Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2. The elevation of the top of casing (TOC) for well SW-3 in <br />Exhibit 12 is listed at 7891 yet Map 8 shows 7991. <br />3. Barren member well SW-3 was completed at 55 feet yet water was <br />apparently encountered at 290 feet and 510 feet, both within <br />the Barren member. Why are the SW series of wells completed <br />very shallow in the formation, especially considering the <br />presence of water lower in the formation? It would not appear <br />that completing a well in a dry portion of the formation would <br />provide any data of significance. <br />4. The completion report in Exhibit 12 labeled S.W.-3 is <br />completed in the Rollins sandstone. The completion report <br />labeled S.W.-1 shows B-seam completion yet Exhibit 12 <br />indicates it is a Barren member well. It is apparent that <br />these wells are being confused with the So. W -1 and So. W-3. <br />The operator should clearly refer to wells by discrete names <br />and eliminate repetition and confusion. <br />5. SW-1 elevation is represented in Exhibit 12 as 7904 feet but <br />shown as 8030 feet on Map 8. <br />6. All F-seam wells are shown as open hole. What does this mean? <br />7. SW-2 Map 8 elevation shows 8086' but is listed in Exhibit 12 <br />as 7871'. Given the numerous errors in these materials, the <br />operator should do a thorough review of actual well <br />elevations, Map 8, and Exhibit 12 and correct all information <br />as appropriate. <br />8. SW-2, when drilled was dry to total depth. Why was this well <br />completed to 57-58 feet as a monitoring well? <br />9. B-seam drill hole RAV-4b encountered water at 90 feet yet <br />cuttings were used at this interval when the hole was <br />completed as a monitoring well. Why was bentonite not used <br />through this water bearing zone? Also, why does the cross- <br />section and the completion report not agree with regard to the <br />zones in which water was encountered? <br />Rule 2.04.7 Hydrolo <br />1. On page 2.04-55 the operator should add Geology to the other <br />subjects that are important relative to Hydrology. <br />2. The operator presents the operational monitoring in the <br />baseline hydrology section, which I believe is not <br />appropriate. In addition, they have not presented baseline <br />data for most stations within the new permit area. Also, they <br />commit to a schedule to begin baseline monitoring as outlined <br />in Table 6, but in fact Table 6 is nothing more than a <br />monitoring frequency chart by month. I spoke to David about <br />this subject in general and he agrees that we need baseline <br />data or a definitive time schedule for each proposed location. <br />