|
BEFORE THE OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
|
||
|
IN THE MATTER OF THE PROMULGATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF FIELD RULES TO GOVERN OPERATIONS IN THE IGNACIO- BLANCO FIELD, LA PLATA COUNTY, COLORADO |
) ) ) ) |
CAUSE NO. 112
ORDER NO. 112-214 CORRECTED |
This cause came on for hearing before the Commission at 8:30 a.m. on December 9, 2008, in the Terrace Room at the Sheraton Hotel, 1550 Court Place, Denver, Colorado, for an order to allow up to four optional wells in certain 320-acre drilling and spacing units, with the permitted well to be located no closer than 660 feet from the unit boundary and with no setback to any interior quarter section line, for certain lands in Townships 34 and 35 North, Ranges 6 through 8 West, N.M.P.M., for the production of gas and associated hydrocarbons from the Fruitland coal seams.
FINDINGS
The Commission finds as follows:
1. BP America Production Company (“BP”) and Red Willow Production Company (collectively, “Applicants”) as applicants herein, are interested parties in the subject matter of the above‑referenced hearing.
2. Due notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing has been given in all respects as required by law.
3. The Commission has jurisdiction over the subject matter embraced in said Notice, and of the parties interested therein, and jurisdiction to promulgate the hereinafter prescribed order pursuant to the Oil and Gas Conservation Act and the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between the Commission and the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”).
4. On June 17, 1988, the Commission issued Order No. 112-60, which among other things, established 320-acre drilling and spacing units for production of gas from the Fruitland coal seams, with the permitted well to be located no closer than 990 feet to any outer boundary of the unit, or closer than 130 feet to any interior quarter section line, including certain lands in Townships 34 and 35 North, Ranges 6 through 8 West, N.M.P.M. (NUL).
5. On October 20, 1998, the Commission issued Order No. 112-148, which among other things, allowed an optional second Fruitland coal seam well to be drilled in each 320-acre drilling and spacing unit for certain lands which included the below-listed lands:
Township 34 North, Range 6 West, N.M.P.M. (NUL)
|
Section 18: |
N½ |
Township 34 North, Range 7 West, N.M.P.M. (NUL)
|
Section 9: |
W½ |
|
Section 12: |
E½ |
|
Section 15: |
N½ |
Township 34 North, Range 8 West, N.M.P.M. (NUL)
|
Section 13: |
N½ |
|
Section 17: |
N½ |
Township 35 North, Range 7 West, N.M.P.M.
|
Section 34: |
W½ |
6. On July 11, 2000, the Commission issued Order No. 112-156, which among other things, allowed an optional second Fruitland coal seam well to be drilled in each 320-acre drilling and spacing unit for certain lands which included the below-listed lands, with such additional well being located no closer than 990 feet to any outer boundary of the unit, nor closer than 130 feet to any interior quarter section line:
Township 34 North, Range 6 West, N.M.P.M. (NUL)
|
Sections 3 through 5: |
All |
|
Sections 7 through 10: |
All |
|
Sections 15 through 17: |
All |
Township 34 North, Range 7 West, N.M.P.M. (NUL)
|
Section 3: |
All |
|
Sections 4 through 8: |
All |
|
Section 9: |
E½ |
|
Section 10: |
All |
|
Sections 11 and 12: |
W½ |
|
Sections 13, 14, 16, 17, and 18: |
All |
Township 34 North, Range 8 West, N.M.P.M. (NUL)
|
Sections 1 and 2: |
All |
|
Section 8: |
All |
|
Section 10: |
E½ |
|
Sections 11 and 12: |
All |
|
Sections 14 through 16 and 18: |
All |
Township 35 North, Range 6 West, N.M.P.M.
|
Sections 32 through 34: |
All |
Township 35 North, Range 7 West, N.M.P.M.
|
Section 29: |
S½ |
|
Sections 30 through 33: |
All |
|
Section 34: |
E½ |
Township 35 North, Range 8 West, N.M.P.M.
