2008 Divide Creek Seep
page 11 of  15

1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15

Contents - this page

Note: this page is extensive including hearing documents with notes. I haven't had time to internally link all this content, but hope to do so in the near future. I also apologize if it's a bit redundant or seems disjointed. this whole friggin' situation is that way, but I'll try to iron it out better soon. Thank you for your patience. (The "Frac Perspective" paper is linked)

Everything gets more lined out and simpler to read from page 13 on.
 

2008 Seep Update

Moon Contamination incident

2010 Soil-gas survey results

Letter to EPA asking the scientific advisory board reconsider banning West Divide Creek from the EPA's hydraulic fracturing study.

The drilling debate from a conditions-based perspective

My complaint to COGCC based on 2010 soil gas findings

Hearing documents related to the 2004 seep with commentary

New Duke University study links hydraulic fracturing to groundwater contamination

US House of Representatives report on hydraulic fracturing fluids.
 

2008 Seep Update

April 2011

Many developments have occurred since August of last summer, some which have been beneficial to discovering the source and extent of the 2008 seep... others which have been and continue to be very disappointing... and some, which are both disturbing and alarming.
 

2010 East Mamm Creek Area Investigation

Apparently, the investigation continues, but it appears intermittently so. To my knowledge there has been no report generated and I don't get updates, but based on the times I have inquired, it appears there are serious questions about its limitations.

Whereas, this approach is far more comprehensive than the previous attempt at investigation by the COGCC in 2004, it appears to be materially flawed in a number of critical ways:

It is reliant upon presentations from EnCana which have been 'scrubbed' of 'proprietary' information about the geologic formation comprising the 2004 seep structure.

It fails to account for hydrologic data;

Without benefit of complete investigative analysis, the COGCC has issued new recommendations in support of new drilling in the 2004 seep structure;

The investigation insufficiently considers some relevant and correlative impacts while ignoring others - this was  plague upon the 2004 investigation also. For example the 2008 still hasn't  been recognized despite data demonstrating its existence.

It is attempting to quantify past impacts in a still-active, operational environment, where new drilling is potentially contributing new impacts and complicating variables.

Hopefully, these issues will find resolution before a final report is issued.

Regarding correlative impacts noted just above, I had been previously informed by the COGCC that the Moon domestic water well contamination occurred sometime in the late fall of 2010. Subsequently, I notified the Garfield County Commissioner's as I believe it likely related to the 2008 Divide Creek seep.

Recently, however, I found that according to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission's  "Notice of Alleged Violation" [document number: 200267797 / Date rec'd: 08/24/10] on the following dates: 09-15-08; 04-01-09; 11-18-09; 02-02-10. "EnCana self-reported an impact to the Moon domestic water well identified by routine sampling. EnCana's analytical data from 09-15-08; 04-01-09; 11-18-09; 02-02-10, samples from this well indicate that the Moon water well contains methane, and heavier hydrocarbon gases including hexanes, that are indicative from thermogenic gas. EnCana voluntarily increased sampling of the well from quarterly to monthly upon discovery."

This happens to have first coincided both in time, place and contaminant with the seep that emerged and which I first reported in West Divide Creek in June of 2008.

It is unlikely that residents would have likely noted the emergence nor impacts of the 2008 seep since its emergence appears to have occurred in the interval between quarterly samplings.

Only EnCana and the COGCC would have known or suspected a contamination event, and it is reasonable to suspect that indeed they did given:

1) the decrease in seep impacts shortly after reporting

2) the increased interest in more frequent and more encompassing water quality sampling.

The COGCC should have recognized the correlated emergence of toxins, but to date has not done so - or at least publicly acknowledged it.

Twice now the 'investigation' has stalled. Once, just ahead of the COGCC allowing EnCana to go forward with plans to drill into the 2004 seep geology - even without benefit of a hydrology review. The geologic review portion had been good to go after the state reviewed a presentation by EnCana, which I guess had been scrubbed to remove any 'proprietary' geologic information.

Then, I was told it was on again... but, again, it seems to have stalled around what will likely be a damning engineering review. My own lay-person's, puny review of public drilling logs and documents online showed that EnCana failed to get a sound  cement seal on one of the wells adjacent to the 2008 seep. Nor will the formation pressure decrease on some of the wells prompting the COGCC to allow indefinite venting of methane to relive the pressure.

Huh... I wonder if that underground pressure could be causing those bubbles to come up in the creek... especially if there isn't a good cement seal. But, hey, I'm not an investigator, and I sure don't have access to privileged and scrubbed evidence.

What amazes me is that the COGCC has all along refused to impose a temporary moratorium on this region until it completes its investigation. I've never seen the site of an investigation opened up to suspect operations, but EnCana continues to drill and frac, drill and frac -- something like 23 new wells since the investigation began in late 2009, I think it was...

Moon contamination incident

Following is the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission's Notice of Alleged Violation for the  Moon contamination incident copied from the COGCC website on March 20, 2011 . Please note this appears to be an evolving document and the information may be updated by the COGCC at any time. Names and contact information have been removed, as have external links within the COGCC website, which provide additional documents. This original document can be searched on the COGCC website by going to http://cogcc.state.co.us/ ; clicking the "database" link on the left menu bar; and, entering the document number: 200267797
 

Sunday, March 20, 2011
 

2010 Soil-gas survey results

In 2010 the COGCC undertook a review of the East Mamm Creek Area (which theoretically encompasses West Divide Creek in the region of both the 2004 and 2008 seeps). The 2008 seep did not inspire this look-see. It was the presence of hydrocarbons in neighbors' wells on either side of us that inspired it. Nevertheless, in August of 2010, the new COGCC investigator asked us to cooperate with EnCana and allow them to access our property in order to:

1) Conduct a voluntary soil gas survey;

Why this is important...
During the "investigation" of the 2004 seep, EnCana conducted a soil gas survey of the area excluding our property. When we asked if we would be included, EnCana assured us we would. This was important because the COGCC and EnCana were endeavoring to improperly define the extent of the 2004 seep, completely disregarding a counterpart to the "main seep area" near in proximity to where monitor well 23 now resides (the results of this well have mysteriously indicated thermogenic results in 2008 which EnCana later scrubbed from the record and re-interpreted, such as they can when they pay for and control the data.) Anthony Gorody, EnCana's hydro-geologist then interpreted the gas as "biogenic".

So, as I said, we were glad to at least be included in the 2004 soil gas survey. But when the results came out, we found the lower portion of our property had been totally excised. We asked the COGCC to ask EnCana to include our portion in an add-on survey, but our request was denied without basis... just as the COGCC delineating the "main seep area" and ignoring the other main seep area was without basis - and we were ignored again.

But, it has been our experience that EnCana doesn't do anything to "make nice" or "do right". There has always been an ulterior motive to closely serve their interests. Because the COGCC delegates EnCana's investigation to EnCana to conduct, we always find ourselves positioned in a way which dictates we must accommodate EnCana's motives. This time, we were especially suspicious given that the COGCC's "hearing" request in the summer of 2009 for EnCana to consider putting a ground water monitor in the area of the 2008 seep went ignored by EnCana and un-enforced by the COGCC.

After two and a half years of desperately seeking data and being ignored by the COGCC and EnCana, we figured any data was better than no data, and we were relatively happy to accommodate a long-awaited soil gas survey.

Later, however, our suspicions would take on greater importance when I located a document in which EnCana - or at least experts who work for them - appear to herald the value of such a survey as a means of insulating drilling companies from liability.

The document, co-authored by the soil-gas survey company and Dr. Anthony Gorody, EnCana's contractor, states: “Pre-existing conditions, such as aquifer contamination, are often blamed on producers when they are discovered after exploration or development begins. Establishing the existence of these conditions prior to development is the goal of new rules and the objective of conducting baseline assessment surveys. These baseline assessment surveys can protect the company legally from accusations by establishing pre-existing conditions prior to development.”

I understand the value of a good baseline - for everyone's benefit. But EnCana brought the soil gas survey to this situation long after the 2008 seep... but, very importantly... before drilling begins into the 2004 seep geology which is likely to bring disastrous results, compounding the on-going seep situation but for which nature is likely to be blamed.

2) Conduct visual observations along West divide Creek

Why this is important
The COGCC asked EnCana to observe surface conditions on our property along West Divide Creek while the COGCC had EnCana re-pressurize the Arbaney well. This was an equally infamous well which (as featured on the homepage) encountered a massive kick just prior to the 2004 seep emerging. The details of this kick are here. In short, it shook the ground a mile or so away along a nearly straight-line fault. The tremor appeared to have exited into Summerhawk canyon, shaking massive boulders loose from the canyon wall with it.

Despite our imploring the COGCC to investigate that event, it was quickly buried. No witnesses were interviewed, and when pressed, an "Notice of Alleged Violation" was issued, then retracted on a technicality. Any investigation that may have followed withered, despite continual complaints from neighbors in the vicinity.

Meanwhile, the Schwartz well had a massive blow-out and the Dietrich well went bad. The COGCc sampled the well and determined the gas was "biogenic". Months and months passed. Finally, in the fall of 2004 an inspector happened to notice gas bubbling up into the rain water around the well head. It was then discovered that a number of wells were leaking gas. The Dietrich well was re-sampled and found to be contaminated with - lo' and behold... production gas... the same gas found bubbling up around the Arbaney well.

So, the new environmental specialist with the COGCC asked EnCana in September 2010 to shut-in the Arbaney well for a brief time and observe conditions on the creek.

So far, EnCana's people have found no visual evidence of impacts. However, the soil gas survey from 2010 indicates otherwise as noted below:

2008 Seep - Soil Gas Survey Results

Project Report

Project Gas Chromatogram

Letter of interpretation

Despite these alarming results which persist almost three years after the 2008 seep first emerged, the COGCC still refuses to install even a single ground water monitor to identify the extent of the seep. And, as the above reports indicate, this wasn't the only place where evidence of the seep was found. When the Moon contamination was found, a ground water monitor was installed to help identify the extent of that contamination. That contamination concurred with that in the creek and is very similar in contaminant and amount of contamination. With production gas escaping into the creek, who knows what all else is present in the way of frac fluids? The COGCC refuses to disclose those ingredients. We continue to be met with only silence from regulators and the EPA. The sound of relentless drilling from EnCana.

The state refuses to investigate, so I ask the EPA...
They are doing a frac study, right?
Maybe not so much...

West Divide Creek was banned from the study, so I sent a second letter to EPA asking them to reconsider barring West Divide Creek from their new hydraulic fracturing study…

West Divide Creek – a predictable disaster 8 years in the making

A summarized gas production and impact history of West Divide Creek, Colorado

Although the West Divide Creek area was discounted from consideration in selecting field sites worthy of study, I respectfully ask the Advisory Board to reconsider that decision in light of the history of impacts to this region and equally astonishing absence of oversight and scientific explanation of causal incidents.

The tragic neglect of West Divide Creek has been thus-far punctuated by three phases of devastation beginning in 2003 with the “Arbany incident”; following soon after with the “2004 Seep” and finally, the “2008 seep”.

Summary details of these events follow:

On March 09, 2004 the entire region experienced a blow-out of major proportions, causing significant earth tremors a mile distant. But the investigation was improperly skewed, conducted as it was under newly instated fast-track policy and a readily compliant regulatory culture steeped in a singular mission of resource recovery.

On April 01, 2004 a massive seep was found ejecting an acknowledged and estimated 115 million cubic feet of natural gas into the waters and terrestrial environment of West Divide Creek.

A then-simultaneously frac’d natural gas well was found responsible for the seep and re-cemented while a brief drilling moratorium endured and stipulations were put in place.

The Colorado Oil and gas Conservation Commission’s (COGCC) assumptions of safe and adequate drilling stipulations were based upon a false perspective of actual geologic and hydrologic conditions due to a severely rushed and compromised investigation.

Re-cementing failed to stop the 2004 seep, and another seep was found months later associated with the well (Arbaney) that experienced the original blow-out in March, 2004.

Drilling resumed anyway, and was followed on or around May 30, 2008 by the discovery of yet another seep approximately a mile and a half from the original 2004 seep site. In other words, the stipulations failed exactly as predicted… because they were based on false assumptions.

An investigation into this event has been delayed by nearly three years – and to this day fails to fully account for the events, the impact or the conditions which caused the 2008 seep.

Part of those events involved the interception of ground water when drilling. Other events have included massive pressure kicks to multiple well bore infrastructures.

Impacts I have documented, but which remain unexplained and even denied by the COGCC includ evidence of hydrocarbons; H2S, biocides; mineral oil and surfactants into the wetlands environment.

Impacts also included the mass exodus of wildlife, and at least one neurologically affected amphibian.

The significant presence of diesel organics were detected by the Colorado Oil and gas Conservation Commission at the 2008 seep site in an area of black seepage. New revelations suggest diesel may have been used to frac in this area, as it appears to be coal bed, shale as well as tight sands in nature. These defining characteristics appear ambiguous and applied as a matter of this industry’s convenience not genuine geologic classification. We, of course, cannot obtain disclosures of frac fluids. The detection of diesel was dismissed by the COGCC as normal background amounts, but no background was taken.

During this time-frame of summer/fall 2008 yet another well was drilled in the area, which, again, involved the interception of an aquifer at shallow depth. I briefly noted chlorine odor arising from the creek as well as additional impacts likely from interconnected hydrology and springs that feed into West Divide Creek

Finally, a soil gas survey was conducted in September of 2010, at the site of the 2008 seep. That survey revealed methane at a concentration of 6.6% together with the presence of propane, ethane, pentanes and butanes. Despite our repeated requests for a ground water monitor in this region, a ground water monitor has been vehemently denied by both EnCana and the COGCC.

From the day EnCana began drilling in the area – and continuing to this day -- a near-total disregard for human health, safety and welfare has prevailed, buoyed by a gross lack of regulatory oversight. The compliant culture of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission has thus-far denied any adverse impacts and countered my observations, basing justification for its continued permitting actions on a lack of scientific evidence to support our claims.

Ignorance of fact should not dictate policy; therefore, I appreciate the scope of study proposed in the EPA’s draft study plan and feel that any lesser effort would compromise the perception of this extraordinarily complex technology and its associated impacts.

Contaminants have surfaced in this region in association with drilling activities, hydraulic fracturing more specifically. Regulatory efforts have been overtly skewed and incomplete. We cannot afford private study to sufficiently determine neither the specific contaminant, the scope, nor the source of hydrocarbon contamination. Therefore we cannot prevent further contamination.

The EPA is now embarking upon a study to examine the practices and potential effects of hydraulic fracturing. We’ve waited nearly a decade for a scientific eye to turn our way, and once and for all, determine conclusively what is contributing to the ongoing devastation of this unique outcrop/wetland area.

It is inescapable that these impacts occur coincident with drilling, and the argument of weak cementing and the pre-existence of biogenic gas has failed to account for persistent and worsening seeps into and around West Divide Creek.

Despite being the recipient of an enormous amount of persistent press, scientific speculation and accusation this area was inexplicably excluded from the EPA study, despite it meeting every criterion as a retrospective case study.

Poor investigative efforts at discovering sources of impacts have been cobbled together in time and approach. There has been no cohesive action, and no comprehensive plan to match the aggressive schedule of oil and gas development.

With regard to study, there has been a concerted effort to avoid adequate, timely and coordinated scientific study of West Divide Creek and the seeps which persist there and in the nearby region.

I implore the EPA to please study this region in light of the body of work already conducted to date and the many questions that remain relative to the role of hydraulic fracturing.

The COGCC has habitually failed to fully regard conditions or impacts of this region, while deriving slanted conclusions based on incomplete data.

For instance, although it is abundantly clear that geologic data has been insufficiently explained to account for risks to the environment, the COGCC’s concurrence with EnCana’s interpretations strongly suggest an over-reliance upon industry-presented evidence which may be bias and driven by commercial interests.

There is a recent and debilitating lack of resources in the way of both man power and funding which diminishes the COGCC’s capacity to respond adequately to very real and persistent impacts. Political de-funding and recession-related under-funding are real but poor and insufficient reasons for perpetrating a practice so infamous for its devastating impacts to human health, safety and welfare as well as the broader environment.

It was the Divide Creek seep situation which first drew the nation’s attention to risks posed by hydraulic fracturing. And although an at times cosmetic approach to addressing its issues has ensued, it has been with what appears to be a predetermined conclusion based on and supported in part by incomplete and selective science.

But, without knowledge of chemical compounds, there can be no testing. Where there is no testing, there is no violation. Where there is no violation, there is neither innovation nor mitigation of impacts. Where this is no belief of impact, there is no believed need for study. Impacts still occur, but they are without knowledge of scope, cause or quantifiable consequence. The result of this policy is continually degraded human health which is dependent upon diminished environmental vitality.

The West Divide Creek region and its associated impacts pose an apparently unsolvable problem at the levels to which it has been subject to review.

For the past eight years, the aggravated circumstances surrounding continued environmental degradation have been mired in a quandary of compelling impact but reluctant investigation.

Granted, the operator is one of the world’s largest and most influential, and granted, there are billions in profit which stand to be extracted from the level of aggressive development which has been allowed. Granted we are positioned in a national sacrifice zone, but our personal sacrifice and the sacrifice of the land should not be without notice or measure… particularly as the devastating practices which have led up to this destruction continue to proliferate across the national landscape.

This region and its enduring, discoverable, measurable, physical impacts would doubtless benefit from multiple, learned perspectives of experts trained in diverse disciplines and apart from cultural influences of presumption.

No other area possesses the historic base of data – though incomplete, which further enjoys the already established coordination of local and state agencies as well as the perspectives of academics who over time have been able to observe changes in practices and impacts.

This contributory environment of relevant data makes study of this area a very economic addendum to the larger study framework.

The broader geographic region some together with its timeline of varied, but consistent impact provides a unique opportunity to scale scientific inquiry according to specific objectives and either encompass or restrict future study.

This could contribute to a living, customizable framework attuned to evolving technology as adopted and applied by one of the world’s leading fossil fuel producers.

What is at stake

The impacts of natural gas drilling, which increasingly appear related to the unproven practice of hydraulic fracturing, have shown themselves to be manifold and compound; localized and widespread; directly related to geologic destabilization; and, including at least the following:

• Contamination of integrated wetland environments as well as deep springs and aquifers:

From the intrusion of nuisance as well as production methane and other natural gas hydrocarbons

From the intrusion of undisclosed, sometimes patented fracturing compounds and other materials such as nano-fibers and their known or unknown physical / chemical reactions 

• Depletion of surface and ground water:

Through deep formation destabilization as well as drainage 

• Contamination of terrestrial environments:

From vapors migrating into the ground surface, homes and commercial buildings

All of these impacts create extraordinary, unmitigated and uncorrectable risks to environmental sustainability, diversity and human health. While common sense can establish a relatable basis between observable impacts and drilling activities, comprehensive study should endeavor to determine and quantify causes, effects and nuances of both.

Conversely, continued unexamined production of this ‘new oil’, which visits so much unacknowledged destruction, will only facilitate the broad scale development of an infrastructure of demand in the way of manufacturing, home heating and transportation.

Unfortunately, unexamined destruction – which I have witnessed myself for nearly a decade - will equally spread, instituting a forced and deeply unwise preference of fossil fuels over accessible, affordable potable water

The devastation of deep, integrated ground water resources cannot currently be corrected, nor can it be economically filtered and distributed… least of all when unleashed within the broader uncultivated environments of rural and wild landscapes.

This presents an intractable economic, regulatory, litigious and environmental mitigation quagmire putting the nation at risk – even perhaps more so than our untenable reliance upon foreign energy resources.

The EPA’s hydraulic fracturing study will stand as a cornerstone of what must become a fully apprised, fully integrated and fully balanced national independence policy relative to energy resources, but also inclusive of necessary resources such as water, air, soil and the vitality of biodiversity.

It is my hope that all entrusted with its development will embark upon this study and learn the implications of this controversial technology.

Despite the irrational predictions of pro-extraction zealots, thorough study is unlikely to condemn or absolve the practice of hydraulic fracturing.

It is very likely, however, to expose key interactions and vulnerabilities relative to the interplay of hydrology, geology, micro-biochemistry; engineering, and drilling technology.

It is further likely to reveal genuine failures in regulatory structure; conflicts of mission; failures of mandate and needed reform of administration, regulation and investigative protocol.

It has the potential to contribute to appropriate and efficient regulation while urging innovation forward as producers more safely seek to develop natural gas as a bridge fuel.

Full awareness of the hydraulic fracturing process is essential to:

• Understanding risks that hydraulic fracturing may or may not pose to fresh water sources;
   

• Develop best engineering practices applied toward minimizing recognized risks;
   

• Provide mechanisms of both mitigation and accountability when mishaps occur; and,
   
• Safeguard fresh water supplies as well as industrial growth and investment.

A sound and thorough study, then, can serve as a guidepost and integral component of planning and stability necessary and directly related to the balanced productivity and sustainability of our nation’s future.

I have labored relentlessly to draw interested stakeholders toward review of this situation as it continues to degrade. My interest, of course, is in preventing further devastation, which necessitates the careful scrutiny of scientific parameters subtly implicated in observable effects.

The West Divide Creek Seeps of 2004 and 2008 present a very unique opportunity to view the natural, mechanical and regulatory landscape in a perfect overlay of real-time interaction applicable to other Rocky Mountain tight sands geologies.

Supporting this opportunity is a clearly defined and focused question relative to a known and existing impact; an underlying record of existing, quantifying data; and a newly formed, ready framework of multi-agency and landowner cooperation.

I not only invite, but strongly urge the Environmental Protection Agency to include the West Divide Creek region in its hydraulic fracturing study plan (denoted in Appendix F of the Draft as Mamm Creek), if only at a level of cursory review.

Protection is what this environment cries out for, which, of course, dictates an awareness of what is or is not causing so great a degree of continuing harm.

Thank you for considering West Divide Creek, once again in your study plan.

Lisa Bracken – West Divide Creek, Colorado

On-Line Resource Library

Please note: These resources are online and sequentially correspond to the general timeline of events. Some of these links are direct to original source, and others are on my personal Journey of the Forsaken website due to navigational challenges with sources such as the Colorado Oil and gas Conservation Commission.

Maps (Journey of the Forsaken)
Map - Dipicting West Divide Creek Seep area
Map - Drilling Area for 40 proposed wells

Timeline of events (Journey of the Forsaken)

http://journeyoftheforsaken.com/timeline.htm

COGCC 2004 Divide Creek Seep Order (Journey of the Forsaken)
http://journeyoftheforsaken.com/dividecreekseep2004cogccorder.htm

Other COGCC  hearing documents (Journey of the Forsaken)

Schwartz: http://journeyoftheforsaken.com/cogccdividecreekseep2004.htm
Dietrich: COGCC Order 1V-297
Amos: COGCC Order 1V-298

Preview of Divide Creek Seep documentation  (Journey of the Forsaken)
http://journeyoftheforsaken.com/cogccseepdocs.htm

East Mamm Creek Area Notice to Operators (stipulations) (Journey of the Forsaken)

http://journeyoftheforsaken.com/cogccdrillingrestrictions.htm

Phase I and II Hydrogeologic Study (Garfield County Website)

http://garfield-county.com/oil-gas/mamm-creek-phase-I-II-conclusions-dr-thyne.aspx

(Click sub-header)

Divide Creek Seep 2008 (Journey of the Forsaken)
http://journeyoftheforsaken.com/dividecreekseep2008.htm

Analysis of the West Divide Creek Seep
Prepared for Garfield County by Science based Solutions LLC
Author: Geoffrey Thyne PhD., P.G.
http://garfield-county.com/oil-gas/analysis-west-divide-creek-seep.aspx
(Click sub-header)

July 14 – 15 2009 COGCC Hearing in Glenwood Springs

“Record of Proceedings” (Minutes)
http://cogcc.state.co.us
click “Hearings”
“July 14-15 2009 Glenwood Springs” (click “Protests – Interventions”)

Audio transcripts of presentations from this hearing includes presentations from
COGCC / Dr. Thyne / Bill Barrett Corp./ EnCana Oil & Gas / Williams Production / S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc.
http://cogcc.state.co.us click “Library” / under header: “Public Presentations” click Materials Related to the July 14-15, 2009 Commission Hearing in Glenwood Springs

Other COGCC reports and data
Other data: http://cogcc.state.co.us under header: “Area reports and Data”
Click “Piceance Basin” search down for “Water Quality Studies” beneath that is a host of relevant information on West Divide Creek under labels: “Garfield County” and “Mamm Creek Field”.

Video gallery (Journey of the Forsaken)
Scroll to nearly the bottom of this sitemap and look for the header “Video”
http://journeyoftheforsaken.com/sitemap.htm

A perspective paper on hydraulic fracturing

Background for this perspective paper

In March, 2011 I put together a paper which summarizes a collection of facts cobbled from almost a decade of research into this issue. Fragments of this information have ranged far and wide from every source who could and would knowledgably discuss any component of any issue related to drilling. It represents papers and scientific theory from the 1920's forward... from professionals in all walks including regulators, industry and private sector consultants. It began to coalesce into a framework nearly a decade ago, and I've just been adding to it, looking for a cohesive picture in the absence of disclosure. As such, it is expected to remain a 'living document' evolving in tandem with my knowledge of primary issues.

