Click image to enlarge
.
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 NOBLE ENERGY PRODUCTION, INC., WELD COUNTY,
COLORADO
|
)
)
)
)
|
CAUSE NO. 1V
ORDER NO. 1V-355
|
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 January 22, 2007, the Colorado
Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (“COGCC” or “Commission”) approved an
Application for Permit-to-Drill (“APD”) submitted by Noble Energy Production,
Inc. (“Noble”) for the Buxman I #26-6 Well (API No. 05-123-23401) (the “Well”),
located in the SE¼ NW¼ of Section 26, Township 6 North, Range 66 West, 6th
P.M.
2.
On April 11, 2007, Weld County Environmental Health Services received a
complaint regarding trucks dumping drilling wastes at a location in the SW¼ NE¼
of Section 33, Township 6 North, Range 66 West, 6th P.M., which at
the time was owned by Mr. Buxman. The location is adjacent to the Cache la
Poudre River.
3.
On April 12, 2007, Weld County Staff conducted a site inspection and observed
an area of approximately 300,000 ft2 adjacent to the river where
water-based bentonitic drilling mud had been disposed. Weld County Staff
referred the matter to COGCC Staff (the “Staff”) for investigation (COGCC
Complaint No. 1175595).
4.
On April 13, 2007, Staff inspected the mud disposal site. Staff identified
Noble as one of two parties responsible for the drilling mud disposal. Staff
directed Noble and Petro-Canada Resources (USA) Inc. (“Petro-Canada”), the
other responsible operator, to cease drilling mud disposal at the site and take
immediate steps to prevent drilling mud from migrating into the Cache la Poudre
River. At Staff’s direction, Noble and the other responsible operator
constructed earthen berms along portions of the river to prevent additional
drilling mud from entering the river.
5.
During the April 13, 2007 inspection, Staff collected a representative sample
of the drilling mud for organic analysis. The sample had a total petroleum
hydrocarbon (“TPH”) concentration of 115 mg/kg, which is below the
concentration level found in Table 910-1 in effect at the time of 1,000 mg/kg
for soil in sensitive areas, and a benzene concentration of 88 µg/kg, which is
below the benzene concentration level of 0.17 mg/kg2 found in Table
910-1.
6.
The landowners at the disposal site told Staff they had agreed to the disposal but
did not have a written disposal agreement with any party. The landowners also
told the Staff they did not intend to till the mud into their land, in that
trees and brush piles made much of the disposal area unsuitable for tilling.
7.
On April 20, 2007, Staff conducted a second site inspection. During this
inspection, the Staff observed an area where it appeared that drilling mud may
have previously entered the river. Staff estimated that less than five gallons
of waste mud had migrated to the river. Corrective actions taken by Noble and
Petro-Canada prevented more mud from reaching the river. A surface water sample
taken at the point where the mud entered the river contained concentrations of
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (“BTEX”) below the laboratory
detection limit. Concentrations of BTEX compounds were trace or non-detect in a
drilling fluid sample taken near the point of entry had trace amounts. Acting
upon the assessment that site remediation had not yet begun, Staff instructed
Noble and Petro-Canada to immediately remove all free liquids from the disposal
site for off-site disposal.
8.
On April 23, 2007, Noble notified the National Response Center of a release of
drilling fluids.
9.
On April 26, 2007, Staff issued a Notice of Alleged Violation (“NOAV”) #1175598
to Noble, which included alleged violations of the following COGCC rules:
a.
Rule 324A.a., which requires 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;
b.
Rule 907.a.(1), which provided at the time of the discharge that operators
ensure that exploration and production (“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 to WQCC
ground water standards and classifications;
c.
Rule 907.d.(3).B., which requires operators to dispose of water-based
bentonitic drilling fluids by acceptable methods of land application, such as
production facility construction and maintenance and lease road maintenance.
Additionally, operators are required to obtain written authorization from the
surface owner prior to land application of water-based bentonitic drilling
fluids and to retain records about the disposal.
The
NOAV required certain abatement or corrective actions to be taken by the
operator by May 10, 2007. The actions required Noble to submit a Spill/Release
Report Form 19 and a Site Investigation and Remediation Workplan, Form 27 to:
describe the corrective actions previously taken by Petro-Canada, the other
responsible operator; remove the remaining drilling mud; determine the
approximate thickness of the mud; determine if shallow ground water at the
disposal site was impacted; and provide COGCC copies of the written landowner disposal
authorizations.
10.
On April 30, 2007, Noble submitted a Form 19 (COGCC Document No. 2057592) to
the COGCC. Noble determined that approximately 4,900 barrels of waste mud from
the Well were disposed of by third-party contractors at the site. The disposed
mud covered an area approximately 300,000 ft2 in a layer 3-to-5
inches deep. Noble and the other responsible operator removed approximately
1,540 barrels of free liquid from the disposal area after April 20, 2007 and
before April 27, 2007.
11.
