BEFORE THE OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION
BEFORE THE OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE
COLORADO OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION BY WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT
COMPANY, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO |
)
)
)
) |
CAUSE NO. 1V
ORDER NO. 1V-350 |
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER BY CONSENT
(Pursuant to
Rule 522.b.(3) of
the Rules and Regulations of the
Colorado Oil and
Gas Conservation Commission, 2 CCR 404-1)
FINDINGS
1. On May 15, 2007, the Director (“Director”) of the Colorado Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission (“COGCC” or “Commission”) approved two Applications for
Permit-to-Drill, Form 2, for the Puckett #WGV 21-23-697 Well (API No.
05-045-014154) and the Puckett #WGV 22-23-697 Well (API No. 05-045-014155)
located in the NE¼ NW¼ of Section 23, Township 6 South, Range 97 West, 6th
P.M., submitted by Williams Production RMT Company (“Williams”) (refer to
Attachment 1).
2. The Puckett #WGV 21-23-697 Well was completed on September 25, 2007 and
the Puckett #WGV 22-23-697 Well was completed on September 13, 2007. Both wells
produced from the WGV 21-23-697/22-23-697 Well Pad (the “WGV Well Pad”)
(Location ID No.
335117),
located in the NE¼ NW¼ of Section 23, Township 6 South, Range 97 West, 6th
P.M., with gas production from both wells beginning in October 2007.
3. Produced water containing dissolved hydrocarbons (”Produced Water”) from
the Puckett #WGV 21-23-697 Well and the Puckett #WGV 22-23-697 Well were placed
in a lined, but not permitted, production pit located on the
WGV Well Pad
(refer to Attachments 2, 3, and 4). The
pit was placed into operation on or around the date of first production (October
1, 2007). Williams used the production pit on the WGV Well Pad as an
unpermitted production pit for the temporary storage of produced water from the
date of first production until October 9, 2008 when Williams asserts that they
became aware the pit had not been permitted and subsequently submitted a Form 15
Pit Permit (Facility No. 414581) for the pit.
a. Pre-April 1, 2009 rules (2 CCR 404-1, “Rules” or individually, “Rule”),
that were in effect when the production pit on the WGV Well Pad was constructed,
required operators of production pits “to make a sensitive area determination .
. . to evaluate the potential for impact to ground water and submit [the] data
evaluated and analysis used in the determination to the Director” (former Rule
901.e.(2)). The submittal of this information to the Director allowed the COGCC
Staff to evaluate whether a proposed production pit would be sited in an area
vulnerable to groundwater impact, and, if so, whether special precautions were
needed to avoid such an impact.
b. The Rules further required production pits in sensitive areas to be
permitted before construction (former Rule 903.a.(1)B.).
c. During this period of time, the Rules defined sensitive area as “an area
vulnerable to potential significant adverse groundwater impacts, due to factors
such as the presence of shallow economically usable groundwater or pathways for
communication with deeper economically usable groundwater, proximity to surface
water, including lakes, rivers, perennial or intermittent streams, creeks,
irrigation canals, and wetlands.” 100-Series Rules.
d. The COGCC Staff concludes that the production pit on the WGV Well Pad was
located in an area vulnerable to potential significant adverse ground water
impacts, and therefore it was located in a sensitive area and should have been
permitted based on the following criteria:
i.
The WGV Well
Pad and production pit are located on a narrow ridge that is a surface water
divide separating the recharge areas for ground water and several springs and
streams (refer to Attachment 5).
ii. The WGV
Well Pad is underlain by the Uinta Formation. Observations easily made from the
outcrop of this formation and excavations made to create pits and pipeline
trenches clearly show that the Uinta Formation is highly fractured.
iii. The
water discharged at the Spring is economically usable ground water, which was
used by Mr. Prather for domestic purposes (refer to Attachments 6, 7, and 8) and
for watering livestock (refer to Attachment 9).
iv. Various
sources of information available for answering the queries posed in the
Sensitive Area Determination Decision Tree were noted. If vital information or
data were incomplete or missing, then it was the responsibility of the operator
to provide the minimum information necessary. The operator could also provide
field observations and data to fulfill determination requirements. When a
discrepancy or question regarding the sensitivity of an area arose, the COGCC
Staff was to have been consulted, and the Staff would make the final
determination in any dispute over whether a location was in a sensitive area.
e. The COGCC Staff believe that the permitting of pits is an essential
component of the COGCC regulatory scheme to ensure best management practices are
used by operators to protect public health, safety, and welfare and the
environment, including soil, waters of the state, and wildlife, from significant
adverse environmental, public health, or welfare impacts from exploration and
production (“E&P”) waste. Although this pit was lined (refer to Attachment 4),
Staff believe that if the pit liner had been properly installed and maintained,
releases of Produced Water would have been far less likely to occur and risk of
impacts to ground water would have been greatly reduced. If this pit had been
permitted, COGCC Staff assert that, during the review of the permit, conditions
of approval would have been added, and that those types of additional
precautions would have greatly reduced the risk of impacts to ground water and
the Spring.
f. Williams disputes the allegation by COGCC that the production pit on the
WGV Well Pad was not properly installed or maintained. It is Williams assertion
that the pit was built in accordance with accepted industry practices and in
compliance with the Commission rules governing pit construction at the time of
the construction. Williams alleges that static fluid level tests it conducted
on the pit in 2009 indicated that the pit liner integrity was good, and does not
support the claim that the pit liner was improperly installed or maintained.
The COGCC Staff did not witness the fluid level tests, and have not received or
reviewed the test results.
4. On May 31,
2008, Ned Prather contacted the COGCC Staff to make a complaint that he had
become ill after drinking water from the kitchen faucet in his cabin (Complaint
No. 200190483)
that was sourced from the Spring (Colorado Division of Water Resources (“CDWR”)
Permit No. 233234). The Spring is located in the SE¼ SW¼ of Section 14,
Township 6 South, Range 97 West, 6th P.M. (refer to Attachment 1).
5. On June 4, 2008, COGCC Staff met
with Mr. Prather at his cabin (refer to Attachment 7) and collected water
samples from the Spring (refer to Attachment 6) and from the cabin’s kitchen
faucet (refer to Attachment 8). In addition, samples were collected from three
other springs in the area (those springs are referred to herein as “Dick’s
Spring”, “Donna’s Spring”, and “Spring 2” – refer to Attachments 10, 11, and 12,
respectively), from Mr. Prather’s stock pond (refer to Attachment 9), and from
the production pit associated with the CSOC 697-14 No. 1 Well (API No.
