Monday, August 27, 2018

Did Sandridge Exploration's 3rd Party Trucking Company Hauling Fracking Flowback Water Lie to the COGCC, CDPHE and Other Agencies About the Contents of the Fluids Released During the Crash?


Days after a tanker truck tipped over and spilled a large volume of toxic waste steps from the Poudre River, state regulators said they don't know what the truck was carrying or how much it spilled.


  • "State Regulators said they don't know how much was spilled"
    • State COGCC documents indicated that 200 gallons (of a 5,000 gallon truck) had remained in the tanker truck while it appears 4,800 gallons were released into the environment. 
    • The company hired to drive the truck containing the fluids, Bar-S trucks create manifestation reports which indicate origin of fluids, volume and contents of fluids and ultimately, the unused fracking fluid's destination.
    • Colorado State Patrol states that because fracking fluids are not regulated there are no fluid volumes or contents.





  • "Regulators unsure of fracking truck contents after spill?"
    • This statement factually collides with the CDPHE's documents. 
  • Regulators also claim they do not believe the fracking industry fluids entered river. 
    • How can the "regulators" stand by this claim when a 5,000 gallon truck containing "unused fracking fluids" crashed and released all but 200 gallons into the environment? It was 11:30 PM when the tanker crash happened. There are no lights and emergency response arrived after the fluids were released. The statement wouldn't hold water in court.






CLICK TO EXPAND: INITIAL SPILL RELEASE REPORT. 

CLICK TO EXPAND: INITIAL SPILL RELEASE REPORT. 









Bar-S co-owner Patty Smith, the company that operated the hauling truck that crashed said: The "undesirable” product commonly contains large amounts of dissolved salts, hydrocarbons, trace metals and radionuclides, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

    • The aforementioned chemicals are known to be carcinogenic, corrosive, and endocrine disrupting (mutates your DNA) chemicals.  
    • Using the word "undesirable" appears to be willful negligence to not inform the public to immediate or long-term potential risk. 


CLICK TO EXPAND: SECOND SPILL REPORT "REVISED"

CLICK TO EXPAND: SECOND SPILL REPORT "REVISED"


Robert Breckenridge, landowner and site of location where the tanker truck spilled. Mr. Breckenridge filed an official complaint with the COGCC. 

Location of concern: “Tanker Spill in my yard in Poudre Canyon at 9552 Poudre Canyon Rd., Bellvue, CO. 80512 at approximately mm 112 on W. State Hwy 14. Issue: I knew it was matter of time until one wrecked at our property because many have been screeching around the corner (sharp curve) and many have sounded like they have just barely made it around curve without wrecking.”

“One did wreck last Thursday evening about 11pm spilling its entire contents of hot black fluid into my yard and down road.I would like to have my well checked for fracking fluid or contaminants from the fluid and get any contaminants mitigated.”

“I would like to have my well checked for fracking fluid orCOMPLAINT contaminants from the fluid and get any contaminants mitigated. Well use: household Well drilled in 2003.”


CLICK TO ENLARGE






















It appears that Sandridge Exploration and Production LLC was hauling post-fracking flowback water from Peterson Ridge #1-20H an actively producing horizontal oil well in Jackson County, CO where the surface and mineral owner is leased by the Federal Government.




AREAS OF SOIL/WATER SAMPLES CONDUCTED BY COGCC (GREEN)














ALS ENVIRONMENTAL - COMPANY THAT CONDUCTED WATER/SOIL SAMPLES

















QUESTIONS AND DEMANDS:

