COGIS - Complaint Reports

Form 18/18A                                                    Related   Doc
Date Rec'd: 6/25/2010 Method Received:   
DocNum: 200257667 Routed to Agency:  
Complaint Type: API number:   05-013-06611

Complainant Information

Name: Norm Steiner
Address:   , Co 
Date Received: 6/25/2010
Connection to Incident: Surface owner

Description of Complaint:

Oper. No.


Date of Incident: 6/25/2010
Type of Facility: WELL
Well Name/No.  
County Name: BOULDER
Operator contact:
qtrqtr: NWNE section: 35 township: 2n range: 69w meridian: 1

Complaint Issue
Issue:     AIR QUALITY Assigned To:    Jim Precup Status:     In Process
Description: Alex Fisher received a complaint from Norm Steiner regarding concerns he had about a four well pad scheduled to be drilled on the adjoining property west of his house. Alex refered the complaint to me.

Other Notifications
Date:    6/25/2010 Agency:    surface owner Contact:    Norm Steiner
Response or Details
Talked with Mr. Steiner. He told me that Encana was going to drill some wells West of his property. He was concerned with the possibility of contamination from the heavy volatiles. He also said that there was gas leaking on the two wells already on his property. I told him that I would do an inspection and would like to meet with him on site. He told me that he could not be available until 6/23/2010. I then set an appointment for 8:00 a.m. on 6/23/2010.
Date:    6/25/2010 Agency:    Encana Contact:    Micheal Coppersmith
Response or Details
I did an inspection on the wells associated with Mr. Norm Steiners property and found a small gas release at the surface/production casing hammer nut seal on the Deason GU 1, Oil saturated soil inside the battery berm, no sign on the Deason GU1 and no battery sign on the Deason 32-35. The horizontal separator needed paint. I noted that there were 6 wells staked to be drilled west of his property line. I also noted that the 6 wells were not observing the 150ft setback from Mr. Steiners property line.I contacted Encana and met with Mr. Coppersmith to discuss the release and wellsite problems. I looked in the Scoutcard and found the surface use agreement between Mr. Steiner and Encana. I noted that on the form 2 that there were COA's in violation with the permit. The surface had yet to be recovered, the separator had not been painted , there were no bushes planted around the battery site on the south and east, the surface use agreement was specific to a separator for only 2 wells. The emissions burner was functional and it appeared that the volatiles were being handled properly off of the battery tanks
Date:    6/25/2010 Agency:    surface owner Contact:    Norm Steiner
Response or Details
I met with Mr. Steiner on the battery site on 6/23/2010. He asked about the gas release and I did a walk through with Mr. Steiner. He asked about the danger of the heavy volatiles to his health. I showed him how the system was designed to deal with the releases from the tanks. I asked him where he was getting his information. He showed me a general letter he received from Boulder County identifying it as a possible problem it was represented by the Air Quality Board.I asked him to fax or email it to me as he was unable to make a copy at his house. I told him that I was going to have to NOAV Encana due to COA's not being done in a timely manner. I showed him the prospective wells and he was aware that they did not meet minimum setbacks from his property line. He said that he had signed a release waiver. I told him that I had seen the property line letter addressing the Permit for the Deason 4-2-35. I asked him why if he was concerned with air quality issues he had released his right to the setback. He said that Encana told him that they could do it with or without his help, all they had to do was bond out. I told him that it was possible, that he could have contacted the COGCC and possibly had that inclued as a COA to the permit. I found out that Encana had also amended his surface agreement to add the additional wells to his tank battery. He said that Encana told him they would use large upright tanks and reduce his visibility to the mountains if he didnot cooperate. They also said that they could do this by bonding out. Mr. Steiner wanted me to assure him that there would be no problems with the volatiles if they added them to his battery site. He also asked me to make Encana give him a letter that there would not be any problems in regard to the volatiles affecting their health.I told him I could not make such assurances and I did not have the authority to force Encana to give him a letter assuring they would have no problems in that regard. I told him that the rules gave us some ability to deal with the issue should it occure but we couldnot even guarantee him that Encana would even own the property for the life of the well. He represented that he was having second thoughts about having signed the agreements. I told him I was relatively sure that nothing could be done at this time, but I offered to have him talk to someone in enforcement. He said he had to talk to his wife. I called him later that afternoon and asked him if he had talked to his wife. He said he had not. I told him I would not bring it up to enforcement unless he was sure he was serious about trying to remedy some of the concerns he had brougnt up. He asked me to wait until next week and he would call me and let me know if he wanted to stay as it was or talk to someone about how Encana had handled the information back to him. He has at this time not received his check from Encana for his surface agreement amendment and property line waiver.

Tuesday, June 2, 2020