05-045-07948) operated by Nonsuch Natural Gas Inc. (“Nonsuch”) (refer to
Attachment 13). The focus of this Administrative Order By Consent (“AOC”) is
the Spring.
6. On June 19, 2008, COGCC Staff received a verbal report on the analytical
results of the water samples collected on June 4, 2008 and described in Finding
No. 5. Benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylenes (referred to collectively
as “BTEX”) were not detected in the water samples collected from Dick’s Spring,
Donna’s Spring, and Spring 2; however, benzene was detected in the water samples
collected from the Spring and the kitchen faucet in the Prather cabin at
concentrations which exceeded the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (“CDPHE”) Water Quality Control Commission (“WQCC”) ground water
standards implemented by the COGCC and listed in Table 910-1 (as it existed at
the time of the impact). It should be noted that the benzene concentration in
the samples collected from the Spring exceeded the ground water standard by 32
times and the benzene concentration in the sample collected from the faucet
exceeded the standard by 13 times. Toluene and xylenes were detected in both of
these samples, but at concentrations below the ground water standards. But
these levels were above the current WQCC standards for these substances, which
had not yet been incorporated into Table 910-1. A summary of the analytical
results of the water samples collected on June 4, 2008 from the Spring and the
Prather cabin’s kitchen faucet is set forth below:
Prather
Spring (sample taken June 4, 2008)
Contaminant of
Concern |
Concentration
(µg/L) |
Table 910-1
Concentration
(µg/L)1 |
Benzene |
160 |
5 |
Toluene |
580 |
1,000 |
Xylenes
(total) |
1,200 |
10,000 |
M-Xylene & P-Xylene |
970 |
N/A |
O-Xylene |
200 |
N/A |
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene |
76 |
N/A |
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene |
100 |
N/A |
1 Table 910-1 standards as they existed in June 2008
Kitchen
Faucet in Prather Cabin (sample taken June 4, 2008)
Contaminant of
Concern |
Concentration
(µg/L) |
Table 910-1
Concentration
(µg/L)1 |
Benzene |
65 |
5 |
Toluene |
180 |
1,000 |
Xylenes
(total) |
270 |
10,000 |
M-Xylene & P-Xylene |
150 |
N/A |
O-Xylene |
110 |
N/A |
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene |
58 |
N/A |
1 Table 910-1 standards as they existed in June 2008
7. On June 19, 2008,
COGCC Staff collected additional samples from the Spring. In addition, samples
were also collected from Mr. Prather’s stock pond, the unnamed tributary that
flows from the Spring into McKay Gulch, Dick’s Spring, and Donna’s Spring.
Subsequent analysis of these water samples indicated that the Spring was still
contaminated; however, there was no indication of impact detected in those water
samples taken from the other locations.
8. The COGCC hired Dr. Carolyn
Fordham, Ph.D., a toxicologist employed by Terra Technologies Environmental
Services, to evaluate data to identify the potential for acute, carcinogenic,
and noncarcinogenic health risks from Mr. Prather’s ingestion of
hydrocarbon-contaminated water. This evaluation included a review of the
analytical results for water samples collected from the impacted spring on June
4, 2008 and a trip to the site to interview Mr. Prather. Dr. Fordham concluded
that there “did not seem to be an elevated cancer or other adverse health risks
for Mr. Prather” based on the amount of water that he drank. However, the
actual concentration in the water ingested by Mr. Prather on May 30, 2008 is not
known.
9. On June 23, 2008,
Marathon Oil Company, Nonsuch, Petroleum Development Corporation, and Williams
(referred to collectively as the “Operators”) formed a joint group to
investigate the source of the contamination detected in the Spring. In
addition, individual Operators initiated their own investigations of operations
on their respective well pads located in proximity to the Spring.
10. As part
of the COGCC investigation to identify potential sources of the contamination in
the Spring and in response to concerns raised by Mr. Prather that the source
might be a leaking gas well, the COGCC initiated a bradenhead testing program.
On August 11, 2008, COGCC Staff witnessed bradenhead tests conducted on all
eight gas wells within a 3,000 foot radius of the Spring. Low bradenhead
pressures, less than or equal to 5 pounds per square inch (“psi”), were observed
in three of the eight wells prior to opening the bradenhead valves. Low
pressures in this range are a common result of fluid expansion from temperature
changes in the wellbore annulus and are not indicative of a problem with the
well, such as a casing leak, particularly when the pressures quickly blow down
to zero after opening the valve. Bradenhead pressures were not detected or were
too small to measure in the other five gas wells. Based on the bradenhead test
results, COGCC Staff concluded that there was no indication that any well within
3,000 feet of the Spring had casing or wellhead seal leaks, and, therefore, a
well was not the source of the contamination detected in the Spring.
11. On
September 29, 2008, the Operators
submitted the results of the
Phase 1 Prather Spring Site Investigation. This phase of the investigation
was conducted during August and September 2008 and included drilling and
installing 15 bedrock monitoring wells, coring the wellbores continuously,
sampling and evaluating the cores, and collecting and analyzing ground water
samples from new and previously drilled monitoring wells, the Spring, Spring 2,
and other springs in the area, and surface water samples. The analytical
results from the sampling indicated that impacts to the Spring continued to be
detected and Spring 2 was also impacted. Although low concentrations of
several petroleum hydrocarbon compounds were detected in some of the monitoring
wells, the concentrations were not of the same magnitude as those detected in
either the Spring or Spring 2. The source of the impacts to the Spring and
Spring 2 were not identified by this sampling event.
12. On November 24, 2008,
the Operators submitted the results of the Phase 1 Site Investigation
Progress Report Fall 2008, Prather Spring Investigation. This phase of the
investigation was conducted during October 2008 and included drilling and
installing 21 monitoring wells. These wells were completed in the lower
colluvium and weathered bedrock (refer to Attachment 14). The analytical
results showed that impacts to the Spring and Spring 2 continued to be detected,
and impacts to ground water were detected in two of the new monitoring (PS-MW 28
and PS-MW 30) wells within the Spring recharge area and one of the new wells
(PS-MW 27) in the Spring 2 recharge area. However, no evidence of impacts to
ground water were observed in several monitoring wells (e.g., PS-MW-2S,
PS-MW-2D, PS-MW-17, and PS-MW-13D located furthest from the Spring and closest
to the WGV Well Pad, along the east side of the drainage.
