWD operator might want to drill a new private water well or another solution.
Loss of mechanical integrity within the SWD well implies corrosion or crack in the casing, a hole in the injection tubing, or leak in the packer. In any case it must be repaired before injection can resume. Repairs can shut-in the well for weeks waiting on repairs.

Due-Diligence Considerations: Prior to investment or purchase, the investor would do well to consider a number of factors involved in the subject SWD project:
           - Market analysis to determine current market status and future market. 
           - New drilling plays in the general area.
           - Condition of current SWDs in the area.
                 - Newly permitted SWDs in the area.

Appropriateness of the selected site:
                  - Easy road access.

                  - Adequate surface area for planned facilities.

- Separation from residences.
                  - Dates and locations of any previous spills or leaks.

- Capability of the injection zone in the area.
                  - Regional subsurface problems such as faults and corrosive groundwater.

Investors considering a SWD project must investigate the pros and cons of the specific project whether it is in operation or is meant to be drilled and the surface facilities built from scratch. An experienced, full-service contractor such as SWDI can help evaluate the project.

The Authors:

Marian M. Smith, Ph.D., University of South Carolina (Geology) is a partner in Odin Oil and Gas, LLC, in Oklahoma City, OK. Dr. Smith has expertise in reservoir geology and image analysis. For most of her career she was an educator at all levels from graduate school geology courses at Michigan Technological University to the teaching of science in middle school in South Carolina. At present she is combining her background in research and teaching to work as a consultant with Dr. Langhus at Odin Oil and Gas, LLC.

Bruce G. Langhus, Ph.D., is a petroleum geologist with over 45 years' experience in oil and gas business including water-flood design and operation; Class I, II, and III disposal well location, permitting and operation; and injection well remediation. Dr. Langhus has been the Class II Program Manager in Oklahoma, the second largest UIC program in the country. He was a founding partner of ALL Consulting, a successful geotechnical consultancy in Tulsa, OK. Dr. Langhus is now part of Amerex Resources, operators of disposal facilities in Texas, Oklahoma, Montana, and North Dakota.

 

 

 


 

 

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Promised Land, The Movie Gets It Right







Promised Land, The Movie Gets It Right                                                   January 16, 2013

Introduction
Last weekend was the first general release of the Gus Van Sandt – Matt Damon movie Promised Land. Dr Smith and I went to see it with a sense of trepidation and expectation – would the movie be a replay of GasLand, a string of unrelated videos or a real movie with characters and plot? We came away satisfied with the movie and glad to have invested the $10 (no popcorn). But I want to spoil it for you – this movie is not about environmental threats, it’s about local politics and as such it has the greatest relevance to the oil and gas operators and those investors in the saltwater disposal business.

Promised Land portrays life in a small town in Pennsylvania, rural life is removed from life in the big cities of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia but running through the movie is the message that rural farm life is an illusion; farmers must have second or third “real jobs” in order to stay on the farm. The unreality of farms is a thick thread that runs through the movie. Into this rural paradise come two landmen for a big oil and gas company that wants to develop the shale-gas under the farms and town. Big money is thrown around to get leases signed until a local high school teacher starts talking about the dangers of fracking. The town’s venal, cowardly mayor calls a town election to decide whether or not to allow fracking. The rest of the movie leads up to the municipal election to vote on permission for the company to drill and frack. Two extremely likable young men are the protagonists in the story; this makes us pay close attention to their words and expressions because we don’t want to dislike either one.

The movie presents no evidence for or against fracking but citizens are told to read about it, always good advice for us citizens. But what happens when information is all over the geographical map and all over the trustworthiness map? Does bad fracking news from Wyoming have any applicability to western Pennsylvania? Is a spokesman from the Sierra Club more trustworthy than one from Chesapeake Energy? The first question has sound technical answers; the second question has no answer. It has been the tradition in The West to relegate those hard questions to politics. But when the questions threaten to impinge on business interests, especially big business, we recoil. Many of us cheer a new business start-up based on a strange, new idea; we’d be disgusted if our mayor suddenly forbade the owners from starting that business. If an EPA regulator had the power to disallow drilling when she thought the prospect was too weak, the oil sector would be up in arms – real arms. 

I see that Promised Land has the zeitgeist of 2013 America dead right – citizens claim the right to curtail business development that they feel harmful to them. I have seen or read about these citizen protests several times throughout my history in the oil business but more frequently in the past ten years. I will describe the histories of five factual confrontations between oil companies and citizens; maybe these narratives will help explain the movie and will convince owners and investors in disposal wells that this trend is serious for our industry.