I initially put this paper together for a reporter, then shared it with lawmakers. A number of experts began commenting on its usefulness and requesting copies for colleagues across a variety of disciplines, which prompted me to include it here. It basically says the same thing as I said on the "fracpage", phrased, perhaps, in a more technical and probably quotable manner.

To me, these are the few critical and simple principals involved in drilling and fracturing which have perhaps been forgotten by specialists who may focus more exclusively on segregated details of their own specialty when conflicts occur. Here is the whole shebang as I've provided to others.

Please feel free to share with interested others. Please share only in its entirety (preserving context) and with credit, so the person using the info can gather additional perspective if desired - and yes, I'll even discuss the matter with industry. I want this industry to evolve toward more innovative and effectual engineering and best practices, not merely regard reality as contentious and worthy of defense.

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

The drilling debate from a "conditions-based" perspective

Following is my personal perspective of what is occurring during drilling / hydraulic fracturing operations. I am not a scientist. This explanation is simply what I’ve been able to independently conclude based on research into the fields of engineering, chemistry, fluid mechanics, micro-biology, hydrology and geology; my own surface observations; knowledge of coincident drilling activity and access to correlative but limited water quality and other data… all of which is relative to the seep which emerged on and around our property as long as eight years ago, continues, but remains largely un-investigated and insufficiently explained by regulators or industry. This theory remains to be corroborated by targeted study, but the EPA has excluded West Divide Creek as an area of interest.

– Lisa Bracken  03-31-11

Summary explanation of drilling/fracturing implications into hydro-geology.

The matrix of faults and fissures pre-existing underground together with their hydrologically and gas-charged zones actually respirate, oxygenating and hydrating the earth to depth in certain areas and enriching it with microbial activity deep within the earth’s crust – much like our own skin does through its pores and capillaries.

Shale layers can thin in certain areas, making them vulnerable to penetration. Areas, like outcrops, may be possessed of a high number of vertical fractures and fissures, depending upon how they were formed. They are also likely to possess horizontal faults and fissures – all of which can tilt in planes. Further, they may possess great pressure at depth from groundwater hydrology pressing into buried geologic up-thrusts. Further, gas, located even within a mile of the surface could share similar high-pressure characteristics.

Within this geologic structure reside streams and pockets of underground water or hydrology, such as water-saturated sands. This water is often in some kind of motion, flowing laterally, pushed vertically or drawn deeper by gravitational forces – all at different rates depending on the geology through which it flows, which may be of differing porosity and conductive capacity. Underground water sources are fed from surface waters such as streams, snowpack and rainfall. They also express to the surface in the way of springs.

All of this amounts to pre-existing hydro-geology, which can vary according to primarily forces which long ago acted to shape the geology together with the source materials comprising it.

Gas (like oil), generated millennia ago from earth forces and earth sources like the burial and gradual decomposition of organic matter, also resides in the hydro-geologic structure, but is often sealed in place unless disturbed by earth movement. This makes fossil fuels a desirable resource target – because, held in place, they can now be reliably tapped and produced.

What I believe this represents is a house of cards, neatly and carefully stacked – vulnerable to nature’s periodic upset, but also gradual attenuation of introduced shallow gasses and hydrology into the surrounding environment at a rate that is moderate and generally absorbable without notice or significant negative impact.

Introduce drilling and fracturing: While drilling, groundwater can be encountered together with pockets of gas contributing to “kicks”, or events which produce unexpected pressure nearer the surface… containment of which, early well bore infrastructure may be insufficient. These up-ward pressure encounters can generate earth tremors at depth which can destabilize the geologic formation at depths relative to not only the pressure encountered, but how far it can reverberate through what might be an already fractured shallower geology.

Additionally, shallower hydraulic fractures may be more prone to horizontal cracking; but at deeper depths and under greater earth pressures (overburden of rock), cracks are more prone to fracturing vertically.

All of this pressure-related and faulting activity can both seal and open existing faults, as well as intercept them with newly generated faults. This can degrade the shallower geologies and contribute to the re-structuring of shallow groundwater sources of aquifers, springs and streams as well as allow newly released gas to communicate with groundwater sources.

Now you have a compromised shallow hydro-geologic layer, possibly extending to depth.

As a process of drilling, the well bore is sealed with cement in strategic locations in order to isolate water sources from target gas zones. However, kicks can degrade cement. And if not properly monitored (as occurred in the 2004 West Divide Creek Seep) the cement can slough into faults, cavities, or perhaps groundwater pockets. This enables connectivity between the wellbore and the hydro-geology. Cementing can also experience “channeling” or the migration of gas through wet cement causing a weaker matrix which may or may not act as gas conduits and may weaken sealing effects. Further, depending upon it's composition, even cured cement may become vulnerable to degradation once exposed to introduced drilling or fracturing fluids or gases, such as C02.

Even if properly cemented in certain zones, the economics of drilling can leave other areas along the well bore unsealed and, therefore, exposed and vulnerable to shallow gas trapped along existing fissures which may have been intercepted during drilling. This “nuisance” gas will now travel up the well bore annulus and build pressure within the well bore at the bradenhead. That pressure can cause otherwise upwardly migrating gas to seek exit back through its original fissure as well as through other, previously vacated fissures. It could also counter natural hydraulic water pressures and utilize water-bearing coal seams and underground spring conduits as pathways into water sources – at the surface, but also potentially at depth.

Should cementing prove initially adequate, fracturing (perforating the casing into producing zones and hydraulically cracking the surrounding geology) can destabilize the house of cards at depth causing slippage through the vertical and even horizontal layers of the hydro-geologic zone. Fracturing can occur over hundreds of yards horizontally and/or vertically, creating a spider web of multi-dimensional fissuring. Liquid explosives extend fractures while acidification helps dissolve some of this structure and widen pathways. Naturally occurring fines, rubble, or injected proppants help to hold the geology open and allow gas to migrate through stimulated pathways. Draw-down of gas as well as groundwater relieves pressure in the shattered geology and causes further cave-ins and slippage – which can also destabilize cementing.

Now, you have unpredictably destabilized – severely compromised hydro-geology in place from the depth of the target formation to the surface. Multiple fracs literally pulverize, over time, what remains. Other wells drilled nearby (sometimes within ten acres – downhole) can intersect and exponentially degraded conditions.

Under these conditions, shale integrity can only do so much to act as a natural barrier. Where it thins in the geology, and where pre-existing pressure/formation conditions together with drilling/fracturing activity serve to compound risks, conditions can become compromised quickly. This enhances the earth’s vertigenic capacity to conduct gas, fluids – any material from depth to surface, as well as from surface to depth.

Once the hydrology is altered, and oxygen reaches certain areas which were previously anaerobic, microbe populations either shift or activate. Microbes then begin consuming the new food sources, introducing their own methane and mixes of CO2 as by-products of their metabolic digestion of the methane and other hydrocarbons.

Introduced fracturing chemicals such as acids, surfactants, biocides, descalers, etc. can generate physical and chemical reactions, complicating chemical signatures in observable impacts. They can also liberate other compounds, such as arsenic, into the water and soils on their way to depth or during the migration of fluids and gasses back to the surface.

Should all of this degradation at depth result in a detectable surface seep, re-cementing may attempt to correct the problem. This may aid the problem if the source of gas is strictly confined to the wellbore and involves a single, small, sealable fissure. Even if there are many fissures and sufficient cement, re-cementing may in fact significantly seal some of the fault and fissure matrix. But, depending upon the accuracy of seismic mapping; the accuracy of projections and variables involved in frac-modeling; the extent of un-intended fracturing and the amount of circulated cement; some intersected fissures may never seal. They may be too complex; run too deep; or, be too vast in size.

In reality, the fault and fissure structure may comprise a matrix of interconnected faults and fissures extending far beyond the wellbore – perhaps, as in the case of West Divide Creek - nearly a mile away, in which case the problem cannot be corrected – at least with current technology.

Even if the situation is temporarily and fully constrained, re-cementing is never truly sound, and will remain vulnerable – just like natural geology to stimulation and degradation. If zone isolation is as sound as industry asserts, and weak cementing, alone, were found responsible for seeps into the environment, re-cementing should be capable of eliminating seeps. When cementing fails, it is blamed for seeps. When re-cementing fails then one must examine the role of hydraulic fracturing.

A mile is, in reality, a very shallow depth geologically – particularly where outcrops bring deep geology to the surface. If you walk a mile from your home and visualize that distance triangulated underground, beneath your home, you will realize it simply isn’t that great of a distance. My 80 year-old uncle used to walk two miles every day - with a pacemaker. It sounds like a far distance, but it isn’t.

Industry has attempted to rely on two arguments to hide the truth – which they, themselves, know – about hydraulic fracturing:

1)       Blame cementing. (This is a very vulnerable and narrowly applicable argument.)

2)       Blame naturally occurring gas. (Here is an area worthy of great debate.)

Certainly, there is naturally occurring gas underground. It exists from the surface to great depth, but the distinction between biogenic (surface decomposition of organic matter) and thermogenic (production) is (as is now known) mainly a matter of time; depth and temperature, pressure; exposure to oxygen; and microbial activity. Deeper gas is older, hotter and under greater pressure. Surface gas is younger, cooler, more expanded and subject to great microbial feasts supercharged by oxygenation. Near-surface gas is mainly a mixture of air and metabolized methane. Production gas or "natural gas" includes other heavier hydrocarbon compounds such as propane, butane and pentane and may even contain compounds such as benzene, ethyl benzene and toluene.

While all fossil fuels are believed to be the result of the decomposition of organic matter, there is a school of scientific thought that suggests they are a microbially generated process even within deep geologic structures. If this is the case, natural gas is not as finite as was once believed decades ago, and, more than oil and certainly coal, it can be easily manufactured. This notion explains the commercial viability and appeal of bio-fuels.

In examining natural gas buried underground… from bottom geology to top there is a broad range of deviation in gas characteristics relative to what process it has been exposed to and for how long. Currently, these characteristics are differentiated primarily by microbial and compound signatures. But, as you can probably guess, oxygenation, hydration, and intersections of even natural fissures at just a mile depth can introduce a comfortably wide margin of analytical interpretation, particularly due to the presence of microbes in deep geology – sustained by differing tolerances for oxygen deprivation or saturation, water as well as hydrocarbon and other food sources.

In fact, in order to stimulate methane recovery, natural gas as a food source as well as other food sources may be injected together with genetically altered, highly efficient microbes and a beneficial blend of oxygen and water directly into, say, coal seams. This isn’t science fiction. It is actually occurring and substantiates the notion that optimal blends of biota, food sources and supporting conditions can be manipulated. If these variables can be manipulated, they can be measured, which bodes well for scientific inquiry when it comes to identifying environmental influences and sourcing gas-related contamination. This also enables better targeting of remediation efforts.

So, microbial colonies (and their potential to alter gas signatures) naturally exist deep underground. Because microbes may naturally find themselves subject to very favorable conditions of food sources, oxygen and water, their digestive activity can accelerate the conversion of produced (but migrating) natural gas into metabolized methane which appears more newly formed and of a purely biologic nature (just as discussed in the induced coal seam scenario above).

Whether naturally occurring; the result of drilling/fracturing mishap; or, induced, the mixing of microbes with production gas and the conversion of methane and other hydrocarbons offers a margin of interpretation which can be used as either a tool of confusion or a tool of clarity… dependent, in part, upon the agenda of the person presenting findings.

These inherent complexities, then, compel science to better determine source gas in instances where production gas has infiltrated aquifers, domestic water wells or the surface environment.

Forget cementing. Cementing is a minor argument, easily measured and quantified. Therein lies the big question… biogenic or thermogenic… pre-existing or introduced…?

In the natural environment, surface observations could contribute to a better analysis of gas sources. Some of these impacts include swaths of dead vegetation; flammable gases in creek waters; a proliferation of sulfate or iron-reducing bacteria; dead wildlife; and, hydrocarbon odors. In homes, it equates to flaming faucets.

Failures to correlate environmental impacts with engineering records and pre-existing hydro-geology simply results in improperly segregated observation and conclusion. This leads to drilling protocol advanced on false assumptions, which has not only been the very sad state of affairs on West Divide Creek for eight years, but literally supports industry’s on-going efforts to bury the truth of hydraulic fracturing and drilling in general.

For me, the answer is one of aggregate probability, supported by the coincident appearance of seeps with drilling activity. I personally knew the two were related due to their concurrent appearances in West Divide Creek where there had previously been only a normal wetland environment. Since I know I am not lying, the quest for me then became one of “how”, which adds a phenomenal amount of certainty to specific postulations. I can say with confidence the two are related, and the reality of pre-existing and introduced conditions have provided the other clues to the puzzle. Now, all that is needed is confirmation, which directed study can provide.

Again, our region was rejected as a part of the EPA’s hydraulic fracturing study.

Doubtless, this issue is a very complicated one, and because I know, in context, key points can be difficult to isolate, following is a point-by-point extrapolation of industry’s major arguments including counter-argument, based on what I believe to be true.

Extrapolation of relevant points contained in comments above…

1)       Underground geology is not perfectly defined – as industry asserts when convenient to do so.

2)       The shales themselves are being fraced - so they are not an effective barrier as industry asserts.

3)       Cementing is only a part of the problem – not the whole problem as industry asserts.

4)       Re-cementing is not sound and cannot ensure adequate seal – as industry asserts.

5)       Fracing is dependent upon computer modeling which is, itself, dependent upon accurate hydrologic / geologic data. This makes fracture patterns unpredictable – not predictable as industry asserts.

6)       Aquifers are at risk due to interconnected underground faults – not isolated as industry asserts.

7)       Biogenic gas is essentially the same as thermogenic gas… differentiated according to its conditions and subject to a range of interpretation – not nearly as ‘black and white’ as industry asserts.

8)       Recovering gas and groundwater; multiple fracs; and chemical injections destabilize the geology even more – which are phenomena industry doesn’t even discuss.

Additional Note: Industry frequently states that no cases of groundwater contamination have ever been found in association with hydraulic fracturing.

Where exemptions exist, there is no concern on the part of industry to safeguard human health or the environment, freeing operations to occur within a strictly profiteering framework of least expensive, aggressive and rapid development. Where exemptions exist there is also no accountability nor perceived and compelling regulatory need to investigate. Where there is no need to investigate, there can be no discovery and quantification of impact. Where there is no discovery or quantification, there can be no accountability. This set of circumstances creates a catch-22 cycle of perpetual and undiscoverable devastation.

While the oil and gas industry claims there have been no cases bearing direct evidence of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing operations, rather, a carefully implemented and broad-brush federal approach has been instituted in order to totally insulate the industry from accountability in the way of exemption – or as like to think of it, structured ignorance.

In fact, the West Divide Creek seep of 2004 released an estimated 115 million cubic feet of natural gas (as well as other associated hydrocarbons) into the aquatic and terrestrial environment approximately a mile from the offending well. The seep occurred during the hydraulic fracturing of that well, which had lost cement into, presumably, an underground fault prior to hydraulic fracturing. The cementing was not put back before hydraulic fracturing occurred.

After the seep was discovered, the well was re-cemented, but, as one may expect, it failed to correct the problem. Almost eight years later, the seep still spews benzene into the shallow groundwater of West Divide Creek. While data shows the benzene trending downward then stabilizing, collected samples are quite diluted due to on-going air-sparging efforts (forcing air into the groundwater) even occurring directly into the ground water monitoring well itself. Even with skewed data, the benzene appears to have stabilized. It has not disappeared.

In lobby documents the industry distributed to U.S. Congressional lawmakers in 2009, they refute high-profile cases of groundwater contamination; but the West Divide Creek seep case (very high-profile) was conspicuously absent. Industry will not say it wasn’t hydraulic fracturing that fouled ground water in that case, because it is perhaps the only case in existence which industry cannot disprove. Hearing documents from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission have implicated hydraulic fracturing in the occurrence of that seep.

Because re-cementing has not corrected the seep, hydraulic fracturing becomes the primary mechanical suspect. Thorough study of this particular situation has the potential of either confirming or absolving the groundwater risks of hydraulic fracturing. To date neither the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission nor the EPA has demonstrated a desire to investigate the on-going cause of the seep, beyond early modeling assumptions – now shown to be false.

In 2008, another seep emerged approximately a mile from the seep that emerged in 2004. At the 2008 seep site, black ooze bubbled to the surface, which the COGCC found to be diesel–range organics – at nearly 10%. That finding was disregarded by the COGCC, and despite my urging, they refused to test for BTEX at a time when that seep was still very active. To date, neither the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission nor the EPA has demonstrated a desire to fully investigate the on-going cause of that seep. A small bit of evidence emerged after waiting two and half years for a gas sample to be collected near this site. That sample recently revealed the presence of significant methane as well as pentanes, butanes, propane and ethane (the latter being signature components of production gas). The COGCC and EnCana have deemed the presence of this gas “biogenic” and presumably pre-existing.

Hydraulic fracturing is used to stimulate all wells in this area. There are now approximately 60 natural gas wells within a mile of my home and the seeps in West Divide Creek. An additional 20 will be developed. The COGCC has recently permitted EnCana to drill into the 2004 seep geology in order to develop more wells in that zone. We anticipate that action will completely devastate what remains of this wetlands area.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Additional resources

Following is a paper I put together to help folks understand – at least as well as I think I do – the issues surrounding hydraulic fracturing. Please note the attendant link on this page which helps support some of my thinking with scientific perspective.

www.journeyoftheforsaken.com/fracpage.htm

http://www.journeyoftheforsaken.com/fracmodeling.htm  (scientific perspectives)

Following are ten pages from this website showing impacts from the 2008 seep. There is a photo on one of these pages of a black seep oozing. Diesel-range organics were found in this black substance, but we were told by EnCana they never used diesel to frac. Now, we learn they have used it, even during the time this seep emerged during drilling operations.

www.journeyoftheforsaken.com/dividecreekseep2008.htm

On the following page, if you scroll down to “video clips”, you can find links to a number of short “You Tube” videos from the 2004 seep as well as from the 2008 seep.

www.journeyoftheforsaken.com/sitemap.htm

[Here, specifically, is the video of the black (diesel-range) seep actually bubbling out of the ground.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIrJMLkx56U

Notes:  

In light of proof of contamination
(2010 soil gas results), I re-file my 2008 seep complaint with the COGCC

My letter to the COGCC filing an official complaint relative to the 2008 seep and hydrocarbons expressing into the waters of West Divide Creek, as noted in 2008 soil gas survey.

March 08, 2011

Re:  Complaint of thermogenic gas expressing into West Divide Creek

I am writing to inform the COGCC and other interested parties with jurisdiction in this matter, of the recently discovered presence of what appears to be thermogenic gas in West Divide Creek.

Results from a soil/gas survey conducted on September 03, 2010 by Vista Geo-Science and EnCana Oil and Gas USA reveal the presence of heavier hydrocarbons together with a higher concentration of methane. These heavier hydrocarbons include ethane, propane, butanes and pentanes. Whereas EnCana has characterized this gas as “biogenic”, a July 2008 letter from Mr. Chesson of the COGCC stated:

>>Begin letter<<

"As you know since 2004, the COGCC staff has responded to your concerns about potential gas seepage along West Divide Creek on your property and to date we have not found any indication that the seepage you have observed is related to oil and gas activity.  Last year both EnCana and COGCC investigated a similar allegation and samples were collected in November and December 2007.  In 2004, I personally collected gas samples from your beaver ponds and at other locations of concern to you.  Since 2004, samples have been collected at 9 different locations.  These samples have been collected by COGCC staff and 3^rd party consultants on behalf of EnCana.  These samples have been analyzed for a variety of parameters including natural gas compounds (methane, ethane, propane, butane, pentane, hexanes), heavier hydrocarbon compounds including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX), stable isotopes of methane, bacteria (iron related, sulfate reducing, and slime), major anions and cations, and other field and laboratory tests.  To date, BTEX compounds have not been detected in any of the samples.  Although methane has been detected, stable isotope analysis indicates that it is biogenic not thermogenic and the heavier natural gas compounds (propane, butane, pentane, hexanes) that are part of the gas produced by the wells in your area have not been detected.  Some of the samples have been tested using biological activity and reaction test (BART) techniques.  BART analyses detect the presence of iron related, sulfate reducing, and slime bacteria.  Large quantities of these bacteria were detected in the samples tested.  These naturally occurring nuisance bacteria produce iridescent sheens on stagnant water, iron hydroxide (orange/rust colored) stained slime, black slime, and red, orange, and/or black particles.  In 2004, during my inspections along West Divide Creek I observed this kind of biological activity at numerous locations and I believe that I pointed out occurrences to you at a couple of locations on your property.

From the photographs you have provided us, it appears that what you are observing are deposits related to biological activity of these nuisance bacteria.  Nonetheless Chris Canfield (COGCC EPS II) is on his way out to your property to inspect and collect samples for chemical analysis.  In addition, earlier today Gary Helgeland (COGCC field inspector) inspected what you are interpreting as new seeps along West Divide Creek.

It is unfortunate that for a variety of reasons you were not able to contact the COGCC this weekend; however, I am disappointed that you did not allow the COGCC time to investigate your allegation before you contacted the press and the EPA.

As always COGCC will provide all of the analytical results to you. Please call me if you have any questions or if you would like to discuss this matter further.

Regards."

>>End letter<<

It is apparent that in July, 2008 the COGCC interpreted the presence of “heavier natural gas compounds (propane, butane, pentane, hexanes) that are part of the gas produced by the wells in your area” as reasonable cause for concern that thermogenic gas associated with locally producing natural gas wells may be communicating with surface and/or groundwater. Certainly, I, too, find this very serious. Particularly in light of documented impacts associated with the presence of this gas (www.journeyoftheforsaken.com/dividecreekseep2008.htm) but which have gone unacknowledged by the COGCC, as related to natural gas production.

Further, the COGCC may recall that diesel compounds (at nearly 10%) also surfaced and were detected near this location in June of 2008. That finding was dismissed out of hand by GCOGCC as occurring in the ‘background’ environment. No background was ever taken. Such a statement, in light of reasonably suspected causes and, now, recent revelations of diesel used in fracturing operations was extraordinarily irresponsible. This finding should be considered in COGCC’s “investigation” into the use of diesel fuel for hydraulic fracturing. I would like to know whether diesel was ever used in drilling operations in this area, particularly in association with any wells surrounding the still active 2008 seep.

The COGCC felt it was unfortunate that we pursued a course of examination of this incident through the EPA. But, what has been “unfortunate”, and truly egregious, is that the COGCC has consistently and adamantly refused to sample this expressing gas until September, 2011 when it was pursued through a voluntary effort advanced by EnCana and only in attendance with other driving interests surrounding the recent contamination of the Moon and Miller water wells.

I find this voluntary effort by EnCana compelling because EnCana dismissed together with the COGCC staff, the COGCC Commissioner’s request to consider a ground water monitor in this precise area after a COGCC “hearing” in 2009.

A quick perusal of a document entitled: “Customized Tools and a Geographic ormation System for Acquiring Baseline & Monitoring Data, Locating Gas Seeps, to Cover Stakeholder Concerns & New Rules Surrounding Unconventional Development (also co-authored by EnCana’s Dr. Anthony Gorody and VistaGeoscience) demonstrates alternative interests EnCana may have had in finally conducting a soil/gas survey.

Included in this paper’s “summary and conclusion component” is the statement: “Pre-existing conditions, such as aquifer contamination, are often blamed on producers when they are discovered after exploration or development begins. Establishing the existence of these conditions prior to development is the goal of new rules and the objective of conducting baseline assessment surveys. These baseline assessment surveys can protect the company legally from accusations by establishing pre-existing conditions prior to development.”

It may be possible that EnCana is attempting to position the emergence of the 2008 seep as “pre-existing” ahead of further contamination likely to occur from anticipated drilling recently permitted by the COGCC for the F12E pad. In the least, I think this issue raises serious question as to non-bias validity of Dr. Gorody’s interpretation.

I disagree with EnCana’s conclusions that the gas sampled on September 03, 2010 is exclusively biogenic. Clearly, there are indications that this gas is thermogenic. On the COGCC’s own basis, it would strongly appear to be source-connected with drilling operations. That the seep appeared coincident with drilling operations and extensive, devastating, documented surface impacts should in the least prompt a much greater scope of investigation into this area, including the installation of shallow ground water monitors in an effort to ascertain 1) the cause of this seep; 2) determine the true scope of impacts; and 3) implement corrective action in order to prevent continued degradation and recurrence.

This new soil/gas data, revealing methane and heavier hydrocarbons releasing into West Divide Creek, considered together with its unknown cause, should contribute to the COGCC’s reconsideration of allowing drilling of the F12E pad into the hydro-geologic structure underlying the 2004 main seep area. The cause of the continuation of the 2004 also remains unknown.

Whereas an investigation into the Moon and Miller water wells was begun on 2010, it excludes a great deal of interest in the areas of the 2008 seep, and to the exclusion of cause, was both too narrowly confined and prematurely concluded.

