My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-01-03_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - P2008043 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Prospect
>
P2008043
>
2011-01-03_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - P2008043 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:28:25 PM
Creation date
3/29/2011 8:15:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
P2008043
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
1/3/2011
Doc Name
Petition For Review of UIC Permit- 1.
From
Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction
To
EPA
Permit Index Doc Type
Gen. Correspondence
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
76
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Other historic documents demonstrate that other companies drilled substantially more <br />numbers of wells in the area in the 1970s and 1980s, including Rocky Mountain Energy, who <br />reported to the State of Colorado in 1982 that it drilled some 2,142 holes in the area, including in <br />the section proposed for the injection permit (attached as exhibit 11). There is little data on the <br />abandonment procedures used in these wells, but one might assume they consisted of similar <br />techniques that were standard at the time that gave rise to the State of Colorado's concerns with <br />respect to aquifer communication and contamination with the Mobil project wells. In any case, <br />the EPA should require the applicant to provide all information regarding these wells, any <br />abandonment information, and require repair and proper closure prior to any injection <br />authorization. <br />In addition, the applicant's own documents demonstrate that there have been problems <br />encountered with abandonment procedures at historic drill holes. In an August 2007 Powertech <br />(USA) Inc. "Activity Update" (attached as exhibit 12), the company recounts its experiences in <br />discovering and attempting to repair broken well casings that appear to have been improperly <br />abandoned in the first instance. As stated by the applicant: <br />Some wells were broken off at ground surface during the intervening 20 plus years. We <br />have attempted to locate wells with GPS system and hand digging. Some wells we could <br />not locate this way and we used a backhoe to find the buried well. We gently raked 4 <br />inches at a time searching for the casing. We did not break any wells with our backhoe. <br />The photos found on some websites are actually jagged broken casings that were buried <br />for 20 plus years. <br />Further, Powertech is on record in a letter dated October 16, 2007 from Mr. Richard <br />Blubaugh, Powertech (USA) Inc. to Mr. Jim Woodward, www.powertecheaosed.com (excerpt <br />attached as exhibit 13) overtly recognizing the problems associated with historic well <br />abandonment procedures in defending assertions that it or its contractors were responsible for <br />leaving open well casings: <br />15
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.