|
Section 34: |
S½ |
|
Section 35: |
N½ |
|
Section 36: |
S½ |
7. On September 8, 2008, Applicants, by their attorneys, filed with the Commission a verified application for an order to allow, at the option of the operator, four wells to be drilled to and produced from the Fruitland coal seams on each 320-acre drilling and spacing unit in the below-listed lands with the permitted bottom hole location for any new well to be located no closer than 660 feet to any outer boundary of the application lands and with no setback required to any interior quarter section line within the application lands:
Township 34 North, Range 6 West, N.M.P.M. (NUL)
|
Sections 3 through 5: |
All |
|
Sections 7 through 10: |
All |
|
Sections 15 through 18: |
N½ |
Township 34 North, Range 7 West, N.M.P.M. (NUL)
|
Section 3: |
W½ |
|
Sections 4 through 12: |
All |
|
Sections 13 through 18: |
N½ |
Township 34 North, Range 8 West, N.M.P.M. (NUL)
|
Sections 1 and 2: |
All |
|
Section 8: |
S½ |
|
Sections 9 and 10: |
E½ |
|
Sections 11 and 12: |
All |
|
Sections 13 through 18: |
N½ |
Township 35 North, Range 6 West, N.M.P.M.
|
Sections 32 through 34: |
All |
Township 35 North, Range 7 West, N.M.P.M.
|
Section 29: |
S½ |
|
Sections 30 through 33: |
All |
|
Section 34: |
W½ |
Township 35 North, Range 8 West, N.M.P.M.
|
Section 34: |
S½ |
|
Sections 35 and 36: |
All |
Applicants further state that the requested wells can be developed in a manner consistent with protection of public health, safety and welfare and that the additional wells shall be located on a common or expanded surface pad with the existing Fruitland coal seam wells such that a total of four Fruitland coal seam surface pads shall be authorized in each governmental section.
8. On October 1, 2008, La Plata County, by its attorney, filed with the Commission an intervention raising environmental and public health, safety and welfare concerns on the application. The intervention is not concerning the technical merits of the application, and La Plata County does not object to the technical case being heard or reviewed administratively or pursuant to Rule 511.b. BP has negotiated a MOU with La Plata County regarding proposed conditions for the Commission to place upon the proposed increased well density application. Further, La Plata County has conditionally withdrawn its intervention provided the Commission inserts the conditions set forth hereinafter in this Order.
9. On November 13, 2008, Applicants, by their attorneys, filed with the Commission a written request to approve the application based on the merits of the verified application and the supporting exhibits. Sworn written testimony and exhibits were submitted in support of the application.
10. Testimony and exhibits submitted in support of the application showed that lands adjacent to, and in the general vicinity of, the application lands have been approved for 80-acre well density for production of gas and associated hydrocarbons from the Fruitland coal seams. Additional testimony showed that the Applicants are the majority leasehold owners for the application lands.
11. Testimony and exhibits submitted in support of the application showed that the Fruitland coal seam underlies the entirety of the application lands, which exhibits highly variable reservoir properties both vertically and laterally because of barriers to vertical and lateral flow and that increased well density is needed to adequately drain the gas contained in this reservoir.
12. Testimony and exhibits submitted in support of the application showed that increased well density for the Fruitland coal seam underlying the application lands is necessary to more efficiently drain gas reserves. Additional testimony demonstrated that increased well density for the Fruitland coal seam underlying the application lands will result in an expected incremental recovery factor of 20% to 30% of original gas-in-place, yielding additional reserves of 1.34 to 2.52 BCF per additional well.
13. Testimony and exhibits submitted in support of the application showed that increased well density for the Fruitland coal seam underlying the application lands will prevent waste by allowing development of significant incremental gas reserves that would otherwise not be recovered, that it is a natural extension of currently approved adjacent 80-acre spacing units and will have no adverse affect on correlative rights. Additional testimony indicated that the Applicants have negotiated a MOU with La Plata County which, along with the incorporation of health, safety and welfare provisions contained in similarly-situated Commission orders approving increased well density for the Fruitland coal seam, will minimize impacts on health, safety and welfare of the public and the environment.