  1. DEMAND A FULL POLICE REPORT ON THIS ACCIDENT
  2. DEMAND WASTE  MANIFEST BILL OF LADING/ THAT DESCRIBES THE SOURCE OF THE SPILLED WASTE AS PER RULE 906.b.(2)   FACILITY OF ORIGIN, VOLUMES, CONTENTS, MSDS, AND DESTINATION FACILITY.
  3. DEMAND EPA REPORTS DUE TO FRACKING INDUSTRY RELATED FLUIDS POTENTIALLY ENTERING WATERS OF THE STATE AND NATIONAL HERITAGE POUDRE RIVER.
  4. HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE REPORTING PARTIES CLEARLY AND ACCURATELY STATE THAT NO FRACKING INDUSTRY FLUIDS FROM THE CRASH ENTERED THE POUDRE RIVER" WHEN THIS HAPPENED AT 11:30 PM? THERE ARE LITTLE TO NO LIGHTS IN THE REMOTE AREA AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFFICERS RESPONDED MUCH LATER IN TIME AFTER THE TANKER TRUCK HAD DISCHARGED WHAT APPEARS TO BE 4,800 GALLONS OF FLUIDS ON, NEAR AND DOWN THE RIVER BANK?
  5. THE INITIAL REPORT STATES THAT THE FLUID REPORTEDLY SPILLED WAS "UNUSED FRACKING WATER" AND BECAUSE IT IS NOT A REGULATED SUBSTANCE THE CDPHE WOULD NOT KNOW THE VOLUME OF FLUIDS RELEASED. THE STATE PATROL OFFICER NOTED THAT THE FLUID APPEARED TO NOT EVAPORATE AS WATER WOULD AND HAD RUN A SPECTROGRAPHY ON IT, WHERE THE RESULTS DETERMINED THE CONTENTS WERE "UNKNOWN."
  6. DEMAND A FULL RESPONSE AS TO WHY NEARLY EVERY PART OF FORM 19 HAD TO BE REVISED. DATA SUCH AS BUT NOT LIMITED TO; DATE OF SPILL, LOCATION OF SPILL, INITIAL ESTIMATED VOLUME OF SPILL, TYPE OF FLUID WAS CHANGED FROM UNUSED FRACKING FLUID TO FLOWBACK, ETC.
  7. WERE THE INITIAL REPORTING PARTIES LYING ABOUT THE CONTENTS AND TYPE OF FLUID RELEASED DURING THE ACCIDENT AND THEN LATER CHANGED?
  8. TWO SOIL/WATER SAMPLES WERE CONDUCTED ON 08AUGUST 2018 WITH A 24 HOUR ANALYSIS TURNAROUND AND YET 20 DAYS LATER HAVE NOT BEEN UPLOADED TO THE COGCC'S PUBLIC DATABASE. DEMAND ALL ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES TAKEN AT SPILL SITE.
  9. IT APPEARS THAT MR. ROBERT BRECKENRIDGE'S 60' DEEP PRIVATE WATER WELL # 12571-A WAS CONTAMINATED BY THE FRACKING INDUSTRY FLUID RELEASE. PLEASE REFER TO ABOVE IMAGES AND  COGCC LINK  AND URL http://cogcc.state.co.us/COGIS/EnviroSample.asp?facid=759810 COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES LINK AND URL http://www.dwr.state.co.us/WellPermitSearch/View.aspx?receipt=0441690
  10. SAMPLE SITE #2  COGCC LINK AND URLhttp://cogcc.state.co.us/COGIS/EnviroSample.asp?facid=759809 COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES LINK AND URL http://www.dwr.state.co.us/WellPermitSearch/View.aspx?receipt=3619278



All current official COGCC , CDPHE etc. data files on this incident can be found HERE

Monday, January 15, 2018

Boulder County Commissioner's Fail to Respond to Questions Regarding Seismic Testing Conducted by the Fracking Industry in Boulder County - Did they participate?























Below is the email with specific questions for the Boulder County Commissioners to answer regarding the seismic operations that appear to have occurred within Boulder County. I submitted my questions via email to the three commissioners on 17 December 2017 some thirty-six day ago. I received an email confirmation that they are in-fact, in receipt of my email and questions, but I have not received a response to date. Crickets…

It is important that all environmental advocates and associated organizations ask the very same questions I have asked and hold the Boulder County Commissioner’s accountable.

Please copy and email the questions below and send to: commissioners@bouldercounty.org

………………………………………………
EMAIL

Boulder County Commissioners, Elise Jones, Cindy Domenico, and Deb Gardner:

I am providing you public information sourced from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission’s website database: cogcc.state.co.us compiled on my blog page for your review: Were Seismic Operations Conducted by the Oil and Gas Industry in Boulder County? Supporting Documents May Reveal Answers 

The information compiled appears to clearly illustrate oil and gas seismic operations took place in three separate areas in Boulder County Colorado (BOCO).  Supporting COGCC documents: Form 20 and Form 20A, state and oil and gas industry mapping also illustrates  these activities took place in Boulder County.

I would like you to answer these questions in a timely manner please.

1.       Do you have access to the information I have provided regarding the COGCC documentation authorizing seismic testing operations in Boulder County?

2.       Did you three commissioners, in whole or individually, have any form of knowledge of seismic activity, permitting, Form 20,20A, mapping, operator information in Boulder County during your active role as a commissioner?