I am writing to formally complain of this release  -- newly identified as potentially thermogenic in origin -- and request the COGCC to install  ground water monitors in this area as a component of identifying its originating source and correcting this impact. I will again remind the COGCC that West Divide Creek is our source of domestic drinking water.

Thank you for your considerations of this very important matter.

Sincerely,

Lisa Bracken
 

In looking at how fracing was implicated in the 2004 seep, let's revisit those hearing documents...

Here is EnCana's response [3 pages excerpted] to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission's Notice of Alleged Violation
 relative to the 2004 West Divide Creek Seep contamination.

[My notes are in bracketed in blue]
 

[In page 3 of this letter (immediately below) EnCana defends the hydraulic fracturing process concluded on the Schwartz well immediately ahead of the seep's discovery.]

[In this portion of its response, EnCana denies any impacts to groundwater from the seep.  But, of course, benezene continues to impact the groundwater of West Divide Creek seven years after remedial cementing took place.]

[Following is the actual COGCC hearing document where EnCana was found to be at fault and fined. Note the reference to "completions" in paragraph 59. "Completions" refers to completing the well which mainly entails hydraulically fracturing the underlying geology.]

BEFORE THE OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION

                                                             OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF        )      CAUSE NO. 1V

THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF                             )

THE COLORADO OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION      )      ORDER NO. 1V-276

COMMISSION BY ENCANA OIL & GAS (USA) INC., )

GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO                                 )

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

This cause came on for hearing before the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (“COGCC”) on August 16 and 17, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. in the Birch Room at the Ramada Inn, 124 W. 6^th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, after giving Notice of Hearing as required by law, as to why the COGCC should find EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. in violation of certain of the COGCC’s rules and regulations (2 CCR-404-1, “Rules”) and why it should impose penalties for those violations pursuant to § 34-60-121, C.R.S., as amended.

FINDINGS

1.  On July 29, 2003, the COGCC Director approved an Application for Permit-to-Drill (“APD”), Form 2, for the Schwartz 2-15B Well (the “Schwartz 2-15B Well”) located in the SW¼ SE¼ of Section 2, Township 7 South, Range 92 West, 6^th P.M. submitted by EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. (“EnCana”).

2.  COGCC’s “Notice to All Operators Drilling Williams Fork Formation Wells in Garfield County - Surface Casing Depth and Modification of Leakoff Test Requirements” dated May 3, 2001 (“2001 Notice”) which amended a notice to operators dated September 22, 1998, specified drilling permit conditions applicable to all wells drilled in Garfield County to the Williams Fork Formation.  The 2001 Notice was not attached to or referenced by EnCana’s copy of the APD for the Schwartz 2-15B Well, although it was on the COGCC’s copy.  Among the permit conditions in the 2001 Notice was the requirement to report to the COGCC Northwest Colorado Area Engineer as soon as feasible within twenty-four (24) hours, all lost circulation zones and gas kicks, together with depths, mud volumes lost, mud weights before and after kicks, and procedures used to control kicks.

                        3.  While drilling the well on January 20, 2004 EnCana lost circulation at the depth of 1543'.  EnCana continued drilling without circulation to a depth of 1589', and the well began to flow requiring the well to be shut-in for one (1) hour to control the kick.  The lost circulation and kick were not reported to COGCC staff.  It is uncommon to encounter kicks this shallow in the Wasatch Formation. [My notes: If such occurrence is uncommon, why does it happen with such regularity. I know of a fat handful of such encounters throughout the drilling history in this area, and that is without reviewing the drilling history of every well drilled. It has been our unfortunate experience that EnCana has overwhelmingly demonstrated strong interest in preserving only itself, its operations and profits; and, only when caught in the act of violation; and, only after robust defense of its actions, will, only after great continued resistance to on-going investigative as well as mitigative process and procedure relent to a measure of responsibility, which it later endeavors to deny.]

                        4.  While drilling the well on January 27, 2004 EnCana lost circulation at a depth of 4328'.  The well began to kick shortly thereafter and was shut-in for eight (8) hours to control the kick and reestablish circulation with kill mud.  The lost circulation and kick were not reported to COGCC staff.

5.  On February 6, 2004, the Schwartz 2-15B Well had been drilled to total depth and was logged.  EnCana had difficulty breaking circulation after logging.  EnCana also lost circulation while running casing and had to shut down for seven (7) hours to build pit volume and re-establish circulation.

6.  Casing was run to total depth and the well was cemented on February 9, 2004.  Cement was circulated to surface with twenty-five (25) barrels excess and was witnessed by EnCana supervisors and by Schlumberger personnel.

                        7.  On February 16, 2004 EnCana ran a cement bond log (“CBL”) on the Schwartz 2-15B Well which showed the apparent top of competent cement had fallen to approximately 4050’, far below the level required on the permit conditions and far below what was observed at the end of the cementing job.  At the time, EnCana engineers interpreted the CBL as showing the top of cement at approximately 3500’; EnCana acknowledges that the CBL can be interpreted to show incomplete cement coverage above 4050’.

                        8.  On February 16, 2004 EnCana ran a temperature survey in conjunction with the CBL.  The temperature survey showed cooling beginning at the approximate depth of 4328' and upward.  The survey demonstrated upward gas migration was occurring under shut-in conditions. The flow originated below the apparent top of cement and suggested the cement was not competent above that depth. 

                        9.  On February 18, 2004 EnCana ran a series of Cased Hole Dynamics Tests to measure formation pressures.  The tests showed formation pressure gradients averaged 0.591 psi/ft below a depth of 4711' and averaged 0.232 psi/ft above that depth.  The tests suggest the formations below 4711' are over pressured and that a geologic feature could exist that allowed the intervals at and above 4711' to be extremely under pressured.

                        10.  EnCana performed completion operations between February 16, 2004 and April 1, 2004 that included cased hole logging, perforating, fracturing and flowing back four (4) different intervals without notifying the COGCC staff that the cement top had fallen to approximately 4050’ and without disclosing the well conditions.  [My notes: As we have said all along, the well lost its cement seal; it was frac'd anyway; the seep emerged; and, the well was remedially re-cemented. This was the only case I know of in the U.S. in which hydraulic fracturing and natural gas seeps from production formations have been intimately linked. Now, the Dimock PA case has also. If re-cementing has failed to correct the seep seven years later - as of March 2008 - then only one primary mechanical suspect remains... hydraulic fracturing. This set of circumstances demands study, but the EPA has ruled this region out as an area of interest. This action has made the 2011 hydraulic fracturing study far less representative as it should be. Given the suspicion of inappropriate influence over such decision in the past and which has been well documented - the validity of non-representative findings, particularly if shown to generally pose no risk to groundwater, will be deeply suspect.]

                        11.  On March 23, 2004 at 5:07 pm EnCana e-mailed a Sundry Notice, Form 4 to COGCC staff requesting approval to remedially cement the Schwartz 2-15B Well.

                        12.  Staff reviewed the Sundry Notice on March 30, 2004 and called an EnCana engineer to inquire why the sundry proposed perforating at 3800' and circulating cement to surface on the well since there had been no previous discussion of a problem.  COGCC staff asked the EnCana engineer what the bradenhead pressure was, and he responded that it was five hundred (500) pounds per square inch (psi).  COGCC staff approved the Sundry Notice that same day.

13.  On April 1, 2004 COGCC staff received a complaint of the recent appearance of gas bubbles in West Divide Creek where none had been observed previously.  COGCC staff inspected and confirmed the existence of the gas bubbles in West Divide Creek, notified EnCana of the complaint and its validity, and scheduled sampling to begin to determine the cause. 

14. On April 2, 2004, as part of the investigation to determine the cause of the seep, COGCC staff obtained samples of the bradenhead gas from two (2) wells adjacent to the West Divide Creek seep (Schwartz 2-15B Well and Brown 11-2C Well), one (1)  sample of Williams Fork Formation produced gas (Twin Creek 1-15B Well), and one (1) sample of gas seeping into West Divide Creek.  EnCana personnel and Cordilleran Compliance Services (“Cordilleran”) were present during this investigation.

15.  On April 2, 2004 the COGCC staff and Cordilleran took water samples from West Divide Creek to determine whether benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (“BTEX”), or inorganic compounds were discharging from the seep.  Cordilleran also sampled a pond on Pepi Langegger’s (“Langegger”) property.

16.  On April 7, 2004 COGCC staff and Cordilleran obtained a sample of the bradenhead gas from one (1) additional well (Morgan 12-14B Well) adjacent to the West Divide Creek seep.

17.  On April 8, 2004 the COGCC staff collected water and gas samples from two (2) stock ponds (Langegger upper and lower ponds) located in the valley of West Divide Creek. [My notes: This is what we call Summerhawk Valley]

18.  Isotopic and compositional analysis indicated the bradenhead gas from two (2) of the wells (Schwartz 2-15B Well and Brown 11-2C Well) and the produced gas (Twin Creek 1-15B Well) were very similar and were from the Williams Fork Formation.  The bradenhead gas from one (1) of the wells (Morgan 12-14B Well) was not similar to the Williams Fork Formation.  The isotopic values and composition of the gas seeping into West Divide Creek and into the Langegger lower pond also were very similar to the produced gas from the Twin Creek 1-15B Well and the bradenhead gas from the Schwartz 2-15B Well and the Brown 11-2C Well indicating that gas seeping into the West Divide Creek and into the Langegger lower pond was Williams Fork Formation gas. [My notes: The Arbaney well was conspicuously removed from interest, despite the enormous kick it experienced only weeks prior to the emergence of the seep. Further, while the Schwartz was seen as the offending well, the Brown well had also lost cement presumably into a massive fault structure and was implicated hydro-geologically in the scenario.]

19.  Analysis of a water sample taken from West Divide Creek on April 2, 2004 showed impact to the surface waters of the state by the presence of benzene at the concentration of 99.0 micrograms per liter (µg/l).  The Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) has classified West Divide Creek as ”aquatic life cold water 1, recreation 1a, water supply, agriculture” and has established 1.2 µg/l as the numeric standard for benzene for surface waters so classified.  From April 13, 2004 through April 19, 2004, EnCana collected water samples from six (6) locations along West Divide Creek on a daily basis for analysis of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX).  On April 19, 2004 benzene, at a concentration of 1.4 µg/l, was detected in only one (1) of the six (6) samples collected at these locations.  None of the BTEX compounds were detected in any samples collected from EnCana’s six (6) surface water monitoring locations in West Divide Creek after April 19, 2004.  In addition, BTEX compounds were never detected in any of the thirty-three (33) water wells, eleven (11) ponds, or four (4) springs sampled by EnCana or the COGCC staff in the vicinity of the West Divide Creek gas seep.

20.  On May 19, 2004 the COGCC staff took a water sample from a spring on the eastern cut bank approximately four (4) feet above the surface of the water level of West Divide Creek in the gas seep area.  Analysis of the May 19, 2004 spring sample showed impact to the ground water by the presence of benzene at the concentration of 200 µg/l.  The WQCC has established a ground water standard for benzene of 5 µg/l.

21.  At the direction of the COGCC staff, EnCana initiated a ground water investigation.  As part of the investigation, EnCana installed nine (9) ground water monitoring wells between June 28 and July 9, 2004, and began a program of sampling and analysis of ground water from the wells.

22. On July 26, 2004, the COGCC received the results from the first samples taken from the ground water monitoring wells.  Six (6) of the samples contain benzene at concentrations ranging from 65 µg/l to 240 µg/l.  These levels exceed the WQCC standard of 5 µg/l for benzene in ground water.  The extent of the ground water impact has not been defined.

23.  After the gas from the seep in West Divide Creek was identified as Williams Fork Formation gas, EnCana promptly responded to the COGCC staff with a plan of action to address the environmental and safety concerns of nearby residents and the community.  Among other things, the plan called for placing charcoal booms in West Divide Creek, implementing an air sparging system to enhance natural volatilization of benzene in the creek water, and supplying drinking water to nearby residents.  In addition to implementing this plan, EnCana also voluntarily agreed to cease drilling and completion operations within a two (2) mile radius of the seep until new drilling and completion procedures can be developed to prevent any similar occurrence in the future.

24. On April 5, 2004 the Schwartz 2-15B Well was remedially cemented.  Within eight (8) days of the repair, the gas seep in West Divide Creek had visibly decreased.  Within twelve (12) days the benzene concentration in West Divide Creek had decreased.

25.  The decrease in gas seepage corresponding to the remedial cementing of the Schwartz 2-15B Well indicates that the failure of the primary cementing of the Schwartz 2-15B Well was the most likely reason that seepage of Williams Fork Formation gas and the associated release of benzene into West Divide Creek and into the ground water of the shallow alluvium in the seep area occurred. 

26.  Impact to the surface and ground water by the presence of benzene and methane indicate that Williams Fork Formation gas and benzene are still present in the gas seep area and continue to be a threat to the waters of the state; however, the amount of Williams Fork Formation gas and the associated release of benzene appear to have decreased since April 5, 2004 when EnCana remedially cemented the Schwartz 2-15B Well.  After April 19, 2004 benzene was not detected in surface waters of West Divide Creek at EnCana’s six (6) surface water monitoring locations.  It is likely that the remedial cementing sealed the annulus of the Schwartz 2-15B Well and halted any further migration of gas from the wellbore into fractures or surrounding rock.  It is also likely that levels of Williams Fork Formation gas and benzene in the ground water will continue to decrease as a result of the elimination of the gas source. [My notes: So why does it continue?]

27.  The COGCC staff reviewed the completion reports, bond logs and bradenhead pressures of all other wells within a two (2) mile radius of the seep area.  No other well exhibited a top of cement low enough to allow pressure to build above the strength of the formation below the surface casing shoe.  No other well exhibited bradenhead pressure high enough to exceed the strength of the formation below the surface casing shoe.  [My notes: Based on what criteria and assumptions? With so many factual variables intentionally discounted, these assumptions are - and by 2011 continue to be - insufficiently considered.] No other well had been completed in a manner that would allow it to be the source of the seep.  Neighboring operators’ wells were cemented into the surface casing or to surface and exhibited low or no bradenhead pressures.

28.  EnCana is the owner and operator of all Williams Fork Formation gas wells underneath and adjacent to the West Divide Creek seep.  As operator of the Schwartz 2-15B Well EnCana has accepted and continues to accept responsibility for monitoring and addressing the environmental and public health and safety effects of the release.  The COGCC staff has required and continues to require testing, analyses, delineation, monitoring and reporting by EnCana to address the environmental and public health and safety effects of the release.

29.  The COGCC staff hand-delivered a Notice of Alleged Violation (“NOAV”) to EnCana on April 23, 2004.  The NOAV had an abatement deadline of May 8, 2004.  The NOAV cited Rule 209., failure to prevent the contamination of fresh water by gas, Rule 301., failure to notify the Director when public health or safety is in jeopardy, Rule 317.i., failure to pump cement 200’ above the top of the shallowest producing horizon, Rule 324A., impacts to water quality and Rule 906.b.(3), failure to report a release to the Director. 

30.  The NOAV required EnCana to submit a Site Investigation and Remedial Workplan, Form 27 for COGCC staff approval, outlining monitoring and mitigation measures to be taken to ensure protection of public safety and to mitigate impacts to water resources, submit a letter detailing how the Schwartz 2-15B Well was drilled and completed, along with an explanation of what occurred that caused Williams Fork Formation gas, benzene, and other hydrocarbon compounds to seep into West Divide Creek and Williams Fork Formation gas to seep into a nearby pond on the Langegger property.

31.  EnCana responded to the NOAV by letter dated May 7, 2004 with a Form 27 Workplan.  The workplan was approved by the COGCC staff on May 13, 2004.  EnCana submitted an amended response to the NOAV on May 18, 2004.
 

 32. Rule 209. states that “Special precautions shall be taken in drilling and abandoning wells to guard against … the contamination of fresh water by objectionable water, oil, or gas.  Before any oil or gas well is completed as a producer, all oil, gas and water strata above and below the producing horizon shall be sealed or separated in order to prevent the intermingling of their contents.”  EnCana’s failure to seal all gas and water strata above the producing horizon resulted in impacts to West Divide Creek and adjacent ground water by benzene.  EnCana acknowledges that it should be found in violation of Rule 209.
 

  33.  The APD approved for the Schwartz 2-15B Well required the production casing to be cemented to surface.  During the production casing cementing procedure on February 9, 2004, twenty-five (25) barrels of cement were circulated to the surface.  On February 16, 2004 EnCana ran a CBL and temperature survey log prior to beginning completion operations on the well.  The CBL indicated that the top of cement had fallen to approximately 4050’, well below the level observed at the end of the cementing job and the level required by the permit conditions.  EnCana acknowledges that it violated the permit conditions for failure to cement to surface.

34.  Rule 317.i. states that “…cement shall be pumped behind the production casing two hundred (200) feet above the top of the shallowest known producing horizon.”  EnCana indicated the top of gas in the Schwartz 2-15B Well to be at approximately 4132’.  EnCana’s completion report dated February 16, 2004 indicates that an onsite EnCana employee or contractor read the CBL to show top of cement at 4050’, with which the COGCC staff concurs, and which is less than 200 feet above the top of the shallowest known producing horizon.  EnCana engineers interpreted the CBL to show good cement coverage up to 3500’, but nonetheless, EnCana acknowledges that it should be found in violation of Rule 317.i. for failure to pump cement 200 feet above the top of the shallowest known producing horizon.

35.  On February 16, 2004 a temperature survey log was run on the Schwartz 2-15B Well in conjunction with the CBL.  The logs were run seven (7) days after the well was cemented and were run under shut-in conditions.  The temperature survey indicates gas entry into the annular space between the production casing and the wellbore at approximately 4300' and gas migration behind the pipe exiting into shallower formations (i.e., crossflow).  Rule 327. states “The operator shall take all reasonable precautions, in addition to fully complying with Rule 317., to prevent any oil, gas or water well from blowing uncontrolled and shall take immediate steps and exercise due diligence to bring under control any such well….”  EnCana acknowledges that it did not take all reasonable precautions to avoid an underground blowout, in violation of Rule 327., and that as a result there was an unanticipated and unintended release of gas from the well.  EnCana acknowledges that it should be found in violation of Rule 327. 

36.  The release of gas from the Schwartz 2-15B Well  occurred from the date of the attempted cementing of production casing (February 9, 2004) until the remedial cementing operation (April 5, 2004), a period of fifty-five (55) days. [My notes: During which time completions - of hydraulic fracturing occurred] This release of gas for fifty-five (55) days resulted in waste of natural gas resources as defined by §34-60-103(11) (“Waste” as applied to gas includes the escape, blowing or releasing, directly or indirectly into the open air…) and §34-60-10313(a), C.R.S. (“Waste” in addition…means [p]hysical waste, as that term is generally understood in the oil and gas industry) and is prohibited under §34-60-107, C.R.S.  EnCana acknowledges that it should be found in violation of §34-60-107, C.R.S. because the release of natural gas for fifty-five (55) days is a waste of resources, which is prohibited by statute. 

37.  Rule 301. states that “Immediate notice shall be given to the Director when public health or safety is in jeopardy.  Notice shall also be given to the Director of any other significant downhole problem or mechanical failure within ten (10) days.”  EnCana ran a CBL and a temperature survey on February 16, 2004 which indicated significant downhole problems. EnCana’s notification on March 30, 2004 during the phone call with the COGCC staff was neither immediate notification of the high bradenhead pressure nor within ten (10) days of the downhole problem or mechanical failure as required by Rule 301.  COGCC staff was notified on March 23, 2004 of the lack of cement coverage and on March 30, 2004 of the bradenhead pressure.  EnCana should be found in violation of Rule 301. for each omission (failure to report cement top falling 2/16/04-3/23/04, thirty-six (36) days; failure to report bradenhead pressure 2/16/04-3/30/04, forty-three (43) days).

38.  Rule 324A. states that “The operator shall 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 using cost-effective and technically feasible measures to protect environmental quality and to prevent the unauthorized discharge of oil, gas, E&P waste, chemical substances, trash, discarded equipment or other oil field waste.”  The rule also states that “No operator, in the conduct of any oil or gas operation shall perform any act or practice which shall constitute a violation of the water quality standards or classifications established by the [WQCC]… for waters of the state….”  Based on the benzene levels measured in West Divide Creek on April 2, 2004 which exceed the WQCC surface water standards established for benzene, EnCana acknowledges that it should be found in violation of Rule 324A.

39.  Rule 910.a. and Table 910-1 specify the allowable concentrations for soil and ground water based on standards and classifications established by the WQCC.  Based on the benzene levels measured in six (6) of the nine (9) ground water monitoring wells on July 9, 2004 which exceed the WQCC ground water standards established for benzene, EnCana acknowledges that it should be found in violation of Rule 910.a.

40.  On June 14, 2004, COGCC staff requested the COGCC Director make an application to the Commission for an OFV against EnCana.  The matter was docketed for the August 16-17, 2004 hearing.

                        41.  On July 14, 2004, a Notice of Conflicts Counsel was filed with the Commission which stated that Assistant Attorney General Carol J. Harmon would be the legal advisor to the COGCC staff in the OFV matter, and that Assistant Attorney General Tim Monahan would be the legal advisor for the Commission.

                        42.  On July 14, 2004, an Entry of Appearance was filed by Erika Z. Enger, Attorney for EnCana, indicating EnCana’s intent to present testimony, arguments and exhibits in the enforcement proceeding.

43.  On July 14, 2004, Don DeFord, County Attorney for the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County (“BOCC”), filed with the Commission a Motion for Intervention under Rule 509.a.

44.  On July 14, 2004, Sean McAllister, Attorney for Western Colorado Congress (“WCC”) and Grand Valley Citizens’ Alliance (“GVCA”) filed with the Commission a Motion for Intervention under Rule 509.a.

45.  On July 14, 2004, an email was sent to the Commission from Robert Eicher describing the manner in which he would like to participate in the OFV hearing.

46.  On July 16, 2004, a document titled “Testimony ref. West Divide Creek was filed with the Commission by Steven R. Thompson.

47.  On July 21, a prehearing conference was held with the parties to discuss procedural issues, submittal of documents and scheduling.

48.  On August 6, 2004, the parties exchanged exhibits and expert reports.

                        49.  On August 9, 2004, COGCC staff and EnCana reported to the Hearing Officer that progress was being made on reaching a stipulated recommended order and they requested that the prehearing conference scheduled for August 10, 2004 be rescheduled to allow additional time for negotiations.  The Hearing Officer rescheduled the prehearing conference for Thursday, August 12, 2004.

                        50.  On August 12, 2004, the third prehearing conference was held at which time COGCC staff and EnCana presented a stipulated recommended order for review by the parties.  In addition, case management was discussed for proceeding with the August 16-17, 2004 hearing.

                        51.  At the time of the hearing, Commissioner Klish recused himself from the proceedings as a voting Commissioner.

52.  After comments provided by Mr. DeFord and an objection by Ms. Enger to participation in the violation phase, the Commission voted unanimously to accept the BOCC’s Motion for Intervention to allow the County to intervene in both the violation phase and the penalty phase of the hearing.

53.  After comments provided by Mr. McAllister, an objection by Ms. Enger stating a lack of showing that the intervention is in the public interest, and a concern raised by Ms. Harmon, regarding the scope of participation, the Commission voted unanimously to accept the WCC/GVCA Motion for Intervention to allow WCC/GVCA to intervene in both the violation phase and the penalty phase of the hearing.

54.  After discussion on EnCana’s Motion in Limine to exclude evidence regarding WCC/GVCA’s requested relief which it believes goes beyond the scope of the hearing, the Commission determined that rather than make a ruling at the beginning of the hearing, they would address these issues as they arise during the course of the hearing.

                        55.   After opening statements were presented by the parties, COGCC staff witnesses Jaime Adkins, COGCC Northwest Engineer and Debbie Baldwin, COGCC Environmental Supervisor presented the stipulated recommended order, including supporting exhibits, to the Commission.

                        56.  COGCC staff witness Scott Klarich, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Division (“WQCD”) Enforcement Team Leader testified as to the Memoranda of Agreements between the WQCD, WQCC and the COGCC.  He indicated his agency’s agreement with the actions taken in response to the gas seep by COGCC staff.

                        57.  COGCC staff witness Greg Nagle, WQCD Ground Water Quality Coordinator testified as to the standards established by the WQCC and his agency’s agreement with the COGCC staff’s recommended order.

                        58.  COGCC staff witness Mark Beeunas, a gas isotope expert, testified regarding interpretation of stable isotopes and compositional analysis collected from water wells and gas wells which corroborated COGCC staff’s interpretation of the source of the gas seeping into West Divide Creek.