While the results of the
sampling at some monitoring wells did not exceed ground water standards, the
contamination was detected and was instrumental to the COGCC Staff in its
forensic investigation of the contamination of the Spring. Monitoring wells
PS-MW 28 and PS-MW 30 are located east/southeast of, and up-gradient of, the
Spring. A summary of the analytical results of the water samples collected on
October 23, 2008 from the Spring, PS-MW 28, and PS-MW 30 is set forth below:
Prather
Spring (sample taken October 23, 2008)
Contaminant of
Concern |
Concentration
(µg/L) |
Table 910-1
Concentration
(µg/L)1 |
Benzene |
210 |
5 |
Toluene |
76 |
1,000 |
Ethylbenzene |
12 |
680 |
Xylenes
(total) |
2,900 |
10,000 |
1 Table 910-1 standards as they existed in June 2008
PS-MW 28
(sample taken October 23, 2008)
Contaminant of
Concern |
Concentration
(µg/L) |
Table 910-1
Concentration
(µg/L)1 |
Benzene |
150 |
5 |
Toluene |
21 |
1,000 |
Ethylbenzene |
3.6* |
680 |
Xylenes
(total) |
1,200 |
10,000 |
1 Table 910-1 standards as they existed in June 2008
* Estimated value
PS-MW 30
(sample taken October 23, 2008)
Contaminant of
Concern |
Concentration
(µg/L) |
Table 910-1
Concentration
(µg/L)1 |
Benzene |
1.3* |
5 |
Toluene |
1.4* |
1,000 |
Ethylbenzene |
Not detected |
680 |
Xylenes
(total) |
1.6* |
10,000 |
1 Table 910-1 standards as they existed in June 2008
* Estimated value
The
contamination of Spring 2 and ground water in the Spring 2 recharge area is the
subject of a separate enforcement matter.
13. On
December 18, 2008, COGCC Staff issued two NOAVs to Williams for operations on
the WGV Well Pad, which is located east/southeast and approximately 1,500 feet
up-gradient of the Spring (refer to Attachments 1 and 5). Those NOAVs are:
·
NOAV
#200200601 for Puckett #WGV 21-23-697 Well
·
NOAV
#200200603 for Puckett #WGV 22-23-697 Well
The NOAVs had abatement deadlines of
January 13, 2009. The NOAVs cited alleged violations of the following COGCC
Rules:
a.
Rule 209, which, as of December 18, 2008, required operators to exercise due
care in the protection of coal seams and water-bearing formations, with special
precautions taken in drilling wells to guard against any loss of artesian water
from the stratum in which it occurs and the contamination of fresh water by
objectionable water, oil, or gas;
b.
Rule 324A.a., which, as of December 18, 2008, required operators to take
precautions to prevent significant adverse environmental impacts to air, water,
soil, or biological resources to the extent necessary to protect public health,
safety and welfare and to prevent the unauthorized discharge of E&P waste;
c.
Rule 324A.b., which, as of December 18, 2008, provided that no operator, in the
conduct of any oil or gas operation, shall perform any act or practice which
shall constitute a violation of water quality standards or classifications
established by CDPHE-WQCC for waters of the state;
d.
Rule 902.a., which, as of December 18, 2008, required that a pit used for E&P
waste shall be constructed and operated to protect waters of the state from
significant adverse environmental impacts from E&P waste;
e.
Rule 906.a., which, as of December 18, 2008, provided that spills/releases of
E&P waste, including produced fluids, shall be controlled and contained
immediately upon discovery, and that impacts resulting from spills/releases
shall be investigated and cleaned up as soon as practicable;
f.
Rule 906.b.(3), which, as of December 18, 2008, provided that spills/releases of
any size which impact or threaten to impact any waters of the state shall be
verbally reported to the COGCC Director as soon as practicable after discovery;
g.
Rule 907.a.(1), which, as of December 18, 2008, provided that operators shall
ensure that E&P waste is properly stored, handled, transported, treated,
recycled, or disposed to prevent threatened or actual significant adverse
environmental impacts to air, water, soil or biological resources or to the
extent necessary to ensure compliance with allowable concentration levels in
Table 910-1, with consideration of WQCC ground water standards and
classifications; and
h.
Rule 907.a.(2), which, as of December 18, 2008, required that E&P waste
management activities shall be conducted, and facilities constructed and
operated, to protect the waters of the state from significant adverse
environmental impacts from E&P waste.
The NOAVs required Williams to provide written descriptions of: (1) any pits
constructed or used on the WGV Well Pad, including size, volume, whether or not
the pit was lined, (2) all fluids (water, drilling, completion, and frac fluids,
flowback, etc.) placed in the pit, including volumes, dates, etc., and provide
haul tickets for all fluids brought from offsite to the pit(s), (3) whether
condensate was observed in the pit(s) during flowback or completion, and (4)
tanks or other containers that were used at this site to manage fluids and any
spills/releases that occurred. Further, the operators were required to submit:
(1) a Form 27, Site Investigation and Remediation Workplan, for COGCC
review, and (2) all analytical data collected to date.
14. On
January 13, 2009, Williams submitted its response to the NOAVs for the WGV Well
Pad.
15. On February 13, 2009, COGCC staff collected water samples from the Spring
and three other springs (namely, Dick’s Spring, Donna’s Spring, and Spring 2) in
the area. Laboratory analysis of the water sample collected on February 13,
2009 from the Spring detected the following compounds:
Prather
Spring (sample taken February 13, 2009)
Contaminant of
Concern |
Concentration
(µg/L) |
Table 910-1
Concentration
(µg/L)1 |
Benzene |
58 |
5 |
Toluene |
Not detected |
1,000 |
Xylenes (total) |
1,100 |
10,000 |
Naphthalene |
12 |
140 |
1
Table 910-1 standards as they existed in June 2008
16. On March 20,
2009, Williams submitted the Revised Response to NOAV’s
200200601 and 200200603
in response to the NOAVs for the WGV Well Pad and described in Finding No. 13.
This submittal included copies of
all permits and all related documents, all drilling report tickets, all
completion report tickets, all haul tickets, all notifications made by Williams
to the COGCC for activities on the WGV Well Pad, the initial draft of a Form 27
Site Investigation Remediation Workplan for additional work, and
analytical results to date. This submittal
was reviewed by COGCC Staff and additional comments were provided to Williams.
17. On May 7,
2009, Environmental Services Inc. (“ESI”), working under a contract with the
COGCC, collected water samples from the Spring and three other springs (Dick’s
Spring, Donna’s Spring, and Spring 2) in the vicinity. Analytical results
indicated that the Spring continued to be impacted.