3.       Do you have any digital and or hardcopy correspondence from the three of you, to include the former Commissioner Will Toor,  to and from the COGCC , Anadarko Petroleum Inc., Encana Oil and Gas, Extraction Oil and Gas Inc., and/or their associated industry contractors regarding seismic testing operations within the boundaries of Boulder County Colorado during the time-frames before, during and after the testing dates listed in the COGCC documents provided?  Please accept this as a formal request to obtain all documentation regarding these specific issues from January 2012  through December 2018.

4.       Did Boulder County  planning and zoning, legal team et al,  have  any form of knowledge or information, such as but not limited to; email correspondence, mapping, COGCC communication, oil and gas industry documentation regarding the documented seismic activities by the documented oil and gas industry operators and or their contractors?

5.       Did Boulder County update any mapping systems or datasets to include seismic operations and all associated data on the Form 20/20A and any additional data pertinent to the seismic operations? If so, please provide details to include links to mapping systems and or public data sets.

6.       If an oil and gas operator and their seismic contractors were to want to conduct shale seismic testing/operations in Boulder County, what would be the procedure to do so? Please describe the operational flowchart of requirements, documentation, agencies and people involved to obtain permissions to conduct seismic testing operations in Boulder County.

7.       Do you recognize Boulder County as a location for seismic activities on the mapping, Form 20 and Form 20A that I have provided to you?

8.       If Boulder County approved seismic testing operations would you receive the 2D and 3D surface maps created by the oil and gas operators conducting such a test?

9.       Do you have any additional information you can provide to me for the three areas and operators that have already conducted seismic activities in Boulder County? If so, please accept this as a request for that information.

Thank you for your time and assistance with my requests. Please see attached supporting documents and links.

I look forward to hearing from you in a timely manner.

Sincerely,
Shane Davis
Boulder County


-------------------------


Shane Davis




................................

Saturday, December 9, 2017

Were Seismic Operations Illegally Conducted by the Oil and Gas Industry in Boulder County? Supporting Documents May Reveal Answers

It appears three oil and gas operators conducted seismic operations in Boulder County in 2013 and 2014. According to documents and mapping maintained by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, (COGCC), Extraction Oil and Gas Inc., Encana Oil and Gas and Anadarko Petroleum Corporation have conducted 3D seismic testing operations in Boulder County. 

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

1.) Extraction Oil and Gas Inc., filed a Form 20 (Notice of intent to Conduct Seismic Operations) on December 8 2014. With the signatures of COGCC Director, Matt Lepore and Permit Technician and project manager, John Krull approved Extraction’s approximate 41 square mile seismic testing for shale in Larimer, Weld and Boulder Counties.

On the Form 20, Extraction indicated that their start date for seismic testing would occur one month prior to the authorization of the permit with an estimated date of completion of Feb 15 2015.

The type of seismic shale testing conducted is listed as 3-D – Vibroseis.  It is a truck-mounted or buggy-mounted device that is capable of injecting low-frequency vibrations into the earth.


Vibroseis trucks conduction seismic shale operations. Image Wikipedia




















Extraction hired Houston Texas contracting company, Geokinetics USA Inc. to conduct the seismic testing with RLI Insurance holding the bond for the operations.

COGCC FORM 20 - Extraction Oil and Gas authorized permit to conduct
seismic activities in Boulder County. Click  image to enlarge.
Extraction's 3D mapping indicating Boulder County in 3N 69W.
Note the bottom right of map indicating Larimer, Boulder and Weld Counties
are the area of seismic testing interest. Click map to enlarge.
































































Green area illustrates Extraction's seismic operations in Boulder County.
















Reviewing the legend on the bottom right indicates the green areas are listed by Extraction as
'Good to Go.' Could this mean seismic permitting authorization has been approved or the
shale is viable for drilling?

































LINK TO DOWNLOAD EXTRACTION DOCUMENTS


2.) Encana Oil and Gas Inc., filed a COGCC Form 20A - Completion Report for Seismic Operations on April 18 2013. Notice of intent Form 20 is missing from the COGCC's database.

Encana's seismic operations contracted by Lockhart Geophysical Crew #4 out of Montana consisted of 5,438 square miles of 3-D Vibroseis methodology in Weld and Boulder Counties starting on March 15 2013 with a stated completion date of March 24 2013.

It seems odd that seismic operations for 5,438 square miles could be completed in a mere nine days  by Encana when in-fact, it took Extraction almost three months to conduct seismic testing on much smaller 41 square miles.