                        59.   COGCC staff witness Richard Moore, consulting geologist, testified that he had no changes to the data and conclusions presented in his expert report after his review of the other expert reports provided.  He concluded that there was a strong likelihood that the West Divide Creek gas seep was caused by improper completion procedures at the Schwartz Well. [My notes: Again, "completion" procedures include hydraulic fracturing and associated activity. EnCana and, now, even the COGCC like to say "cementing" was to blame, because that is becoming the standard industry line across the country. But, guess what? It wasn't just cementing as Richard Moore notes. It was also completions; that is, hydraulic fracturing, which explains why remedial cementing hasn't fully corrected the problem. Again this case, and only one other (Dimock, PA)  appear to be the only cases in the U.S. (post 1997 "Alabama") where hydraulic fracturing and resultant, irreversible natural gas seepage have been implicated in hearing documents and so great a degree of proof advanced. Since EnCana seems to believe cementing was the sole culprit and is working on convincing the rest of the world of their perspective, I'm thinking the EPA should roll this area into the study and have a look-see... heck, maybe they've also been convinced it's only cementing... which unfortunately draws into question hope for an objective and representative study.]

                        60.  Ms. Enger indicated EnCana’s concurrence with the COGCC’s staff presentation.  Mr. DeFord indicated the BOCC had no objections to the Commission accepting Finding Nos. 1 through 39 of the stipulated recommended order, although the BOCC objected to the number of days EnCana was found in violation of Rules 324A. and 207.  Mr. McAllister presented a written objection to the stipulated recommended order.   

                        61.  After discussion, Ms. Harmon proposed that Finding No. 38 be amended to include both Rule 324A.a. and Rule 324A.b.  This amendment was agreed to by the parties and the Commission.

                        62.  Commissioner Ashby asked Mr. Adkins if he had reviewed the CBL run after the remedial cementing was performed.  Mr. Adkins testified that the CBL showed a good cement job and that the bradenhead test showed no pressure.   All exhibits presented, including the second CBL, were admitted.

                        63.  After comments from BOCC and WCC/GVCA on the number of days of violation of Rules 324A. and 910.a., the Commission deliberated and voted unanimously to accept Finding Nos. 1 through 39 and previous Finding No. 41 (now Finding No. 64), including the revision to Finding No. 38.

64.  EnCana should be found in violation of Rule 209. from February 9, 2004 until April 5, 2004 for fifty-five (55) days of violation.  EnCana should be found in violation of Rule 301. from February 16, 2004 until March 30, 2004 for forty-three (43) days of violation (failure to report bradenhead pressure) and from February 16, 2004 until March 23, 2004 for thirty-six (36) days of violation (failure to report fall of cement top).  EnCana should be found in violation of Rule 317.i. from February 9, 2004 until April 5, 2004 for fifty-five (55) days of violation.  EnCana should be found in violation of Rule 324A. from February 9, 2004 until April 5, 2004 for fifty-five (55) days of violation.  EnCana should be found in violation of Rule 327. from February 9, 2004 until April 5, 2004 for fifty-five (55) days of violation.  EnCana should be found in violation of Rule 910.a. from February 9, 2004 until April 5, 2004 for fifty-five (55) days of violation.  EnCana should be found in violation of the permit conditions from February 9, 2004 until April 5, 2004 for fifty-five (55) days of violation.  EnCana should be found in violation of §34-60-107, C.R.S. from February 9, 2004 until April 5, 2004 for fifty-five (55) days of violation.

65.  Having determined that violations existed, the Commission moved into the penalty phase of the hearing by having testimony presented first by WCC/GVCA witness Herman Lucero to accommodate his schedule.  Mr. Lucero testified about the sampling process he utilized in the West Divide Creek area, the results from his water sampling and his observations in the area.   

66.  Mr. Adkins described the penalty and remedial action proposed in the stipulated recommended order, previous Finding Nos. 40, and 42 through 45 (now Finding Nos. 67 through 71 below).

67.  Rule 523. specifies a base fine of One Thousand dollars ($1000) per day for violations of Rules 209., 301., 317.i., 324A., 327., and 910.  No base fine is listed in Rule 523.a.(4) for violation of the Permit Conditions or §34-60-107, C.R.S.  Fines for these two (2) violations (i.e., Permit Conditions and §34-60-107, C.R.S.) are limited to One Thousand dollars ($1,000) per day in accordance with Rule 523.a.(1).

                        68.  Rule 523.a.(1) specifies that “…no fine for any single violation shall exceed One Thousand dollars ($1,000) per day.”  EnCana does not admit liability for causing significant waste or significant adverse impact on public health, safety or welfare.  However, it agrees to pay the following fines as adjusted pursuant to Finding No. 69 in order to resolve this matter without the necessity of an extended contested hearing:

Item Violated                            Number of Violation/Days              Total Fine/Rule

Rule 209.                                                   55                                   $55,000.00

Rule 301. Bradenhead                                43                                   $43,000.00

Rule 301. Cement                                       36                                   $36,000.00

Rule 317.i.                                                  55                                   $55,000.00

Rule 324A.                                                 55                                   $55,000.00

Rule 327.                                                    55                                   $55,000.00

Rule 910.a.                                                 55                                   $55,000.00

Permit Conditions                                        55                                   $55,000.00

§34-60-107, C.R.S.                                    55                                   $55,000.00

Total Maximum Allowable Fine Amount                                              $464,000.00

                        69.  The following mitigating factors were considered in reducing the maximum allowable fine amount by ten percent (10%) per mitigating factor, for a total of twenty percent (20%) fine reduction:  Rule 523.d.(2), the violator demonstrated prompt, effective and prudent response to the violation, including assistance to any impacted parties, and Rule 523.d.(3). the violator cooperated with the Commission with respect to the violation.  These mitigating factors were applied to actions taken by EnCana once the gas seep was discovered.

                        70.  A monetary penalty of Three Hundred Seventy-one Thousand, Two Hundred dollars ($371,200.00) should be assessed against EnCana, in accordance with Rule 523.a. and Rule 523.d., for the above-described violations of the Rules, Permit Conditions and the Oil and Gas Conservation Act.  The fine should be suspended until the Commission’s next regularly scheduled hearing on September 20, 2004 to give the parties an opportunity to propose a public project in lieu of the fine. [My notes: a fine should go directly into a 'COGCC Environmental Impact and Assessment Fund', but no such thing exists, which helps justify the state's arguments that funding is too low to facilitate sampling, investigation and oversight. The state was prepared to allow EnCana to build a baseball diamond in Rifle in lieu of the fine. Finally, Garfield County proposed a 3-phase hydro-geologic study, excluding much our area. This was not surprising given EnCana's influencing arguments as to the effectiveness of their own investigative efforts into their operations. From the beginning, and likely due in large measure to the lax and complicit regulatory environment of the COGCC, EnCana has enjoyed persuasive, nearly exclusive authority over investigative efforts and data collection into West Divide Creek Seep events, which is another reason I have asked the EPA to consider this area for study... which was, of course, denied.] The Commission will hear and consider the proposal of the public project and may approve, modify, or condition the proposal or reinstate the fine.

                        71.  EnCana should proceed under the Site Investigation and Remediation Workplan, Form 27 approved by COGCC staff on May 13, 2004.  EnCana should submit to the COGCC staff for approval a Site Investigation and Remediation Workplan, Form 27, for the investigation, remediation, and monitoring of ground water to meet the required allowable concentrations.  The COGCC staff should evaluate EnCana’s compliance with both Form 27 Workplans submitted.  In addition, the COGCC should direct the staff to maintain the moratorium on drilling and completion operations within a two (2) mile radius of the seep at West Divide Creek until the COGCC staff evaluates the effectiveness of the Notice to All Operators Drilling Wells to the Mesaverde Group or Deeper in the Mamm Creek Field, Garfield County drafted and implemented July 23, 2004 (“2004 Notice”) and determines when the moratorium can be lifted.  The 2004 Notice contains the following requirements that require operators in the Mamm Creek Field to obtain COGCC staff approval prior to completion of a well and will prevent the unusual set of circumstances that caused the West Divide Creek seep from happening again:

a.  A drilling prognosis showing projected top of gas and formation tops shall be required with the Application for Permit-to-Drill, Form 2.  This information shall be provided in the form of a wellbore diagram showing the top of gas, formation tops, and top of cement for each stage.

b.  Upon completion of the primary cementing operation, the annular fluid level around the production casing shall be monitored for a minimum of four (4) hours prior to the installation of the casing slips.

c.  The bradenhead pressure shall be measured at intervals of six (6), twelve (12), twenty-four (24) and seventy-two (72) hours after the production casing is cemented.  If bradenhead pressures greater than one hundred fifty (150) psig are observed, such pressures shall be immediately reported to the COGCC and a remediation procedure shall be prepared for COGCC approval.

d.  Following the cementing operation, a combination temperature/cement bond log shall be run within twelve (12) to forty-eight (48) hours to locate the actual cement top.  If the cement top does not conform to this notice (500 feet above the top of gas), the COGCC shall be immediately notified and a remediation procedure shall be prepared for COGCC approval.

e.  The bradenhead pressure record, cement bond log, temperature survey log, and revised formation tops shall be provided to the COGCC Northwest Area Engineer within seven (7) days of cementing the production casing.

f.  The COGCC shall review the casing and cementing operations and approval shall be obtained by the operator from the COGCC prior to commencement of completion operations.

g.  The bradenhead pressure shall be monitored and recorded when performing fracturing operations.

                        72.  EnCana witness Kimberley Kaal, Senior Geologist for Cordilleran Compliance Services, testified as to the environmental sampling and monitoring conducted at the West Divide Creek gas seep area to date and the plan for future studies. 

                        73.  EnCana witness Karmen King, Program Administrator, Natural Resource Management Institute, Colorado Mountain College, testified on the study she conducted on aquatic life in the West Divide Creek after the discovery of the gas seep.  She testified about the scope, purpose, and four (4) sampling events (between May 10 and July 21, 2004) of the study.  Ms. King testified about BTEX and methane measurements of surface water samples and seep samples.  She also testified that one (1) of the four (4) data sets of benthic macroinvertebrates had been analyzed and showed no impact attributable to the seep.  Ms. King further testified that a fifth sampling event was scheduled for August, 2004 and that three (3) data sets of benthic macroinvertebrates were still to be analyzed.

                        74.  BOCC witness Doug Dennison, Garfield County Oil & Gas Auditor testified about the photographs he had taken at the West Divide Creek gas seep and its impact on public health, safety and the environment of Garfield County citizens, and on the number of Notices of Alleged Violation issued by the COGCC staff to EnCana  in the past year.

                        75.  BOCC witness Jeffery Thyne, Research Professor in the Department of Geology and Geological Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines testified about his independent review of the data available at the COGCC office and his belief that the gas seep was caused by incomplete cementation during completion of the Schwartz well, that the longer term impacts of contamination have not been evaluated, nor the extent of the contamination been determined, and that Garfield County should be involved in the review of additional data gathered. [My notes: This segment refers to Geoffrey Thyne, and he has advocated greater third-party study from the beginning. He was quite right in recognizing that the full extent of contamination had not - by the time of this hearing - been determined. The COGCC denied a large, counter-part expression identical in every way to what was quickly and improperly delineated as the "main seep" area on Langegger's property.]

                        76.  WCC/GVCA witness Pepe Langegger testified about his personal experience with the gas seep on his property and potential impacts affecting his elk herd population, and his belief that there is not enough oversight of drilling.

                        77.  WCC/GVCA witness Nancy Jacobsen testified about living in proximity to four (4) gas wells, the need to hold EnCana accountable for the gas seep, and her belief that EnCana should be required to comply with the relief requested in the WCC/GVCA intervention.

                        78.  WCC/GVCA witness Bill Griffin, spokesperson for the neighborhood association, testified that he wants the moratorium on drilling and completion to be extended until a complete study can be performed.  He testified that it may be necessary to curtail drilling completely throughout the area, and that COGCC staff should inspect all EnCana wells prior to completion.

                        79.  WCC/GVCA witness Matt Sura, Director of Western Colorado Congress testified about his experience working with oil and gas issues over the past two (2) years, his belief that additional monitoring and mitigation of the gas seep at West Divide Creek are needed prior to lifting the moratorium on drilling, and his preference for a joint effort with EnCana to determine potential public projects in lieu of a fine.

                        80.  A sworn statement was made pursuant to Rule 510. by Hermann Stauffer who testified to express his concern about preserving the land and water.

                        81.  A sworn statement was made pursuant to Rule 510. by Ken Wonstolen, General Counsel for the Colorado Oil and Gas Association who testified that he believes Rule 209. and Rule 324A. address the same issue.  He testified that he had concern over the penalty calculations but would not bring it up because of the stipulated recommended order.

                        82.  A sworn statement was made pursuant to Rule 510. by Sher Long, Community Relations Consultant for EnCana who testified that she lives on the Deitrich property and feels comfortable using the water from the well and living in the area near the gas seep.

                        83.  A sworn statement was made pursuant to Rule 510. by Matt Sura, Director of Western Colorado Congress to describe why there were so few Rule 510. statements made at the hearing, indicating that citizens for the most part could only attend one day of the hearing and the time for making Rule 510. statements was not determined well in advance of the hearing.

                        84.  Lisa Bracken and her father Robert Eicher had wished to make a sworn statement pursuant to Rule 510. but had to leave early.  They asked Ms. Harmon to relay to the Commission their approval with the process occurring over the two (2) days of hearing, and their concurrence with the direction the hearing seemed to be headed. [My notes: No. Actually, we were not pleased with a number of aspects relative to EnCana's testimony, some of that of their experts and some of the that of the COGCC, but we had no choice but to leave before we could testify. Did we believe the hearing was a sham? In some meaningful measure, very  much so. In other ways less so. The concerted effort to minimize the actual impacts to West Divide Creek and mischaracterize efforts to properly investigate were the most frustrating aspects of all - and it's a pathetic state of affairs we still strive and struggle to elevate.]

                        85.  EnCana response witness Anthony Gorody, Consulting Geologist, testified on his analysis of gas samples gathered from the West Divide Creek seep, from surface water, from the Schwartz Wells and from other wells in the vicinity of the seep.  He testified about methods for identifying the source of gas seeping into West Divide Creek, the localized impact of the seep on aquifers, the influence of fractures in the a1rea on the extent and direction of the seep, and EnCana’s plan to conduct a nine (9) square mile study to detect methane at the surface, including the corridor between the Schwartz 2-15B Well and West Divide Creek. [My notes: The largest impacted portion of our property was excised from this study. That's not surprising given that Baldwin testified that our pond was "placid". In fact - as images and video on this website show - it was bubbling regularly... in one area from a vent hole the size of a quarter. People assume the truth should be self-evident, but when it is hedged and shaped and shaded by those in influential positions, any attempts to illuminate it become an inanely confusing game with a bunch of mad hatters making up rules as they go.]

                        86.  EnCana response witness Eric Marsh, Vice President-Southern Rockies, testified about his company’s corporate philosophy, new procedures put in place regarding cementing practices and bradenhead testing, and the plan to provide more oversight from field personnel, the amount of money EnCana has spent to date on investigating, mitigating, and monitoring the seep, and EnCana’s commitment to continue following the program required by the COGCC staff until it is complete. [My notes: How nice that EnCana promises all this at a hearing when months later, while benzene still swirls in the groundwater just upstream of our water well, EnCana submits a plan to stop remedial efforts and not only does the COGCC agree but the Water Quality Division too. Later, someone must have pulled their head out of their tea cup and taken a gander at reality, because the sparge system still operates - in some cases air is pumped directly into the little monitor well which makes the benzene reading appear even more distorted than a fun-house mirror.]

                                                                                   ORDER

                        NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, that EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. shall be found in violation of the Permit Conditions requiring the cementing of production casing to the surface on the Schwartz 2-15B Well located in the SW¼ SE¼ of Section 2, Township 7 South, Range 92 West, 6^th P.M.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. shall be found in violation of Rule 209. failure to prevent the contamination of fresh water by gas, Rule 301., failure to notify the Director when public health or safety is in jeopardy and failure to notify the Director of significant downhole problems or mechanical failure, Rule 317.i., failure to pump cement 200’ above the top of the shallowest producing horizon, Rule 324A., impacts to water quality, Rule 327., loss of well control and allowing an underground blowout of gas, and Rule 910.a., failure to meet ground water standards in Table 910-1.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. shall be found in violation of §34-60-107, C.R.S., waste due to the loss of gas resources.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. shall be found to be responsible for the release of Williams Fork Formation gas, benzene, and other hydrocarbon compounds from the Schwartz 2-15B Well resulting in the subsequent impacts to the surface and ground waters of the state and for monitoring and addressing the environmental and public health and safety effects of the release. 

                        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. shall be assessed a fine of Three Hundred Seventy One Thousand Two Hundred dollars ($371,200.00) which fine shall be suspended until the Commission’s next regularly scheduled hearing on September 20, 2004 to give the parties an opportunity to propose a public project in lieu of the fine.  The Commission will hear and consider the proposal of the public project and may approve, modify, or condition the proposal or reinstate the fine.

                        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. shall proceed under the Site Investigation and Remediation Workplan, Form 27 approved by COGCC staff on May 13, 2004.  In addition, Encana shall proceed under the Notice to All Operators Drilling Wells to the Mesaverde Group or Deeper in the Mamm Creek Field, Garfield County implemented and effective July 23, 2004.

                        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. shall submit to the COGCC staff for approval a Site Investigation and Remediation Workplan, Form 27, to delineate the extent of contamination to ground water and to continue the investigation, remediation, and monitoring of ground water to meet the required allowable concentrations. [My notes: EnCana's influence, and the COGCC's willingness to allow EnCana to design a remediation plan without adherence to certain basis of fact, let alone question it, led to the extent of the seep being improperly identified and inappropriately confined to a relatively small area now known as the "main seep area". In fact, the area of original discovery and confirmation by COGCC field inspectors was counterpart in every observable way to  the main seep area but existed 400 yards or so to the North. When I repeatedly asked then Director Brian Macke why the seep was suddenly mischaracterized and asked for justification, we were repeatedly ignored - except for once when we were asked to produce a digital map so the COGCC could understand what we were talking about. This odd request led us to suspect that people who demanded this type of artifact from landowners and who appeared incapable of recognizing their own field inspector's notes, probably have no business trying to characterize a seep in the first place.]

                        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the COGCC staff shall maintain the moratorium on drilling and completion operations within a two (2) mile radius of the seep at West Divide Creek until the COGCC staff evaluates (1) the effectiveness of the Notice to All Operators Drilling Wells to the Mesaverde Group or Deeper in the Mamm Creek Field, Garfield County, effective July 23, 2004 (“notice”), and (2) EnCana’s compliance with any applicable Site Investigation and Remediation Workplan, Form 27, as approved or amended by the COGCC staff (“investigation and remediation requirements”), related to the gas seep in the area of West Divide Creek.  After the COGCC staff evaluates the effectiveness of the notice and EnCana’s compliance with investigation and remediation requirements, it shall make any modifications it deems necessary and lift the moratorium when, in the COGCC staff’s determination, the appropriate safety precautions are set forth in the notice and EnCana has complied with all investigation and remediation requirements related to the gas seep in the area of West Divide Creek. [My notes: The cause of the seep was, over-time, casually characterized as a cementing issue, but when re-cementing failed to correct the seep, the investigation was brought to a close and an increasingly minimized water quality monitoring program was instituted. Without sufficient explanation of cause, the moratorium was soon lifted and intense operations were allowed to resume - leading, as one might expect, to new contamination in the area including domestic water wells and the surface waters of West Divide Creek. The COGCC refused to acknowledge initial indicators of these impacts until a massive seep erupted in June, 2008. To date (March 2011) only two timely and relevant sampling efforts have occurred - both of which led to the revelation of diesel-range organics, napthalenes, propane, butane, pentane, ethane and methane. Still, the COGCC refuses to investigate further allowing drilling to take place directly into the 2004 seep geology.]

                        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.

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.

                        Entered this               day of September, 2004, as of August 16, 2004.

                                                   OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION

                                                                By                                                                  

Patricia C. Beaver, Secretary

Natural Gas production labels and why they matter -
and don't...
when you want a moratorium lifted.

Bill Barrett Corp. Seeks to Drill Within Moratorium Area

Excerpted from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
Order 191-12 Below....

5. On June 1, 2005, BBC filed with the Commission a verified application for an order allowing limited drilling of Williams Fork Formation wells upon the below-described lands within the moratorium area established under the Commission’s Order No. IV-276:

BEFORE THE OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

IN THE MATTER OF A REQUEST TO ALLOW               )                 CAUSE NO. 191

LIMITED DRILLING WITHIN CERTAIN DESCRIBED    )

LANDS IN THE MORATORIUM AREA ESTABLISHED  )         ORDER NO. 191-12

UNDER ORDER NO. 1V-276, MAM CREEK FIELD,        )

GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO                                   )                             CORRECTED

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

                        This cause came on for hearing before the Commission on July 11, 2005 in the New Indoor Arena Meeting Facility, Garfield County Fairgrounds, 1001 Railroad Avenue, Rifle, Colorado on the verified application of Bill Barrett Corporation requesting an order from the Commission allowing limited drilling of Williams Fork Formation wells upon certain lands within the moratorium area established under the Commission’s Order No. IV-276.

FINDINGS

                        The Commission finds as follows:

                        1. Bill Barrett Corporation ("BBC"), as Applicant herein, is an interested party in the subject matter of the above-referenced hearing.

                        2. Due notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing has been given in all respects as required by law.

                        3. The Commission has jurisdiction over the subject matter embraced in said Notice, and of the parties interested therein, and jurisdiction to promulgate the hereinafter prescribed order.

                        4. On September 16, 2004, the Commission entered Order No. IV-276 which among other things established a moratorium on drilling and completion operations within a two (2) mile radius of the seep at West Divide Creek until the COGCC staff evaluates (1) the effectiveness of the Notice to All Operators Drilling Wells to the Mesaverde Group or Deeper in the Mamm Creek Field, Garfield County, effective July 23, 2004, and (2) EnCana’s compliance with any applicable Site Investigation and Remediation Workplan, Form 27, as approved or amended by the COGCC staff related to the gas seep in the area of West Divide Creek. Although Order No. IV-276 applied only to EnCana, the Commission subsequently entered Order No.191-8 which provided that BBC shall not drill on its operated lands within the moratorium area established under the Commission’s Order No. 1V-276 so long as the order is in effect or until BBC has filed an application with the Commission and has been released from the order as it applies to the BBC operated lands within the moratorium area.

                        5. On June 1, 2005, BBC filed with the Commission a verified application for an order allowing limited drilling of Williams Fork Formation wells upon the below-described lands within the moratorium area established under the Commission’s Order No. IV-276:

Township 6 South, Range 91 West, 6^th P.M.

Section 31: W½ NW¼

Township 6 South, Range 92 West, 6^th P.M.

Section 25: All

Section 34: S½ SE¼

Section 36: NE¼, NE¼ NW¼

Township 7 South, Range 92 West, 6^th P.M.

Section 3: That certain 96.93 acres in the N½ remaining uncommitted to the Hunter Mesa Unit

                        6. On June 23, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County filed with the Commission a Motion for Intervention to raise environmental, public health, safety and welfare concerns regarding the application.

                        7. On June 30, 2005 and July 1, 2005, a prehearing conference was held with the parties to discuss Garfield County’s concerns and the possibility of the County and BBC entering into a stipulation.

                        8. On July 7, 2005, the Commission received a letter from the Garfield County attorney conveying the Board of County Commissioners’ approval of the conditions of stipulation.

                        9. The Commission heard testimony from William Givan, Landman for BBC, regarding the acreage BBC has under lease in and around the moratorium area. Mr. Givan testified that BBC proposes to drill seventeen (17) wells from six (6) existing well pads and three (3) wells from one (1) new well pad. He further testified that BBC has executed a surface use agreement for the additional wells on existing well pads, and has a verbal agreement with the surface owner for the new well pad. Mr. Givan anticipated that a surface use agreement for the new well pad would be executed within the next two (2) weeks.

                        10. The Commission heard expert testimony from Stephen Cumella, Senior Geologist for BBC regarding the geologic setting of the Mesaverde Group in the Mam Creek Field. Mr. Cumella testified that the Mesaverde Group is comprised of the Iles Formation containing three (3) marine units, overlain by the Williams Fork Formation containing coal and sand units. He testified that below the top of continuous gas saturation in the Williams Fork Formation, the sands produce natural gas without producing water. In addition, Mr. Cumella testified that sands from wells drilled from the same well pad, and in close proximity to one another are discontinuous. He further testified that the natural fracturing, especially on structures in the area, allows the Mesaverde Group to be productive of gas, and that this natural fracturing is no different in the moratorium area than in any other area of the basin. Mr. Cumella stated that he is not concerned that the nature of the formations underlying BBC’s application lands is similar to those formations underlying West Divide Creek gas seep area.

                        11. The Commission heard expert testimony from Scot Donato, Environmental Health and Safety Manager for BBC regarding BBC’s Ground Water and Methane Monitoring Plan, including Commission staff recommendations for additional conditions, BBC’s Additional Subsurface Data Collection Plan for hydrogeologic data collection and distribution, and BBC’s Mamm Creek Field Operations Plan dated December 2004. He testified that compliance with these documents, along with the Commission’s existing rules, will protect the environment in the moratorium area.