1.      Pauls Valley, Oklahoma: I have mentioned this confrontation elsewhere in this blog. Citizens blocked the installation of a disposal well in rural Garvin County in the heart of Oklahoma’s oil country. A permit had been received earlier but the well was not drilled before the permit expired. The new permit application was protested by more than 1200 citizens who were concerned about groundwater supplies, truck traffic, and the potential for serious earthquakes in the area. The permit applicant presented the facts at a town meeting and at the permit hearing at the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. The planned well was found to be in compliance with all state regulations. Citizens presented data extraneous to the permitting requirements but important to the community – noise, dust and road damage. Citizens were allowed to present arguments despite lacking legal representation. The citizens were also allowed ex parte (one side only) discussions with hearing officers. There is in fact no written procedures for hearings with pro se (without lawyer) protestants and no guidance about hearing arguments outside the jurisdiction of the OCC (e.g. noise, dust, and road damage). The Pauls Valley hearing showed the danger of giving industry or citizens free rein. Clearly citizens have the right to protest and to state their objections but in front of the OCC those objections need to be restricted to agency jurisdiction. The objections listed above are indeed the jurisdiction of the Garvin County Commissioners. Commissioners’ meetings are public, do not require legal representation, and often concern themselves with traffic issues.

 

2.      Erick, Oklahoma: Citizens complained to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission about noxious smells from a commercial disposal well. The citizens suspected the operator of illegal dumping. Several citizens lived nearby a busy disposal well at the edge of town and citizens complained about noxious fumes coming from the well; they stated that they had not smelled such chemicals before and that is was not just crude oil and condensate. When the citizens called the OCC field inspector he came onsite but by then the smell had faded. The OCC talked with the disposal well operator and he said that he had taken several loads of “frack flow-back” lately that contained volatile chemicals with strong odors. The OCC decided to sample air at the edge of the SWD facility when odors were noticed. The sampling was coordinated with citizens and with the well operator so there was sufficient lead-time. Samples were taken by opening hand-held stainless steel vessels that had been evacuated in the lab. After the vessels filled with ambient air they were transported to the Tulsa City-County air quality lab for analyses. Various pollutants were found in the ppb (parts per billion) range but the levels of pollutants were much lower than good days in Houston and New York City. There are no limits set for these air pollutants at oil and gas facilities in the state of Oklahoma or nationally. The lab data and level of effort by the OCC convinced the citizens of Erick that their air, although odorous at times, was safe to breathe.


3.      Bozeman, Montana: Citizens complained to the Governor and the Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation protesting natural gas development. Citizens opposed the drilling for coalbed methane (CBM) in a subdivision of Bozeman. A Texas natural gas producer had applied for drill permits within the municipality of Bozeman, Montana; there had never been any previous production in the vicinity of the city. At the time there was wide media coverage of conflict between landowners and CBM developers in Wyoming. Wyoming ranchers told of failed water wells and natural gas fouling their water. The area of Wyoming was unique in that fresh water and natural gas are commingled naturally in coal seams less than 1000 feet deep. When CBM wells are drilled and fracked, water wells nearby can be affected in different ways, therefore the state of Wyoming requires that every CBM operator tests water wells near their development and signs an agreement with the surface owner pledging to replace any affected water wells. In response to public pressure, the County of Gallatin (including Bozeman) passed laws prohibiting the drilling or development of CBM within the county borders. Blanket prohibitions against legitimate enterprise are not good ideas for making government work.

 

4.      New Brunswick, Canada: Citizens protested the development of shale-gas within the province. Eco-terrorism may have been involved. Several large companies moved into the province to gain a foot-hold with leases and seismic; this is a region that had not previously known oil and gas development. Citizens became alarmed and concerned that air and water would be impacted by shale-gas development including fracking. Seismic vehicles and surface equipment was repeatedly vandalized and contractors became concerned for their physical safety. At the present time all shale-gas operators have left the province for greener pastures.

 

5.      British Columbia: Enbridge and its investors seek to locate a pipeline from the Fort McMurray oil-sands west to the Pacific Coast of B.C.  One of the areas being crossed is a coastal rainforest frequented by the white “spirit bears” as shown below:

 
 
The Gateway pipeline is designed to transport crude oil from oil-sands projects to a terminal on the coast from export to Asia. The pipeline project is drawing protesters who see potential environmental damage to wilderness resources. A recent article describing recent events (http://www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/tense-final-day-enbridge-northern-gateway-joint-review-panel-hearings-victoria) tells part of a familiar story with heavy industry facing citizens who lack trust in industry and government and feel disenfranchised.

