Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission
HOME
EVENTS
DATA
Data List
Drilling
Production
Orders
Data Miner
Document Search
REPORTS
Reports and Charts
Pool Statistics
FORMS
LINKS
Links
Test Notification
Data Requests
Regulations
Industry Guidance Bulletins
How to Apply
ABOUT US
History
Staff
HELP
Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
100-211
STATE OF ALASKA AI &A OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION CO SION WELL COMPLETION OR RECOMPLETION REPORT AND LOG 1a. Well Status: Oil ❑ Gas ❑ SPLUG ❑ Other ❑ Abandoned ❑✓ . Suspended ❑ 20AAC 25.105 20AAC 25.110 GINJ ❑ WINJ ❑ WAG ❑ WDSPL ❑ No. of Completions: 1b Well Class: Development ❑ Exploratory Service ❑ Stratigraphic Test ❑ 2. Operator Name: BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 5, Date Comp.. Susp., or Aband.: 4/2/2015 12 Permit to Drill Number: 95 ---/27 100-2110 - 3. Address: 222 W 7th Ave... Suite 13, Anchorage, AK 99513 6. Date Spudded: 11/15/1946 13. API Number: 50-287-10003-00-00 , 4a. Location of Well (Governmental Section): Surface: 307' FEL, 1,884' FNL, S3 T1S R1 W UM Top of Productive Horizon: 307' FEL, 1,884' FNL, S3 T1S R1 W UM Total Depth: 307' FEL, 1,884' FNL, S3 T1S R1 W UM 7. Date TD Reached: 12/26/1946 14. Well Name and Number: Umiat Test Well 3 8 KB (ft above MSL): 270' GL (ft above MSL): 261' 15. Field/Pool(s): 842100 Umiat Area 9. Plug Back Depth(MD+TVD): 14' MD / 14' TVD 4b. Location of Well (State Base Plane Coordinates, NAD 27): Surface: x- 746,849.12 y- 5,628,787.68 Zone- 5 TPI: x- 746,849.12 y- 5,628,787.68 Zone- 5 Total Depth: x- 746,849.12 y- 5,628,787.68 Zone- 5 10. Total Depth (MD + TVD) . 572' MD / 572' TVD 16. Property Designation AA -081726 , 11. SSSV Depth (MD + TVD) N/A 17. Land Use Permit: N/A 18. Directional Survey Yes ❑ No ❑ (Submit electronic and printed information per 20 AAC 25.050) 19. Water Depth, if Offshore: N/A (ft MSL) 20 Thickness of Permafrost MD/TVD: Unknown 21. Logs Obtained (List all logs here and submit electronic and printed information per 20AAC25.071): N/A 22.Re-drill/Lateral Top Window MD/TVD: N/A 23. CASING, LINER AND CEMENTING RECORD T. PER SETTING DEPTH MD SETTING DEPTH TVD AMOUNT CASING WGRADE FT TOP BOTTOM TOP BOTTOM HOLE SIZE CEMENTING RECORD PULLED 7" 23 Unkno 14' 72' 14' 72' 9" 25 sx Portland Cement 24. Open to production or injection? Yes ❑ No a If Yes, list each interval open (MD+TVD of Top and Bottom, Perforation Size and Number): Open Hole: 72' MD / 72' TVD - 572' MD / 572' TVD ll[" '� D � a EC E 1 V MAY 2 9 2015 �lIZi1� j4 AOGCC 25. TUBING RECORD SIZE DEPTH SET (MD) PACKER SET (MD/TVD) 26. ACID, FRACTURE, CEMENT SQUEEZE, ETC. Was hydraulic fracturing used during completion? Yes ❑ No ❑✓ DEPTH INTERVAL (MD) AMOUNT AND KIND OF MATERIAL USED 14' MD - 160' MD 9 bbl of 11.2 ppg Cement in 7" CSG 27, PRODUCTION TEST Date First Production: N/A Method of Operation (Flowing, gas lift, etc.): N/A Date of Test: N/A Hours Tested: N/A Production for Test Period Oil -Bbl: N/A Gas -MCF: N/A Water -Bbl: N/A Choke Size: N/A Gas -Oil Ratio: N/A Flow Tubing Press. N/A Casing Press: N/A Calculated 24 -Hour Rate --oo. Oil -Bbl: N/A Gas -MCF: N/A Water -Bbl: N/A Oil Gravity - API (corr): N/A 28. CORE DATA Conventional Core(s) Acquired? Yes ❑ No Sidewall Cores Acquired? Yes ❑ No If Yes to either question, list formations and intervals cored (MD+TVD of top and bottom of each), and summarize lithology and presence of oil, gas or water (submit separate sheets with this form, if needed). Submit detailed descriptions, core chips, photographs and laboratory analytical results per 20 AAC 25.071. SCANNEV JAN 2 9 2016 Form 10-47 Revised 10/2012 CONTINUED ON EVERSE Submit original only gxb ►�is�6�. ❑ � RBDMS,)� AUG - 3 2015 ❑-� 29. GEOLOGIC MARKERS (List all formations and markers encountered): 30. FORMATION TESTS NAME MD TVD Well tested? ❑ Yes ❑✓ No If yes, list intervals and formations tested, briefly summarizing test results. Attach separate sheets to this form, if Permafrost - Top Ground Surface Ground Surface needed, and submit detailed test information per 20 AAC 25.071. Permafrost - Base Unknown Unknown Formation at total depth: N/A 31. List of Attachments: Summary of daily operatins, schematic, photos of well head. 32. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct to the o my knowledge. Contact: Rob Brumbaugh @ (907) 271-4429 Email: rbrumbaugh@blm.gov Printed Name: Wayne Svejnoha Title: Branch Chief, Branch of Energy and Minerals Signature'-; Phone: -__971-- WC� Date: 5"/ JJ INSTRUCTIONS General: This form is designed for submitting a complete and correct well completion report and log on all types of lands and leases in Alaska. Submit a well schematic diagram with each 10-407 well completion report and 10-404 well sundry report when the downhole well design is changed. Item 1b: Classification of Service wells: Gas Injection, Water Injection, Water -Alternating -Gas Injection, Salt Water Disposal, Water Supply for Injection, Observation, or Other. Multiple completion is defined as a well producing from more than one pool with production from each pool completely segregated. Each segregated pool is a completion. Item 4b: TPI (Top of Producing Interval). Item 8: The Kelly Bushing and Ground Level elevations in feet above mean sea level. Use same as reference for depth measurements given in other spaces on this form and in any attachments. Item 13: The API number reported to AOGCC must be 14 digits (ex: 50-029-20123-00-00). Item 20: Report true vertical thickness of permafrost in Box 20. Provide MD and TVD for the top and base of permafrost in Box 28. Item 23: Attached supplemental records for this well should show the details of any multiple stage cementing and the location of the cementing tool. Item 24: If this well is completed for separate production from more than one interval (multiple completion), so state in item 1, and in item 23 show the producing intervals for only the interval reported in item 26. (Submit a separate form for each additional interval to be separately produced, showing the data pertinent to such interval). Item 27: Method of Operation: Flowing, Gas Lift, Rod Pump, Hydraulic Pump, Submersible, Water Injection, Gas Injection, Shut-in, or Other (explain). Item 28: Provide a listing of intervals cored and the corresponding formations, and a brief description in this box. Submit detailed description and analytical laboratory information required by 20 AAC 25.071. Item 30: Provide a listing of intervals tested and the corresponding formation, and a brief summary in this box. Submit detailed test and analytical laboratory information required by 20 AAC 25.071. Form 10-407 Revised 10/2012 TOFJy United States Department of the Interior QQQ' „ ....,Fi1, us. oe.�xrnu �oFn � wfrEnion vS O BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT RCH a �e°9 Alaska State Office 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504 http://www.blm.jzov I V E D In Reply Refer To: MA� 2 9 1015 Umiat No. 3 Well (AK 932) AOGCC May 28, 2015 Guy Schwartz Senior Petroleum Engineer Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 333 West 7th Avenue, Suite 100 Anchorage, AK 99501 Subject: Umiat Test Well No. 3, Report of Sundry Well Operations for Final Plug and Abandonment Dear Mr. Schwartz, Please find the attached from 10-407 and supporting documentation for the final plug and abandonment of the Umiat Test Well No. 3. If you have any questions regarding the enclosed information, please contact Rob Brumbaugh by email at rbrumbau@blm.gov or by phone at (907) 271-4429. Branch Chief, Branch of Energy and Minerals BLM, Alaska State Office Enclosure(s): Well Completion Report Form 10-407; Umiat No. 3 Final wellbore diagram after P&A; Umiat No. 3 Photographic documentation and summary of P&A; Umiat No. 3 Ground Level 14' MD / TVD 7" 23# Unknown Cemented w/ 25 sx Portland Cement and Victory Oil Well High Temp 5 sx Top Job Initial Surface Plug Found @ 210' 6 HOLE C 40— Z -00 'i ) Depth of Formation Fluid Unknown Last Reported @ 145' Expected Ice or Formation Bridge in Fluid Column Expected Hole Fill Below 475' 5 - 7/8" HOLE Tubing fish at bottom of well 3" HOLE -.:e�i Top of Cement 9 Surface 32 : • bbls Cement 72' MD / TVD 475' MD / TVD —,� 538' MD / TVD 572' MD / TVD Top of Bentonite Plug @ 160' Legend Cement Drilling Fluid Brine / Water Formation Fluid Lat: 69.3864121 N I Long: 152.0854660 W I Datum: NAD27 US Navy East: 746,849.12 us ft North: 5,628,787.68 us ft Zone: ASP 5 Umiat Test Well #3 Section: 3 Townshi : 1 S Range: 1 W Meridian: Umiat FEL: 307' FNL: 1,884' ELEV: 261' RKB: 91 API # 50-287-10003-00-00 Spud Date Completion Date Status Date Status Permit to Drill # 100-2110 15 Nov 1946 26 Dec 1946 2 Apr 2015 Abandoned issue DRAWN BY: Comments: Post -final abandonment. Well cut off 5' below GL oATe: 27 April 2015 Lucas Munisteri RM10N: eG Not to Scale • BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT UMIAT TEST WELL 3 API Well Number: 50-287-10003-00-00 Permit to Drill Number: 100-2110 Field: NPRA Township: 1S Range: 1W Section: 3 Meridian: Umiat Latitude: 69.3864121 Longitude: -152.0854660 Datum: NAD27 Spud: 11/15/1946 Completion Date: 12/26/1946 Status Date: 9/29/2006 Status: Shallow Plug FINAL PLUG AND ABANDON REPORT On 2 April 2015 the final abandonment of the Umiat Test Well 3 was completed with the 7 inch casing filled with cement to surface. A marker cap was then welded to the conductor of the well and the site was returned to the original grade with no surface sign of the well. ARRIVAL STATUS PHOTO 1: INITIAL WELL CONDTION DEPARTURE STATUS PHOTO 2: FINAL WELL CONDTION E WORK PROCEDURE 0 29 March 2015 Safety Meeting & JHA review for rigging up. Install weld flange, rig up BOPe, setup scaffolding and tarp in to heat up well. Function test BOPe and pressure test to 250 psi and heat up brine. See Photos 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6. 