18. Between May 18
through May 29, 2009, Halepaska and Associates (“Halepaska”), working under a
contract with the COGCC, collected water samples and measured field parameters
and water levels from the 30 monitoring wells located in the Spring recharge
area and from the Spring itself. While the results of the sampling at some
monitoring wells did not exceed ground water standards, the contamination was
detected and was instrumental to the COGCC Staff in its forensic investigation
of the contamination of the Spring. Laboratory analysis of the water samples
collected from the Spring and monitoring wells PS-MW 28, 29, 30, and 31 detected
the following compounds:
Prather
Spring (sample taken May 20, 2009)
Contaminant of
Concern |
Concentration
(µg/L) |
Table 910-1
Concentration
(µg/L)1 |
Benzene |
47 |
5 |
Toluene |
35 |
1,000 |
Ethylbenzene |
Not detected |
680 |
Xylenes
(total) |
730 |
10,000 |
1 Table 910-1 standards as they existed in June 2008
PS-MW 28
(sample taken May 29, 2009)
Contaminant of
Concern |
Concentration
(µg/L) |
Table 910-1
Concentration
(µg/L)1 |
Benzene |
140 |
5 |
Toluene |
58 |
1,000 |
Ethylbenzene |
Not detected |
680 |
Xylenes
(total) |
1,700 |
10,000 |
1 Table 910-1 standards as they existed in June 2008
PS-MW 29
(sample taken May 20, 2009)
Contaminant of
Concern |
Concentration
(µg/L) |
Table 910-1
Concentration
(µg/L)1 |
Benzene |
1.2 |
5 |
Toluene |
Not detected |
1,000 |
Ethylbenzene |
Not detected |
680 |
Xylenes
(total) |
4.6 |
10,000 |
1 Table 910-1 standards as they existed in June 2008
PS-MW 30
(sample taken May 20, 2009)
Contaminant of
Concern |
Concentration
(µg/L) |
Table 910-1
Concentration
(µg/L)1 |
Benzene |
2.9 |
5 |
Toluene |
2.1 |
1,000 |
Ethylbenzene |
Not detected |
680 |
Xylenes
(total) |
145 |
10,000 |
1 Table 910-1 standards as they existed in June 2008
PS-MW 31
(sample taken May 19, 2009)
Contaminant of
Concern |
Concentration
(µg/L) |
Table 910-1
Concentration
(µg/L)1 |
Benzene |
63 |
5 |
Toluene |
Not detected |
1,000 |
Ethylbenzene |
Not detected |
680 |
Xylenes
(total) |
533 |
10,000 |
1 Table 910-1 standards as they existed in June 2008
The
analytical results indicated that impacts to the Spring persisted and that
benzene, toluene, and xylenes were detected in four of the monitoring wells
(PS-MW 28, 29, 30, and 31), which are located on the east side of the drainage
and southeast of the Spring (refer to Attachments 14 and 15). The detection of
benzene, toluene, and xylenes in these monitoring wells is important to the
COGCC Staff because it indicates to the Staff that the source of the
contamination of the Spring is located to the southeast. The only potential
sources of contamination southeast of the Spring were the Williams oil and gas
operations on the WGV Well Pad and the abandoned MV 6-14 pipeline.
19. Unlike prior sampling events when
the concentration of benzene was higher in the Spring than in any of the
monitoring wells, during the May 2009 sampling event the concentrations of
benzene in PS-MW 28 and PS-MW 31 were higher than the concentration of benzene
detected in the Spring. This finding is important to the COGCC Staff because it
indicates to Staff that the source of contamination is not in the immediate
vicinity of the Spring, but is up-gradient and southeast of PS-MW 28 and PS-MW
31 (refer to Attachment 15). The only potential sources of the contamination
up-gradient and southeast of PS-MW 28 and PS-MW 31 were Williams activities on
the WGV Well Pad and the abandoned Williams MV 6-14 pipeline.
20. On August 31, 2009, Halepaska
submitted its report on its review of the analytical results of the May 2009
water sampling from 30 area monitoring wells as was mentioned in Finding No.
18. See COGCC May 2009 Sampling Event – Prather Spring Drainage Area (COGCC
Document No. 01629000). The report concluded that: (1) the contamination
found in the Spring is likely the result of a release of condensate into the
ground water, and (2) the most likely source of the hydrocarbons is from the
east side of the drainage, southeast of the Spring.
21. On September 1, 2009, COGCC Staff
met with representatives of Williams to inform them of Staff’s conclusion that
the WGV Well Pad is the most likely source of the contamination detected in the
Spring. Mr. Prather and other interested parties were informed that further
investigation would focus on Williams activities on the WGV Well Pad and the
abandoned Williams MV 6-14 pipeline.
22. On September 23, 2009, Williams
submitted a Form 27 Site Investigation and Remediation Workplan
(COGCC Document No.1630328) for
additional work on, and in proximity to, the WGV Well Pad and the abandoned
segment of the Williams MV 6-14 pipeline, which was approved by COGCC on
November 4, 2009. The goal of this investigation was to evaluate potential
sources and pathways of contamination associated with Williams’ activities and
improve the understanding of the geology and hydrogeology of the recharge area
of the Spring. The workplan consisted of three parts, including:
a. The investigation of an
eight-foot deep trench that was then being constructed by Enterprise Natural Gas
(“Enterprise”) for the installation of a new 20-inch pipeline. The goal was to
take advantage of the ongoing construction project to help identify and evaluate
potential shallow pathways for contaminant migration from the WGV Well Pad to
the Spring. The trench was located along the northwest side of and downhill
from the WGV Well Pad (refer to Attachment 16). Field activities included
geologic descriptions, including photographing the walls and bottom of the
trench, collecting samples from the trench for measurement of hydrocarbon vapors
with field instruments, and collecting samples for laboratory analysis. This
work was conducted along 1,400 feet of the open trench. No contamination was
found in the pipeline trench which was dug to a depth of approximately 25 feet
below the WGV Well Pad and between the WGV Well Pad and the Spring. Although
the trench did not intersect any contamination from the WGV Well Pad, it
improved the understanding of the geology of the bedrock and the structural
controls of ground water migration in the fractured Uinta Formation (refer to
Attachments 17, 18, 19, and 20).
b. The investigation and removal of
the Williams MV 6-14 pipeline, which had been constructed by another operator in
November 1987 and was used to carry natural gas until it was abandoned in 2005.