These five factual episodes and the story contained in Promised Land point to a growing political confrontation between concerned citizens and fossil-fuel developers. Public outreach by the oil and gas operator can dispel some misconceptions and education by government agencies can help but the bulk of the conflict entails lack of trust in industry, not lack of knowledge by the public. As the Pauls Valley and Promised Land battles make clear, there are few adequate vehicles for handling political-environmental disputes in a regulatory framework. A regulatory agency such as the OCC can evaluate technical issues such as the protection of groundwater by surface casing but they cannot evaluate road noise or dust effects and most importantly they cannot deal with public trust issues. Until oil and gas agencies adopt adequate rules, oil operators and private citizens will be made to fend for themselves when faced with development of shale-gas and tar-sands or installation of disposal wells. This situation introduces another measure of financial risk for operators and their investors. Operators and investors must demand improved hearing processes that put citizens and operators on equal footing.

  

 

 

Monday, January 7, 2013

SWD Investors' Guide to Water Treatment Schemes

Salt Water Disposal Investors' Guide to Water Treatment Schemes          January 7, 2013


Introduction
America’s oil and gas industry produces huge volumes of saltwater in lockstep with oil and gas production. Most hydrocarbon reservoirs contain water mixed with the hydrocarbons – it’s this water that is unavoidably produced to the surface. In addition to reservoir water, oil and gas producers sometimes add water to the subsurface environment by high pressure fracture treatments – fracking – and this water is eventually returned to the surface. Oilfield waste water, whether reservoir water or frack water, is almost all saltwater with salinities higher than sea water; there are few commercial uses for this water except to re-inject into the original reservoir to maintain pressure. If the produced water could be treated to make it less salty, it could be used to water crops, water livestock, and used for municipal water supply. An economic system is the promise of the countless treatment technologies making the rounds of oil and gas trade meetings and investment conferences. Do these technologies deliver on the promise? Is there a market for these technologies? What questions should a potential investor ask to evaluate a start-up treatment company?
 

Treatment Versus Disposal
Produced saltwater is injected into deep wells as part of standard and customary industry practice. Costs of deep injection are quite low because large volumes are promised on a daily basis but of course costs vary from basin to basin and company to company. A well that is capable to injecting thousands of barrels every day at low pressures can dispose of a single barrel of saltwater for much less than $0.10. In the mid-range of costs, many commercial disposal wells in Texas and Oklahoma charge $0.40 to $0.80 per barrel to dispose of saltwater. At the other extreme some basins have very few suitable injection zones suitable for saltwater disposal and a company might be forced to truck produced saltwater many miles away, this could translate into a disposal cost over $2.00 per barrel. This is the range of real-world costs for disposal of saltwater in the oilfield.

Costs of saltwater treatment are difficult to determine with any certainty. In the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana a fair amount of the coalbed methane (CBM) produced water is mildly salty 2,000 to 3,500 mg/L total dissolved solids) and can be treated to irrigation standards for approximately $0.20 to $0.50 per barrel. In the Ft. Worth Basin of Texas, frack flow-back water can be treated for re-use at the rate of approximately $5 to $6 per barrel, a rate that is approximately one hundred times higher than the City of Ft. Worth currently charges oil and gas operators for municipal water used in fracking (http://fortworthtexas.gov/uploadedFiles/Gas_Wells/SWD_questions.pdf). It’s clear that treating costs vary depending upon the salinity of the saltwater, its location and its ultimate use.  

Treatment Technologies
In the past 20 years, the technology of saltwater treatment has progressed, driven by municipal desalination projects around the globe; technology continues to become more efficient and lower in cost. The US Department of Energy maintains a comprehensive website (
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/pwmis/techdesc/index.html) that supplies water treatment data to the oil and gas industry. The website contains basic information on new and existing technologies as well as data on oilfield installations. What is the most common form of municipal desalination technology – reverse osmosis – has not proven itself to be feasible for oil and gas waste water because of the presence of oil and grease in the water, which fouls the membranes in the Reverse Osmosis (RO) units. Even CBM water, which contains no liquid hydrocarbons in the reservoir, cannot be treated with RO because the pumps used to produce the water are standard oilfield pumps that contain and leak lubricants and hydraulic fluids. Pre-treatment techniques, however, continue to improve and in the end RO technology may prove successful.

The most successful technology for oilfield application has been ion exchange, which is able to tolerate small amounts of oil and grease and can treat water with a range of salinities. Treatment technologies are discussed in detail within the DOE website as well as many other publications.

Treatment Wastes
All the treatment technologies available to the oil and gas industry have a waste stream – desalination does not destroy salts. Treatment accepts water with salts in solution and produces two streams – a low salinity water phase that is acceptable for a specific use whether this is oilfield re-use, irrigation, or drinking, and a waste water phase that is much higher in salinity than the feed-water. It is the ratio of the volume of the product to the volume of the waste that determines the salinity of the waste stream. The waste stream must be disposed of in a safe and economical manner – usually deep injection down disposal wells.