14. The above-referenced testimony and exhibits show that the proposed increased well density will allow more efficient reservoir drainage, will prevent waste, will assure a greater ultimate recovery of gas, and will not violate correlative rights.
15. BP America Production Company and Red Willow Production Company agreed to be bound by oral order of the Commission.
16. Based on the facts stated in the verified application, having received no protests and one intervention which was resolved through stipulated conditions which will be recited in this order, and based on the Hearing Officer review of the application under Rule 511.b., the Commission should enter an order to allow up to four optional wells in certain 320-acre drilling and spacing units, with the permitted well to be located no closer than 660 feet from the unit boundary and with no setback to any interior quarter section line, for certain lands in Townships 34 and 35 North, Ranges 6 through 8 West, N.M.P.M., for the production of gas and associated hydrocarbons from the Fruitland coal seams.
ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED, that up to four (4) wells are hereby approved to be optionally drilled in the 320-acre drilling and spacing units for the below-listed lands, for the production of gas and associated hydrocarbons in the Fruitland coal seams, with the permitted bottomhole location for any new well to be located no closer than 660 feet from the unit boundary and with no setback required to any interior quarter section line within the application lands:
Township 34 North, Range 6 West, N.M.P.M. (NUL)
|
Sections 3 through 5: |
All |
|
Sections 7 through 10: |
All |
|
Sections 15 through 18: |
N½ |
Township 34 North, Range 7 West, N.M.P.M. (NUL)
|
Section 3: |
W½ |
|
Sections 4 through 12: |
All |
|
Sections 13 through 18: |
N½ |
Township 34 North, Range 8 West, N.M.P.M. (NUL)
|
Sections 1 and 2: |
All |
|
Section 8: |
S½ |
|
Sections 9 and 10: |
E½ |
|
Sections 11 and 12: |
All |
|
Sections 13 through 18: |
N½ |
Township 35 North, Range 6 West, N.M.P.M.
|
Sections 32 through 34: |
All |
Township 35 North, Range 7 West, N.M.P.M.
|
Section 29: |
S½ |
|
Sections 30 through 33: |
All |
|
Section 34: |
W½ |
Township 35 North, Range 8 West, N.M.P.M.
|
Section 34: |
S½ |
|
Sections 35 and 36: |
All |
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that wells drilled on the above-described lands shall comply with the terms and provisions of all of the Commission’s health, safety, welfare and environmental rules and regulations now or hereafter in effect.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that wells drilled in the above-described lands shall comply with all applicable regulations of the BLM, Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe when conducting operations on lands subject to the respective jurisdiction of each agency.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that wells drilled in the above-described lands shall comply with certain provisions of the MOU between BP and La Plata County, and shall comply with all terms, conditions and provisions of prior Commission Orders in Cause No. 112, including without limitation, the specific provisions of Order No. 112-156 including the Rule 508.j.(3)B. conditions attached thereto, to the extent they do not duplicate the provisions of the MOU. For convenience and ease of reference, the relevant conditions of the MOU and Order No. 112-156, including Rule 508.j.(3)B. conditions, are set forth below. Conflicts between the conditions of the MOU set forth herein and the terms, conditions and provisions of Order No. 112-156 shall be resolved in favor of the MOU.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the following provisions of the proposed MOU between the Applicants and La Plata County shall be applied to additional wells where the surface location is proposed to be sited on lands subject to Commission jurisdiction, in addition to any requirements of applicable existing Commission Rules and Regulations or orders:
Surface Density The density of Fruitland Coal Well Pads within the Infill Application Area shall not exceed four (4) within the existing drilling and spacing units of 320 acres for the Fruitland Coal Seam formation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing contained in this provision shall be construed so as to require the closure or abandonment of any existing gas well.
Storm Water Management and Spill Prevention Containment and Control Even if not required to do so by any applicable regulation or law, BP agrees to utilize best management practices for all pad expansions and new pads and for road and pipeline development or improvements.