The pipeline was located along the northwest side of, and downhill from, the WGV
Well Pad (refer to Attachment 21). Beginning September 29, 2009, Williams
excavated 2,500 feet of the pipeline. Once the pipeline was exposed, it was
examined for indications of corrosion and leaks; none were found. The pipeline
was then removed and the trench (approximately 3 feet wide and 2 to 4 feet deep)
was examined for indications of hydrocarbon releases. In addition to visual
observations and field screening, eighteen samples and two duplicate samples
were collected for laboratory analysis. There was no evidence that the pipeline
had leaked at any time. In addition, this pipeline had previously passed a
pressure test performed on November 11, 2008, which likewise had generated no
evidence that the pipeline was leaking. Therefore, COGCC Staff concluded that
the pipeline was likely not the source of contamination of the Spring.
c. The investigation of five
potential sources of contamination on the WGV Well Pad
(refer to Attachment 22) including:
i. Production equipment
Williams
conducted a soil gas survey around the production equipment located on this pad
(refer to Attachment 3). The survey included collecting samples from two depths
at six different locations (for a total of 12 soil gas samples) and analyzing
these soil gas samples for the presence of hydrocarbon compounds. Concentration
of hydrocarbon compounds were either not detected or detected only at trace
levels. This indicated to the COGCC Staff that the production equipment was
likely not the source of dissolved hydrocarbon contamination detected at the
Spring.
ii.
Tank battery
(separate tanks for produced water and condensate)
Williams
conducted a soil gas survey around the tank battery located on this pad (refer
to Attachment 3). The survey included collecting samples from various depths at
six different locations (for a total of 18 soil gas samples) and analyzing these
soil gas samples for the presence of hydrocarbon compounds. Concentration of
hydrocarbon compounds were either not detected or detected only at trace levels.
This indicated to the COGCC Staff that the tank battery was likely not the
source of dissolved hydrocarbon contamination detected at the Spring.
iii.
Gas discharge line
Williams
conducted a soil gas survey around the gas discharge line located on this pad.
The survey included collecting samples from two depths at nine different
locations (for a total of 18 soil gas samples and one duplicate sample) and
analyzing these soil gas samples for the presence of hydrocarbon compounds.
Concentration of hydrocarbon compounds were either not detected or detected only
at trace levels. This indicated to the COGCC Staff that the gas discharge line
was likely not the source of dissolved hydrocarbon contamination detected at the
Spring.
iv.
Former reserve pit
– backfill sampling and trenching
On or about August 19, 2009,
Williams removed the liner and backfilled the reserve pit without prior approval
from the COGCC. Nonetheless as part of the ongoing investigation of potential
sources of contamination of the Spring, Williams conducted extensive sampling
and analysis of the former reserve pit, including:
a.
Excavated trenches into the bedrock below the bottom of the former pit
and collected soil/rock samples for laboratory analysis. Ten samples and one
duplicate sample were collected. None of the samples had concentrations of
total petroleum hydrocarbons (“TPH”) that exceeded the Table 910-1 standard,
which is 500 mg/kg.
b.
Collected samples of the backfill material at four locations. TPH
exceeded the Table 910-1 standard for soil, which is 500 mg/kg, in two of the
samples at concentrations of 608 mg/kg and 627 mg/kg.
c.
Drilled and
cored boreholes at two locations and collected samples at depths of
approximately ten feet below the bottom of the former pit. None of the samples
had concentrations of TPH that exceeded the Table 910-1 standard, which is 500
mg/kg.
d.
Thus, the
analytical results from the various samples collected from the former reserve
pit indicated that it was likely not the source of contamination detected in the
Spring.
v. Existing production pit
– removal of pit liner and closure
Williams
removed the fluids, solids, and the liner from the production pit (refer to
Attachments 2, 3, and 4). Subsurface samples from beneath the pit liner were
collected to detect the presence of hydrocarbons that would be indicative of a
release from the production pit.
a. A soil
gas survey was conducted at two locations within the pit. In addition to
collecting four soil gas samples, nine samples of rock and soil were collected
from the boreholes and submitted for laboratory analysis. Only trace or very
low concentrations of hydrocarbon compounds were detected in the soil vapor and
rock and soil samples.
b.
Coreholes
were drilled and sampled at eight locations in and around the production pit.
Depths ranged from 115 feet below ground surface (“fbgs”) to 175 fbgs. A total
of 61 core samples of bedrock were submitted for hydrocarbon analysis. TPH at
concentrations exceeding the Table 910-1 standard of 500 mg/kg were detected in
certain samples from three locations: corehole EP-CH-5 in the sample collected
at 103 fbgs, where the concentration detected was 798 mg/kg; corehole EP-CH-7 in
the sample collected at 77 fbgs, where the concentration detected was 5,030
mg/kg and in the sample collected at 84 fbgs, where the concentration detected
was 8,840 mg/kg; corehole EP-CH-8 in the sample collected at 58 fbgs, where the
concentration detected was 759 mg/kg, in the sample collected at 67 fbgs, where
the concentration detected was 5,670 mg/kg, in the sample collected at 69 fbgs,
where the concentration detected was 6,200 mg/kg, and in the sample collected at
79 fbgs, where the concentration detected was 8,910 mg/kg.
c.
Two trenches
were excavated to, and into, bedrock. Thirty three grab samples and two
duplicates of the soil and bedrock were collected for laboratory analysis.
Concentrations of TPH exceeding the Table 910-1 standard were detected in nine
of these samples. The highest concentrations of TPH were detected in samples
NEP-48N10-4 and NEP-48N10-8 at 13,900 mg/kg and 17,168 mg/kg, respectively. The
collection points for these samples were located on the northwestern edge of the
pit at depths of approximately four and eight fbgs.
d.
The
concentrations of TPH detected in the samples collected from NEP-48N10-4 and
NEP-48N10-8 and the TPH concentrations detected in the three coreholes indicated
to the COGCC Staff that the production pit was a likely source of the dissolved
hydrocarbon contamination detected in the Spring.
23. Based on these sampling results,
Williams verbally notified the COGCC, on December 15, 2009, of a release of
hydrocarbons from the production pit on the WGV Well Pad. Williams made this
discovery during the implementation of their approved investigation work plan
described in Finding No. 22. On December 18, 2009, Williams submitted a Form 19
Spill/Release Report (COGCC Document No. 1631586) regarding discovery of
a release. Hydrocarbon contamination had been discovered during the
investigation and closure of the production pit. The volume and the time of the
release were and remain unknown and the cause of the release remains under
investigation.