On April 30, 3007, Noble submitted a Form 27 to the COGCC. Staff approved the
Form 27 (COGCC Document No. 2057593) work plan with additional conditions on
May 17, 2007. Pursuant to the approved Form 27 work plan, Noble and
Petro-Canada removed the remaining drilling mud for disposal at their
respective land farms. Noble also sampled soil and groundwater in the disposal
area. Concentrations of BTEX, total volatile hydrocarbons including gasoline
range organics, total extractable hydrocarbons and diesel range organics were
all below regulatory standards in the soil. BTEX compounds were not detected in
the sampled groundwater.
12.
On May 8, 2007, Noble provided Staff with copies of Authorization Forms for
Land Treatment of Water Based Betonitic Drilling Fluids between Rocky Mountain
Energy Solutions and the landowners dated April 9, 2007.
13. Rule 523. specifies a base fine
of One Thousand dollars ($1,000) for each day of violation of Rules 324A.a.,
907.a.(1), and 907.d.(3)B. 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.
14. For purposes of this
Administrative Order by Consent (“AOC”) only, Staff considers each violation to
have occurred for a minimum of ten days, April 11, 2007 through April 20, 2007,
inclusive. Further, Staff reserves the right to present evidence that any and
all violations 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, and, that as result of that impact, the maximum
penalty of Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000), under Rule 523.a.(3), should not
apply.
15. Noble violated Rule 324A.a.
because it 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 by allowing water based bentonitic
drilling mud to be improperly disposed of. A base fine of Ten Thousand dollars
($10,000) has been calculated for the violation of Rule 324A.a.
16. Noble violated Rule 907.a.(1)
because it failed to ensure that E&P waste, including water based
bentonitic drilling mud, was 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 to WQCC ground water standards and
classifications. A base fine of Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000) has been
calculated for the violation of Rule 907.a.(1).
17. Noble violated Rule
907.d.(3)B. because it failed to dispose of water-based bentonitic drilling
fluids by acceptable methods of land application, such as production facility
construction and maintenance or lease road maintenance. Additionally, it failed
to obtain written authorization from the surface owner prior to land
application of water-based bentonitic drilling fluids and failed to retain
records about the disposal. A base fine of Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000) has
been calculated for the violation of Rule 907.d.(3)B.
18. Staff have calculated a base
fine of Thirty Thousand ($30,000) dollars for those violations brought under
this AOC.
19. Staff may reduce the fine amount
if it finds mitigating circumstances as is provided for by Rule 523.d. Based on
Noble’s cooperation with COGCC, its prompt response and thorough remediation
efforts, evidence that the landowners had consented to the disposal operation,
and Noble’s post-NOAV compliance history regarding waste drilling mud handling
and disposal practices, Staff have reduced the fine amount from Fifty Thousand
($30,000) dollars to an adjusted fine of Twenty Thousand dollars ($20,000)
for purposes of this AOC only. If the NOAV is not resolved by consent,
Staff reserve the right seek the full amount of the base fine for each day for
each violation without reduction for the factors described above or any other
facts or circumstances.
20. Payment
of the fine pursuant to this AOC does not relieve Noble from its obligations to complete abatement or corrective
actions set forth in the NOAV, as may be amended or modified by Staff, or the
approved Form 27.
21. Noble should
execute this AOC no later than fourteen (14) days after the date it is executed
by Staff for recommendation to the Commission for expedited approval. Fines may
increase if this matter is not recommended for expedited approval.
22. Noble, 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.
23.
Pursuant to Article IX, of the “Memorandum
of Agreement” between the Water Quality Control Division (“WQCD”) and the
COGCC, adopted February 15, 2000, Staff has conferred with WQCD enforcement
staff in determining the monetary penalty against Noble for violations of WQCC
standards for surface waters.
24. Noble agrees to the findings of this AOC only for the
purpose of expeditiously resolving the matter without a contested hearing.
Notwithstanding the above, Noble 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO INSPECTIONS FOUND ON COGCC'S WEBSITE PER THIS UNIQUE API AND NO RECORD OF AN NOAV FILED.
| You requested : | Inspection Information |
| API Number: | 05-123-23401 |
| New Inspection Search Results - No Records Found |
|---|
Inspection
Date | Doc # | Location ID | Insp.
API # | Insp.
Status | Overall
Inspection Status | Overall I.R.
Pass/Fail | Overall F.R.
Pass/Fail | Violation
(Y/N) |
|---|
| Search Results - No Records Found |
|---|
Inspection
Date | Doc # | Insp.
Type | Insp.
Status | PA
P/F/I | Pass/Fail
P/F | Violation
Y/N |
|---|
Click docx to enlarge
There are no supporting documents indicating any formal rule violations and or associated fines. Was the Poudre River contaminated? Was the soil and or water tested for BTEX? What about downstream recipients of the water?
I request the COGCC to provide all data regarding this alleged violation.
Contact the COGCC's acting Director, Tom Kerr and ask him to respond: EMAIL LINK
Data compiled by:
Shane Davis
Source: COGCC
.