                        12. The Commission heard expert testimony from Troy Schindler, Drilling Manager for BBC who testified that twenty-eight (28) wells have been drilled and cemented by BBC since the July 23, 2004 Notice to All Operators Drilling Wells to the Mesaverde Group or Deeper in the Mamm Creek Field, Garfield County, with four (4) of those wells having high bradenhead pressures. Mr. Schindler testified that EnCana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc. has drilled and cemented one hundred and fifty-two (152) wells since the July 23, 2004 Notice, with three (3) wells having failed bradenhead pressures. In addition, he testified as to the cementing program BBC uses to drill in the Mam Creek Field, and as to the detailed drilling prognosis prepared and provided for each well drilled by BBC.

                        13. On behalf of the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, the July 7, 2005 letter to BBC’s attorney conveying the Board’s unanimous approval to the conditions of stipulation was presented for inclusion in the Commission’s record.

                        14. Through cross-examination, the Garfield County attorney clarified that BBC is in agreement with incorporating the County’s requests in any order the Commission may enter on BBC’s application, and that BBC will have a full-time supervisor on each well drilled in the Mam Creek Field.

                        15. On behalf of the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, its attorney stated that if the Commission imposes the recommendations made by Commission staff and by Dr. Thyne for the County, the County would be in agreement to the application being approved to allow BBC the ability to drill in a limited portion of the moratorium area.

                        16. Pursuant to Rule 510., Bill Griffin, a resident in the moratorium area, expressed his concern that the same geologic conditions exist in BBC’s application area as those in the area of the West Divide Creek gas seep, and his belief that the hydrogeologic study currently underway should be completed prior to drilling in the moratorium area.

                        17. Pursuant to Rule 510., Nancy Jacobsen, a resident in the moratorium area, stated her agreement with Mr. Griffin’s comments, and expressed her concern about the multiple industrial incidents that have occurred in her neighborhood.

                        18. Pursuant to Rule 510., Pepi Langegger, a resident in the moratorium area, expressed his belief that that the Commission should err on the side of caution and not allow drilling to occur in the moratorium area until the hydrogeologic study is complete.

                        19. Pursuant to Rule 510., Herman Stauffer, a resident in the moratorium area, stated that the moratorium should be retained and his hope that BBC’s application will be denied.

                        20. Pursuant to Rule 510., Dan Randolph, San Juan Citizens Alliance, expressed his concern about how the Commission will respond if BBC’s application is approved and problems occur in the area.

                        21. Pursuant to Rule 510., Lisa Sumi, Oil and Gas Accountability Project, stated her belief that the residents living in the moratorium area accurately described their concerns, and her belief that BBC has not presented data to show that problems will not occur if the application is approved.

                        22. Jaime Adkins, Northwest Colorado Engineer for the Commission, discussed the Staff Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Mamm Creek Notice to Operators and Recommendation dated July 11, 2005, and described the two hundred and three (203) wells drilled under the Notice in the past eleven (11) months. Mr. Adkins stated that Commission staff believe that the Notice has been one hundred percent (100%) successful in preventing the conditions and circumstances that allowed the West Divide Creek gas seep to occur. In addition, he stated that based on the success of the Notice, the Commission staff’s proposed conditions, and BBC’s plan of operations under the current application, Commission staff believes that drilling can safely resume in the moratorium without impact to public health, safety, welfare and the environment. Brian Macke, Director for the Commission stated that Commission staff is in favor and support of BBC’s application to drill in a limited portion of the moratorium area.

                        23. Based on the facts stated in the verified application and the testimony and exhibits presented by the Applicant at the hearing, the Commission finds that limited drilling of Williams Fork Formation wells upon certain lands within the moratorium area established under the Commission’s Order No. IV-276 should be allowed. In addition, the Commission finds that the Notice to All Operators Drilling Wells to the Mesaverde Group or Deeper in the Mamm Creek Field, Garfield County - Well Cementing Procedure and Reporting Requirements, effective July 23, 2004 and the recommendations proposed by the Commission staff and Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County should be complied with for all wells drilled under this order. Further, the Commission finds that the first five (5) wells should be drilled using one (1) drilling rig so that the wells can be properly evaluated to ensure that there are no problems with the drilling of the wells including uncontrolled releases of gas or adverse impacts to public health, safety, welfare and the environment. If there are no problems with these first five (5) wells, upon approval by the Director, the remaining fifteen (15) wells may be drilled using two (2) drilling rigs. If approval is denied, a hearing before the Commission should be scheduled for the next available hearing.

                        24. Bill Barrett Corporation agreed to be bound by oral order of the Commission.

ORDER

                        NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, that limited drilling of Williams Fork Formation wells upon the below-described lands within the moratorium area established under the Commission’s Order No. IV-276 is hereby approved:

Township 6 South, Range 91 West, 6^th P.M.

Section 31: W½ NW¼

Township 6 South, Range 92 West, 6^th P.M.

Section 25: All

Section 34: S½ SE¼

Section 36: NE¼, NE¼ NW¼

Township 7 South, Range 92 West, 6^th P.M.

Section 3: That certain 96.93 acres in the N½ remaining uncommitted to the Hunter Mesa Unit

                        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that all wells shall be drilled in compliance with the Commission’s Notice to All Operators Drilling Wells to the Mesaverde Group or Deeper in the Mamm Creek Field, Garfield County - Well Cementing Procedure and Reporting Requirements, July 23, 2004.

                        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that all wells shall be drilled in compliance with the Commission’s Bradenhead Testing and Reporting Requirements for the Mam Creek Field Area dated August 23, 2004.

                        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that all conditions of BBC’s Ground Water and Methane Monitoring Plan shall be complied with when drilling on the lands described above. Analytical results shall be provided to the COGCC and the landowner within two (2) months of the date of sample collection. A walking survey of the surface water features within one-half (½) mile of a drill site shall be made, which shall document the occurrence, if any, of springs and methane seepage. Surface water samples shall be collected before commencing drilling and tested again within two (2) months of the well’s completion. All surface water features within one-half (½) mile of a drill site shall be monitored monthly for the duration of the drilling and completion operations using the current testing protocol. Samples from water wells and surface water shall be tested for the following parameters:

Major Cations (Ca, Na, Mg, K, Fe, Mn, Se)

Major Anions (Cl, SO4, HCO3, CO3)

Nitrate/nitrite

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

Methane

Benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylenes

Field measurements and observations (conductivity, pH, hydrogen sulfide, temperature, color, odor, presence of bubbles)

If methane is detected at a concentration of 2 milligrams per liter (mg/l) or more, then a sample shall be collected for gas compositional analysis and stable isotope analysis of delta C13 and D of methane, ethane, and propane.

                        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that all conditions of BBC’s Additional Subsurface Data Collection Plan shall be complied with, including, if practicable, taking Wasatch Formation gas samples from one well on each of the drill pads while drilling the surface hole when drilling on the lands described above. The samples from the Wasatch Formation shall be tested for gas compositional analysis and stable isotope analysis of delta C13 and D of methane, ethane, and propane.

                        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that all conditions of BBC’s Mamm Creek Field Operations Plan dated December 2004 shall be complied with when drilling on the lands described above.

                        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that all concerns and conditions expressed in the July 4, 2005 correspondence from Dr. Geoffrey Thyne shall be complied with when drilling on the lands described above.

                        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the first five (5) wells shall be drilled using one (1) drilling rig. If there are no problems with these first five (5) wells, upon approval by the Director, the remaining fifteen (15) wells may be drilled using two (2) drilling rigs. If approval is denied, a hearing before the Commission shall be scheduled for the next available hearing.

                        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.

                        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.

    ENTERED this 29^th day of July, 2005, as of July 11, 2005.

                        CORRECTED this _______ day of February, 2006, as of July 11, 2005.

                                                                            OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

                By __________________________________

                #9; Patricia C. Beaver, Secretary

February 28, 2006

The COGCC Lifts the Divide Creek / Mamm Field Moratorium with 'new and improved' drilling procedures...

Excerpted from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
Order #9; 191-23  Below....

21. After deliberation, based on the facts stated in the verified application and the testimony and exhibits presented at the hearing, the Commission should enter an order lifting the moratorium on drilling and completion operations established in Order No. 1V-276 for certain lands in Townships 6 and 7 South, Range 92 West, 6^th P.M., with operations being conducted in accordance with the revised Notice to Operators.

BEFORE THE OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

IN THE MATTER OF THE PROMULGATION AND    )                      CAUSE NO. 191

ESTABLISHMENT OF FIELD RULES TO GOVERN   )

OPERATIONS IN THE MAMM CREEK FIELD,          )            ORDER NO. #9; 191-23

GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO                            )

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

                        This cause came on for hearing before the Commission at 9:00 a.m. on April 24, 2006, Suite 801, in The Chancery Building, 1120 Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado, for an order lifting the moratorium on drilling and completion operations established in Order No. 1V-276 for certain lands in Townships 6 and 7 South, Range 92 West, 6^th P.M.

FINDINGS

                        The Commission finds as follows:

                        1. EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. ("EnCana"), as applicant herein, is an interested party in the subject matter of the above-referenced hearing.

                        2. Due notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing has been given in all respects as required by law.

                        3. The Commission has jurisdiction over the subject matter embraced in said Notice, and of the parties interested therein, and jurisdiction to promulgate the hereinafter prescribed order pursuant to the Oil and Gas Conservation Act.

                        4. On September 16, 2004, the Commission issued Order No. 1V-276, which among other things established that EnCana was a party to an enforcement proceeding relating to a natural gas seep in the West Divide Creek area in Garfield County, Colorado. The order resulting from that proceeding established a moratorium on drilling and completion operations within a two (2) mile radius of the seep. The moratorium was required to remain in place until the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ("COGCC") staff evaluates (1) the effectiveness of the Notice to All Operators Drilling Wells to the Mesaverde Group or Deeper in the Mamm Creek Field, Garfield County, effective July 23, 2004 ("notice"), and (2) EnCana’s compliance with any applicable Site Investigation and Remediation Workplan, Form 27, as approved or amended by the COGCC staff ("investigation and remediation requirements"), related to the gas seep in the area of West Divide Creek. After the COGCC staff evaluates the effectiveness of the notice and EnCana’s compliance with investigation and remediation requirements, it shall make any modifications it deems necessary and lift the moratorium when, in the COGCC staff’s determination, the appropriate safety precautions are set forth in the notice and EnCana has complied with all investigation and remediation requirements related to the gas seep in the area of West Divide Creek.

                        5. On December 27, 2005, corrected on March 16, 2006, EnCana, by its attorney, filed with the Commission a verified application for an order lifting the moratorium on drilling and completion operations established in Order No. 1V-276 for the below-listed lands:

Township 6 South, Range 92 West, 6^th P.M.

Section 34: E½ NE¼, SE¼ SW¼, SE¼

Section 35: All

Section 36: S½ N½, S½

Township 7 South, Range 92 West, 6^th P.M.

Sections 1 through 3: All

Sections 10 through 14: All

Section 15: E½, E½ NW¼

Section 23: NE¼, N½ NW¼

Section 24: N½

                        6. During the January 8, 2006 Commission hearing, a discussion was held regarding where the hearing in this matter should be conducted, as the application was filed in time for the February hearing scheduled in Denver. On January 11, 2006, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County filed with the Commission a Motion for Intervention under COGCC Rule 509.a. and a Motion for Continuance to the March 2006 hearing. Subsequently, the Commission docketed the matter for its March hearing scheduled to be conducted in Garfield County.

                        7. On January 25, 2006, Bill Barrett Corporation, by its attorney, filed with the Commission a Motion to Intervene under COGCC Rule 509.a.

                        8. On February 23, 2006, Lisa Bracken, Emma Eicher and Robert Eicher filed with the Commission a written statement under Rule 510. On March 16, 2006, Donald G. Price filed with the Commission a letter in support of lifting the moratorium.

                        9. On March 17, 2006, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. continued the matter to the April 2006 hearing and the hearing in this matter was continued. Garfield County concurred with the continuance and with the Denver location for the April hearing.

                        10. At the time of the hearing, the Commission heard testimony from Chris Williams, Environmental, Health and Safety Manager for EnCana, who described the mitigation work performed by EnCana subsequent to the discovery of the West Divide Creek Gas Seep, including the samples taken and analyses results, the impacted ground water at the seep discharge area, the benzene plume before and after the installation of the remediation system, and the surface reclamation at the seep area. He testified that there have been no human health impacts from the seep, and that no water wells, creek, springs or ponds outside the discharge area were impacted by the seep. Mr. Williams testified that no BTEX constituents have been detected in West Divide Creek since April 2005, that there have been no impacts to aquatic life from the seep, that stream bubble intensity and length of affected reach continues to decrease, and that weekly sampling of the creek will continue to be conducted. In addition, he testified that all of the monitoring wells except two (2) show a decrease in benzene concentrations, that the remediation system has effectively stopped migration of the plume, and that the surface has been successfully reclaimed.

                        11. The Commission heard testimony from Joel Fox, Team Lead for the South Piceance, who described EnCana’s drilling plans for 2006 and its belief on what caused the seep. He testified that EnCana proposes two (2) new drilling pads and plans to drill eighteen (18) new wells. Mr. Fox presented the definition of a seep from the Geology of Petroleum, by A.I. Levorsen, 1967, and described common petroleum seeps in general and illustrated the geology of the gas seep likely to have occurred at West Divide Creek. He testified that the Divide Creek seep and the fault network were likely formed more than 20 million years ago, that the Schwartz wellbore probably intercepted a fault somewhere in the lower Wasatch or upper Williams Fork Formations, that the cement job failed sometime between final placement and approximately four (4) hours after placement, and that gas from the Schwartz Well charged the fault and seep system.

                        12. The Commission heard testimony from Mike Dempsey, Geologist for EnCana, who testified that EnCana believes the area identified by COGCC staff for additional requirements is supported by the geology, that the Wasatch Formation sands are low quality and discontinuous due to fluvial origin, and that naturally occurring gas in the Wasatch Formation is responsible for minor mud log shows.

                        13. The Commission heard testimony from John Moran, Engineer for EnCana, who described EnCana’s cementing practices prior to the July 23, 2004 Notice to Operators which established additional cementing and reporting requirements within Mamm Creek and Divide Creek Fields. He testified about hydrostatic pressure and cement properties, the Schwartz wellbore configuration, and the cementing and monitoring process currently in place. Mr. Moran testified that since the Notice to Operators and EnCana’s new process have been in place, no seep incidents have occurred and two (2) wells out of two hundred thirty- one (231) have required follow up remedial cementing operations. In addition, he testified that bradenhead pressure is now reported daily during the drilling and completion phases, and monitored in real time during the production phase using remote communication systems. Further, Mr. Moran testified that the current processes would have prevented the seep and will continue to prevent similar incidents. He testified that EnCana has improved its operations since the West Divide Creek Gas Seep by increasing the number of employees on each rig, the type of employees, and the training of those employees.

                        14. The Commission heard testimony from Debbie Baldwin, Environmental Manager for the COGCC, who presented the staff’s review of the remediation of the West Divide Creek Gas Seep, including an analysis of the results from the ground water sampling. She testified that natural attenuation of the biogenic methane in the seep area has occurred.

                        15. The Commission heard testimony from Jaime Adkins, Northwest Engineer for the COGCC, who presented the staff’s review of data from wells drilled in and around the moratorium area. He testified as to the requirements established in the July 23, 2004 Notice to Operator, presented a summary of wells drilled under the Notice, and described how wells were remediated in and near the moratorium area. Mr. Adkins testified that the staff believes the Notice to operators has been 100% successful in preventing the type of conditions that resulted in the West Divide Creek Gas Seep. In addition, he presented proposed revisions to the Notice to Operators recommended by staff to be included for certain lands known as "The East Mamm Creek Area". Mr. Adkins concluded that the moratorium should be lifted because the requirements in Order No. 1V-276 have been met, and that with the proposed revisions to the Notice to Operators, appropriate safety precautions have been established for future drilling.

                        16. Don DeFord, Garfield County Attorney, stated that the County supports the COGCC staff position on the application and supports lifting the moratorium but would like to reserve the right to come back to the Commission in thirty (30) days should the County have additional concerns.

                        17. Bill Barrett Corporation, by its attorney, stated its support of the application and concurred with the COGCC staff position.

                        18. Pursuant to Rule 510., a statement was made by Orlyn Bell who indicated that he was pleased with the cooperation between the parties, that the presentation was well done by all of the parties, and that the issues have been resolved with the proposed revisions to the Notice to Operators, along with the commitments made by from the operators. He described his concerns on behalf of the New Multa Trina Ditch Company located to the west of the seep area regarding potential impacts to the ditch from drilling operations.

                        19. The Commission heard from Dominick Spencer, Drilling Engineer for Bill Barrett Corporation, who stated that a superintendent is always on site during drilling operations, and that the superintendents are all certified well control operators.

                        20. A letter in support of the application was presented at the hearing from Thomas and Sandra Lloyd of Last Dance, LLC.

                       21. After deliberation, based on the facts stated in the verified application and the testimony and exhibits presented at the hearing, the Commission should enter an order lifting the moratorium on drilling and completion operations established in Order No. 1V-276 for certain lands in Townships 6 and 7 South, Range 92 West, 6^th P.M., with operations being conducted in accordance with the revised Notice to Operators. 

ORDER

                         NOW, THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED, that the moratorium established in Order No. 1V-276 is hereby lifted for the below-listed lands: 

Township 6 South, Range 92 West, 6^th P.M.

Section 34: E½ NE¼, SE¼ SW¼, SE¼

Section 35: All

Section 36: S½ N½, S½

Township 7 South, Range 92 West, 6^th P.M.

Sections 1 through 3: All

Sections 10 through 14: All

Section 15: E½, E½ NW¼

Section 23: NE¼, N½ NW¼

Section 24: N½

            IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that operators shall comply with the revised Notice to Operators Drilling Mesaverde Group or Deeper Wells in the Mamm Creek Field Area in Garfield County, Well Cementing Procedure and Reporting Requirements.

                 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Garfield County reserves the right to come back to the Commission in thirty (30) days should the County have additional concerns. Regarding drilling and completion operations in the above-described lands.

                        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.

                        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.

ENTERED this ______ day of May, 2006, as of April 24, 2006.

·  OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

By: ___________________________________

Patricia C. Beaver, Secretary

May 23, 2006
 

Following are shared letters discussing the COGCC's findings in neighbor's water wells from 2004...
and more of EnCana's habitual, but contested denials

The following are letters issued to the Dietrich's and shared with us which explain sampling results of their water well. Shortly after this, the Dietrich's sued EnCana. EnCana bought the property, then re-sold it to the Moons. Unfortunately, in the fall of 2009 hydrocarbons showed up in the new Moon well which tied to the Arbaney pad first suspect in 2004. This incident (not the 2008 West Divide Creek seep) prompted the COGCC to ask EnCana to conduct a pressure test on the suspect Arbaney well - for which the COGCC also asked EnCana to conduct observations along West Divide Creek.
 

COGCC letter to Dietrich from the COGCC [salutation names, closure and contact information removed]

April 29, 2004

RE:       Gas Composition and Stable Isotope Results

            EnCana Operated Arbaney 3-15C Gas Well

            Section 3 – Township 7 South – Range 92 West

            Garfield County, Colorado

            West Divide Creek Gas Seep Investigation, COGCC Investigation No. 1802

On April 20, 2004, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) collected a sample of gas from the bradenhead of the Arbaney 3-15C well, located on the P3 wellpad due north of your property.  This gas sample was submitted to Isotech Laboratories (Isotech) in Champaign, Illinois for analysis of the stable isotopes of carbon in the methane gas and for gas composition.  We received those analytical results late Wednesday (4/28/04).  I have attached a copy of these results and a copy of the data plot that the COGCC uses to evaluate the isotopic data.   The Arbaney gas sample correlates with the Williams Fork Formation gas samples (Twin Creek, Schwartz, and Brown wells).  The thermogenic gas found in your water well does not correlate with any gas samples from production wells in your area or with the gas seep in West Divide Creek.  The COGCC staff is conducting additional gas sampling near your water well as part of the seep investigation and will keep you informed of any new developments as quickly as they become available.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss these matters further, please contact me.

Respectfully,

Letter to Dietrich from COGCC [salutation names, closure and contact information removed]

April 30, 2004

RE:       Additional Water Quality Analytical Results for Your Water Well

            Section 10 – Township 7 South – Range 92 West

            Garfield County, Colorado

            West Divide Creek Gas Seep Investigation

            COGCC Investigation No. 1802

As discussed in my April 26, 2004 letter, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) had not yet received the final analytical results from Evergreen Analytical Laboratory (Evergreen) for the April 8, 2004 sampling of your water well.  We received the final analytical results on April 29, 2004 and this letter presents the results for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and a revision of the result for sodium (Na) which was previously reported.  The preliminary report for sodium concentration in your well identified laboratory induced blank contamination; however, the magnitude of the blank contamination was not included in the preliminary report.  This letter corrects the sodium concentration result for the blank contamination.  As with my previous letter, the analytical results from the water samples from your well have been compared to applicable ground water and/or drinking water standards and are summarized below.  These water standards were established for public drinking water supplies and often people use and consume ground water from private wells that can exceed these standards.

·        Total Dissolved Solids (TDS):  CDPHE has established a TDS standard for human drinking water of 500 milligrams per liter (mg/l).  Although CDPHE does not have an agricultural standard for TDS, other agencies recommend concentrations below 2,000 mg/l for irrigation, and below 5,000 mg/l for most livestock watering.  TDS concentrations are related to the presence of naturally occurring elements and chemical compounds such as chloride, sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, and sulfate.

TDS was detected in the water sample from your well at a concentration of 1,360 mg/l.  This is above the CDPHE human drinking water standard, below the recommended maximum concentration for irrigation, and below the recommended maximum concentration for most livestock watering.  

·        Sodium (Na):  Although CDPHE does not have a standard for sodium, people on salt restricted diets should be aware of the Na concentration in the water they drink.  A concentration of drinking water with a concentration of sodium less than 20 mg/l is recommended by some for people on salt restricted diets or for people suffering from hypertension or heart disease.   Sodium occurs naturally in the ground water in many areas at concentrations that exceed the recommended level.

Sodium was detected in the water sample from your well at a concentration of 450 “B” mg/l, which is greater than the recommended level for people on salt restricted diets. The B notation is a laboratory “flag” which is used to indicate the presence of a laboratory-induced contaminant in your sample (known as blank [“B”] contamination).  In this case the laboratory noticed the presence of sodium in the analytical method control sample (called a method blank).    The actual concentration of sodium in your water well sample would be 450 mg/l less the blank detection (0.3182 mg/l) or 449.681 mg/l

If you have any questions or would like to discuss these matters further, please contact me. 

Respectfully, 

Letter to EnCana's environmental specialist from the COGCC [salutation names, closure and contact information removed]

September 15, 2004

RE:       Former Dietrich Water Well

            West Divide Creek Seep Remediation No. 1815

NENE Section 10, Township 7 South; Range 92 West

Garfield County, Colorado

The Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) staff has reviewed the isotopic and composition results for the July 22, 2004 methane gas sample collected by EnCana at the former Dietrich Water Well.  As you are aware, previous sampling results (by both the COGCC and EnCana) have been inconclusive as to the origin of the methane and heavier carbon chain gasses present in the well.  The July 22, 2004 sample results show; however, the methane gas in the water well to be Williams Fork Formation gas. [My notes: It looks like Dr Gorody and the COGCC can be wrong after all, especially when they actually pay attention to conditions and bother to more closely examine gas from producing wells as compared to what shows up in domestic water wells.]

Because the presence of production gas in the water well is a violation of COGCC Rule 324A (in general) and Rule 324A.a, the COGCC staff will be issuing an Notice of Alleged Violation (NOAV) citing these violations and requiring EnCana to prepare a Site Investigation and Remediation Workplan (Form 27) for COGCC staff approval, outlining EnCana’s investigation of this water well impact.  Further investigation should include review of all construction and completion records for EnCana production wells within the general area surrounding the former Dietrich Water well. [My notes: I think it's interesting that the COGCC doesn't feel the need to subject the Schwartz, the Price the Brown or the Twin Creeks to the same tests, despite the seep in 2008... let alone re-investigate the 2004 seep even as it spews benzene into the ground water of West Divide Creek upstream of our water well, contrary to the EnCana and the COGCC's assurances that cementing would correct the problem.]

If you have any questions or comments concerning this letter, please call me.

Respectfully,

Here is the hearing document relative to the Dietrich contamination and Dr. Gorody's initial denial of it as relative to production activities.

[My notes are in bracketed in blue]

BEFORE THE OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE      )
RULES                                                                                       )       CAUSE NO. 1V

AND REGULATIONS OF THE COLORADO OIL AND        )
GAS  CONSERVATION COMMISSION BY ENCANA OIL)

GAS (USA) INC., GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO        )

                                                                                                   ) ORDER NO. 1V-297

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

                        This cause came on for hearing before the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ("COGCC") on October 31, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. at the Ramada Inn & Suites, 124 West 6th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, after giving Notice of Hearing as required by law, as to why the COGCC should find EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. ("EnCana") in violation of certain of the COGCC’s rules and regulations (2 CCR-404-1, "Rules") and why it should impose penalties for those violations pursuant to § 34-60-121, C.R.S., as amended.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER BY CONSENT

FINDINGS

                        1. A domestic water well was constructed on February 12, 1997 for Michael Dietrich under Colorado Division of Water Resources Permit No. 29972. The well, hereinafter referred to as the "former Dietrich water well" is located in the NE¼ NE¼ of Section 10, Township 7 South, Range 92 West, 6^th P.M. On January 30, 2003, Wright Water Engineers on behalf of EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. ("EnCana") collected water samples from the former Dietrich water well. The sampling was conducted as part of a baseline water quality study performed voluntarily by EnCana prior to gas well drilling. The results of the laboratory analysis showed the quality of the water from the former Dietrich water well was similar to other Wasatch Formation water wells in the area, and methane gas was not detected in the sample.