24. Based in
large part on the concentrations of TPH detected in the samples collected from
NEP-48N10-4 and NEP-48N10-8 and the TPH concentrations detected in the three
coreholes, the COGCC Staff’s has concluded that a release from the production
pit on the WGV Well Pad was a likely source of the contamination detected in the
Spring in May 2008.
25. COGCC records reveal
that the production pit on the WGV Well Pad was lined, but not permitted prior
to or at or around the time of construction. Williams used the production pit
on the WGV Well Pad to manage Produced Water from on or around the date of first
production from the WGV Well Pad (October 1, 2007) until and through October 9,
2008 (a period of 375 days), when Williams submitted a Form 15 Pit Permit
as required by Rule 903.a. (formerly Rule 903.a.(1)B.).
26. The
exact date of the release or releases of the Produced Water from the pit on the
WGV Well Pad, and the volume of Produced Water released from the pit, are not
known, and the cause of the release or releases remains under investigation.
For the purpose of settling this matter under this AOC, the parties have agreed
to use a period of 122 days of alleged violation.
27. Rule
523. specifies a base fine of One Thousand dollars ($1,000) for each day of
violation of Rules 324A.a., 324A.b., 902.a., 903.a., and 907a.(2). Rule
523.a.(3) specifies that “the maximum penalty for any single violation shall not
exceed Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000) regardless of the number of days of such
violation,” unless the violation results in significant waste of oil and gas
resources, damage to correlative rights, or a significant adverse impact on
public health, safety or welfare or the environment.
28. Based on the above facts, COGCC Staff has concluded that the release or
releases of E&P waste from the production pit on the WGV Well Pad resulted in a
significant adverse impact to the environment and public health, safety, and
welfare. The bases for this conclusion are:
a. The release or releases of E&P waste impacted the Spring.
b. The contaminated water from the Spring was ingested by Mr. Prather on May
30, 2008 when he drank water from the faucet in the kitchen of his cabin.
c. On June 4 2008, five days after the initial discovery of the contamination,
the concentration of benzene detected in water discharging from the Spring and
the kitchen faucet in the Prather cabin exceeded the then-applicable Table 910-1
standard.
29. Williams
does not believe that hydrocarbons released from the production pit on the WGV
Well Pad migrated to ground water beneath the WGV Well Pad and were transported
by ground water flow to the Spring. Further, Williams alleges that the previous
statement is supported by the fact that ground water was not encountered beneath
the WGV Well Pad to a depth of 175 fbgs and hydrocarbon concentrations detected
beneath the pit in the subsurface formations declined with depth to below
applicable cleanup standards in the eight coreholes drilled below the WGV Well
Pad.
30. Solely
in the interest of compromise and settling disputed technical and legal
allegations made by the COGCC and Mr. Prather, Williams, acting in good faith,
agrees to voluntarily consent to this AOC. Williams does not admit any fact,
finding, or allegations of liability for any of the alleged Rule violations, and
denies that such alleged violations caused a significant adverse impact to the
environment. However, Williams agrees to pay the following fines as adjusted
pursuant to Finding No. 44 and the COGCC Staff agrees to accept the following
fines as adjusted pursuant to Finding No. 44. Both parties agree to do so in
order to resolve this matter without the necessity of a contested hearing.
31. For
purposes of settling this matter, Williams should not be found in violation of
Rule 209 because Rule 209 was not violated here.
32. Williams
violated Rule 324A.a. because it placed Produced Water in a lined pit on
the WGV Well Pad, but the pit liner leaked and allowed fluids to be released to
the environment, and by so doing, Williams failed to take precautions to prevent
significant adverse environmental impacts to air, water, soil, or biological
resources to the extent necessary to protect public health, safety and welfare
and to prevent the unauthorized discharge of oil, gas or E&P waste. A base fine
of One Hundred Twenty Two Thousand dollars ($122,000) has been calculated
for the violation of Rule 324A.a.
33. Williams
violated Rule 324A.b. because it placed Produced Water in a lined pit on
the WGV Well Pad, but the pit liner leaked and allowed fluids to be released to
the environment, and by so doing, Williams performed an oil and gas related act
or practice which constituted a violation of the water quality standards or
classifications established by CDPHE-WQCC for waters of the state. A base fine
of One Hundred Twenty Two Thousand dollars ($122,000) has been calculated
for the violation of Rule 324A.b.
34. Williams
violated Rule 902.a. because it placed Produced Water in a lined pit on
the WGV Well Pad, but the pit liner leaked and allowed fluids to be released to
the environment, and by so doing, Williams failed to construct and operate an
E&P pit to protect waters of the state from significant adverse impacts from E&P
waste. A base fine of One Hundred Twenty Two Thousand dollars ($122,000)
has been calculated for the violation of Rule 902.a.
35. Williams violated Rule 903.a.
because it used an unpermitted pit to manage Produced Water from on or around
the date of first production, October 1, 2007, through October 9, 2008, when
Williams submitted a Form 15 Pit Permit (Facility No. 414581), a period
of 375 days. COGCC Staff have calculated a base fine of Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000)
based on the maximum penalty provision set forth in Rule 523. absent a showing
that the violation resulted in significant waste of oil and gas resources,
damage to correlative rights, or a significant adverse impact on public health,
safety or welfare or the environment.
36. For
purposes of settling this matter, Williams should not be found in violation of
Rule 906.a. because Williams demonstrated a prompt, effective and prudent
response to the release.
37. For
purposes of settling this matter, Williams should not be found in violation of
Rule 906.b.(3) because Williams demonstrated a prompt, effective and
prudent response to the release.
38. For
purposes of settling this matter, Williams should not be found in violation of
Rule 907.a.(1) because the alleged violation of Rule 907.a.(1) can be
combined with the alleged violation of Rule 907.a.(2).
39. Williams
violated Rule 907.a.(2) because it placed Produced Water in
a lined production pit on the WGV Well Pad, but the pit liner leaked and allowed
fluids to be released to the environment, and by so doing, Williams failed to
conduct and operate E&P waste management activities in a manner which ensured
the protection of the waters of the state from significant adverse environmental
impacts from E&P waste. A base fine of One Hundred Twenty Two Thousand dollars
($122,000) has been calculated for the violation of Rule 907.a.(2).