31 March 2015 Safety Meeting & JHA review thawing well and overhead loads. Tarp in cement unit and heat up unit and brine. Run in hole to 5 feet and thaw to 20 feet. Run in hole to 80 feet and thaw 95 feet. Run in hole 105 feet and thought a 125 feet. Run and hold 264 feet. Fill hole and circulate with full returns. Run in hole to 209 feet fluid level dropped 10 feet. Circulate the well with 9.3 pounds per gallon brine and heat up well. See Photo 7. 1 April 2015 Safety Meeting & JHA review of cementing well and overhead loads. nC)�,�yr_ Pump seven barrel bentonite plug and pull up five joints 160 feet. Mix and pump nine _ barrels of cement with for cement returns back to surface and pull pipe out of the hole. Rig down BOPe and cut off the BOP flange. Top well off with cement. See Photo 8. 2 April 2015 Safety Meeting & JHA review of cutting well off and excavating hole. Rig down scaffolding, two open top tanks, choke and accumulator. Cleanup cement unit at excavate around well. Cut casing off (>_3' below ground level)_, cement was observed to surface. Weld on marker plate and cleanup site. See Photos 2, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. 2 WELL OPERATIONS PHOTOS SET UpSITE FOR WORK PHOTO s:PLACING CONEXUS PHOTO «: SETTING EQUIPMENT 3�Pa�e PHOTO 5: WARMING UP EQUIPMENT RIGGING UP ON WELL HEAD PHOTO 6: RIGGING UP BOPE 41f_`,t. RUNNING TUBING PHOTO 7: RUNNING TUBING IN THE WELL PHOTO 8: CEMENTING THE WELL • 0 EXCAVATING WELL PHOTO 9: EXCAVATE AROUND WELL 0 • CUTTING OFF WELL HEAD PHOTO 10: CUT CASING OFF PHOTO 11: FINAL TOP OF CEMENT • 9 CEMENT AND CAP WELL PHOTO 12: WELD CAP ON OUTER CASING PHOTO 13: WELD API NUMBER ON OUTER CASING THE STATE 'ALASKA GOVERNOR BILL WALKER Jesse Mohrbacher Petroleum Engineer Bureau of Land Management 6881 Abbott Loop Road Anchorage, AK 99507 SCANNED Re: Umiat Field, Umiat Test Well 3 Sundry Number: 315-127 Dear Mr. Mohrbacher: Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 333 West Seventh Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3572 Main: 907.279.1433 Fax: 907.276 7542 www.aogcc.alaska.gov Enclosed is the approved application for sundry approval relating to the above referenced well. Please note the conditions of approval set out in the enclosed form. As provided in AS 31.05.080, within 20 days after written notice of this decision, or such further time as the AOGCC grants for good cause shown, a person affected by it may file with the AOGCC an application for reconsideration. A request for reconsideration is considered timely if it is received by 4:30 PM on the 23rd day following the date of this letter, or the next working day if the 23rd day falls on a holiday or weekend. Sincerely, Cathy P Foerster Chair DATED this 3 d of March, 2015 Encl. RECEIVED ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION MAR 0 9 2015 APPLICATION FOR SUNDRY APPROVALS G� 20 AAC 25.280 1. Type of Request: Abandon 0 • Plug for Redrill ❑ Perforate New Pool ❑ Repair Well ❑ Change Approved Program ❑ Suspenc ❑ Plug Perforations ❑ Perforate ❑ Pull Tubing ❑ Time Extension ❑ Operations Shutdowr ❑ Re-enter Susp. Well ❑ Stimulate ❑ Alter Casing ❑ Other: 2. Operator Name: 4. Current Well Class 5 Permit to Drill Number Bureau of Land Management Exploratory C . Development ❑ Stratigraphic❑ Service ❑ 100-2110 3. Address: 6. API Number 6881 Abbott Loop Road, Anchorage, AK 99507 50-287-10003-00-00 7. If perforating: 8 Well Name and Number What Regulation or Conservation Order governs well spacing in this pool? Umiat Test Well 3 Will planned perforations require a spacing exception? Yes ❑ No [] 9. Property Designation (Lease Number): 10. Field/Pool(s): AA -081726 ' 842100 11. PRESENT WELL CONDITION SUMMARY Total Depth MD (ft): Total Depth TVD (ft): Effective Depth MD (ft): Effective Depth TVD (ft): Plugs (measured): Junk (measured): 572' 572-- 572' 572' 134' Casing Length Size MD TVD Burst Collapse Structural Conductor 63 7^ 72 72 Depth RKB. Surface Intermediate Production Liner Perforation Depth MD (ft): Perforation Depth TVD (ft): Tubing Size: Tubing Grade: Tubing MD (ft): N/A N/A Packers and SSSV Type: Packers and SSSV MD (ft) and TVD (ft): N/A N/A 12. Attachments: Description Summary of Proposal 13. Well Class after proposed work: Detailed Operations Program n BOP Sketch ( Exploratory F,1 - Stratigraphic ❑ Development ❑ Service _. ) 14. Estimated Date for 7 -Apr -15 15. Well Status after proposed work: Commencing Operations: Oil Gas ❑ WDSPL ❑ Suspended ❑ WINJ ❑ GINJ ❑ WAG ❑ Abandoned 0 - 16. Verbal Approval: Date: Commission Representative: GSTOR ❑ SPLUG ❑ 17. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Contact Jesse Mohrbacher Email iesseC�solstenxp.com Printed Name Jesse Mohrbacher 907-244-4537 Title Petroleum Engineer Signature Phone Date COMMISSION USE ONLY Conditions of approval: Notify Commission so that a representative may witness Sundry Number: 3t5-12-( Plug Integrity (T// BOP Test E] Mechanical Integrity Test El1 Location Clearance Other: �L70 G�O ak "r a� C 4. s % �1 C.4Jr-� E Wd -Ca v * �'�-Grn s. L✓ eCsh�'�i2li �b i Q p�/o �r�..>*! �l.e.� Zo ASG Z J • Z Spacing Exception Required? Yes ❑ No Subsequent Form Required: `a APPROVED BY Approved by: COMMISSIONER THE COMMISSION Date: 3 13 �S ' R I N Q L fIX6 3 /11 /) )I -) Z. • /S Jk±d � ibrf's*vb d t, drri hfe- if 3Submit Form and Form 1 03 Revised 1 /2012) Ap o a p ti li moot s fr t d to of approval. Attachments in Duplicate RBDMS -�� (Revised 16 2015 �1�,�,�,.,� E0111— SOLSTEN"IfP March 9, 2015 Guy Schwartz Senior Petroleum Engineer Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 333 West 7th Avenue, Suite 100 Anchorage, AK 99501 RECEIVED MAR 0 9 2015 r� • RE: Umiat Test Well 3, Application for Sundry Approval for Final Plug and Abandonment Dear Mr. Schwartz: On behalf of the United States Bureau of Land Management, SolstenXP Inc. hereby submits two originals of the referenced Application for AOGCC review and approval. The project team is currently mobilizing to Umiat and we intend to commence well operations on or about April 7, 2015 on Umiat Test Well 3. If you have any questions regarding the enclosed information, please contact me by email (jesse@solstenxp.com) or at (907) 244-4537. Sincerely, SOLSTENXP INC. Jesse Mohrbacher cc: Jason Ditsworth, Marsh Creek, LLC Robert Brumbaugh, Bureau of Land Management Umiat Test Well 3 API# 50-2871000300 AOGCC PTD 100-211 Summary Well P&A Program The Umiat Test Well 3 was drilled to a total depth of 572' and has 7" conductor casing at 72' with open hole below. A cement plug was set in the well from surface to a depth of 174' in 2004. That plug subsequently fell down the hole and the current top of cement level is at 134' as reported by the BLM. To complete the final P&A, the existing surface plug will need to be topped off to the surface. It is assumed that the top 134' of the well is frozen fluid. Drawings of the current wellbore configuration and the proposed post abandonment condition are attached. The site layout for equipment and BOP configuration drawings are also attached. In order to complete the P&A of the well in accordance with BLM and AOGCC regulations, the following P&A program is necessary. 1. Mobilize all necessary personnel and equipment to the well location from another Umiat area well and rig up for operations. The anticipated equipment spread will include the following: Equipment: Batch cementing unit Backup centrifugal pump Vac unit 4" double BOP stack dressed for 1" pipe, accumulator, choke manifold Boom truck Heaters (4) Open top tanks Waste transport tanks Wachs saw Forklift (shared with overall project) Excavator (shared with overall project) Spill kit Pipe, hoses, valves, fittings as needed Hand tools as needed PPE as required 2. Twenty-four hours before P&A operations work commences, notify the onsite BLM and AOGCC North Slope (907)-659-3607 representatives of the plan to start well work. 3. Verify the top of fluids in wellbore. If liquids are present in the well, collect samples of the fluid with a bailer for analysis per BLM requirements. If the fluids are frozen, collect the samples during circulating operations in Step 6 below. 4. Rig up winterization structure on wellhead. Apply heat. 1 5. Rig up BOP stack on well and circulating spool. 6. RIH with 1" tubing. Circulate warm NaCl brine while RIH if frozen fluids are encountered. Verify connections on circulating system are liquid tight. 7. Continue circulating warm brine and RIH to 134' or as deep as 160' if no bridge is encountered. If progress is stopped and a bridge is unable to be passed by circulating warm fluid for 30 minutes, notify BLM and AOGCC representatives that an impassable bridge has been met at a shallower depth than 134' PBTD and cement will be set above the target depth. 8. Rig up to mix and circulate cement into wellbore. 9. Batch mix appropriate volume of ArcticSetLite cement (approximately 7�.