Disposal costs were discussed at the top of this blog and those numbers are seen when disposing desalination wastes except that in some EPA regions, water treatment wastes – even for treating oil and gas produced water – are industrial products that must be disposed into industrial (Class 1) disposal wells. Class 1 disposal carries higher regulatory burden and higher costs to the disposer.

Treatment Wastes as Commodity
Constituents of the treatment waste stream are often touted as salable commodities but the demand for these chemical compounds are in fact miniscule compared to the huge volumes of salts produced by one treatment plant.

Treatment Technology Investment Opportunities
A great deal of time, effort, and money is being devoted to treating waste water in order to satisfy a huge need. For example, oil companies developing unconventional reserves need large volumes of water to frack each producing well, water that currently can’t be re-used. Regional electrical power plants use large volumes of water in their cooling towers and often this water cannot be returned to the environment without treatment. The need for suitable water is large and industrial operators are spending millions of dollars to find treatment technologies that make economic sense. The opportunity for new treatment technologies is clear as are the opportunities for their investors. It must be obvious what these start-up technologies offer to the oil and gas industry and to investors.

Important Questions Investors Must Ask
A prospective investor must be willing to perform sufficient technical due diligence on the new treatment company. At minimum several questions must be answered in writing and with sufficient technical details, preferably by way of third-party documents. The new company may require that the prospective investor sign a confidentiality agreement (CA) prior to the exchange of proprietary information. Following are examples of the type of questions that should be addressed to the company seeking project-funding:

1.      What kinds of water treatment does your company employ in its process? The new company will be able to give a great deal of information, most of which will not be proprietary or exclusive to this company. A thorough answer to this question is absolutely essential to continuing the discussion. Pretreatment must also be described by the new company.

2.      What type of oil and gas waste water does your treatment target? Produced water across the United States varies between 1,000 mg/L to 250,000 mg/L and treatment requirements will be much different. If the new company does not have a definable target feedstock for its technology, the company has a fatal misunderstanding of oilfield waste water. The target waste water must be closely defined in terms of chemical contents and accurate estimates of its extent both volumetrically and geographically. This is another make-or-break question for a new start-up company.

3.      What sort of bench-tests and field-tests have you performed and can you supply data on the tests? Their answer to this question classifies the new company as a blue-sky opportunity that has little substance, a start-up with proof-of-concept lab data, or a company with true field experience and useable operating data. These three kinds of company will have different financial needs and should be willing to offer different deals to prospective investors.

4.      What are the power and chemical demands for your process? The first step in analyzing the economics of each process is to determine the costs of the process. Bench-scale tests are informative but long-term field-tests are required at some stage of the project.

5.      What is the CAPEX cost of the unit being designed? Obviously the capital cost of the treatment unit is necessary to determine the economics of the process. A new company with only lab tests will lack good data on capital costs.

6.      What wastes are produced by your process and how will they be managed in the short and long term? Waste management is another vital piece of measuring economics of a new process. If the company has a poor understanding of its waste, it could be leaving investors vulnerable to environmental liabilities and punishing costs in the future.

7.      How long are field-trials expected to continue and when will commercial installations take place? The new company must have a very good idea how many field units will be deployed and how long the trials will last. If the process is sensitive to ambient temperatures, the trials should take place in all four seasons in areas where the target wastes are produced. Field trial design is an indication of the knowledge and thoroughness of the new company.

After the new start-up company has given answers to these and other questions by the prospective investor, a good evaluation can be made of the technical power of the company, what kind of testing still needs to be done, what kind of test data needs to be collected, and what level of financing is required. Of course the investor will also perform due diligence on the financial aspects of the new company and its principals. Only then will both parties be on the same level and only then can investment arrangements be discussed. 

 

The Authors:


Marian M. Smith, Ph.D., University of South Carolina (Geology) is a partner in Odin Oil and Gas, LLC, in Oklahoma City, OK. Dr. Smith has expertise in reservoir geology and image analysis. For most of her career she was an educator at all levels from graduate school geology courses at Michigan Technological University to the teaching of science in middle school in South Carolina. At present she is combining her background in research and teaching to work as a consultant with Dr. Langhus at Odin Oil and Gas, LLC.


Bruce G. Langhus, Ph.D., is a petroleum geologist with over 45 years' experience in oil and gas business including water-flood design and operation; Class I, II, and III disposal well location, permitting and operation; and injection well remediation.Dr. Langhus has been the Class II Program Manager in Oklahoma, the second largest UIC program in the country.He was a founding partner of ALL Consulting, a successful geotechnical consultancy in Tulsa, OK.Dr. Langhus is now part of Amerex Resources, operators of disposal facilities in Texas, Oklahoma, Montana, and North Dakota.