                        2. Between April 30, 2003 and March 30, 2004 five (5) gas wells were drilled by EnCana on the P3 well pad located in the SE¼ SE¼ of Section 3, Township 7 South, Range 92 West, 6^th P.M. The nearest gas well on the P3 well pad is approximately 860 feet northwest of the former Dietrich water well. The Arbaney 3-16C was completed as a producing well in 2003 and is the only well on the P3 pad that has been completed  as a producer to date.

                        3. On April 8, 2004 a water sample was collected from the former Dietrich water well by Cordilleran Compliance Services ("Cordilleran") on behalf of EnCana as part of the West Divide Creek Seep investigation. The result of the laboratory analysis showed dissolved methane to be present in this sample at the concentration of 6.5 milligrams per liter (mg/l). A water sample was collected from the former Dietrich water well by COGCC staff on April 8, 2004. Methane was detected in this sample at a concentration of 10 mg/l. EnCana voluntarily agreed to perform additional sampling to determine the source of the methane in the former Dietrich water well. EnCana was already negotiating with Mr. Dietrich to purchase his property prior to the first detection of dissolved methane in the water in the well, and EnCana completed its purchase of the Dietrich property in June 2004. [My notes: I wonder why EnCana was already negotiating? Could it be from the damage created by the March 09 2004 blow-out that the COGCC refused to acknowledge or consider as a potential component of the April 01, 2004 West Divide Creek seep investigation?]

                        4. On April 15, 2004 a gas sample was collected by Cordilleran from the former Dietrich water well for compositional and stable isotopic analysis to determine the source of the gas. A gas sample was collected by COGCC staff from the former Dietrich water well for compositional and stable isotopic analysis on April 19, 2004. The analytical results from both samples were similar. In addition to methane, the results of the compositional analysis showed the presence of ethane, propane, n-butane, iso-butane, n-pentane, iso-pentane, and hexanes. These heavier hydrocarbon gases are indicative of thermogenic gas. Analysis of the stable isotopes of carbon indicated the methane was a mixture of gas from thermogenic and biogenic sources which made it difficult to determine the source of the gas without further sampling and analysis.

                        5. On July 22, 2004 a dissolved gas sample was collected by Cordilleran from the former Dietrich water well for compositional and stable isotopic analysis. In addition to methane, the results of the compositional analysis showed the presence of ethane, propane, n-butane, iso-butane, n-pentane, iso-pentane, and hexanes as in the April 2004 samples. The gas was still a mixture of thermogenic and biogenic gas, but the proportion of thermogenic gas had increased relative to the proportion of biogenic gas, and the stable isotopes of carbon showed conclusively that most of the methane was of thermogenic origin. In addition, the chemical composition of the gas, that is, the proportions of methane, ethane, propane, n-butane, iso-butane, n-pentane, iso-pentane, and hexanes, was similar to the gas produced from Williams Fork Formation wells in the area.

                        6. The compositional and isotopic sampling was repeated for confirmation purposes by Cordilleran on September 22, 2004. The analytical results confirmed the findings of the previous tests, that the gas in the former Dietrich water well was of thermogenic origin and similar in composition to Williams Fork Formation gas.

                        7. On September 22, 2004, COGCC staff inspected the P3 well pad located in the SE¼ SE¼ of Section 3, Township 7 South, Range 92 West, 6^th P.M., as part of the investigation of the causes of the elevated methane concentrations observed at the former Dietrich water well. Staff observed bubbles coming up around the outside of the wellhead of the Magic 10-2 Well. COGCC staff measured the pressure on the bradenhead access of each of the five (5) wells on the P3 well pad and found three (3) of the five (5) wells had significant bradenhead pressure. COGCC staff immediately notified EnCana of the bubbles and pressures and discussed a remedial action plan to address them.

                        8. On September 28, 2004, COGCC staff issued a Notice of Alleged Violation ("NOAV") to EnCana for failure to adequately cement one or more of the wells on the P3 well pad as evidenced by the observed bubbles. The NOAV cited Rule 209. which requires that before a well is completed as a producer, gas and water strata must be sealed to prevent contamination and the intermingling of their contents, and Rule 324.A.a. which requires an operator to take precautions to prevent the unauthorized discharge of gas, and Rule 327., which requires operators to take all reasonable precautions to prevent the uncontrolled blowing of gas. The NOAV required abatement which included running a variety of logs and surveys on the wells to identify the source of the bubbles and where cement integrity was lacking. The information would be used to determine the most effective way to conduct remedial cementing on the wells and isolate the gas- bearing zones. The abatement plan required gathering compositional and isotopic gas data to compare to the gas found in the nearby former Dietrich water well. The abatement plan further required that the wells be remediated to eliminate the leaking bubbles and required venting of the bradenheads to reduce the likelihood of contamination while remediating the wells. Three (3) separate deadlines were set for the different phases of abatement. Remediation of the bubbles was required to be accomplished by November 28, 2004.

                        9. On October 1, 2004, EnCana’s contractor Environmental Services Network Rocky Mountain ("ESN") recorded bradenhead pressure on all five (5) gas wells on the P3 well pad as measured by EnCana’s field crew. In addition, it collected bradenhead gas samples from the Magic 10-1, Magic 10-2, Arbaney 3-16C, and Arbaney 3-15C Wells. There was no gas flow from the bradenhead of the Magic 10-1A Well so it was not sampled. The analytical results confirmed that the gas present in the former Dietrich water well was not similar to gas from the Schwartz 2-15B well, but it was more similar to gas from the wells on the P3 pad.

                        10. In October 2004, EnCana ran all of the logs and surveys required by the COGCC. COGCC staff and EnCana reviewed the logs and surveys together to determine the intervals at which the wells should be remedially cemented. In late October and in November 2004, EnCana remedially cemented four wells on the P3 pad consistent with the decisions reached jointly with COGCC staff. Three cement squeezes were performed on the Arbaney 3-16C well at depths of 2,600, 1,720, and 1,000 feet; two cement squeezes were performed on the Arbaney 3-15C at depths of 1,240 and 810 feet; two cement squeezes were performed on the Magic 10-1 at depths of 1,590-2,250 and 840 feet; and two cement squeezes were performed on the Magic 10-2 at depths of 800 and 304 feet. The squeeze on the Magic 10-2 at 304 feet successfully remediated the surface bubbles. The deeper squeezes on all of the other wells had no effect on the bubbling at the surface. All of the cement squeezes were performed above the Williams Fork producing interval, in the shallower Wasatch Formation. EnCana spent over $683,000 on remedial work on the P3 well pad that was required by the NOAV issued on September 28, 2004.

                        11. On October 4, 2004 ESN identified three (3) small gas seeps, C5 and two other unnamed seeps, on the east side of the former Dietrich property. The analytical results for the gas samples from the seeps, which were reported in Dr. Anthony Gorody’s January 27, 2005 report, showed the gas was similar to the gas sampled from wells on the P3 pad, but the seep gases had been altered by bacterial oxidation. The locations of these seeps were inspected again by ESN on January 28, 2005. At that time gas seepage was no longer occurring, suggesting that the remedial cementing of the gas wells on the P3 pad successfully eliminated the flow of the gas.

                        12. On October 6, 2004 ESN collected soil gas samples with probes from three (3) feet below the ground surface ("bgs") on the P3 well pad adjacent to the Magic 10-1, Magic 10-1A, Magic 10-2, Arbaney 3-15C, and Arbaney 3-16C Wells. The samples were analyzed for stable isotopes and composition. The analytical results showed the soil gases from the P3 well pad are similar to bradenhead gas and Williams Fork Formation gas produced by gas wells in the area, but the gases had been altered by bacterial oxidation.

                        13. On October 6 and 25, 2004 EnCana ran temperature surveys on the Magic 10-1 Well which showed a cooling anomaly at 880 feet bgs indicative of gas flow just below the surface casing shoe. During testing of flow rates from the bradenheads of the wells on the P3 well pad, conducted pursuant to COGCC staff direction, it was determined that the Magic 10-1 Well was the only well on the pad that would not completely blow down, and it sustained a flow rate of approximately 40 thousand cubic feet per day for several weeks until remediated. The bradenhead on the Magic 10-1 Well would build up to approximately 250 pounds per square inch gauge ("psig") prior to remediation.

                        14. On October 8, 2004 COGCC staff issued a second NOAV to EnCana for impacting the former Dietrich water well with gas from the Williams Fork Formation. The NOAV cited Rule 209. which states special precautions shall be taken while drilling wells to guard against the contamination of fresh water by objectionable gas and that before any well is completed as a producer, all oil, gas, and water strata above and below the producing horizon shall be sealed or separated in order to prevent the intermingling of their contents; Rule 324.A.a. which requires an operator to prevent the unauthorized discharge of gas, and Rule 906.a and b., which state that impacts resulting from releases shall be investigated and cleaned up as soon as practicable and that any release of any size which impacts or threatens to impact any waters of the state, residence or occupied structure shall be verbally reported to the Director as soon as practicable after discovery. The NOAV required EnCana to submit a Site Investigation and Remediation Workplan, Form 27, to further address the well impact. The Form 27 submittal deadline was October 29, 2004.

                        15. On October 29, 2004 EnCana met the abatement deadline by submitting the Site Investigation and Remediation Workplan, Form 27, designed to further investigate, monitor and mitigate the water well impact.

                        16. On November 3, 2004 Cordilleran sampled the former Dietrich water well for methane on behalf of EnCana and split the samples. Methane was detected in the samples at concentrations of 13 mg/l and 21 mg/l.

                        17. The remedial squeeze performed on November 9, 2004 by EnCana on the Magic 10-1 Well at a depth of 840 feet bgs, referred to in Finding No. 10 above, eliminated the temperature survey anomaly just below the surface casing shoe. The repairs were verified by a temperature survey and cement bond log run by EnCana on November 17, 2004. The remedial cement squeeze completed abatement of the September 28, 2004 NOAV which was written to address gas well conditions at the P3 pad. Although EnCana has performed all requirements of the Form 27 for the second NOAV in a timely manner,. Aabatement has not yet been completed to addressing the presence of dissolved methane in the former Dietrich water well continues. Monitoring and mitigation contained in the Site Investigation and Remediation Workplan, Form 27 is ongoing.

                        18. On January 5, 2005 Dr. Gorody submitted a report to EnCana and the COGCC staff regarding the P3 well pad and the investigation of the surrounding area. Based on the compositional and isotopic analysis results, he concluded that the gases analyzed in this area are most similar to the composition of the bradenhead gas of the Magic 10-1 Well. Dr. Gorody suspected that the Magic 10-1 well bore was the source for the gas seep gases at the C5 and the two other unnamed gas seeps (referred to in Finding No. 11 above) located on the east side of the former Dietrich property because the Magic 10-1 Well is drilled in a direction that is most likely to intercept open, extensional NNW-bearing fractures and the Magic 10-1 Well is the only one of the five wells on the well pad that sustained gas flow.. He also concluded that Cretaceous thermogenic gas may have been conveyed towards the surface along these extensional NNW-bearing fractures. Dr. Gorody did not discuss whether the Cretaceous thermogenic gas had originated from the producing horizon targeted by the wells on the P3 pad, or from gas that migrated over geologic time and accumulated in shallower formations.

                        19. On January 11, 2005 a water sample was collected from the former Dietrich water well by Cordilleran on behalf of EnCana. Methane was detected in the sample at a concentration of 7.4 mg/l.

                        20. On February 3, 2005 a water sample was collected from the former Dietrich water well by Cordilleran on behalf of EnCana. Methane was detected in the sample at a concentration of 12 mg/l.

                        21. On March 20, 2005 Dr. Anthony Gorody submitted a report to EnCana and the COGCC staff presenting the results of the second soil gas survey of the P3 well pad and surrounding area. Based upon additional data and further evaluation he concluded that the remedial cementation of production wells at EnCana's P3 pad appearsed to have successfully shut off gas flow (which, in his opinion, originated from shallow gas sands in the Wasatch Formation) that was migrating towards the surface, including the gas that had impacted the former Dietrich water well. Dr. Gorody believes, as shown in figures 22, 23, 24, and 25 of the January 27, 2005 report, that based on the higher hydrocarbon gases, the gases in the former Dietrich water well and those at the C5 soil gas seep are clearly distinguishable from bradenhead gases at the P3 pad and from Williams Fork production gas. The COGCC staff agrees that the flow of the gas that was impacting the former Dietrich water well and causing the gas seeps on the P3 well pad and at the C5 and two other unnamed seeps located on the east side of the former Dietrich property appears to have been eliminated; however, COGCC staff believes that based upon the higher hydrocarbon gases (ethane and propane) the gas in the former Dietrich water well is indistinguishable from the gases analyzed from the Magic Wells and Cretaceous Williams Fork Formation gas produced by gas wells in the area, and thus disagrees with Dr. Gorody’s conclusion that the source of gas is the Wasatch Formation.

                        22. On March 28, 2005 a water sample was collected from the former Dietrich water well by Cordilleran on behalf of EnCana. Methane was detected in the sample at a concentration of 1.8 mg/l. A gas sample was also collected and the analytical results appear to indicate that the proportion of thermogenic gas is decreasing relative to the proportion of biogenic gas. This suggests that additional gas is not entering the water well and that remediation of the gas wells on the P3 pad has been successful in eliminating the source of the thermogenic gas that was impacting the former Dietrich water well. Subsequent samples collected show a continuation of this trend.

                        23. On May 20, 2005 EnCana measured the bradenhead pressure of the wells on the P3 well pad. Bradenhead pressure on the Arbaney 3-16C Well was 120 psig. The other wells had zero bradenhead pressure. Bradenhead pressures on the P3 well pad are monitored on a continuous basis. Because a confirmation temperature survey showed that the temperature anomaly has been eliminated in the Magic 10-1 Well and because the amount of thermogenic gas in the former Dietrich water well is decreasing, bradenhead pressures on the P3 well pad are not a continuing source of gas contamination.

                        24. EnCana acknowledges that the fact that the contents of separate gas-bearing strata and water-bearing strata were allowed to intermingle constitutes a violation of Rule 209. from September 22, 2004 when the bubbles were observed until November 9, 2004 when the leak was remediated for a total of forty-eight (48) days of violation. EnCana also acknowledges that the fact that EnCana failed to prevent an unauthorized discharge of gas constitutes a violation of Rule 324.A.a. from September 22, 2004 when confirmation results of isotopic analysis showed conclusively that the contamination was from the wells on the P3 pad dissolved methane in the former Dietrich water well was of thermogenic origin until October 29, 2004 when the Site Investigation and Remediation Workplan, Form 27, was received for a total thirty-eight (38) days of violation.

                        25. Rule 523. specifies a base fine of One Thousand dollars ($1,000) for each day of violation of Rules 209., and 324. for a total fine of Eighty-Six Thousand dollars ($86,000). In accordance with Rule 523.d. the total fine should be reduced by ten percent (10%) because of mitigating factors resulting in a recommended fine of Seventy-Seven Thousand Four Hundred dollars ($77,400). The mitigating factors in determining this fine are as follows: (1) EnCana demonstrated prompt, effective response to the violations; (2) EnCana cooperated with the COGCC with respect to the violation; and (3) the cost of correcting the violation reduced the economic benefit to EnCana.

                        26. 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 or "a significant adverse impact on public health, safety or welfare." EnCana does not admit liability for causing significant waste or significant adverse impact on public health, safety or welfare. However, EnCana agrees to pay the adjusted fine amount set forth in Finding No. 25 in order to resolve this matter without the necessity of an extended contested hearing.

                        27. EnCana should continue to follow the Site Investigation and Remediation Workplan, Form 27, until the impact to the former Dietrich water well and surrounding area has been mitigated, including any subsequent revisions and/or adjustments required by the COGCC staff.

                        28. EnCana should be required to remain responsible for complying with this Order notwithstanding any subsequent sale of the former Dietrich water well or property to a third party.

                        29. EnCana should be required to record a memorandum in the real property records of Garfield County giving public notice of the applicability of this order to land on which the former Dietrich water well is located.

ORDER

                        NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, that EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. shall be found in violation of Rule 209., for failure to guard against the contamination of fresh water by objectionable gas, and Rule 324.A.a., for failure to prevent the unauthorized discharge of gas into a water resource, namely the former Dietrich water well located in the NE¼ NE¼ of Section 10, Township 7 South, Range 92 West, 6^th P.M.

                        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. shall be found in violation of Rule 209. from September 22, 2004 when the bubbles were observed until November 9, 2004 when the leak was remediated for a total of forty-eight (48) days of violation, and of Rule 324.A.a. from September 22, 2004 when confirmation results of isotopic analysis showed that the dissolved methane in the former Dietrich water well was of thermogenic origin until October 29, 2004 when the Site Investigation and Remediation Workplan, Form 27, was received for a total of thirty-eight (38) days of violation.

                        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. shall be assessed a total fine of Seventy-Seven Thousand Four Hundred dollars ($77,400) for the two (2) violations described above, which shall be payable within thirty (30) days of the date this order is entered by the Commission.

                        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. shall continue to follow the Site Investigation and Remediation Workplan, Form 27, until the impact to the former Dietrich water well and surrounding area has been mitigated, including subsequent revisions and adjustments required by the COGCC staff.

                        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that COGCC staff may, in its sole discretion, approve a public project proposed by Garfield County in lieu of fine within thirty (30) days of the date this order is entered by the Commission.

                        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that if, prior to completing the obligations under this order, EnCana sells the former Dietrich water well or property to a third party, EnCana shall remain responsible for complying with this order.

                        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that EnCana shall record a memorandum in the real property records of Garfield County giving public notice of the applicability of this order to land on which the former Dietrich water well is located.

                        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the provisions contained in the above order shall become effective forthwith.

                       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Commission expressly reserves its right, after notice and hearing, to alter, amend or repeal any/or all of the above orders.

                        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.

Recommended this ____________day of March, 2006.

OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

By _________________________________ 

Brian Macke, Director

Other COGCC letters regarding water quality

This letter was sent from the COGCC environmental department to Mr. Eubanks (who experienced well problems - including a massive and total bacteria-kill after EnCana began drilling the Brown wells) this letter is relative to the 2004 seep. Mr. Eubanks has unfortunately gotten the run-around as much as we have. Note the COGCC implicates drilling and "completions" (hydraulic fracturing) in the 2004 seep.

April 21, 2004

RE:       Water Quality Analytical Results for Your Water Well

            Garfield County, Colorado

            COGCC Divide Creek Gas Seep Investigation

As you are aware, on April 8, 2004, Debbie Baldwin of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) sampled your water well for evidence of possible impact from a natural gas production well release near your residence.  This release is the likely cause of the gas seep recently developed in West Divide Creek near your residence.

The COGCC has received the results for some of the analyses conducted on your well water and this letter presents these results.  In addition, I have included as brief summary of the gas release investigation to date (April 21, 2004).   The water well samples from your well were submitted to Evergreen Analytical Laboratory (Evergreen) in Wheat Ridge, Colorado, for analysis of inorganic chemical constituents, organic compounds associated with petroleum hydrocarbons, methane gas.  At this time we have only received analytical data for BTEX (an acronym for the organic chemical compounds benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and total xylenes) and dissolved methane gas.  These two chemical analyses provide the best indication of natural gas impacts to water.  We anticipate receipt of the remaining analytical test in the very near future and will send you those results as soon as they are received.

BTEX:   (please see enclosed Evergreen Analytical METHOD E 602/SW 8021B, BTEX DATA REPORT)

·        Benzene: Benzene was not detected in your water well.

·        Toluene: Toluene was not detected in your water well.

·        Ethylbenzene: Ethylbenzene was not detected in your water well.

·        Total Xylenes (sum of m,p, and o-xylene): Total xylenes were not detected in your water well.

METHANE GAS CONCENTRATION

(Please see enclosed Evergreen Analytical Laboratory METHANE REPORT)

·        Methane was detected in the sample from your water well at 0.058 mg/l.  

Methane gas is common in water wells in Colorado.  It occurs naturally and the source of the methane is commonly from one or more of the sources listed below.

1.      Methane is commonly found as a gas in coal or black (organic rich) shale seams in the subsurface.

2.      Methane is a byproduct of the decay of organic matter.

EnCana previously sampled your water well on January 27, 2003 prior to their drilling activity in your area.  At that time dissolved methane was detected in your well at a concentration of 0.06 mg/l so this indicates that the methane concentration in your water well has not changed as the result of the gas release. 

Isotopic Data Analyses

As part of the investigation of the gas seep in West Divide Creek, the COGCC collected several gas samples from the creek and from the surrounding EnCana production wells.  The purpose to this gas sampling was to identify the source of the gas seeping into the creek.   These gas samples were submitted to Isotech Laboratories (Isotech) in Champaign, Illinois for a more specific laboratory analysis for the stable isotopes of carbon and composition of the gas.   I have included a copy of the data plot that the COGCC uses to evaluate the isotopic data.  It is the COGCC staff’s opinion that the West Divide Creek seep gas is identical to the gas produced from the Williams Fork Formation in the wells in the area. The presence of Williams Fork Formation gas in the creek is likely due to cementing problems encountered by EnCana during drilling and completing one or more of their gas wells.  Those cementing problems have been rectified, however, gas seepage will continue in the creek for the near future, although we anticipate continued decreases in gas seep volume and overall seep activity. I have included the analytical results sheet for these gas samples along with a couple of location maps showing COGCC sample locations.

CONCLUSION

Based on the analytical laboratory results for the water well sample your water well has not been impacted by either natural gas drilling and production activities or the release in your area.   We will be sending you another summary letter after receiving the remaining analytical results.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss these matters further, please contact me. 

Respectfully, 

April 28, 2004

RE:       Water Quality Analytical Results for Stream and Pond Samples

            Section 12 – Township 7 South – Range 92 West

            Garfield County, Colorado

            West Divide Creek Gas Seep Investigation

            COGCC Investigation No. 1802

As you are aware, on April 8, 2004, Debbie Baldwin of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) sampled both West Divide Creek and two stock ponds adjacent to the creek for evidence of possible impact from a natural gas production well release.  This release is the likely cause of the gas seep recently developed in West Divide Creek.   The COGCC has received the results for the analyses conducted on these water samples and methane gas composition and stable isotope samples and this letter presents these results.  The water well samples were submitted to Evergreen Analytical Laboratory (Evergreen) in Wheat Ridge, Colorado, for analysis of inorganic chemical constituents, organic compounds associated with petroleum hydrocarbons, and methane gas.  The gas composition and stable isotope samples were submitted to Isotech Laboratories (Isotech) in Champaign, Illinois.  Copies of the laboratory analytical reports are enclosed.

The sample locations are identified by the following names:

·        West Divide Creek – Upstream (of the gas seep)

·        Langegger Upper Stock Pond

·        Langegger Lower Stock Pond

·        Beaver Pond; West Divide Creek – Downstream (of the gas seep)

I have included a location map for these sample sites.

The Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) has established drinking water standards for the protection of human health. The analytical results from these water samples have been compared to applicable ground water and/or drinking water standards and are summarized below.  Please keep in mind that these water standards were established for public drinking water supplies and not for aquatic life or livestock watering.  Often people use and consume ground water from private wells and springs, or water livestock with water that can exceed these standards.

COMPARISON OF INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS TO STANDARDS

(Please see enclosed Evergreen Analytical Laboratory Report)

·        Sodium (Na):  Although CDPHE does not have a standard for sodium, people on salt restricted diets should be aware of the Na concentration in the water they drink.  A concentration of drinking water with a concentration of sodium less than 20 mg/l is recommended by some for people on salt restricted diets or for people suffering from hypertension or heart disease.   Sodium occurs naturally in the ground water in many areas at concentrations that exceed the recommended level.
West Divide Creek – Upstream

Sodium was detected in the upstream water sample at a concentration of 29 “B” mg/l, which is slightly greater than the recommended level for people on salt restricted diets. The B notation is a laboratory “flag” which is used to indicate the presence of a laboratory-induced contaminant in your sample (known as blank [“B”] contamination).  In this case the laboratory noticed the presence of sodium in the analytical method control sample (called a method blank).  Normally the method blank does not have any compounds.  Because this analysis result is preliminary, the laboratory has not yet sent the laboratory analysis quality control summary that discusses the magnitude of the blank contamination. 

Langegger Upper Stock Pond

Sodium was detected in the water sample from your upper stock pond at a concentration of 36 “B” mg/l, which is greater than the recommended level for people on salt restricted diets. 