�s if top of cement is at 134 feet) and pump same down tubing. Take returns to circ lating tank or vac unit. Close valve at top of tubing and leave tubing in hole and full of cement. . 0 393 �7 10. Clean up BOP stack and cementing equipment. WOC for 6 hours and check cement level in well. If the plug has fallen, top off with additional cement. 11. Collect all return fluids for final disposal as class II waste fluids or recycle in another well operation. 12. Excavate around the wellhead to a depth of 5' below ground level. 13. Rig up the Wachs saw and cut the well off a minimum of 3' below original ground level. 14. Install a 7" diameter Y4" thick marker plate on the 7" casing with the following information bead welded on the plate. —rp P Umiat Test Well 3 P/&& On the side of the 7" casing, bead weld the following additional required abandonment marker data: US Navy PTD: 1002110 API: 50-287100030000 15. Demobilize equipment to Deadhorse or move to next well in the program. 16. File reports for sundry well operations with the BLM and AOGCC for the P&A activity. 2 Umiat Test Well # 3 H ',R F f.'K Well Schematic Current March 2015 9" H( Initia F 6 " HOLE 5 - 7/8 " HOLE 3 " HOLE Drawn by: Joe Alston Date: 2 March 2015 Rev. A: 3 March 2015 I/ / G 1 V Not to Scale 3mented Cement Job Legend Cement IFormation Fluid 390 23' 16" N 1520 05' 14" W Spud: Nov. 16, 1942 Comp: Dec. 26, 1946 RKB: 9' All Depths RKB Umiat Test Well # 3 � R HCR F EK Well Schematic Post Abandonment 2015 9" HOLE Initial Surface Plug Fell to 134' 1 ` 7" casing, 23#, Cemented 72' w/ 25 sx Portland Cement and 5 sx Top Job Depth of Formation Fluids (Oil /Water) Unknown. Last Reported Depth at 145' Before Last Pump Text. 6 " HOLE Expect ice or Formation Legend Bridge in Fluid Column. F-1 Cement 0 457' Expect Fill Beyond 457' F7 Formation Fluid 5 - 7/8 " HOLE 538' 3 " HOLE Tubing Fish at Bottom of Well Lat: 69° 23' 16" N 572' E TD Long: 152005'14"W Spud: Nov. 16, 1942 Comp: Dec. 26, 1946 Drawn by: Joe Alston , Date: 2 March 2015 RKB: 9 Rev. A: 3 March 2015 Not to Scale All Depths RKB c 0 N Work Site Layout for F Umiat #1 - Umiat #3 - Umiat #11 DATE 27 February 2015 �` Joe Alston S son: 3DATE SHEET: 1 of 1 EQUIPMENT LAYOUT FOR UMIAT WELL REMEDIATION O PARTS CONNEX O TOOL CONNEX O SLEIGH TANK ® SLEIGH TANK O CEMENT UNIT © BOILER O BOP ® RETURN TANK O SCAFFOLDING 10 CHOKE MANIFOLD 11 DIVERTER TANK f1? GENERATOR 13 HEATER 14 HEATER 15 HEATER 16 LIGHT PLANT 1© ACCUMULATOR 18 25 TON BOOM TRUCK SO�STEN SHCREEK 'P CHOKE MAIN I MAIN OUTLETS TO VENT/ SURGE TANK fO I CHOKE CHOKE MANIFOLD 10 BLIND FLANGE 4.06 - 10k BLIND RAMS DUAL BOP 4.06 - 10k 1.315 PIPE RAM FLOW CROSS 4.06 - 10k w/ 2 OUTLETS WELD ON FLANGE BOP 4.06-10k O N BOP Package for WE. Umiat #1 - Umiat #3 - Umiat #11tssm DAM.3Merch 20,5 ° �: �o�Alston f I MARSHCREE SOLSTEN �P RE�DATE : SHEET: 1E S "VA (" ) O!" _ Lon Kelly Arctic Field Office Manager United States Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management 1150 University Avenue Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Dear Mr. Kelly: March 6, 2014 Ar crorcoe, Alas) c G4Kl 3572 aED LIAR 12 2014 The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) agrees with Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on taking the opportunity to remediate a portion of the wells in the Umiat Field during this winter exploration season. The four wells (Umiat #4, 48,#9 and 410) are ready for final wellhead cutoff as they have been P & A'd to surface with cement and only need wellheads removed, topped off with cement (as needed) and capped. This will bring the wells into full compliance with AOGCC regulations. AOGCC and BLM engineering staff have discussed the wells and AOGCC staff have requested sundries from the BLM staff for the four affected wells. Umiat #1 and #3 and #11 require rig work to get them to a final P & A status and will not be worked on this winter. Sincerely, Cathy P. oerster Chair \ o v United �ap�e� ENT OF T F L1171 �.1�dStates Dl+t_/GLi-t.ment of the Interior A f' P',UR EA, ti i:aF LAWN) IMA, N ACY E M E NIT — A.S' iz�tr) r )fD,r ti http://www.blm.gov _IVEM, Cathy FoerSter MAR 0 3 2014 Chair, Commissioner Alaska Oil and Gas CoiZ�rnissi(n T�') w..7"' Avenge, Suite loo NEID MAR 1 2 2014 ��.����� Arnchor&2e. Alaska 995.01-3539 Uniat Wellhead Removal Dear Ms. Foerster. The Bureau of Land Management has a window of opportunity to remove the wellheads at Umiat #4, #8, #9, and #10 before the end of the 2013-2014 winter season. The BLM and AOGCC discussed these wells on November 13, 2013 at the AOGCC's office, but not in a public forum. At the meeting, it was concluded the only wells requiring additional work at Umiat was Umiat #1, #3, and #11. The BLM is seeking verification of this conclusion from the AOGCC, prior to removing the aforementioned wellheads. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me at (907) 474- 2368. Sincerely, Lon Kelly Arctic Field Office Manager o>r r • THE STATE Department of Environmental 011-1LASKL'1 GOVERNOR SEAN PARNELL RECEIVED FEB 0 7 2014 February 4, 2014 A0GCC Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested Article No.: 7012 2210 0002 1216 2391 Wayne Svejnoha BLM — Division of Resources 222 W 7th Ave, #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Conservation Division of Spill Prevention and Response Contaminated Sites Program File: 320.38.010 SCANNED 0 2 2014 Re: Potentiall Responsible Party Notice Letter and Information Request NPRA Legacy Wells - General Hazard ID: 26125 Ledger Code: 14339387 Dear Mr. Svejnoha: 610 University Ave. Fairbanks, Alaska 99709-3643 Main: 907.451.2181 Fax: 907.451.5105 This letter is to advise you that the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has identified the 136 legacy wells within the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA) as potential contaminated sites. Some of these wells require extensive cleanup of oil and other hazardous substances released to the environment. Since you are identified as a current or past owner and/or operator of these sites, please be advised you may be financially responsible or liable for the investigation and /or cleanup of any hazardous substance contamination that might be present. Alaska Statute 46.03.822 establishes who is liable for contamination. Records available to the ADEC indicate that you meet one or more of the following criteria: » owned or controlled the hazardous substance at the time of its release; » own(ed) or operate(d) the property or facility from which the release occurred; » owned or operated property at which the hazardous substance came to be located; and » arranged for transport, disposal or treatment of hazardous substances that were released. Site History From 1944 through 1982 the US Government drilled 136 wells to explore for oil and gas resources in the NPRA. It is our understanding that other federal agencies and some private companies may have operated or managed these sites in the past. We have also been informed that 23 of these well have been conveyed to public and private entities. The ADEC currently lists 14 of the 136 legacy wells on our database of contaminated sites. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is identified as the responsible party for the following sites. Wayne Svejnoha 0 2 February 4, 2014 • BLM Cape Halkett Drill Site (File # 300.38.108) • BLM East Simpson #2 (File # 300.38.109) • BLM East Teshekpuk Drill Site (File # 300.38.110) The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under the Formerly Used Defense Sites program, is working with ADEC under the Defense States Memorandum of Agreement on cleanup actions at the 11 Umiat test well sites. BLM is identified as the landowner in our records, and as such is identified as a potentially responsible party in addition to the Department of Defense: C Umiat Test Wells 1-11 (File # 335.38.001) The information contained in these files is part of the public record. Our databases are accessible on the Internet at: http://dec.alaska.gov/spar/csp/db_search.httn Additional Actions Needed ADEC sent a letter on July 11, 2013, identifying an additional 15 legacy well sites with confirmed releases (enclosed). As stated in the letter, ADEC recommends that BLM develop a plan to address known, suspected, and unknown releases at the legacy well sites, in coordination with the appropriate regulatory agencies. We expected a response to this letter before now. Please respond to this letter within 30 days. After we receive and review your response we will determine what additional actions will be taken regarding each site with known or suspected contamination. In addition, with your response, please complete and return the enclosed questionnaire requesting more information about past operators. In accordance with Alaska Statute Title 46, ADEC is authorized to provide regulatory oversight for any contamination response efforts initiated by the responsible party. However, if response actions by the responsible party are not satisfactory to ADEC, we may then assume the lead role in the investigation and cleanup efforts. In the event that State response actions are necessary, the responsible parties may be held financially liable for any response actions taken by the State. Alaska Statutes 46.04.010 and 46.08.070 establish cost recovery procedures for certain