Laserfiche WebLink
Mike Boulay -8- April 11, 2011 <br />CAM: CAM generated their topography, based on aerial photography from May <br />of 2010 and believes it to be accurate. <br />The completion diagrams provided in Exhibit 14 do not match up with the typical <br />diagram data shown in Exhibit 3, as RW-1 and RW-2 are not the same wells. <br />CAM chose well locations based on location and numbered them according to <br />their own nomenclature, not based on Gary Refining nomenclature. <br />• As for RW-1, there are two wells in the current location, and therefore, the <br />completion diagram included in the 1981 data could be the well that CAM <br />is not using and therefore not applicable. <br />• RW-2 used by CAM is not the RW-2 shown in the completion diagram in <br />Exhibit 14. <br />• The RW-3 ground surface elevation shown in Exhibit 3 is accurate based <br />on the generated topography. The pipe stick up listed in Exhibit 3 was <br />recently measured, and therefore believed to be more accurate than what <br />is shown on the completion diagram in Exhibit 14. <br />• The RW-4 ground surface elevation shown in Exhibit 3 is accurate based <br />CAM's generated topography. The pipe stick up listed in Exhibit 3 was <br />recently measured, and therefore believed to be more accurate than what <br />is shown on the completion diagram in Exhibit 14. <br />The ground surface elevation as well as the pipe stick up is currently shown on <br />the typical construction diagram in Exhibit 3. The pipe stick up, as shown on the <br />completion diagram in Exhibit 3, is measured from the ground to the top of the <br />pipe (or concrete, if applicable, to the top of pipe). The perforated zone is <br />unknown for each monitoring well. The completion diagram in Exhibit 3 has <br />been revised to include the top of pipe stick up elevation in the summary table. <br />11. An As-Built Drawing is given for monitoring well RW-5 in Exhibit 14 but it <br />apparently was not included in the proposed monitoring plan and its location is <br />not provided on any other maps or plans. If RW-5 is no longer needed and will <br />not be used in the future then CAM will need to plug and abandon the well <br />and submit the appropriate documentation in accordance with Rule 4.07.3 <br />and submit a well abandonment form to the SEO. If the well will remain <br />open for future use then CAM will need to permit the monitoring well with <br />the SEO, see Item 7 above. <br />CAM: Monitoring well RW-5 is not on land owned by CAM and is now shown in <br />the AVF report with a big 'X' through it. Please see revised Exhibit 14. <br />12. In the groundwater information section on pages 2.04-14 &15 there is a <br />discussion of the former Gary Refining Company monitoring wells being utilized <br />for the Fruita Loadout and that groundwater samples were initially analyzed for <br />petroleum hydrocarbons and other compounds. Further, there is a discussion of <br />0