40. COGCC
Staff specifically reserve the right to proceed as to alleged violations of
Rules 906.a., 906.b.(3), and 907.a.(1), if this matter is not resolved by this
AOC. Nothing within this AOC should be construed as the COGCC Staff waiving
their right to prosecute any violation set forth in this AOC in the event that
this AOC is not executed by the parties and approved by the Commission.
41. In summary, Williams should be found in violation of Rules 324A.a.,
324A.b., 902.a., 903.a., and 907a.(2) as described herein, for failing to
properly permit, construct, maintain, and repair the pit on the WGV Well Pad so
that E&P waste was not released, and base fines levied as compiled in the table
below:
Rule
Violation |
Days of
Violation |
Fine
Amount/Violation |
324A.a. |
122 |
$122,000 |
324A.b. |
122 |
$122,000 |
902.a. |
122 |
$122,000 |
903.a. |
375 |
$10,000 |
907.a.(2) |
122 |
$122,000 |
Total Maximum
Allowable Fine |
$498,000 |
42. Because
the base fine for these violations is set at $1,000 per day of violation, the
aggravating factors set forth in Rule 523.d. are not applicable by their terms.
43. The
following mitigating factors were considered in reducing the maximum allowable
fine amount by fifteen percent (15%):
(1)
Ten percent
(10%) for combined Rule 523.d.(2), because Williams demonstrated a prompt,
effective and prudent response to the violations, and Rule 523.d.(3), because
Williams cooperated with the Commission by leading and serving as the central
point of contact and coordinator for the joint operator investigation for the
COGCC and, otherwise, cooperated with the COGCC. Further, Williams deployed its
critical resources (both employees and contractors) during the initial response
and subsequent joint operator investigation in order to avoid delay; and
(2)
Five percent
(5%) under Rule 523.d.(6), because Williams incurred substantial costs for its
investigation and remediation efforts to date, and these costs substantially
exceed any economic benefit from the violations. As of the date of this AOC,
Williams has expended approximately $1,300,000 in investigative work associated
with identifying the source of contamination of the Spring. Further, Williams
has spent approximately $8,500,000 to date on costs associated with basin-wide
efforts to enhance the management of fluids including Produced Water. Funds
were spent in the Highlands to:
a.
Enhance the
produced water management system;
b.
Enhance the
produced water gathering system;
c.
Installed
SCADA fluid level monitoring system;
d.
Retain
dedicated compliance inspectors for pit and liner compliance;
e.
Retain water
hauling contractor to monitor and maintain fluid levels in pits; and
f.
Prepare
custom fabricated water truck pumping truck manifolds to prevent damage to pit
liners.
Also,
Williams has implemented a variety of internal and outside programs to
proactively address standard E&P operational practices. These activities can be
divided into two categories:
Internal (Williams)
·
Training employees on the importance of spill prevention and reporting
·
Installing and maintaining spill stations with spill response equipment
throughout the areas in which they have operations
·
Retaining a spill response contractor on call 24/7
·
Conducting voluntary inspections of pits on a scheduled basis looking for any
evidence of leaks or overspills, inadequate free board and condensate
accumulation
·
Installing pressure transducers in produced water storage pits that are
monitored via the well SCADA system for evidence of pit leakage
·
Inspecting the installation of pit liners
·
Testing the integrity of new lined produced water storage pits with fresh water
·
Assessing the depth to groundwater and distance to surface water and wells and
springs in selecting pad and pit installations
·
Installing fixed hosing or piping or protective covers to prevent potential
damage to liners from vacuum hoses dropped into pits
·
Using clean cuttings as the soil foundation on which liners are installed
Contractor
·
Reviewing and evaluating key contractor spill prevention and awareness programs
·
Training to contractors on the importance of spill prevention and reporting
·
Reinforcing the importance of preventing and reporting spills during annual “all
hands” contractor meetings
·
Holding contractors responsible for cleaning up and paying for spills that were
caused by their actions
·
Investigating significant contractor spills to determine primary causes of
spills and requiring corrective actions
44. The
parties agree to a fine of Four Hundred Twenty Three Thousand, Three Hundred
dollars ($423,300), which takes into consideration a 15% fine reduction for
mitigating factors.
45.
Payment of the fine pursuant to this AOC does not relieve the operator from its
obligations to complete abatement or corrective actions set forth in the NOAV,
as may be amended or modified by Staff.
46. The COGCC Staff and Williams agree that providing a potable source of water
to Mr. Prather for use at his cabin and for maintaining fencing while the Spring
is impacted and conducting ground water and Spring monitoring until water
quality in the Spring remains at or below Table 910-1 ground water standards is
critical to the resolution of this matter.
Although the analytical results for samples collected in 2010 from the Spring
demonstrate a significant decrease in concentrations of benzene when compared to
the analytical results for the sample collected on August 7, 2008, which
contained the highest concentration of benzene, the concentration of benzene is
still above the Table 910-1 groundwater standard of 5
µg/L.
Benzene was detected at a concentration of 290
µg/L in the water sample
collected from the Spring on August 7, 2008 and at a concentration of 21.4
µg/L in
the water sample collected on June 16, 2010.
A summary of the benzene
concentrations for several of the 2010 water samples collected from the Spring
and the August 7, 2008 sample is set forth below:
Prather
Spring – Benzene Concentration
Date |
Concentration
(µg/L) |
Table 910-1
Concentration
(µg/L)1 |
August 7, 2008 |
290 |
5 |
March 3, 2010 |
28 |
5 |
March 31, 2010 |
30.4 |
5 |
April 16, 2010 |
11.8 |
5 |
April 23, 2010 |
53 |
5 |
April 30, 2010 |
15.8 |
5 |
May 5, 2010 |
9.2 |
5 |
May 12, 2010 |
12.1 |
5 |
May 19, 2010 |
12 |
5 |
May 26, 2010 |
13.5 |
5 |
June 2, 2010 |
13.7 |
5 |
June 9, 2010 |
14.8 |
5 |
June 16, 2010 |
21.4 |
5 |
1 Table 910-1 standards as they existed in June 2008
47. The COGCC Staff and Williams agree that the prompt development and
implementation of a plan to monitor the effects of natural attenuation and to
mitigate impacts from the discharge of contaminated water from the Spring is
critical to the resolution of this matter. To that end, Williams agrees to
submit a Monitoring and Mitigation Plan to the COGCC for Staff’s review and
approval within 30 days of the entry of the Order by the Commission, and that
the implementation of the plan shall occur within 30 days of the written
notification to Williams of the approval of the plan by the Staff.