costs, including oversight activities, incurred by the State in responding to pollution incidents. If you are determined to be a responsible or liable party, ADEC may bill you at a later date for our expenditures associated with this pollution incident. Expenses for which we may seek reimbursement include: Staff time associated with general or technical assistance; work plan review; project oversight; general project management; legal services; interest; travel; equipment and supplies; and any contracting costs. Pursuant to Alaska Statute 46.08.075, the State may also file liens against all property owned by a person who is responsible or liable for State expenditures. Please respond in writing within thirty (30) days from the date of this letter addressing your intended actions with respect to this pollution incident. If you believe someone else is responsible for this pollution incident (e.g., a past owner or operation of the site) or if you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Fred Vreeman at (907) 451-2181. The attached "ADEC Information Request" describes the minimum information expected in your response. Additional information may needed to evaluate the risks and responses required at each legacy well site. Sincerely, Fred Vreeman Environmental Program Manager G:\SPAR\CS\Contaminated Site Files (38)\320 National Petro Reserve Area\320.38.010 NPRA Legacy Wells General\2-2-2014 Letter\PRP Letter All Wells.docx Wayne Sveinoha Enclosure: 0 3 • ADEC Information Request Concerning Contaminated Sites BLM Legacy Wells Dispute letter date July 11, 2013 February 4, 2014 cc: Bud Cribley, Director, Bureau of Land Management Steven Cohn, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management Jolie Pollet, Branch Chief, Bureau of Land Management Robert Brumbaugh, Geologist, Bureau of Land Management Michael McCrum, Environmental Engineer, Bureau of Land Management Larry Hartig, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Lynn Kent, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Kristen Ryan, Director, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Lori Aldrich, Program Manager, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Steve Bainbridge, Program Manager, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Jennifer Roberts, Program Manager, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADEC Response Fund Administration GASPAR\CS\Contarr nmted Site Files (38)\320 National Petro Reserve Area\320.38.010 NPRA Legacy Wells General\2-2-2014 Letter\PRP Letter All Wells.doe% 0 0 ADEC INFORMATION REQUEST Concerning a contaminated site(s) Re: Legacy Well Sites in and near the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska (NPRA) Please precede each answer with the number of the question to which it corresponds. Please direct any questions concerning this information request to Fred Vreeman, Contaminated Sites Program, 610 University Avenue, Fairbanks, AK 99709; Phone: 907-451-2181. Thank you for your cooperation. 1. Provide name and company affiliation of the person answering the questionnaire. 2. Provide copies of all studies, reports, and supporting information (including preaquisition assessments and work done on behalf of other parties) which you have knowledge of which address past and/or present environmental conditions at the site. Identify the name, title, address, and phone number of the party(s) who are responsible for preparing the studies or information. Information which has been previously submitted to ADEC need not be submitted again (unless specifically requested in a subsequent communication) if you can provide the name of the office (and name and title of the DEC officer if known) to whom the report was previously provided. 3. Provide a description of any ongoing or planned investigations or cleanup work at the site. Identify the names, titles and phone numbers of the individuals responsible for preparing the studies or information. 4. Provide a description of known releases at the site (date of occurrence, quantity released, type of substance released, etc.) and a description of corrective measures that were taken. Provide information on any suspected releases which may have or are occurring. 5. Describe the nature of past and present operations at the site. In particular, any actions that may have caused the release or threat of release at the site. Describe the physical characteristics of the site including major structures, water wells, fuel or waste storage systems, drainage or septic systems, etc. 6. Provide a list of any permits issued by the Department which relate to activities at the site and a list of RCRA identification numbers (U.S. EPA identification numbers) which may be held. 7. Identify persons to whom you leased all or a portion of the property and describe the nature of their operations. 8. Identify the person(s) who used the site for disposal of substances deposited there, if any. 9. Provide copies of manifests for any hazardous waste and/or petroleum contaminated materials taken to or from the site. 10. Provide a list of persons and their phone numbers and addresses of persons who have knowledge about the use of hazardous substances at the site. 11. Provide information regarding the existence of insurance coverage for damages resulting from releases of hazardous substances and copies of all such insurance policies, both currently in effect and in effect during the periods of activity in question. 12. Describe the acts or omissions of any person, other than your employees, agents, or those persons with whom you had a contractual relationship, that may have caused the release or threat of release of hazardous substances at the site. a. In addition, describe all precautions that you took against foreseeable acts or omissions of any such third parties. 13. Describe the care you exercised with respect to the hazardous substances found at the site. 14. Describe the physical characteristics of the site including structures, wells, drainage systems, etc. THE STATE July 11, 2013 'ALASKA GOVERNOR SEAN PARNELL Wayne Svejnoha Supervisory Minerals & Energy Specialist 222 W 7th Avenue, #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Re: BLM Legacy Wells Dispute Dear Mr. Svejnoha: Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Spill Prevention and Response Contaminated Sites Program 610 University Ave. Fairbanks, Alaska 99709-3643 Main: 907.451.2181 Fax: 907.451.2155 The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) — Contaminated Sites has reviewed the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska: 2013 Legacy Wells Summary Report dated February 2013, containing updated information on the status of the 136 Legacy Wells located in the National Petroleum Reserve — Alaska (NPR -A), and the draft National Petroleum Reserve in Alaslm. 2013 Legacy Weiss Strategic Plan dated May 2013. ADEC has also reviewed the response by the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGC). We concur with the response by ACIGC and have no further comment regarding the priorities. We do have comments about the investigation and cleanup plans presented in the report. With this letter we arc outlining regulatory requirements related to the environmental work that is proposed and required as part of these cleanups. ADEC is concerned that the 2013 Legacy Wells Strategic Plan prepared by the BLM does not include either assessment of the contingency for assessment of known, likely, or unknown but possible contaminant releases. In addition, BLM plans for surface cleanup of these wells should be made clear in the plan. At least one of these legacy wells has extensive PCB contamination and has resulted in a multi-year cleanup totaling tens of millions of dollars. At others, solid waste disposal practices have resulted in releases to the environment with estimated cleanup costs in the hundreds of millions. Known releases documented in the records we reviewed include crude oil, gasses, refined oil and fuel, drilling fluids that include various organics, metals, and other chemicals, and unknown contaminants from drums and other containers observed to be damaged and abandoned at the various well sites. There are 13 legacy well sites with known releases currently on the DEC contaminated sites list. Many of these are in the process of being addressed, cleaned up, and closed. From our Waited records review there are 15 additional legacy well sites with confirmed releases. These should be prioritized for initial records reviews and then added to the BLM contaminated sites list under our cooperative agreement. Suspected releases include fuel releases from operations, storage, and fuel spills at the sites, impacts to various surface water bodies from spilled fluids during drilling and breaches of containment at reserve and flare pits, continued surface runoff from drilling fluids uncontained at several sites, and down -hole substances that were ejected from the holes over time or during blowouts or drilling operations. 