Water Well Monitoring If a conventional gas well exists within one quarter (¼) mile of the bottom hole location of a proposed Infill Well, then the two (2) closest water wells within a one-half (½) mile radius of a conventional gas well shall be sampled by Applicants as water quality testing wells. If possible, the water wells selected shall be on opposite sides of the existing conventional gas well not exceeding one-half (½) mile radius. "Infill Well" means wells drilled pursuant to this Order No. 112-214. "Conventional gas well" means a well producing from a non-coalbed methane formation found in the San Juan Basin, such as the Mesaverde or Dakota Sandstone Formation.
If water wells on opposite sides of the conventional gas well cannot be identified, then the two (2) closest wells within one-half (½) mile radius shall be sampled. If two (2) or more conventional gas wells are located within one quarter (¼) mile of the bottom hole location of the proposed Infill Well, then the conventional gas well closest to a proposed Infill Well shall be used for selecting water wells for sampling.
If no conventional gas wells are located within one quarter (¼) mile radius of the bottom hole location of the proposed Infill Well, then the selected water wells shall be within one quarter (¼) mile of the bottom hole location of the proposed Infill Well. In areas where two (2) or more water wells exist within one quarter (¼) mile of the bottom hole location of the proposed Infill Well, then the two (2) closest water wells shall be sampled by Applicants. Ideally, if possible, the water wells selected shall be on opposite sides of the bottom hole location of the proposed Infill Well.
If water wells on opposite sides of the bottom hole location of the proposed Infill Well cannot be identified, then the two (2) closest wells within one quarter (¼) mile radius shall be sampled by Applicants. If two (2) water wells do not exist within one quarter (¼) mile radius, then the two closest water wells within a one-half (½) mile radius shall be selected. If no water well is located within a one quarter (¼) mile radius area or if access is denied, two water wells within one-half (½) mile of the bottom hole location of the Infill Well shall be selected. If there are no water quality testing wells meeting the foregoing criteria, then sampling shall not be required. If the BLM or the Commission have already acquired data on a water well within one quarter (¼) mile of the conventional gas well, but it is not the closest water well, it shall be given preference in selecting a water quality testing well. The "initial baseline testing" described in this paragraph shall include all major cations and anions, total dissolved solids ("TDS"), iron and manganese, nutrients (nitrates and nitrites), selenium, dissolved methane, pH, presence of bacteria and specific conductance and field hydrogen sulfide.
If free gas or a methane concentration level greater than 2 milligrams/liter ("mg/L") is detected in a water quality testing well, compositional analysis and isotopic analyses of the carbon and hydrogen of the methane shall be performed to determine gas type (thermogenic, biogenic or an intermediate mix of both). If the testing results reveal biogenic gas, no further isotopic testing shall be done. If the carbon isotope test results in a thermogenic or intermediate mix signature, annual testing shall be performed thereafter and an action plan shall be drafted by Applicants to determine the source of the gas. If the methane concentration level increases by more than 5 mg/L between sampling periods, or increases to more than 10 mg/L, an action plan shall be drafted to determine the source of the gas.
The initial baseline testing shall occur prior to the drilling of the proposed Infill Well. Within one (1) year after completion of the proposed Infill Well, a "post completion" test shall be performed for the same parameters above and repeated three (3) and six (6) years thereafter. If no significant changes from the baseline have been identified after the third test (the six year test), no further testing shall be required. The testing schedule shall restart after the drilling of a new Infill Well on an existing Well Pad if the wells to be tested include those tested for the 160-acre infill program. Additional "post completion" test(s) may be required if changes in water quality are identified during follow-up testing. The Director of the Commission may require further water well sampling, which may include water quantity monitoring, at any time in response to complaints from water well owners.
Within three (3) months of collecting the samples used for the test, copies of all test results described above shall be provided to the Commission and the County and the landowner where the water quality testing well is located.