Langegger Lower Stock Pond

Sodium was detected in the water sample from your lower stock pond at a concentration of 55 “B” mg/l, which is greater than the recommended level for people on salt restricted diets.

Beaver Pond; West Divide Creek – Downstream

Sodium was detected in the water sample from your well at a concentration of 36 “B” mg/l, which is greater than the recommended level for people on salt restricted diets.

·        Fluoride (F):  CDPHE has established a fluoride (F) standard for human drinking water is 4.0 mg/l.  Where fluoride concentrations are in the range of 0.7 mg/l to 1.2 mg/l, health benefits such as reduced dental decay have been observed.  Consumption of fluoride at concentrations of greater than 2.0 mg/l can result in mottling of teeth.  Consumption of fluoride at concentrations greater than 4.0 mg/l can increase the risk of skeletal fluorosis or other adverse health effects.

West Divide Creek – Upstream

Fluoride was not detected in the upstream water sample. 

Langegger Upper Stock Pond

Fluoride was detected in the water sample from your upper stock pond at a concentration of 0.84 mg/l, which is within the drinking water standard. 

Langegger Lower Stock Pond

Fluoride was detected in the water sample from your lower stock pond at a concentration of 0.78 mg/l, which is within the drinking water standard. 

Beaver Pond; West Divide Creek – Downstream

Fluoride was detected in the water sample from the beaver pond at a concentration of  0.44 mg/l, which is within the drinking water standard.

·        Chloride (Cl):  The CDPHE chloride standard for drinking water is 250 mg/l.   Chloride concentrations in excess of 250 mg/l usually produce a noticeable taste in drinking water.

West Divide Creek – Upstream

Chloride was detected in the upstream water sample at a concentration of 4.17 mg/l, which is within the drinking water standard. 

      Langegger Upper Stock Pond

Chloride was detected in the water sample from your upper stock pond at a concentration of 3.49 mg/l, which is within the drinking water standard. 

Langegger Lower Stock Pond

Chloride was detected in the water sample from your lower stock pond at a concentration of 3.02 mg/l, which is within the drinking water standard. 

Beaver Pond; West Divide Creek – Downstream

Chloride was detected in the water sample from the beaver pond at a concentration of  4.58 mg/l, which is within the drinking water standard.

·        Sulfate (SO₄):  The CDPHE sulfate standard for drinking water is 250 mg/l.  Although CDPHE does not have an agricultural standard for sulfate, other agencies recommend a concentration below 1,500 mg/l for livestock watering.  Waters containing high concentrations of sulfate, typically caused by the leaching of natural deposits of magnesium sulfate (Epsom salts) or sodium sulfate (Glauber's salt), may be undesirable because of their laxative effects. Sulfate occurs naturally in the ground water in many areas in Colorado at concentrations that exceed the drinking water standard.

West Divide Creek – Upstream

Sulfate was detected in the upstream water sample at a concentration of 21.7 mg/l, which is within the drinking water standard and below the recommended maximum concentration for most livestock watering. 

Langegger Upper Stock Pond

Sulfate was detected in the water sample from your upper stock pond at a concentration of 17.9 mg/l, which is within the drinking water standard and below the recommended maximum concentration for most livestock watering. 

Langegger Lower Stock Pond

Sulfate was detected in the water sample from your lower stock pond at a concentration of 17.5 mg/l, which is within the drinking water standard and below the recommended maximum concentration for most livestock watering. 

 Beaver Pond; West Divide Creek – Downstream

Sulfate was detected in the water sample from the beaver pond at a concentration of  21.2 mg/l, which is within the drinking water standard and below the recommended maximum concentration for most livestock watering. 

·        Total Nitrate (NO₃) + Nitrite (NO₂) as Nitrogen (N):  The CDPHE total nitrate (NO₃) + nitrite (NO₂) as nitrogen (N) for standard for human drinking water is 10 mg/l.  Nitrate and nitrite are common contaminants in ground water from agricultural sources, such as fertilizer and animal, including human, wastes.  They are known to cause infant cyanosis or “blue baby disease” in humans and, at concentrations greater than 100 mg/l as nitrogen (N), may be dangerous to livestock.  High concentrations of nitrate and nitrite in ground water are known to occur in agricultural areas in Colorado. 

West Divide Creek – Upstream

Total nitrate/nitrite, as N was detected in the upstream water sample at a concentration of 0.0565 mg/l, which is within the drinking water standard 

Langegger Upper Stock Pond

Total nitrate/nitrite, as N was not detected in the water sample from your upper stock pond. 

Langegger Lower Stock Pond

Total nitrate/nitrite, as N was not detected in the water sample from your lower stock pond.
 
Beaver Pond; West Divide Creek – Downstream

Total nitrate/nitrite, as N was not detected in the water sample from the beaver pond. 

·              Iron (Fe):  The CDPHE standard for human drinking water for iron is 0.3 mg/l.  Small amounts of iron are common in ground water.  Iron may produce a brownish-red color in laundered clothing, can leave reddish stains on fixtures, and impart a metallic taste to beverages and food made with it.  After a period of time iron deposits can build up in pressure tanks, water heaters, and pipelines, reducing the effective flow rate and efficiency of the water supply.

West Divide Creek – Upstream

Iron was not detected in the upstream water sample. 

Langegger Upper Stock Pond

Iron was not detected in the water sample from your upper stock pond. 

Langegger Lower Stock Pond

Iron was not detected in the water sample from your lower stock pond.

 
Beaver Pond; West Divide Creek – Downstream

Iron was not detected in the water sample from the beaver pond. 

·        Selenium (Se): The CDPHE selenium standard for human drinking water is 0.05 mg/l and the agricultural standard is 0.02 mg/l.  Excessive selenium (Se) (concentrations greater than 0.05 mg/l) can cause loss of hair and/or fingernails as well as adverse effects on the central nervous system.  Selenium (Se) occurs naturally in the ground water in many areas of Colorado at concentrations that exceed the drinking water standard. 

West Divide Creek – Upstream

Selenium was not detected in the upstream water sample. 

Langegger Upper Stock Pond

Selenium was not detected in the water sample from your upper stock pond. 

Langegger Lower Stock Pond

Selenium was not detected in the water sample from your lower stock pond.
 
Beaver Pond; West Divide Creek – Downstream

Selenium was not detected in the water sample from the beaver pond. 

·        Calcium (Ca), Potassium (K), Magnesium (Mg), Bicarbonate (HCO₃) and Carbonate (CO₃) were also tested for in your water.  There are no standards from CDPHE for these parameters. 

ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ASSOCIATED WITH PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS

(please see enclosed Evergreen Analytical METHOD E 602/SW 8021B, BTEX DATA REPORT) 

·        Benzene: CDPHE's basic ground water standard for benzene is 5 micrograms per liter (µg/l). Because West Divide Creek is classified by WQCC as a Water Supply Segment for the Lower Colorado River Basin, the CDPHE has a different benzene standard for surface water.   This benzene standard is 1.2 μg/l. 

West Divide Creek – Upstream

Benzene was not detected in the upstream water sample. 

Langegger Upper Stock Pond

Benzene was not detected in the water sample from your upper stock pond. 

Langegger Lower Stock Pond

Benzene was not detected in the water sample from your lower stock pond.

 
Beaver Pond; West Divide Creek – Downstream

Benzene was not detected in the water sample from the beaver pond. 

As you are aware, benzene has been detected in West Divide Creek in conjuncture with the active gas seep.  A COGCC surface water sample from the main seep collected on 4/2/04 had a benzene concentration of  99 μg/l. Subsequent water samples collected by EnCana in the same section of the creek has been showing a rapid decrease in benzene concentrations to around 10 μg/l or less. 

·        Toluene: CDPHE's basic ground water standard for toluene is 1,000 µg/l.  

West Divide Creek – Upstream

Toluene was not detected in the upstream water sample. 

Langegger Upper Stock Pond

Toluene was not detected in the water sample from your upper stock pond. 

Langegger Lower Stock Pond

Toluene was not detected in the water sample from your lower stock pond.

 
Beaver Pond; West Divide Creek – Downstream

Toluene was not detected in the water sample from the beaver pond. 

As you are aware, toluene has been detected in West Divide Creek in conjuncture with the active gas seep.  A COGCC surface water sample from the main seep collected on 4/2/04 had a toluene concentration of 100 μg/l. Subsequent water samples collected by EnCana in the same section of the creek has been showing a rapid decrease in toluene concentrations to around 10 μg/l or less. 

·        Ethylbenzene: CDPHE's basic ground water standard for ethylbenzene is 680 µg/l.  

West Divide Creek – Upstream

Ethylbenzene was not detected in the upstream water sample. 

Langegger Upper Stock Pond

Ethylbenzene was not detected in the water sample from your upper stock pond. 

Langegger Lower Stock Pond

Ethylbenzene was not detected in the water sample from your lower stock pond.

 
Beaver Pond; West Divide Creek – Downstream

Ethylbenzene was not detected in the water sample from the beaver pond. 

Ethylbenze has not been detected in West Divide Creek in conjuncture with the active gas seep.   

·        Total Xylenes (sum of m,p, and o-xylene): CDPHE's basic ground water standard for total xylenes is 10,000 µg/l.  

West Divide Creek – Upstream

Total xylenes were not detected in the upstream water sample. 

Langegger Upper Stock Pond

Total xylenes were not detected in the water sample from your upper stock pond. 

Langegger Lower Stock Pond

Total xylenes were not detected in the water sample from your lower stock pond.
 
Beaver Pond; West Divide Creek – Downstream

Total xylenes were not detected in the water sample from the beaver pond. 

As you are aware, total xylenes have been detected in West Divide Creek in conjuncture with the active gas seep.  A COGCC surface water sample from the main seep collected on 4/2/04 had a total xylenes concentration of 17 μg/l. Subsequent water samples collected by EnCana in the same section of the creek have not shown detectable concentrations of total xylenes. 

METHANE GAS CONCENTRATION

(Please see enclosed Evergreen Analytical Laboratory METHANE REPORT) 

West Divide Creek – Upstream

Dissolved methane gas was detected in the upstream water sample at a concentration of 0.0087 mg/l. 

Langegger Upper Stock Pond

Dissolved methane gas was detected in the water sample from your upper stock pond at a concentration of 0.10 mg/l. 

Langegger Lower Stock Pond

Dissolved methane gas was detected in the water sample from your lower stock pond at a concentration of 0.76 mg/l.

 
Beaver Pond; West Divide Creek – Downstream

Dissolved methane gas was detected in the water sample from the beaver pond at a concentration of 0.025 mg/l. 

Methane gas alone is physiologically inert and non-toxic to humans.  Normal breath exhalation contains 1 to 99 ppm of methane (parts per million [ppm] is the same units as mg/l).  The presence of methane in drinking water does not present a known health hazard to humans or other animals via ingestion; however, methane in domestic water supplies can be associated with undesirable and potentially serious side effects. 

Methane gas dissolved in water “exsolves” when exposed to the atmosphere and dissipates rapidly because it is lighter than air.  This is often responsible for the “fizzing” observed in water wells that may contain methane gas.  If the methane occurs at a high enough concentration and if it is allowed to accumulate in a confined space, such as a well pit, crawl space, closet, etc., an explosion hazard can be established.  In addition, if methane concentrations in well water are high, then pockets of free gas form within the water and cause the well pump to cavitate and no longer bring water to the surface.  

Methane gas is common in water wells and surface water impoundments in Colorado.  It occurs naturally and the source of the methane is commonly from one or more of the sources listed below.

1.      Methane is commonly found as a gas in coal or black (organic rich) shale seams in the subsurface.

2.      Methane is a byproduct of the decay of organic matter.

GAS COMPOSITIONAL AND ISOTOPIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS

(see attached Isotech Laboratories, Inc. report)

Gas samples for determination of gas composition and stable isotopes of methane were collected from two surface sample locations on your property; the Upper Stock Pond and the Lower Stock Pond.  No sample was collected at the Upper stream location on West Divide Creek and due to lack of obvious gas bubbling; no sample was collected from the Beaver Pond.  The ratios of the stable isotopes and detailed compositional analysis of the gases can be used to differentiate the origin and sources of methane.  The results of the isotopic and compositional analysis are summarized on the Isotech Laboratories report.

Langegger Upper Stock Pond

Isotopic Analysis of Methane:

The deuterium/hydrogen isotope ratio for the methane in the water sample from your Upper Pond is –361.5.

The carbon-13/carbon-12 isotope ratio for the methane in the water sample from your Upper Pond is -64.65

The gas in your upper stock pond is biogenic methane, which is formed by bacteriological activity (such as swamp gas, sewer gas, etc.).  The gas compositional analysis indicates that the gas sample is made up of a mixture of air (nitrogen, oxygen, argon, and carbon dioxide), methane with very small (trace) amount of other hexanes.  Previous observations of gas seep activity by COGCC staff (April 1, 2004 and April 2, 2004) did indicate that your Upper Stock Pond was likely impacted by the gas seep; however,  this impact has decreased rapidly so that by April 8 , 2004 no evidence of gas impact from the seep in your Upper Pond was evident, either visually or through analytical sampling.

Langegger Lower Stock Pond

Isotopic Analysis of Methane:

The deuterium/hydrogen isotope ratio for the methane in the water sample from your Lower Pond is –207.1.

The carbon-13/carbon-12 isotope ratio for the methane in the water sample from your well is -43.05

The gas in your Lower Stock Pond is thermogenic methane, which is methane gas from geologic processes as opposed to biogenic methane.  The gas compositional analysis indicates that the gas sample is made up of a mixture of air (nitrogen, oxygen, etc.) and methane, ethane, and propane with very small (trace) amounts of other hydrocarbon gases.  It is the COGCC staff’s opinion that the methane gas in your Lower Pond is the same as the gas from the seep in West Divide Creek, which is identical to the gas produced from the Williams Fork Formation in the natural gas production wells in the area. 

CONCLUSION

With the exception of sodium (Na) no other organic or inorganic compounds detected in the April 8, 2004 sampling of the four sample sites on your property exceeded any of the CDPHE drinking water health advisories or standards.  Although the concentrations of sodium detected are relatively low, because you or your livestock and pets may drink water form the creek, you may wish to discuss the possible health effects of continued consumption with your physician and/or veterinarian.  

Other than the presence of the methane gas in your Lower Stock Pond, none of the other three sample locations (West Divide Creek – Upstream, Upper Stock Pond, and the Beaver Pond) showed any impact from the gas seep on West Divide Creek.  EnCana is continuing with periodic sampling of the active seep areas within West Divide Creek and has implemented both active (air sparging) and passive (activated charcoal booms) remediation actions along the impacted section of West Divide Creek.  As of this date, detectable concentrations of BTEX compounds in the creek have decreased and the rate and overall volume of seeping gas at the active seep appears to be decreasing.  Further investigation of the gas release and seep impact is continuing by both EnCana and the COGCC staff.   The COGCC will release any new information on this investigation as soon as it is available.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss these matters further, please contact me. 

Respectfully,
 

Excerpted from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
Order 1V-297 Below....

7. On September 22, 2004, COGCC staff inspected the P3 well pad located in the SE¼ SE¼ of Section 3, Township 7 South, Range 92 West, 6^th P.M., as part of the investigation of the causes of the elevated methane concentrations observed at the former Dietrich water well. Staff observed bubbles coming up around the outside of the wellhead of the Magic 10-2 Well. COGCC staff measured the pressure on the bradenhead access of each of the five (5) wells on the P3 well pad and found three (3) of the five (5) wells had significant bradenhead pressure. COGCC staff immediately notified EnCana of the bubbles and pressures and discussed a remedial action plan to address them.

BEFORE THE OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE      )
RULES                                                                                       )       CAUSE NO. 1V

AND REGULATIONS OF THE COLORADO OIL AND        )
GAS  CONSERVATION COMMISSION BY ENCANA OIL)

GAS (USA) INC., GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO        )

                                                                                                   ) ORDER NO. 1V-297

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

                        This cause came on for hearing before the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ("COGCC") on October 31, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. at the Ramada Inn & Suites, 124 West 6th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, after giving Notice of Hearing as required by law, as to why the COGCC should find EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. ("EnCana") in violation of certain of the COGCC’s rules and regulations (2 CCR-404-1, "Rules") and why it should impose penalties for those violations pursuant to § 34-60-121, C.R.S., as amended.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER BY CONSENT

FINDINGS

                        1. A domestic water well was constructed on February 12, 1997 for Michael Dietrich under Colorado Division of Water Resources Permit No. 29972. The well, hereinafter referred to as the "former Dietrich water well" is located in the NE¼ NE¼ of Section 10, Township 7 South, Range 92 West, 6^th P.M. On January 30, 2003, Wright Water Engineers on behalf of EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. ("EnCana") collected water samples from the former Dietrich water well. The sampling was conducted as part of a baseline water quality study performed voluntarily by EnCana prior to gas well drilling. The results of the laboratory analysis showed the quality of the water from the former Dietrich water well was similar to other Wasatch Formation water wells in the area, and methane gas was not detected in the sample.

                        2. Between April 30, 2003 and March 30, 2004 five (5) gas wells were drilled by EnCana on the P3 well pad located in the SE¼ SE¼ of Section 3, Township 7 South, Range 92 West, 6^th P.M. The nearest gas well on the P3 well pad is approximately 860 feet northwest of the former Dietrich water well. The Arbaney 3-16C was completed as a producing well in 2003 and is the only well on the P3 pad that has been completed as a producer to date.

                        3. On April 8, 2004 a water sample was collected from the former Dietrich water well by Cordilleran Compliance Services ("Cordilleran") on behalf of EnCana as part of the West Divide Creek Seep investigation. The result of the laboratory analysis showed dissolved methane to be present in this sample at the concentration of 6.5 milligrams per liter (mg/l). A water sample was collected from the former Dietrich water well by COGCC staff on April 8, 2004. Methane was detected in this sample at a concentration of 10 mg/l. EnCana voluntarily agreed to perform additional sampling to determine the source of the methane in the former Dietrich water well. EnCana was already negotiating with Mr. Dietrich to purchase his property prior to the first detection of dissolved methane in the water in the well, and EnCana completed its purchase of the Dietrich property in June 2004.

                        4. On April 15, 2004 a gas sample was collected by Cordilleran from the former Dietrich water well for compositional and stable isotopic analysis to determine the source of the gas. A gas sample was collected by COGCC staff from the former Dietrich water well for compositional and stable isotopic analysis on April 19, 2004. The analytical results from both samples were similar. In addition to methane, the results of the compositional analysis showed the presence of ethane, propane, n-butane, iso-butane, n-pentane, iso-pentane, and hexanes. These heavier hydrocarbon gases are indicative of thermogenic gas. Analysis of the stable isotopes of carbon indicated the methane was a mixture of gas from thermogenic and biogenic sources which made it difficult to determine the source of the gas without further sampling and analysis.

                        5. On July 22, 2004 a dissolved gas sample was collected by Cordilleran from the former Dietrich water well for compositional and stable isotopic analysis. In addition to methane, the results of the compositional analysis showed the presence of ethane, propane, n-butane, iso-butane, n-pentane, iso-pentane, and hexanes as in the April 2004 samples. The gas was still a mixture of thermogenic and biogenic gas, but the proportion of thermogenic gas had increased relative to the proportion of biogenic gas, and the stable isotopes of carbon showed conclusively that most of the methane was of thermogenic origin. In addition, the chemical composition of the gas, that is, the proportions of methane, ethane, propane, n-butane, iso-butane, n-pentane, iso-pentane, and hexanes, was similar to the gas produced from Williams Fork Formation wells in the area.

                        6. The compositional and isotopic sampling was repeated for confirmation purposes by Cordilleran on September 22, 2004. The analytical results confirmed the findings of the previous tests, that the gas in the former Dietrich water well was of thermogenic origin and similar in composition to Williams Fork Formation gas.

                        7. On September 22, 2004, COGCC staff inspected the P3 well pad located in the SE¼ SE¼ of Section 3, Township 7 South, Range 92 West, 6^th P.M., as part of the investigation of the causes of the elevated methane concentrations observed at the former Dietrich water well. Staff observed bubbles coming up around the outside of the wellhead of the Magic 10-2 Well. COGCC staff measured the pressure on the bradenhead access of each of the five (5) wells on the P3 well pad and found three (3) of the five (5) wells had significant bradenhead pressure. COGCC staff immediately notified EnCana of the bubbles and pressures and discussed a remedial action plan to address them.

                        8. On September 28, 2004, COGCC staff issued a Notice of Alleged Violation ("NOAV") to EnCana for failure to adequately cement one or more of the wells on the P3 well pad as evidenced by the observed bubbles. The NOAV cited Rule 209. which requires that before a well is completed as a producer, gas and water strata must be sealed to prevent contamination and the intermingling of their contents, and Rule 324.A.a. which requires an operator to take precautions to prevent the unauthorized discharge of gas, and Rule 327., which requires operators to take all reasonable precautions to prevent the uncontrolled blowing of gas. The NOAV required abatement which included running a variety of logs and surveys on the wells to identify the source of the bubbles and where cement integrity was lacking. The information would be used to determine the most effective way to conduct remedial cementing on the wells and isolate the gas- bearing zones. The abatement plan required gathering compositional and isotopic gas data to compare to the gas found in the nearby former Dietrich water well. The abatement plan further required that the wells be remediated to eliminate the leaking bubbles and required venting of the bradenheads to reduce the likelihood of contamination while remediating the wells. Three (3) separate deadlines were set for the different phases of abatement. Remediation of the bubbles was required to be accomplished by November 28, 2004.

                        9. On October 1, 2004, EnCana’s contractor Environmental Services Network Rocky Mountain ("ESN") recorded bradenhead pressure on all five (5) gas wells on the P3 well pad as measured by EnCana’s field crew. In addition, it collected bradenhead gas samples from the Magic 10-1, Magic 10-2, Arbaney 3-16C, and Arbaney 3-15C Wells. There was no gas flow from the bradenhead of the Magic 10-1A Well so it was not sampled. The analytical results confirmed that the gas present in the former Dietrich water well was not similar to gas from the Schwartz 2-15B well, but it was more similar to gas from the wells on the P3 pad.

                        10. In October 2004, EnCana ran all of the logs and surveys required by the COGCC. COGCC staff and EnCana reviewed the logs and surveys together to determine the intervals at which the wells should be remedially cemented. In late October and in November 2004, EnCana remedially cemented four wells on the P3 pad consistent with the decisions reached jointly with COGCC staff. Three cement squeezes were performed on the Arbaney 3-16C well at depths of 2,600, 1,720, and 1,000 feet; two cement squeezes were performed on the Arbaney 3-15C at depths of 1,240 and 810 feet; two cement squeezes were performed on the Magic 10-1 at depths of 1,590-2,250 and 840 feet; and two cement squeezes were performed on the Magic 10-2 at depths of 800 and 304 feet. The squeeze on the Magic 10-2 at 304 feet successfully remediated the surface bubbles. The deeper squeezes on all of the other wells had no effect on the bubbling at the surface. All of the cement squeezes were performed above the Williams Fork producing interval, in the shallower Wasatch Formation. EnCana spent over $683,000 on remedial work on the P3 well pad that was required by the NOAV issued on September 28, 2004.

                        11. On October 4, 2004 ESN identified three (3) small gas seeps, C5 and two other unnamed seeps, on the east side of the former Dietrich property. The analytical results for the gas samples from the seeps, which were reported in Dr. Anthony Gorody’s January 27, 2005 report, showed the gas was similar to the gas sampled from wells on the P3 pad, but the seep gases had been altered by bacterial oxidation. The locations of these seeps were inspected again by ESN on January 28, 2005. At that time gas seepage was no longer occurring, suggesting that the remedial cementing of the gas wells on the P3 pad successfully eliminated the flow of the gas.

                        12. On October 6, 2004 ESN collected soil gas samples with probes from three (3) feet below the ground surface ("bgs") on the P3 well pad adjacent to the Magic 10-1, Magic 10-1A, Magic 10-2, Arbaney 3-15C, and Arbaney 3-16C Wells. The samples were analyzed for stable isotopes and composition. The analytical results showed the soil gases from the P3 well pad are

similar to bradenhead gas and Williams Fork Formation gas produced by gas wells in the area, but the gases had been altered by bacterial oxidation.

                        13. On October 6 and 25, 2004 EnCana ran temperature surveys on the Magic 10-1 Well which showed a cooling anomaly at 880 feet bgs indicative of gas flow just below the surface casing shoe. During testing of flow rates from the bradenheads of the wells on the P3 well pad, conducted pursuant to COGCC staff direction, it was determined that the Magic 10-1 Well was the only well on the pad that would not completely blow down, and it sustained a flow rate of approximately 40 thousand cubic feet per day for several weeks until remediated. The bradenhead on the Magic 10-1 Well would build up to approximately 250 pounds per square inch gauge ("psig") prior to remediation.