Encana Oil and Gas Inc Form 20A Completion report for Seismic Operations.
Click to enlarge







































Longmont, CO map indicating Encana's seismic activities. Red diagram - left side





































Encana's seismic operations mapping - possibly indicating select areas in Boulder County
(left side of map - red areas).



































LINK TO DOWNLOAD ENCANA'S SEISMIC DOCUMENTS


3.) Anadarko Petroleum Corporation filed a Completion report for Seismic Operations on April 27 2015. 

Yet another out-of state contractor was hired. Dawson Geophysical Company from Midland, Texas conducted the seismic operations on 70-100 square miles. (The Form 20A has both 70 square miles and 100 square miles listed.)

The start date of seismic activities on November 5 2014 with a completion date of December 15 2014. 


Anadarko's FORM 20A Completion report for Seismic Activities April 27 2015






On the left side of the map you'll notice 1N 69W and 2N 69W (Boulder County Sections) where
Anadarko seimic operations took place in 2014.



































Anadarko's Seismic Identifier is listed as #8750, however in the file cache, this document is listed as #8055 with information of seismic activities in Boulder County. There is more than one Identifier listed in the COGCC's database. 

There is much more to discover about Anadarko's seismic operations in Boulder County and there are many missing documents that need to be found to provide public transparency.


According to the COGCC, one of the three seismic contractors described above, Geokinetics USA Inc., conducted illegal seismic testing operations in Weld County without prior submittal and approval of a  COGCC Form 20 - Notice of Intent to Conduct Seismic Activity.

Geokinetcs USA Inc, Houston Texas was issued a ‘Notice of Alleged Violation by the COGCC and was fined $10,000 for illegal seismic testing operations for 196 days. The fines imposed were $1,000 per day of the violation, up to ten days for a maximum fine of $10,000 for ten days of illegal operations. Geokintetics was not fined for the additional 186 days of illegal operations.


One more time: Geokintetics was not fined for the additional 186 days of illegal operations.

This is a clear demonstration of ineffective, unfair and unbalanced, arbitrary and capricious COGCC oil and gas rules and regulations to issue a fine that is in no way, a deterrent. The COGCC should be fined for allowing these illegal activities to occur unnoticed for any length of time, let alone 196 continuous days.

The COGCC and the industry both know it’s clearly cheaper to operate without rules and regulations and pay a fine (also known as a fee) rather than have a single day of down-time. The COGCC rules and regulations were created with the interest of ‘time’ in mind to not fairly penalize the fracking industry for not following the suggestions in the COGCC rules and regulations handbook.  

After all, it’s the COGCC’s job to foster oil and gas development and not slow the industry down.  
      
Do not be fooled however, there are no fines that currently exist in the COGCCs Rules and Regulations that would deter an operator or contractor from practicing illegal activities if it saves them money long-term. 

In-fact, many of the violations have fines that are a positive economical avenue for the industry to take and the cost of a fine is nothing when it comes to ‘down -time’ operators would face waiting for public comments, notifications, permitting, signatures etc. - so much down time wasted on paperwork.  

The fines are designed as a public pacifier to create the appearance of penalties in action. Wait, isn't that called 'fake news?'

COGCC rules and regulations are an annoyance.  If a person got a ticket for running a stop sign or red light 196 times in a single year what would be the imposed fines and penalties? Would the operator still have a license to operate?

How could Geokinetcs USA conduct seismic operations for 196 days without the state regulators even knowing? The answer is simple; there are not enough inspectors, and the COGCC Rules and Regulations penalties and fines are insufficiently assessed and imposed.

On the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission’s website it states: ‘The Commission provides rules and regulations to establish operational standards and requirements for industry activity in the state.’ The COGCC rules and regulations are not effective or adequately enforced, but rather suggestions like a speed sign on the Autobahn. 

Operate as fast as you want, wherever you want, and don’t worry about reading the regulations, the fines are so small it does not matter and there are no police to enforce your illegal activities anyway.

This case also demonstrates the lack of enforcement of formal processes within the fracking industry and state regulators to ensure accountability of all procedures of operations. Both the COGCC and the fracking industry are not fully accountable.

Any novice review of the state’s online oil and gas database illuminates the COGCC’s and the oil and gas industry’s operations as grossly incomplete, incompetent and in shameful disarray, thus harming public health, safety and environment.



Please leave a comment and donate for more information.


.


Please Donate Today!