The Monitoring and Mitigation Plan shall be provided to Mr. Prather for review
and comment and his comments shall be considered by COGCC Staff prior to
approval by the Staff. The Staff’s actions on the proposed plan will be subject
to review by the Commission at an expedited hearing if requested in writing by
Mr. Prather or Williams.
48. Williams should execute this AOC no later than 14 days after the date it is
executed by Staff for recommendation to the Commission for approval. The COGCC
Staff may seek additional fines, which Williams may contest, if this matter is
not approved by the Commission.
49. Williams or its successors or assigns, should be required to remain
responsible for complying with this AOC, in the event of any subsequent sale of
property.
50. Pursuant to Article IX, of the
“Memorandum of Agreement” between the Water Quality Control Division (“WQCD”)
and the COGCC, adopted February 15, 2000, COGCC Staff conferred with WQCD
enforcement staff in determining the monetary penalty against Williams for
violations of WQCC standards for surface waters. WQCD indicated it agrees with
the fine and the terms of this AOC and will not pursue any additional penalty.
51. Williams agrees to the findings of this AOC only for the purpose of
expeditiously resolving the matter without a contested hearing. Notwithstanding
the above, Williams does not admit to any of the factual or legal determinations
made by the Commission herein, and fully reserves its right to contest same in
any future action or proceeding other than a proceeding to enforce this AOC.
ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, that Williams Production RMT Company shall be
found in violation of the Rules set forth in Finding No. 41, above, for oil and
gas operations at the Puckett #WGV 21-23-697 Well and the Puckett #WGV 22-23-697
Well, located in the NE¼ NW¼ of Section 23, Township 6 South, Range 97 West, 6th
P.M., for those acts alleged in this AOC.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Williams Production
RMT Company shall be assessed a total adjusted fine of Four Hundred Twenty Three
Thousand, Three Hundred dollars ($423,300) for the Rule violations set forth in
Finding No. 44, above, which shall be payable within thirty (30) days of the
date the Administrative Order by Consent is approved by the Commission.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Williams shall
provide Mr. Prather with a reliable and year-round supply of potable water to
the cabin and maintain the fences constructed to prevent access by livestock and
wildlife to the contaminated water discharging from the Spring, until water
quality in the Spring remains at or below Table 910-1 groundwater standards and
the Director relieves Williams of this provision of the Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that within 30 days of
the date the Administrative Order by Consent is approved by the Commission,
Williams must submit to the COGCC Staff for review and approval an addendum to
the existing Form 27 - Site Investigation and Remediation Workplan (COGCC
Remediation Project No. 2024) that includes:
1.
Submittal of a Monitoring and Mitigation Workplan, including an
implementation schedule for a monitored natural attenuation remedy. Based on
the analytical results for samples from the Spring and other water features
collected since 2008 and in consideration of the significant decrease in
concentrations of contamination in the Spring (refer to Finding No. 46), a
monitored natural attenuation remedy is appropriate.
Williams will monitor the Spring for a
minimum of three separate sampling events each year, at least one of which will
occur during spring runoff. Williams will monitor the wells, stock pond and
spring supplying Dick Prather’s cabin identified in Paragraph 2 above for one
monitoring event which will occur during spring runoff each year and continue
until the contaminant concentrations for all areas that are sampled remain less
than Table 910-1 standards for ground water. The number of sample events
required of Williams to establish that the contaminant concentrations have
permanently achieved Table 910-1 standards for ground water will be agreed to
between the COGCC and Williams as part of the Monitoring and Mitigation Workplan.
2.
Submittal of at a minimum quarterly written progress reports by the 15th
of the month following the end of each quarter (January 15, April 15, July 15,
and October 15) of ongoing monitoring and mitigation of the impacts to the
Spring, the first of which shall be submitted for that quarter following the
approval of the Monitoring and Mitigation Plan, contingent on Williams having
legal access to the Spring and the required sampling locations.
3.
An evaluation of the 2010 remedy implementation shall be submitted to the
COGCC Staff for review and approval no later than November 1, 2011. Any Staff
action taken on the results of the remedy evaluation will be subject to review
by the Commission at an expedited hearing if requested in writing by Mr. Prather
or Williams.
4.
An evaluation of the existing monitoring well network in the Spring
recharge area to determine which of those wells will continue to be used for
long-term monitoring and which are no longer needed, including a schedule for
properly abandoning any monitoring wells no longer needed, shall be included in
the Monitoring and Mitigation Workplan, contingent on Williams having legal
access to the required locations.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that within 60 days of
the date the Administrative Order by Consent is approved by the Commission,
Williams must submit to the COGCC Staff for review and approval an addendum to
the existing Form 27 - Site Investigation and Remediation Workplan (COGCC
Remediation Project No. 2024), that includes:
1. Submittal of a workplan to evaluate the
backfill material used to reclaim the former reserve pit on the WGV Well Pad and
to determine whether the backfill material is in compliance with Table 910-1
standards and, if necessary, to remediate or remove backfill material that is
not in compliance.
2. Submittal of a workplan for completing the
closure of the production pit on the WGV Well Pad.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the NOAVs described
in Finding No. 13, above, will be resolved upon the approval of the
Administrative Order by Consent by the Commission.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the operator shall
execute this Administrative Order by Consent no later than fourteen (14) days
after the date it is executed by the Staff for recommendation of expedited
approval 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 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.
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.
RECOMMENDED this day of____________, 2010.
OIL AND
GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION
OF THE
STATE OF COLORADO
By ____
Rob Willis, Enforcement Officer
Dated
at Suite 801
1120
Lincoln St.
Denver, Colorado 80203
July
2, 2010
AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED this _________day
of_______________, 2010.
WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT COMPANY
By
__________________________________________
Signature
of Authorized Company Representative
____________________________________________
Print Signatory Name
____________________________________________
Title
============================================================================
This cause came on for hearing before the Commission at 9:00 a.m. on August 12,
2010, in Suite 200, Adams County Economic Development Offices, 12050 N. Pecos
St., Westminster, Colorado, for the approval
of this Administrative Order by Consent.
The Letter Agreement, dated August 9, 2010, signed by
counsel for Williams Production RMT Company and by counsel for the Prather
family/Section 14 Landowners, is attached to and made a part of this
Administrative Order by Consent, as ordered by the Commission at the
above-described hearing. (Please see scanned order in hearing file.)
ENTERED this__________ day of September, 2010, as of August 12, 2010.
OIL AND
GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
By____________________________________
Carol Harmon, Secretary
Dated at Suite 801
1120 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
September 8, 2010