Plugged and Abandoned Wells/Soil Gas Vapor Survey A soil gas vapor-monitoring program shall be designed to determine a possible lack of zonal isolation along wellbores of plugged and abandoned wells. Applicants shall attempt to identify any plugged and abandoned wells located within one quarter (¼) mile of the bottom hole location of any Infill Well. Any plugged and abandoned well within one quarter (¼) mile of the bottom hole of an Infill Well shall be assessed for risk, taking into account cementing practices reported in the plugged and abandoned reports. Applicants shall notify the Commission of all results of all risk assessments of plugging procedures. The Commission may appropriate funds under Rule 701. (the Environmental Response Fund) to conduct soil gas monitoring tests to further define the risks. If the monitoring reveals a possible lack of zonal isolation, the Commission may then conduct or order any necessary remediation or other authorized activities.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the following terms, conditions and provisions of this Order No. 112-214 shall be applied to additional wells where the surface location is proposed to be sited on lands subject to Commission jurisdiction, in addition to any requirements of applicable existing Commission Rules and Regulations:
Well Permit Limitations A Commission hearing shall be required before a drilling permit may be issued for a well site located within one and one-half (1½) miles of the outcrop contact between the Fruitland and Pictured Cliffs Formations. The purpose of the hearing shall be to address potential adverse impacts to the Fruitland outcrop.
Annual Drilling Plan The Director shall survey the operator as to its drilling plans annually. The survey results shall be reported to the Commission for its consideration with respect to the conditions attached to this order.
Wildlife The operator shall notify the Colorado Division of Wildlife ("CDOW") of the location of any proposed additional well site and advise the Director of the date such notice was provided. If the Director receives comments from the CDOW within ten (10) days of the date notice was provided, such comments may be considered in applying Rule 508.j.(3)B. conditions.
Emergency Preparedness Plan The operator submitting an Application for Permit-to-Drill for a proposed additional well under this order shall file and maintain a digital Emergency Preparedness Plan ("EPP") with La Plata County. The EPP shall include as-built facilities maps showing the location of wells, pipelines and other facilities, except control valve locations that which may be held confidential. The EPP shall include an emergency personnel contact list.
Gas and Oil Regulatory Team The Director shall ensure that the La Plata County Gas and Oil Regulatory Team ("GORT") continues to meet as appropriate, but no less than semiannually. GORT meetings may be scheduled more frequently if the members believe a meeting is appropriate. (GORT includes invited member representatives from La Plata County, BLM, SUIT, industry operators and Commission. Its meetings are open and typically attended by interested area residents.)
3M Mapping, Modeling and Monitoring Project The Director shall ensure that the 3M Technical Peer Review Team is invited to meet as appropriate, but no less than semiannually to review proposals and results related to the 3M Mapping, Modeling and Monitoring Project. 3M Technical Peer Review Team meetings may be scheduled more frequently if the members believe a meeting is appropriate.
Post Completion Pressure Build-Up Tests In addition to obtaining a bottom hole pressure on all wells drilled under this order, the operator shall conduct pressure build-up tests two (2) to three (3) months after initial production begins and once every three (3) years thereafter. The operator shall provide the data acquired, an evaluation of the data and the procedures utilized to conduct the pressure build-up tests to the Director within thirty (30) days of the conclusion of each test. After reviewing the quality of the pressure buildup data and the adequacy of the geographic distribution of the data, the Director may reduce the number of wells for which pressure build-up testing is required.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the following Rule 508.j.(3)B. conditions from Order No. 112-156 shall be applied to additional wells where the surface location is proposed to be sited on lands subject to Commission jurisdiction, in addition to any requirements of applicable Commission Rules and Regulations:
Prior to approving any Application for Permit-to-Drill, the Director shall conduct an onsite inspection if the surface well location is proposed to be sited within any subdivision that has been approved by La Plata County. The Director shall conduct an onsite inspection if the surface well location is within two (2) miles of the outcrop contact between the Fruitland and Pictured Cliffs Formations and an onsite inspection is requested by the surface owner, LGD, operator, or Director.
Prior to approving any Application for Permit-to-Drill, the Director shall conduct an onsite inspection if the operator and the surface owner have not entered into a surface use agreement. If the reason the surface use agreement has not been executed is related to surface owner compensation, property value diminution, or any private property contractual issues between the operator and the surface owner, then no onsite inspection shall be required.
