BEFORE
THE OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION
OF
THE STATE OF
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED
VIOLATIONS OF THE ) CAUSE NO. 1V
RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE
OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION
BY ) ORDER NO. 1V-313
UNIOIL, INC,
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER BY CONSENT
(Pursuant to Rule 522.b.(3) of the Rules and Regulations of the
1.
On March 15, 2007,
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (“Commission” or “COGCC”) staff
received an Application for Permit-to-Drill, Deepen or Operate, Form 2 (“APD”)
submitted by Unioil, Inc. (“Unioil”) a subsidiary of Petroleum Development
Corporation, for the Zeiler 24-7U Well (Permit #20071313) located in the SE¼ SW¼ of Section 7, Township 5 North, Range 67 West, 6th
P.M.
2.
On March 26, 2007,
Conrad Zeiler, the surface owner, contacted COGCC staff and filed a complaint
(Complaint #200107707) that Unioil did not fulfill the requirements of Rule
306. for good faith consultation with the surface owner before submitting the
APD for the Zeiler 24-7U Well and that the Rule 306. consultation date on the
APD was incorrect.
3.
On March 27, 2007,
COGCC staff requested that Unioil provide a detailed chronology of all contacts
between Unioil and Conrad Zeiler regarding the Zeiler 24-7U Well.
4.
On May 15, 2007,
COGCC staff received the chronology of contacts between Unioil and Conrad
Zeiler. Examination of the chronology
showed that the Rule 306. consultation did not occur on the date indicated on
the APD (i.e., January 20, 2007).
5.
Unioil’s APD
included a copy of its notice required by Rule 305. to surface owner, Zeiler
Farms, dated January 20, 2007. The
notice indicated Unioil’s intent to arrange an onsite consultation to discuss
surface damages, rig access, and locations.
Therefore, on January 20, 2007, initial Rule 306. consultation does not
appear to have occurred.
6.
Unioil
acknowledges that the initial date for Rule 306. consultation was not January
20, 2007, as indicated on the APD.
7.
Unioil’s APD did
not contain documentation that consultation requirements under Rule 306. had
been completed or waived.
8.
On June 1, 2007,
the COGCC staff issued Notice of Alleged Violation #200112303 (“NOAV”) to
Unioil. The NOAV cited violations of the
following COGCC Rules:
a. Rule 206., for failure to provide accurate
and complete reports; and
b. Rule 306., for failure to confirm that
surface owner consultation had been completed or waived before submittal of an
APD for approval.
The NOAV
required Unioil to submit a letter to the COGCC specifying the correct date on
which good faith consultation was completed, describing the reason for the
violations, and listing procedures that will be put in place to prevent such
violations in the future.
9.
On June 15, 2007,
Unioil submitted the letter required by the NOAV.
10.
Unioil agrees
to resolve this matter without the necessity of a contested hearing.
11.
Rule 523.a. specifies
a base fine of Five Hundred dollars ($500) per day for violation of Rule 206.
and One Thousand dollars ($1,000) per day for violation of Rule 306.
12.
Without
admitting it violated any COGCC Rules, Unioil agrees to pay a total fine of Two
Thousand dollars ($2,000) for alleged violations of Rule 206. and Rule 306.
related to information submitted on the APD.
ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED,
that Unioil shall be found in violation of Rules 206. and 306. for reporting a
false Rule 306. initial consultation date on the APD for the Zeiler 24-7U Well
located in the SE¼ SW¼ of Section 7, Township
5 North, Range 67 West, 6th P.M.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that pursuant to Rule
522.b.(3), this Administrative Order by Consent shall not constitute admission
by Unioil of the violations found herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,
that Unioil shall be assessed a total fine of Two Thousand dollars ($2,000) for
the two violations described above, which shall be payable within 30 days of
the date this order is approved by the Commission.
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 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.
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 or
all of the above orders.
RECOMMENDED this _____ day of August, 2007.
IN
THE NAME OF THE STATE OF
OIL
AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION
By ______________
Carol Harmon, Enforcement Officer
Dated at
August 10, 2007
AGREED
TO AND ACCEPTED THIS _________DAY OF ___________, 2007.
UNIOIL,
INC.
By
____________________________________________
Authorized
Company Representative
_____________________________________________
Print
Full Name
_____________________________________________
Title
==================================================================================
This cause came
on for hearing before the Commission at 8:00 a.m. on October 2, 2007,
in the Public Hearing Room, Old Court House,
OIL
AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
By____________________________________
Patricia C. Beaver,
Secretary
Dated at