1 Wayne Sve noha ? July 11, 2013 Y The.BLN-1 plan to address these known, suspected, and unknown releases at legacy well sites is notably absent from the documents presented to date. The three primary regulatory agencies that need to be involved in the plan are ADEC — Contaminated Sites, Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, and ADEC — EH/Solid Waste. Other agencies will need to be consulted. as well. Below we provide recommendations for a coordinated plan using the Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans (UFP-QAPP) that will involve all of the regulatory agencies in one coordinated manner. This will allow BLM to address these sites in a consistent and coordinated project which fulfills all of the regulatory requirements so that the sites do not need to be re -visited in the fu=e xvhen they are closed after this project. Attached are our comments on each specific well. The acronyms used on the list include terms that are typically used in a CERCLA type investigation however they are also suitable for investigations conducted under the State of Alaska cleanup rules. These include the following; Historical Records Review (HRR) 'chis is recommended for almost all of the well sites. Much of the information required for these reviews is already contained in various reports and appendices or in BLM files. The Historical Records Review should document the type of releases that might have occurred from drilling operations as well as historical use of the site, and should capture all available information on the drilling fluids used and any product produced or released. Preliminary Assessment (PA) This is recommended for almost all of the well sites. A Preliminary Assessment is a limited scope investigation that provides an assessment of information about a site and its surrounding area to distinguish between sites that pose little or no threat to human health or the environment and sites that require further investigation. The PA is a CERCLA defined document and typically does not require sampling. Site Inspection (SI) If the PA recommends further investigation, then an SI is necessary. The SI is a CERCLA defined document, and it is analogous to an initial report of contamination under state cleanup rules. On some legacy well drillings sites it is evident now that an Sl is required just from a review of the reports. An SI investigation typically includes the collection of samples to determine what contaminants are present at the site and whether they are being released into the environment. An approved site specific workplan is required under both CERCL-A and 18 AAC 75 prior to SI sampling. The SI typically is not intended to develop a full site characterization, but is limited to determining the presence or absence of a release. If contamination is found after completion of the HRR, PA, and SI then a RI/FS under CERCLA, or a Site Characte-rizatiowlteportandcleanup-Alas,under-l-fi-AAC7iis`required. -- ----- - -- — --------- - DEC recommends that BLM incorporate into the strategic pian the processes outlined in this letter. A team of agencies composed of AOGC, DEC -CS, EPA as required, and DEC -EH should address regulatory and technical requirements for these well closures. By cooperating and working together with the regulatory agencies BLM will save time and expense, and regulatory uncertainties will be avoided. The strategic plan should reference a project to prepare a generic workplan. DEC suggests that BLM utilize the generic UFP-QAPP workplan format for the required environmental work. If properly prepared, the workplan could encompass most of the investigations and cleanups required at these sites over multiple years. At other multi -site projects we have found this to be an effective way to reduce uncertainties and risk in these types of investigations. A very small site specific FSP could then be developed as BLM approaches each drilling site. Regulatory decisions made during workplan development would provide more certainty in the planning process for cleanups. G:\SPAR\CS\federal F2cilitie3\Ci%ih2n 1-cdcrrt Agr=ics\DOl\B[.Ni\1'roiens\lxgAey Wells\7 11 13 Luter to KIN on lxbxy wells.doex Wayne Svejnoha 3 0 July 11, 2013 Please review the attached list of specific sites. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 907-451-2181 or by email at fred.vreeman@alaska.gov. I look forward to working with you as the Federal Government fulfills its requirement to clean up these well drilling sites in Alaska. Sincerely, y' Fred Vreeman Environmental Program Manager Enclosure: SPAR Response with Legacy Wells cc: Bud Cribley, State Director, Bureau of Land Management Steven Cohn, Deputy State Director for Resources, Bureau of Land Management Jolie Pollet, Branch Chief, Bureau of Land Management Robert Brumbaugh, Geologist, Bureau of Land Management Michael McCrum, Environmental Engineer, Bureau of Land Management Cathy Foerster, Commissioner, Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Larry Hartig, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Kristen Ryan, Director, ADEC Division of Spill Prevention and Response Steve Bainbridge, Program Manager, ADEC Contaminated Sites Program Jennifer Roberts, Program Manager, ADEC Contaminated Sites Program GASI'AR\CS\Fedcrrl Fo61ibLy\Gvi6n Falctul AgcnnCs\DOI\BI.N1\Proitcts\lA'6.1' q W03\7 11 1314tur to Aim\I on Ug2cy Wclls.doex Well Name operator I RP I Land Simpson Core Test #5 1! Na 1 BLM Simpson Core Test #6 US Na I BLM Simpson Core Test #7 us Na 1 Bl. M Sin son Core Test 98 US Navy 113LM Si son Core Test #9 U5 Na I BLM Sinwson Core Test #1f) U.S Navy! BLM Core Test #11 AOGCC Subsurlaca I BLM Core Test #12 FUSNa a I BLM Core Test #16 a I BLM Core Test #17 US Na 1 BLM Core Test 018 US Na I BLM Core Test #19 US Na 1 BLM t Core Test #20 US Navy 1 BLM i Gore Test #21 2S Na 1 BLM I Core Test #22 US Na 111•LM I Core Test dnlf fluids left in hole i BLM Core Test �#2vy I BLhA n CareTest #25 US Na Y I BLM K Core #1 US Navy i BLM 1 -t- *1 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells Lisl.xlsx 2013 Risk Ity CSP Status I Fito tllHazid Rolea5e7 Nnne f+lone IYOMWil Low RNooe ane None Unused, Unused, I None Unused, i None Uncased, None None None None (None Unknown Unknown Page 1 of 14 •I AOGCC Subsurlaca AOGCC Surface SPAR W arkgroup Notes Status Status Need HRR, PA, S1 no data no data Need HRR. PA. SI no data no data Need PA ind drill fluid assessnsenl & workplan drillin 11uids left in hole no data Need PA ind drill fluid assessment & work an drilling fluids left in hole no data Need PA incl drill Ifusd assessment & work Ian dnlf fluids left in hole no data Need PA ncf drill fluid assessmcnf &work Ian dnllxs fluids tett rn hale no data well skelch provided by Need PA ind drill fluid BLM not consistent with assessment & work Ian AOGCC or BLM data no data Need PA ind drill fluid assessment & work Ian dnflin fluids left in hole no data Need PA and 51 ind 13611 fluid assessment. workplan rid sampling stressed debfis, partially as blowout and fire rove elated site areas Need PA incl drill fluid assessment & workplan dn lling fluids left in hole no data geed PA ind drill fluid assessment & wOTk Ian drij I ing fluids teff in hole no data Need PA incl dfifl nutd assessment & work Ian drillin fluids left m hole no data Need PA incl drill fluid assessment & work Ian drillin ituids left in hole no data Need HRR. PA, SI no data no data Need PA incl drill fluid assessment & work Ian drillin fluids felt in hole ria data Need PA incl dnll fluid assessment & work larx drillin fluids left in hole no data Need PA incl drill fluid assessment & work Ian drillin fluids Teff in hole no data Need PA ind dnll fluid drflfing fluids and ball assessment & Workplan peen hammer left in hole no data overshot, drill collar, rock revegelated —131 Need HRR, PA bit, and N -reds left in hole can't find it Review Report as PA. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling Not abandoned, waste on surface. Veg ----_— , ,raw,, plunaed to surface site not cleared •I SPAR Response with Legacy Wells LisLxlsx Page 2 of 14 is • vi nce o BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator I RP I Land Mgr Priority CSP Status file #IHazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Status plugging operations inadequate and Wellhead tell as Umiat 43 US Navy I BLM I FUDS None pending dos 335.38.00113092 Yes. see file 'Plugged by BLM in 2004 incomplete historic site? plugging operations inadequate and Wellhead left as Umiat #4 US Navy I BLM / FUDS None pending dos 335.38.001!3079 Yes, see file Plugged by BLM in 2004 incomplete historic site? plugging operations inadequate and Wellhead left as Umial 98 US NaMy I BLM I FUDS None pendinq dos 335.38.001/3D81 'Yes, see_ _file Plugged BLM in 2004 incomplete historic sile? plugging operations inadequate and Wellhead left as Umiat #1'0 US Navyj BLM_I FUDS None pendingdos 335.38.00113082 Yes, see fila Plu ed by BLM in 2004 incomplete historic site? Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Plugged to 7868'. Drilling Cleanup. Photos - evidence mud and diesel to Awuna #1 USGS I BLM Medium None None Yes of erosion into lake surface. > 100 _Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud Wood , metal, assessment. Surface Plugged to 2039'. Diesel plastic debris. Fast Simpson #1 USGS I BLM Low None None Yes Cleanup. to surface. >10D Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with Wood and metal Drilling mud assessment debris. Pylons - Photos straw areas of no Plugged to 2047'. Diesel Tankage for lk ' #1 USGS / 8LM Low None None Yes ve elation. to surface. flammable fluids Need HRR. PA, SI wdh sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Plugged to 1400'. Drilling Wood and metal Koluktak #1 USGS I BLM Low None None LYes Cleanup. mud & diesel to surface debris Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Plugged to 1894'. Diesel Wood and metal Ku am 91 USGS I BLM Low None None Unknown Cleanup. to surface debris. Pylons Need HRR, PA, Sl with sampling_ Drilling mud assessment_ Surface Plugged to 4464'. Drilling Wood & metal Kuyanak #1 USGS I BLM Low None None Yes Clean mud & diesel to surface debris. Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Photos show Plugged to 1840'. Diesel Plastic and metal Lisburne 41 USGS I BLM Low None None Yes stained soil to surface debris. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Plugged to 8192'. Drilling Wood and metal North Iii ok $1 USGS I BLM Low None INone Yes Cleanup. mud & diesel to surface debris - Page 2 of 14 is • Well Name Peard South Meade #1 1 RP 1 Land 1BLM BLM #1 4USGS ! BLM SPAR Response with Legacy Wells Usl.xlsx ;013 Risk &W CSP Status File XlHazkl T Page 3 of 14 AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface WAR Workgroup Notes Status r Status � deed HERR, PA SI with iampling. Dining mud rssessment- Surface ;leanup. Site photos show areas of stressed iegetalion. No issues Plugged to 2232'. Diesel Wood and metal soled in USGS re ort. to surface debris. Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling_ Drilling mud assessment Surface Plugged to 2026'. Diesel Wood and metal Cleanup. to surface debris. P Ions Add to She list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Od reported bubbling to the surface within reserve pit in 1982. Oily residue and sheen observed adjacent to east side of reserve pil, down hole material at the Plugged to 1875. Diesel Wood and metal surface to surface debris. P ons Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, S) with sampl'uig. Drilling mud assessment - Surface Cleanup. Reserve pit berm had breaches anowirrg water to exit. Oil - stained sediment was observed above the Plugged to 1478'. Diesel Wood and metal waterline of the I. to surface debris. Site photos may show hydrocarbon sheen on Plugged to 2600'. Drilling Wood and metal water in well cellar mud & diesel to surface debris. Pylons Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Berms have been breached an allow water to flow out of reserve piUllare pit. Rising bubbles of ail observed in Hare pit 1484. Photos Show Plugged to 1825'. Diesel Metal debris. ra.. v-1 v.nnnralinn to Surface ... 0 •I SPAR Response with Legacy Wells Lisl.xlsx Page 4 of 114 0 0 vi encs o BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator 1 RP f Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #fHazld Release? SPAR Workgroup Motes Status Status Need HRR, PA, Sl wrlh sampling. Drilling mud assessment Surface Cleanup. Breaches in berm allow water to flow into and out of reserve pit, sheen on Plugged to 2700' Diesel Wood and metal West Dease #1 USGS l BLM Low None None Yes surface water in well cellar to surface debns. Pylons Add to Site list. Need HRR,. PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Water flows into the pits through breaches on the eastern berm and out of the pits through breaches on the northern and western berms. Downhole material Plugged to 228'9'. Drilling Wood and metal South Harrison Bay #1 USGS f BLAB Low None None es Present at surface mud & diesel to surface debris. Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampliing. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Stressed vegetation noted and apparent in site pholos. Plugged to 2443'. Drilling West Fish Creek #1 USGS 1 BLM Low None None Yes Drilling mud around well mud & diesel to surface Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment, Surface Cleanup. High TPH Plugged to 1977'_ Drilling wellhead sticking concentrations underneath mud under plugs. Diesel up. Wood debris. Fast Simpson #2 USGS 1 BLM I Low _ Active 300.38.10912691 Yes, see file the rig inundation to surface Pylons South Barrow 94 US NavyiNorth Slope Bono None None None Unknown Need Surface Status completed gas well - no data South Barrow #5 USAF - BLM Unknown None None None. Unknown Need Surface Status completed gas well no data South Barrow #& US Na /Norlh Sto Burg None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, St no data no data South Barrow #9 US NavyfNarih Slop2 Boro None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, Sl no data no data _ South Barrow #10 US Navyfflorlh Sto Bora None None None Unknown Need Surface Status com ted gas well no data South Barrow It12 US Na /North Slope Baro None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA. Sl no data no data BLM well skMh not consistent with AOGCC South Barrow #14 US NavyMorth Sloe Boro None None one Unknown Nsed HRR. PA, St data no data Need PA ind drill fluid well left filled with drilling South Barrow #16 US NavyiNotih Slope Bora None None None Unknown assessment & workplan mud and diesel no data Need PA incl drill !turd tubing in well. no perfs, Soulh Barrow 017 US Na /North Sloe 13ora None None None jUnknown assessment & work fan I unknown fluid, I no data Page 4 of 114 0 0 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells Lisl.xisx Page 5 of 14 •I E CYfuu .v v AOGCC Subsurface A Surlaco TEHILM T013 Risk CSP Stilus File #IHaaid Historic Rekeasa7 SFAR YUnrkgroup Nates 5latus at US $1<ntus Well Name flperatar f RP f Land Mgriority Unknown Need Surface Status corn feted as well no data 5aulh Barrow #18 US Na INorlh Slo a Bora None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, St no data no data Walak a #1 USGS! Unknown None None None rsg 890`. Multiple cement plugs of unknown volume. Shallowest None None Unknown _ Need HRR, PA, SI SOD' no dada Gubik #1 US Na d Ur#cnown Low Add to Site list. Need HRR. PA. SI with sampling. csg Q SOD' Well blowout Drilling mud assessment. from zone al 1SOT during Surface Cleanup. Photos plugging operations show disturbed/ slashed Plugging never completed after blowout. no data Gub* #2 US Na ! Unknown Low None Nora es areas two downhole Dement plugs of unknown depth Mone None Unknown Need MR. PA. Sl and volume no data Grandstand #1 US Navy 1 Unknown None Add to Site list. Need HRR. PA, SI with sampling. Dnliing mud assessment. Surface Cleanup Sediment from the reserve pit was excavated and spread over the pad to drill a 2nd well at this location, Upon completion of the 2nd well. the sediment was pushed back into ft reserve pit.. Area does not appear to be revegetaling. perhaps from the presence property plugged but no of drilling mud at the data on abandonment None None Yes surface status no data W 7 Foran #1 " USGS I Unknown Low on Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Slressed vegetation, photos show plugged, but not open csg; metal & Active 306.3$.108f2689 Yes. see file site underwater abandoned at surface corwsele debris under 5' of water, Cape Halken #1 " US Na (Unknown Low None Unknown !Need HRR, PA. SI es to 27' open C_s Min a Veloei #1 U5 Na f t3LM one None csg @ 31" 280' of drill pipe, drill collar, and Core Unknown Need HRR. PA, SL barrel left rn hole. neve etaled Ournalik Core #i US Na / BLM None -No obsery None !None Page 5 of 14 •I E SPAR Response with Legacy Wells Lisi.xlsx Page 6 of 14 • • WI F3nCe Q BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface ADGCC Surface Well Name Operator t RP I Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #IHazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Status Need HRR, PA, Workplan for St with Sampling. Drilling Mud Assessment. Surface Cleanup. Photos show debris, stressed No csg. 15' of drift pipe Oumalik Care #2 US Navy 1 ULM Low None None yes ve elation and rock hit left in hole. no data Need HRR, PA, Workplan for Si with Sampling open csg & other Drillip) Mud Assessment. piping sticking out Surface Cleanup_ Reports of ground; wood, of debris, drilling muds on melat, conciele Oumalik Core 011 US Navy t BLM Low None None Yes surface (__q to 9'. debris open csg sticking out of ground; wood & metal 0umalik Core #12 US Navy I BLM Low None None No Need HRR, PA, SI no data —__—debris _„ debris buried by landslide. Need HRR, PA, St, Well not no dala on Sentinel Hill #1 US Navy 1 BLM Low None None Unknown ap panent in site Rholos Csq to 3t1'. underwater status Need IQR, PA, SI. No evidence of sheen, open crag slightly stressed veg, or drilling above ground waste on surface. Veg 37' of csg, drilling fluids level; wood and S imp son Core Test #1 US Navy 1 BLM Low None None No appears healthy lett in hole metal debris Need HRR, PA, St. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling waste on surface_ Veg 76'01 Csg, drilling fluids Simpson Core Test #2 US Navy I BLM Low None None No appears healthy left in hate no data Need HRR. PA, Sl. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling waste an surface. Veg 61' of csg, drilling fluids Sim sun Core Test #3 US Navy I BLM Low None None No appears healthy left in hole no data Need HRR, PA, St. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, ordrilling waste on surface. Veg --60' of crag, drilling fluids Sim eson Core Test #4 US Nayy t BLM Low Norse None No apecars healthy left in hole no data Need HRR, PA, St. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling waste on surface. Veg csg cemented @25% open csg sticking Songsoncore Test #13 US Na 1 BLM Low None None No appears health dritin fluids IeR in hole_ out of round Need HRR, PA, SI. Vegetated, no evidence of crag cemented @2D'; open csg sticking Simpson Core Test #14 US Navy ! BLM Low None None No release. drillin fluids left in hole out of ground Page 6 of 14 • • SPAR Response with Legacy Wells Lisl.xlsx ism son Core Fest #26 t=vrdence or Medium AOGCC Subsur(aen ADGGC Surface 13LM 2013 Risk CSP Status File WHazid Historic Retease7 SPAR Wwkgroup Notes Status Status Well Name operator r RP 1 Land Mgr Priority Unko Need HRR, PA. SL US Na ! $LM open casing None Nave Vegetated. no eV4dence of cog set shallow; drilling slicking nut of Low No release- fluids left in hole round Simpson Core Teri #14a US Na !BLM Low None None & weilhead slick Need HRR. PA, SI crude nil left in hole open casing Need HIR, PA, Workplan Vegetated, no e+wdence of csg cemented 12181; slicking out of openrigd ng No release. drillingfluid left in hole round Simoson Care Tesl #15 US Na !BLM Low None None d wooden cellar, Need HRR, PP, SL Sate a9 r�110'. dolling fluids wood 8 metal ism son Core Fest #26 US Na ! BLM Medium None None res Sim san Core Test 027 US Na J 13LM IJone None None Unko Sim son Gore Test #28 US Na ! $LM Low None Nave Yes clmnnnn Core Tesl #29 US Navy! BLM Low Norte No No Simpson Core Test 030 US Na 1 !BLM Core Test #30a JUS,Navy 1 BLM Low `None f'tone n Gore Test #31 JUS Navy/ BLM None Page 7o(14 photos appear to show oil at surface, from a natural csg Q 350'. Completed in oil seep, seep, also drilling mud in oil well Open perfs. At 1welhead sticking sacks on the tundra one lime capable of up_ metal debris PI u ed b BLM in 2004. unassisled flow. and rustingbarrels 'Need HRR, PA, St. Site photos appear to show Oil csg cemented at surface, from a natural @i02;dnllutg fluids nn oily ground; csg seep- Plugged by BLM in including diesel and & weilhead slick vin 2004 crude nil left in hole out of ground Need HIR, PA, Workplan for Sl with Sampling- openrigd ng ❑rilling Mud Assessment . out grouunnd in Surface Cleanup. Site d wooden cellar, photos appear to show a p le of drilling mud about a9 r�110'. dolling fluids wood 8 metal 160 feel tram the welt tell in hole debris. Solid waste Need HRR, PA, Sl_ No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or dri" waste on surface. Veg csg cemented at 1S2'; open csg. Wood a ears healthy dnknq fluids lett in hole and metal debris Need HRR, PA, SI. frilling mud at surface. but well is also in the middle of a large in oil seep; Open oil seep and surrounded by cog sticking up; pooled oil. Plugged by BLNI csg cemented A150'; wood & metal see Holes in 20514- drillin fluids left in hole detail on oily ground; tog Need HRR. PA, Sl. Well is wellhead slick in the middle of a large oil seep and surrounded by csg cemented at 100% out of ground. pooled oil. Plugged by 131. dulling mud left in hole. wellhead leaking see noses in 2004 gas blowout at 423' gas Need HRR, PA, St. Leaky valve replaced in 2001, little evidence of contamination following valve on city ground; rig replacement- Plugged by csg cemented at 100'; & wellhead stick see notes BLM in 20174 iddifing fluids, left in hole out o1 round SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 8 of 14 • • yr enco o BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator f RP f Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File glHasid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Status Need HRR PA, Workplan csg Cemented at for Sl with Sampling. 1028', cement plugs a1 Drilling Mud Assessment. 6387' and 5520'. Fish in Surface Cleanup. Drilling hole, drilling fluids Iefs in No data. Open Simpson Test Welt #1 ak US Navy1 BLM Low None INone yes muds near wellhead hale casing Need HRR, PA, Workplan for Sl with Sampling. Dolling Mud Assessment. Surface Cleanup Also Wellhead sticking evidence of a natural seep- above ground, Tar sheens in the summer ST from 2552 to 3018. wood, melel, and months. BLM is concerned csg @2915. Slotted liner concrete debris. Fish Creek #1 US Navy I BLM Medium None None Yes about exposure to wildlife to TO. Completed oil well Rusting barrels Need HRR, PA, Workplan for SI with Sampling. rasing cemented at 48; Drilling Mud Assessment. gas 0mv and explosion Surface Cleanup. Small gas while drilling at 863'; hole leak in wellhead flange, will Filled with fresh water to Wolf Creek 91 US Navy f BLM Low None Nano No flow if the valve iso en 330' No data. csg cemented a[ 53';hole left tilted with fresh water, Wolf Creek 02 US Navy 1 BLM Low Noire None No Need HRR. PA. Sl. fish in hole csg cemented at 107'; No data bridge plugs from 1447 to 1735 and from 554 to Wolf Creek #3 US Nayy I BLM Low None None No Meed HRR, PA, SI. 661, No data Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. csg slicking out of Drilling mud assessment ground with wood Surface Cleanup. Sheen on plug on top; solid surface water in well cellar, csg cemented at 30'; drill waste; wood hundreds of drums indicate pipe, drilling mud and debris; about 200 Skull Cliff Core test #1 US NaMy I BLM High None None Yes polential for cornlamrna[ion diesel left in hole nisling barrels Need HRR, PA, SI. Two open csg, wood drums are floating on a building; pylons; pond near the well. csg cemented at 1000', wood & metal Kaolak 01 US Navy I BLM t ow None jNone lNo Potential for hurried landfill. fdriltingluidsieftin hole debris Page 8 of 14 • • SPAR Response with Legacy Wells Lisl.xlsx 181-11119013 Risk Well Name Operator f RP ! land Mgr Priorlty CSP Status File 1NHazid #1 1 U Navy 19LM #1 JUS Navy/ umatik Ill US Na I BLM Low None None as[ Oumalik #i US Na !BLM Low None None #1 N East Topagoruk #1 USN l BLM Knifeblade #1 US Navy! BLM Page 9 of 14 Subsurface `AOGCC Surface SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. open flange Q Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Drilling Gas well. Open ports. ground level. Mud pile overgrown with Drilling fluids and Metal & wood v , etallon and lichen tubulars lett in hole debris Need HRR, PA, SI. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling csg cemented at 502'; open casing slicking out of waste on surface. Veg plug at 3470 to 3511'; ground. Wood appears heall drilling nuids left in hole debris. Open casing below Add to Site list. Need HRR, ground level. PA, SI with sampling- Revegetated. Drilling mud assessment. Numerous metal Surface Cleanup. Debris csg partially cemented at I support structures and drilling muds. Stressed 2762'. Plug at 2543% sticking up. vegetation Dridin mud left in hole Concrete debris, plate welded to pipe: l' of pipe rsg cemented at 1100'. sticking up - Need HRR. PA. SI. Drig fluids left in hole Wooden debris. Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Driving mud assessment. open csg broken Surface Cleanup. Downhole material present csg cemented at 6073'. off and sticking up: at surface, area mostly original hole drilled to wood, metal, revegetated. Diesel still 7154'& junk len; concrete and other occupies the ground sidetrack hole left wilh debris. rusting dreulatioir lines. drillina fluids barrel Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Dolling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Pile of tsg 10 1100'; pkig al open casing drilling muds is next to the 1049% drilling mud below sticking up. Wood, teller. No offical reserve pit plug: unknown fluids in metal, and glass noted o en hole debris. open casing Need HRR, PA, SI. BLM sticking up. Wood, stales that there was no metal, and glass debris at this site in 2012. csg cemented at 420% debris - •I 0 SPAR Response with Legacy Welts Lisl.xlsx Paye 10 of 14 0 0 w once a BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator I RP f Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #IHazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status v F Status open casing sticking up. Wood, metal, & concrete debris rusting Need NRR, PA, SI. Reports barrels. One indicate solid waste csg cemented to 45';fish marked flammable Knileblade #2 US Navy I BLM Low None None No drums in hole hazard. open casing slicking up; metal & Krideblade #2a US Navy 1 BLM Low None None No Need HRR, PA, SI. csq cemented at 38% concrete debris Need HRR, PA, SI including learning assessment. Site partially No wellhead. submerged intermittently csg cemented at 80; Metal. Solid waste North Simpson Test Wel 4 US N2n I BLM Low None None No during the summer dri0ing fluids left in hole ? No dala crude wellhead. Need HRR, PA, St. Surface csg cemented at 685'; Wood and metal Umiat 01 US Navy J BLM I FUDS Medium Cleanup co 335.38.00113090 Yes, see file Cleanup drillinq fluids left in bole debris No wellhead. Gravel pad partially csg cemented a1486; revegelaled wood Need HRR, PA, SI. Surface cement plug from 440 to debris and pipe Umiat #i t US Na I BLM I FURS Low pending dos 335.38.00113083 Yes, see file Clea 490'; sticking u csg cemented at 7206'; vVefNwad- Gravel various plugs from 8250' pad revegetaled 7 South Sirnpson 01 US Navy I BLM Low None None Yes Need HRR, PA, SI. to surface No data Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Large quantifies of ferrous oxide, zinc oxide, zinc carbonate, and barium sulfate were added to drilling muds. Stains apparent in photos. BLM field camp an site. Walls between the reserve and Pare pits have eroded. Wellhead and Water flows into surface gravel pad. ? No Wook #1 USGS I BLM Low lNone Name Yes water during break22L no data data Paye 10 of 14 0 0 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells Lrsl.xlsx BLM 2x13 Risk Well Name 10porator I RP I Land Mgr Priority CSP Status I File #IHazid Arca- Barrow Cure #1 US Na l til.M Avak 01 US Navy I BLM Barrow Bi R' #1 US Na I BLM Barrow Cafe Rig Test 91 US Na I BLM #2 I US Navy I BLM #1JUS N,a I BLM H' h NOr1e None Test Well #1 US Test Well #2 US Barrow Test Wetl #31115 Na IN©r1h Slo c Bora IAedium None None Unknown Page 11 of 14 Subsurface -FAOGCC Surface SPAR IWorkgfoup Notes Status _ ___ araiu5 Need HRR, PA, SI. Surface Cleanup, Photo CIMG0218 csg cemented at 53` shows area of disturbed tubing hung to 708': hole open casing vegetation that should be heft filled with drilling mud slicking up; wood & investi algid durin Sf and diesel metal debris open casing Need HRR. PA, St. Surface csg cemeoled at BIF. sticking up; wood & Cleanu-. lu set at 1348' metal debris Not abandoned, site not cleared, Need HRR, PA, SI. Surface open casing 7? No Cleanup no data data Not abandoned, site not cleared, Need HRR. PA, SI. 