The purpose of the onsite inspection shall be to identify any potential public health, safety and welfare or significant adverse environmental impacts within Commission jurisdiction regarding the proposed surface location that may not be adequately addressed by Commission rules or orders. The onsite inspection shall not address matters of surface owner compensation, property value diminution, or any private party contractual issues between the operator and the surface owner.
When the Director conducts onsite inspections under the conditions described in the paragraphs above, the Director shall invite the representatives of the surface owner, the operator and LGD to attend. The Director shall attempt to select a mutually acceptable time for the representatives to attend. The inspection shall be conducted within ten (10) days, or as soon as practicable thereafter, of either the date the LGD advises the Director in writing that the proposed surface well site location falls within an approved subdivision or the date the operator advises the Director in writing that a surface use agreement has not been reached with the surface owner. If requested by the operator, the Director may delay the onsite inspection to allow for negotiation between the operator and surface owner or other parties.
Following the onsite inspection, the Director shall apply appropriate site specific drilling permit conditions if necessary to prevent or mitigate public health, safety and welfare or significant adverse environmental impacts taking into consideration cost-effectiveness and technical feasibility and relevant geologic and petroleum engineering conditions as well as prevention of waste, protection of correlative rights, and promotion of development.
Examples of the types of impacts and conditions that might be applied if determined necessary by the Director include (this list is not prescriptive or all inclusive):
Visual or aesthetic impacts - moving the proposed surface well site location or access road to take advantage of natural features for screening; installing low profile artificial lift methods; constructing artificial features for screening.
Surface impacts – moving or reducing the size, shape, or orientation of the surface well site location or access road to avoid disturbance of natural features or to enhance the success of future reclamation activities; utilizing an existing surface well site location or access road to avoid the impacts of new construction; utilizing a closed drilling fluid system instead of reserve pits to avoid impacts to sensitive areas.
Noise impacts – installing electric motors where practicable; locating or orienting motors or compressors to reduce noise; installing sound barriers to achieve compliance with Commission rules; confining cavitation completion operations (excluding flaring) to the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and notifying all area residents within one-half (½) mile at least seven (7) days before cavitation is commenced.
Dust impacts – watering roads as necessary to control dust during drilling and completion operations.
Ground water impacts – collecting and analyzing water and gas samples from existing water wells or springs; installing monitoring wells, collecting samples, and reporting water, gas and pressure data.
Safety impacts – soil gas sampling and analysis; residential crawl space gas sampling and analysis; installing security fencing around wellheads and production equipment.
Outcrop impacts – performing outcrop gas seep surveys; performing produced water quality analysis; periodic pressure transient testing of high water/gas ratio wells; limiting water production in wells with anomalously high water rates and water/gas ratios; funding investigative reservoir modeling under the Director’s supervision.
Wildlife impacts – limiting drilling and completion operations during certain seasonal time periods when specific site conditions warrant.
If the operator objects to any of the conditions of approval applied above, the Director shall stay the issuance of the drilling permit and properly notice and set the matter for the next regularly scheduled Commission hearing at which time the Commission may determine conditions of drilling permit approval.
If the Director has reasonable cause to believe that any existing or proposed oil and gas operations are causing, or are likely to cause, public health, safety and welfare or significant adverse environmental impacts within Commission jurisdiction that may not be adequately addressed by Commission rules or orders, the Director may properly notice and set the matter for the next regularly scheduled Commission hearing to order appropriate investigative or remedial action. Reasonable cause may include, but is not limited to, information from the 3M Mapping, Modeling and Monitoring Project.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the provisions contained in the above order shall become effective forthwith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Commission expressly reserves its right, after notice and hearing, to alter, amend or repeal any and/or all of the above orders.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that under the State Administrative Procedure Act the Commission considers this order to be final agency action for purposes of judicial review within thirty (30) days after the date this order is mailed by the Commission.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that an application for reconsideration by the Commission of this order is not required prior to the filing for judicial review.
ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2008, as of December 9, 2008.
CORRECTED this ________ day of January, 2009, as of December 9, 2008.
OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
By____________________________________
Patricia C. Beaver, Secretary
Dated at Suite 801
1120 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
January 2, 2009