                        14. On October 8, 2004 COGCC staff issued a second NOAV to EnCana for impacting the former Dietrich water well with gas from the Williams Fork Formation. The NOAV cited Rule 209. which states special precautions shall be taken while drilling wells to guard against the contamination of fresh water by objectionable gas and that before any well is completed as a producer, all oil, gas, and water strata above and below the producing horizon shall be sealed or separated in order to prevent the intermingling of their contents; Rule 324.A.a. which requires an operator to prevent the unauthorized discharge of gas, and Rule 906.a and b., which state that impacts resulting from releases shall be investigated and cleaned up as soon as practicable and that any release of any size which impacts or threatens to impact any waters of the state, residence or occupied structure shall be verbally reported to the Director as soon as practicable after discovery. The NOAV required EnCana to submit a Site Investigation and Remediation Workplan, Form 27, to further address the well impact. The Form 27 submittal deadline was October 29, 2004.

                        15. On October 29, 2004 EnCana met the abatement deadline by submitting the Site Investigation and Remediation Workplan, Form 27, designed to further investigate, monitor and mitigate the water well impact.

                        16. On November 3, 2004 Cordilleran sampled the former Dietrich water well for methane on behalf of EnCana and split the samples. Methane was detected in the samples at concentrations of 13 mg/l and 21 mg/l.

                        17. The remedial squeeze performed on November 9, 2004 by EnCana on the Magic 10-1 Well at a depth of 840 feet bgs, referred to in Finding No. 10 above, eliminated the temperature survey anomaly just below the surface casing shoe. The repairs were verified by a temperature survey and cement bond log run by EnCana on November 17, 2004. The remedial cement squeeze completed abatement of the September 28, 2004 NOAV which was written to address gas well conditions at the P3 pad. Although EnCana has performed all requirements of the Form 27 for the second NOAV in a timely manner,. Aabatement has not yet been completed to addressing the presence of dissolved methane in the former Dietrich water well continues. Monitoring and mitigation contained in the Site Investigation and Remediation Workplan, Form 27 is ongoing.

                        18. On January 5, 2005 Dr. Gorody submitted a report to EnCana and the COGCC staff regarding the P3 well pad and the investigation of the surrounding area. Based on the compositional and isotopic analysis results, he concluded that the gases analyzed in this area are most similar to the composition of the bradenhead gas of the Magic 10-1 Well. Dr. Gorody suspected that the Magic 10-1 well bore was the source for the gas seep gases at the C5 and the two other unnamed gas seeps (referred to in Finding No. 11 above) located on the east side of the former Dietrich property because the Magic 10-1 Well is drilled in a direction that is most likely to intercept open, extensional NNW-bearing fractures and the Magic 10-1 Well is the only one of the five wells on the well pad that sustained gas flow.. He also concluded that Cretaceous thermogenic gas may have been conveyed towards the surface along these extensional NNW-bearing fractures. Dr. Gorody did not discuss whether the Cretaceous thermogenic gas had originated from the producing horizon targeted by the wells on the P3 pad, or from gas that migrated over geologic time and accumulated in shallower formations.

                        19. On January 11, 2005 a water sample was collected from the former Dietrich water well by Cordilleran on behalf of EnCana. Methane was detected in the sample at a concentration of 7.4 mg/l.

                        20. On February 3, 2005 a water sample was collected from the former Dietrich water well by Cordilleran on behalf of EnCana. Methane was detected in the sample at a concentration of 12 mg/l.

                        21. On March 20, 2005 Dr. Anthony Gorody submitted a report to EnCana and the COGCC staff presenting the results of the second soil gas survey of the P3 well pad and surrounding area. Based upon additional data and further evaluation he concluded that the remedial cementation of production wells at EnCana's P3 pad appearsed to have successfully shut off gas flow (which, in his opinion, originated from shallow gas sands in the Wasatch Formation) that was migrating towards the surface, including the gas that had impacted the former Dietrich water well. Dr. Gorody believes, as shown in figures 22, 23, 24, and 25 of the January 27, 2005 report, that based on the higher hydrocarbon gases, the gases in the former Dietrich water well and those at the C5 soil gas seep are clearly distinguishable from bradenhead gases at the P3 pad and from Williams Fork production gas. The COGCC staff agrees that the flow of the gas that was impacting the former Dietrich water well and causing the gas seeps on the P3 well pad and at the C5 and two other unnamed seeps located on the east side of the former Dietrich property appears to have been eliminated; however, COGCC staff believes that based upon the higher hydrocarbon gases (ethane and propane) the gas in the former Dietrich water well is indistinguishable from the gases analyzed from the Magic Wells and Cretaceous Williams Fork Formation gas produced by gas wells in the area, and thus disagrees with Dr. Gorody’s conclusion that the source of gas is the Wasatch Formation.

                        22. On March 28, 2005 a water sample was collected from the former Dietrich water well by Cordilleran on behalf of EnCana. Methane was detected in the sample at a concentration of 1.8 mg/l. A gas sample was also collected and the analytical results appear to indicate that the proportion of thermogenic gas is decreasing relative to the proportion of biogenic gas. This suggests that additional gas is not entering the water well and that remediation of the gas wells on the P3 pad has been successful in eliminating the source of the thermogenic gas that was impacting the former Dietrich water well. Subsequent samples collected show a continuation of this trend.

                        23. On May 20, 2005 EnCana measured the bradenhead pressure of the wells on the P3 well pad. Bradenhead pressure on the Arbaney 3-16C Well was 120 psig. The other wells had zero bradenhead pressure. Bradenhead pressures on the P3 well pad are monitored on a continuous basis. Because a confirmation temperature survey showed that the temperature anomaly has been eliminated in the Magic 10-1 Well and because the amount of thermogenic gas in the former Dietrich water well is decreasing, bradenhead pressures on the P3 well pad are not a continuing source of gas contamination.

                        24. EnCana acknowledges that the fact that the contents of separate gas-bearing strata and water-bearing strata were allowed to intermingle constitutes a violation of Rule 209. from September 22, 2004 when the bubbles were observed until November 9, 2004 when the leak was remediated for a total of forty-eight (48) days of violation. EnCana also acknowledges that the fact that EnCana failed to prevent an unauthorized discharge of gas constitutes a violation of Rule 324.A.a. from September 22, 2004 when confirmation results of isotopic analysis showed conclusively that the contamination was from the wells on the P3 pad dissolved methane in the former Dietrich water well was of thermogenic origin until October 29, 2004 when the Site Investigation and Remediation Workplan, Form 27, was received for a total thirty-eight (38) days of violation.

                        25. Rule 523. specifies a base fine of One Thousand dollars ($1,000) for each day of violation of Rules 209., and 324. for a total fine of Eighty-Six Thousand dollars ($86,000). In accordance with Rule 523.d. the total fine should be reduced by ten percent (10%) because of mitigating factors resulting in a recommended fine of Seventy-Seven Thousand Four Hundred dollars ($77,400). The mitigating factors in determining this fine are as follows: (1) EnCana demonstrated prompt, effective response to the violations; (2) EnCana cooperated with the COGCC with respect to the violation; and (3) the cost of correcting the violation reduced the economic benefit to EnCana.

                        26. 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 or "a significant adverse impact on public health, safety or welfare." EnCana does not admit liability for causing significant waste or significant adverse impact on public health, safety or welfare. However, EnCana agrees to pay the adjusted fine amount set forth in Finding No. 25 in order to resolve this matter without the necessity of an extended contested hearing.

                        27. EnCana should continue to follow the Site Investigation and Remediation Workplan, Form 27, until the impact to the former Dietrich water well and surrounding area has been mitigated, including any subsequent revisions and/or adjustments required by the COGCC staff.

                        28. EnCana should be required to remain responsible for complying with this Order notwithstanding any subsequent sale of the former Dietrich water well or property to a third party.

                        29. EnCana should be required to record a memorandum in the real property records of Garfield County giving public notice of the applicability of this order to land on which the former Dietrich water well is located.

ORDER

                        NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, that EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. shall be found in violation of Rule 209., for failure to guard against the contamination of fresh water by objectionable gas, and Rule 324.A.a., for failure to prevent the unauthorized discharge of gas into a water resource, namely the former Dietrich water well located in the NE¼ NE¼ of Section 10, Township 7 South, Range 92 West, 6^th P.M.

                        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. shall be found in violation of Rule 209. from September 22, 2004 when the bubbles were observed until November 9, 2004 when the leak was remediated for a total of forty-eight (48) days of violation, and of Rule 324.A.a. from September 22, 2004 when confirmation results of isotopic analysis showed that the dissolved methane in the former Dietrich water well was of thermogenic origin until October 29, 2004 when the Site Investigation and Remediation Workplan, Form 27, was received for a total of thirty-eight (38) days of violation.

                        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. shall be assessed a total fine of Seventy-Seven Thousand Four Hundred dollars ($77,400) for the two (2) violations described above, which shall be payable within thirty (30) days of the date this order is entered by the Commission.

                        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. shall continue to follow the Site Investigation and Remediation Workplan, Form 27, until the impact to the former Dietrich water well and surrounding area has been mitigated, including subsequent revisions and adjustments required by the COGCC staff.

                        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that COGCC staff may, in its sole discretion, approve a public project proposed by Garfield County in lieu of fine within thirty (30) days of the date this order is entered by the Commission.

                        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that if, prior to completing the obligations under this order, EnCana sells the former Dietrich water well or property to a third party, EnCana shall remain responsible for complying with this order.

                        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that EnCana shall record a memorandum in the real property records of Garfield County giving public notice of the applicability of this order to land on which the former Dietrich water well is located.

                        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the provisions contained in the above order shall become effective forthwith.

                       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Commission expressly reserves its right, after notice and hearing, to alter, amend or repeal any/or all of the above orders.

                        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.

Recommended this ____________day of March, 2006.

                                                                        OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION

                                                                               OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

                                                                        By _________________________________ 

                                                                                                    Brian Macke, Director

Dated at Suite 801

1120 Lincoln Street

Denver, Colorado  80203

AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED THIS _________DAY of March, 2006.

ENCANA OIL AND GAS (USA) INC.

By ____________________________           

            Joel S. Fox, Attorney-in-Fact

Important new resources and information

Scientific Study Links Flammable Drinking Water to Fracking

by Abrahm Lustgarten
ProPublica, May 9, 2011, 3 p.m.

For the first time, a scientific study has linked natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing with a pattern of drinking water contamination so severe that some faucets can be lit on fire.

The peer-reviewed study [1], published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, stands to shape the contentious debate [2] over whether drilling is safe and begins to fill an information gap that has made it difficult for lawmakers and the public to understand the risks [3].

The research was conducted by four scientists at Duke University. They found that levels of flammable methane gas in drinking water wells increased to dangerous levels when those water supplies were close to natural gas wells. They also found that the type of gas detected at high levels in the water was the same type of gas that energy companies were extracting from thousands of feet underground, strongly implying that the gas may be seeping underground through natural or manmade faults and fractures, or coming from cracks in the well structure itself.

“Our results show evidence for methane contamination of shallow drinking water systems in at least three areas of the region and suggest important environmental risks accompanying shale gas exploration worldwide,” the article states.

The group tested 68 drinking water wells in the Marcellus and Utica shale drilling areas in northeastern Pennsylvania and southern New York State. Sixty of those wells were tested for dissolved gas. While most of the wells had some methane, the water samples taken closest to the gas wells had on average 17 times the levels detected in wells further from active drilling. The group defined an active drilling area as within one kilometer, or about six tenths of a mile, from a gas well.

The average concentration of the methane detected in the water wells near drilling sites fell squarely within a range that the U.S. Department of Interior says is dangerous and requires urgent “hazard mitigation” action, according to the study.

The researchers did not find evidence that the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing had contaminated any of the wells they tested, allaying for the time being some of the greatest fears among environmentalists and drilling opponents.

But they were alarmed by what they described as a clear correlation between drilling activity and the seepage of gas contaminants underground, a danger in itself and evidence that pathways do exist for contaminants to migrate deep within the earth.

“We certainly didn’t expect to see such a strong relationship between the concentration of methane in water and the nearest gas wells. That was a real surprise,” said Robert Jackson, a biology professor at Duke and one of the report’s authors.

Methane contamination of drinking water wells has been a common complaint among people living in gas drilling areas across the country. A 2009 investigation by ProPublica [4] revealed that methane contamination from drilling was widespread, including in Colorado [5], Ohio and Pennsylvania [6]. In several cases [7], homes blew up after gas seeped into their basements or water supplies. In Pennsylvania a 2004 accident killed three people, including a baby.

In Dimock, Pa. [4], where part of the Duke study was performed, some residents’ water wells exploded, or their water could be lit on fire. In at least a dozen cases in Colorado, ProPublica’s investigation found, methane had infiltrated drinking water supplies that residents said were clean until hydraulic fracturing was performed nearby.

The drilling industry and some state regulators described some of these cases as “anecdotal” and said they were either unconnected to drilling activity or were an isolated problem. But the consistency of the Duke findings raises questions about how unusual and widespread such cases of methane contamination may be.

“It suggests that at least in the region we looked, this is a more general problem than people expected,” Jackson told ProPublica.

For those who live in the midst of this problem, the report serves as long-awaited vindication. “We weren’t just blowing smoke. What we were talking about was the truth,” said Ron Carter, a Dimock resident whose water went bad when drilling began there in 2008 [8] and was later tested as part of the study. “Now I’m happy that at least something helps prove out our theory.”

Methane is not regulated in drinking water, and while research is limited, it is not currently believed to be harmful to drink. But the methane is dangerous because as it collects in enclosed spaces it can asphyxiate people nearby, or lead to an explosion.

To determine where the methane in the wells they tested came from, the researchers ran it through a molecular fingerprinting process called an isotopic analysis. Water samples furthest from gas drilling showed traces of biogenic methane—a type of methane that can naturally appear in water from biological decay. But samples taken closer to drilling had high concentrations of thermogenic methane, which comes from the same hydrocarbon layers where gas drilling is targeted. That—plus the proximity to the gas wells—told the researchers that the contamination was linked to the drilling processes.

In addition to the methane, other types of gases were also detected, providing further evidence that the gas originated with the hydrocarbon deposits miles beneath the earth and that it was unique to the active gas drilling areas. Ethane, another component of natural gas, and other hydrocarbons were detected in 81 percent of water wells near active gas drilling but in only 9 percent of water wells further away. Propane and butane were also detected in some drilling area wells.

The report noted that as much as a mile of rock separated the bottom of the shallow drinking water wells from the deep zones fractured for gas and identified several ways in which fluids or the gas contaminants could move underground: The substances could be displaced by the pressures underground; could travel through new fractures or connections to faults created by the hydraulic fracturing process; or could leak from the well casing itself somewhere closer to the surface.

The geology in Pennsylvania and New York, they said, is tectonically active with faults and other pathways through the rock. They noted that leaky well casings were the most likely cause of the contamination but couldn’t rule out long-range underground migration, which they said “might be possible due to both the extensive fracture systems reported for these formations and the many older, uncased wells drilled and abandoned [9].”

The water was also analyzed for signs that dangerous fluids from inside the gas wells might have escaped into water supplies. The group tested for salts, radium and other chemicals that, if detected, would have signaled that the produced water or natural fluids in the well’s target zone were making it to the aquifers. But those types of fluids were not found. The group did not test for fracking chemicals or hydrocarbons like benzene, relying instead on the saline or radioactive compounds like radium as indicators.

In an interview, Jackson said that gas was more likely to migrate underground than liquid chemicals. Based on his findings, he doesn’t believe the toxic chemicals pumped into the ground during fracturing are likely to end up in water supplies the same way the methane did. “I’m not ready to use the word impossible,” he said, “but unlikely.”

In a white paper [10] the group issued along with the journal article, Jackson and the others acknowledged the uncertainty and called for more research. “Contamination is often stated to be impossible due to the distance between the well and the drinking water,” they wrote. “Although this seems reasonable in most (and possibly all) cases, field and modeling studies should be undertaken to confirm this assumption. [2] ... Understanding any cases where this assumption is incorrect will be important—when, where, and why they occur—to limit problems with hydraulic fracturing operations.”

A hydrogeologist closely affiliated with the drilling industry raised questions about the study. "It's possible, assuming their measurements are accurate, that all they have done is document the natural conditions of the aquifer," said John Conrad, president of Conrad Geosciences in Poughkeepsie, N.Y. Conrad spoke with ProPublica at the suggestion of Energy In Depth, a drilling industry advocacy group, but said that he did not work for EID.

He said that the thermogenic methane—which many scientists say comes from the same deep gas layers where drilling occurs—could be naturally occurring. He also said the researchers didn't test enough wells to support their conclusions, though he could not say how many wells would have been appropriate.

Conrad said the most likely cause for the contamination identified by the Duke researchers—that the gas was leaking out of faulty well casings—seemed implausible.

"For their assumptions to hold up there would have to be more than just the occasional bad cement job," he said. "They are implying that where you see hydraulic fracturing you should expect to see elevated methane. We are aware of faulty cement jobs. But we don't believe that it is common and we certainly don't believe that it is universal."

The Duke study precedes a national study by the Environmental Protection Agency into the dangers of hydraulic fracturing that is expected to be finished sometime next year. Last year the EPA found that [11] some chemicals known to be used in fracturing were among the contaminants detected in 11 residential drinking water wells in Pavillion, Wy.—where more than 200 natural gas wells have been drilled in recent years—but that investigation is continuing and the scientists haven’t concluded that the contamination is linked with drilling or hydraulic fracturing.

The release of the Duke research could immediately shape the increasingly intense public debate over drilling and hydraulic fracturing, especially in some of the areas where the research was conducted. Pennsylvania, which holds drilling companies liable for drinking water contamination within 1,000 feet of a gas well, might consider the fact that the Duke researchers found the contamination extended to about 3,000 feet, Jackson said. New York State has a moratorium in place for hydraulic fracturing of horizontally drilled wells—which cover more area and require more chemicals—through the end of June to allow for more consideration of the risks. “I would extend that at least temporarily,” Jackson said.

Congress, too, is taking note.

"This study provides eye-opening scientific evidence about methane contamination and the risks that irresponsible natural gas drilling poses for drinking water supplies,” said Congressman Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y. “It provides yet another reason why more study of the environmental and health risks associated with hydraulic fracturing is needed."

Hinchey is one of several Democratic members of Congress who recently re-introduced the FRAC Act [12], which calls for public disclosure of the chemicals used underground. The bill, which is currently languishing in the House, would remove an exemption in federal law that prohibits the EPA from regulating hydraulic fracturing.

May 9: This story has been updated to include information from John Conrad that was received after publication.

http://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking

From the US House of Representatives / Natural Resources Committee Website:

Committee Democrats Release New Report Detailing Hydraulic Fracturing Products

 http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=news/committee-democrats-release-new-report-detailing-hydraulic-fracturing-products

Apr 16, 2011

Today Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Henry A. Waxman, Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Edward J. Markey, and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Ranking Member Diana DeGette released a new report that summarizes the types, volumes, and chemical contents of the hydraulic fracturing products used by the 14 leading oil and gas service companies.  The report contains the first comprehensive national inventory of chemicals used by hydraulic fracturing companies during the drilling process.  

“Hydraulic fracturing has helped to expand natural gas production in the United States, but we must ensure that these new resources don’t come at the expense of public health,” said Rep. Waxman. “This report shows that these companies are injecting millions of gallons of products that contain potentially hazardous chemicals, including known carcinogens.  I urge EPA and DOE to make certain that we have strong protections in place to prevent these chemicals from entering drinking water supplies.”
 
“With our river ways and drinking water at stake, it’s an absolute necessity that the American public knows what is in these fracking chemicals,” said Rep. Markey.  “This report is the most comprehensive look yet at the composition of the chemicals used in the fracking process, and should help the industry, the government, and the American public push for a safer way to extract natural gas.”
 
“It is deeply disturbing to discover the content and quantity of toxic chemicals, like benzene and lead, being injected into the ground without the knowledge of the communities whose health could be affected," said Rep. DeGette. “Of particular concern to me is that we learned that over the four-year period studied, over one and a half million gallons of carcinogens were injected into the ground in Colorado. Many companies were also unable to even identify some of the chemicals they were using in their own activities, unfortunately underscoring that voluntary industry disclosure is not enough to ensure the economic benefits of natural gas production do not come at the cost of our families' health.”
 
During the last Congress, the Committee launched an investigation into the practice of hydraulic fracturing in the United States, asking the leading oil and gas service companies to disclose information on the products used in this process between 2005 and 2009.  
 
The Democratic Committee staff analyzed the data provided by the companies about their practices, finding that: 

·                                 The 14 leading oil and gas service companies used more than 780 million gallons of hydraulic fracturing products, not including water added at the well site. Overall, the companies used more than 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 different chemicals and other components.

·                                 The components used in the hydraulic fracturing products ranged from generally harmless and common substances, such as salt and citric acid, to extremely toxic substances, such as benzene and lead. Some companies even used instant coffee and walnut hulls in their fracturing fluids.

·                                 Between 2005 and 2009, the oil and gas service companies used hydraulic fracturing products containing 29 chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for their risks to human health, or listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

·                                 The BTEX compounds – benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene – are SDWA contaminants and hazardous air pollutants. Benzene also is a known human carcinogen. The hydraulic fracturing companies injected 11.4 million gallons of products containing at least one BTEX chemical over the five-year period.

·                                 Methanol, which was used in 342 hydraulic fracturing products, was the most widely used chemical between 2005 and 2009. The substance is a hazardous air pollutant and is on the candidate list for potential regulation under SDWA. Isopropyl alcohol, 2-butoxyethanol, and ethylene glycol were the other most widely used chemicals.

·                                 Many of the hydraulic fracturing fluids contain chemical components that are listed as “proprietary” or “trade secret.” The companies used 94 million gallons of 279 products that contained at least one chemical or component that the manufacturers deemed proprietary or a trade secret. In many instances, the oil and gas service companies were unable to identify these “proprietary” chemicals, suggesting that the companies are injecting fluids containing chemicals that they themselves cannot identify.

Due to an embargo break, the committee is releasing the report this evening iead on Monday morning.

Related Documents: 

Hydraulic Fracturing Report, April 18, 2011.

[download available on website as PDF]

Other Relevant Links

Compare the 2004 Seep with the 2008 Seep with video  (scroll down to Video section)

Divide Creek Then - 2004 [Seep photos and information]

Divide Creek 'Now' - 2007 [Prior to the seep event of June 28, 2008]

Timeline of events [From January 2004 to present]

COGCC 2004 Divide Creek Seep Order (judgment) and Vital Exhibit showing faulting.  (in particular, you may find paragraphs 10, 20, 30 and 73 of interest).

Map of Drilling Area (showing well locations, other fault lines, drilling schedules, etc)

Dr. Geoffrey Thyne's (of Science Based Solutions) presentation to Garfield County Re: "Sumary of PI and PII Hydrogeologic Characterization Studies - Mamm Creek Area, Garfield County, CO"  This key PowerPoint presentation and its companion conclusive report provide an outstanding perspective of the dynamics at play between the hydrology and the geology of this area in particular as it specifically relates to drilling operations and risks to water supplies. Please look for these links at the following addresses:

    Presentation - http://garfield-county.com/Index.aspx?page=1150

    Conclusions - http://garfield-county.com/Index.aspx?page=1149

Garfield County Incomplete List of Hydraulic Fracturing Constituents (with MSDS sheets)
http://garfield-county.com/Index.aspx?page=1279
    Glutaraldehyde Solution, 24%
    Glutaraldehyde
    Chloroxylenol
    Polyacrylamide
    BE-7™
    LiquiBlock™ 44-OC
    Poloxamer 181, Surfactant
    Acrylamide
    BioGuard Scale Inhibitor

Garfield County Gas Wells and Pipelines
(click "gas wells in Garfield County)
http://garfield-county.com/Index.aspx?page=594

COGCC Quarterly Complaint Reports
House Bill 07-1341, Section 34-60-104 Paragraph III requires the "COGCC to submit each quarter a report concerning the number of complaints received in the previous quarter."
    July 1, 2007 - September 30, 2007
    October 1, 2007 - December 31, 2007
    January 1, 2008 - March 31, 2008
    April 1, 2008 - June 30, 2008
    July 1, 2008 - September 30, 2008
    October 1, 2008- December 31, 2008
    January 1, 2009 - March 31, 2009
    April 1, 2009 - June 30, 2009
    July 1, 2009 - September 30, 2009
    October 1, 2009 - December 31, 2009

Analysis of the West Divide Creek Seep
prepared for Garfield County by Science based Solutions LLC
Author: Geoffrey Thyne PhD., P.G.
This is Dr. Thyne's cursory analysis of 2008 Divide Creek Seep conditions. And in part, the substance for which he was dog-piled by the COGCC and industry operators at the Glenwood Springs hearing in 2009.
http://garfield-county.com/Index.aspx?page=1401

Quick Links

Home
Updates
Divide Creek Seep 2008
Timeline of Events
 Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracing) Primer
Consortium of the Frac'd
Mean Energy
Site Map (the sitemap is strongly recommended since this site has been added to like a poorly planned remodel... which is what -- under the pressure of adaptation -- it has become)

All contents of this site, unless otherwise noted are copyrighted by Lisa Bracken, 2007-2011
 (or present). All rights are reserved. Visit links outside the scope of this website at your own risk.
  All information is subject to change without notice.