'Surface open casing 77 No Cteanu no data data Need HRR, PA, St with sampling. trilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Drilling Muds on Not abandoned, site -slowly revegelatmg site not igred, More information on drilling open casing 7? No mud specifics rs being researched no data data Need 1lRR, PA, SI wdh sampling. Drilling mud wellhead leaking assessment. Surface cemented Csg to gas!? Wood & Cleanup- Cellar does not 1270;slotted liner to metal debris. Area retain water 1956': tbg to 1939 affected 50'x50' Need HRR, PA. SI. Drilling Csg cemented at mud assessment. Surface 441'.hole Iell willed with open pipe; metal & Cleanup- On mads stem water concrete debris Need HRR, PA, Sl. Drilling Csg cemented al 2260'; mud assessment- Surface periorated liner to TD. wood, metal & Cleariu . fln road s stem lin Completed well. Conerete debris Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling and workplan. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Drilling +csg cemented at 10461: open c5g slinking mud at surface. Sheen on hole left filled with drilling up; wood & metal surface wafer in well cell larQuids and wafer. de" 0 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells Lisl.xlsx Well Flame Operator I RP I Land Mgr BLM 201$ Risk Priority CSP Status File #ltiazid yr once oF— Historic Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes AOGCC Subsurface Salus g AOGCC Surface Status no data. Likely revegetaled. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test A US Navy I BLM None-uncased hc None None lUnknown Need HRR, PA. not in AOGCC database Monlht Meeting no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our fist of wells of concern in < 50', no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Cumalik Foundalion Test b US Navy I BLM None-uncased hC None jNane Unknown Need HRR. PA, not in AOGCC database Monthly Meeting no data. Likely revegetated. Removed From our irsl of wells of Concern In < 50', no csg. no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test A US Navy I BLM None-uncased hc None lNone Unknown Need HRR. PA, not m AOGCC database Monthly Meeting no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no c5g. no APF#. Odubut. 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test A US Navy I BLM None-uncased ht Nune lNone Unknown Need HRR, PA, nal in AOGCC database Monthiv Meetin no data. Likely revegetaled. Removed from our Ilst of wells of con cam in < 501, no csg, no APi#. October, 2012 Oumatik Foundation Test 0 US NavyI BLM None-uncased hc None None Unknown Need HRR. PA, not in AOGCC database Moral Meeting no data. Likely revegetaled. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no csg. no API#, October, 2012 Ournalik Foundation Test 4US Navy I BLM None4xwased h_j None None Unknown I Need HRR. PA, not in AOGCC database Month Meetin Page 12 of 14 0 Page 13 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells LrsLxisx Well Name BLM 2013 Risk Operator f RP I Land Mgr Priority Historic CSP Status Fife #IHazld Rslease7 AOGCC subsurface Status �__ - -_-�� . A013CC Surface Status no dala. Likely SPAR 1Norkgroup Nates revegelaled. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50'. no csg, no AP IN, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test US Na!q BLM None -encased h None None Unknown Need HRR. PA. not w AOGCC database MonthlyMeeiin no data. Likely revegelated. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 501. no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundalion rest U5 Na I BLM None -encased h None None Unknown Need HRR. PA, not in AOGCC database Monihl lAeeli no data. Likely revegetaled. Removed from aur fist of wells of concern in 0urn alik Foundation Test US Na 18 LM None -encased fi None None ilnknown Need HRR. PA, < 50', no csg. no API#, not in AOGCC database October, 2012 Month! Meetin no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our list of wells of concern In < 50', no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundat'Gon Test US Na I BLM None encased h Nome None Unknown Need HRR, PA, not m AOGCC database Month! Meeting property abandoned per then -applicable South Banow #7 US NEILM 2LI None None Unknown Need HRR. PA, ro erl lu ed re s no data to support proper Um -Qt 02 US N Noire Pendin Clo 335.30.001/3078 Yes, see file Plu d to surface abandonment no data to support proper Uncal #5 Ummt #9 Urrval A66 Umial #T Atiaaru Point#1 U5 US US Na I BL M US Na I BLM USGS/BLM None Pendin Hi h -PCB cleanu Active None Pendia None tPendi Mane Clo 3L5 313.00113079 335.38.00113093 Cao 335.3$.00113080 Clo 335 38 001I3091 None Yes, see file Yes, see file Yes, see file Yes. see lite No Plu ed E4 surface property plugged and abandoned pfupedy plugged and abandoned property plugged and abandoned Need HRR. PA,Plugged by properly plugged and BLM in 2009. abandoned abandonment suriaoe site remediated surface site remediated suriacx V le remediated surface site remediated Page 13 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells LrsLxlsx Page 14 of 14 0 vrcTon`ce o BLM 2813 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator i RP 1 Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #fFlaxid Releases SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Status Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA. SI with workplan and sampling. Chilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Two large breaches on the south side of the berm allow water out of the reserve pit. Plugged properly plugged and surface site Drew Point #1 USGS 1 BLM None None None Yes by BLM in 2410. abandoned remedialed On Site list Need HRR, PA, 51 with workplan and sampling. [frilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. In 1976 the reserve pit berm failed and dolling muds/cutlings were released onlo the Poe of Teshekpuk Lake. Plugged by BLM in 2008. Solid waste from camp aril drilling operations buried on northern portion of pad. Erosion has exposed solid properly plugged and surface site East Teshek uk #1 US Navy 1 BLM None Active - waits 3Q0.38.11012652 Yes, see file waste. abandoned remediated Threatened by erosion. properly plugged and surface site J. W. Dalton $P USGS f BLM None None None No Plu ed b BLM in 20fl5. abandoned rernediated properly plugged and surface site South Barrow #8 USAF 1 BLM None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface sile South Bartow 911 US Na INorih Slope Bono None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, abandoned remedialed properly plugged and surface site South Barrow 013 US Na lNerlh Slope Boro None None None Unknown Need HHR, PA, abandoned remedialed properly plugged and surface site South Barrow #15 US Na !North Sloe Boro None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface site South Barrow #19 US Na 1Nrarlh Sloe Baro None Nana None Unknown Need HRR. PA, abandoned remediated Properly plugged and surface site South Barrow 1x20 US Na Worth Slope Bora None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, abandoned remedialed Need HRR, PA, dolling mud assessment, containment assessment, possible releases. Breaches allow wafer to flow into and aul of property plugged and surface site Watakpa #2 USGSI BLM None None lNone lyes I reserve and flare pits. labandoned irernediated Page 14 of 14 0 THE STAZE July 11, 2013 J �A GOVERNOR SEAN PARNELL Wayne Svejnoha Supervisory Minerals & Energy Specialist 222 W 7th Avenue, #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Re: BLM Legacy Wells Dispute Dear Mr. Svelnoha: nnwnt cf L -1,V C, n r I,e-I, ILa L canservadon Division of Spill Prevention and Response Contaminated Sites Program "NE.SPP 0 1 Z014 610 University Ave. Fairbanks, Alaska 99709-3643 Main: 907.451.2181 Fax: 907.451.2155 The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) — Contaminated Sites has reviewed the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska: 2013 Legacy Wells Summary Report dated February 2013, containing updated information on the status of the 136 Legacy Wells located in the National Petroleum Reserve — Alaska (NPR -A), and the draft National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska: 2013 Legacy Wells Strategic Plan dated May 2013. ADEC has also reviewed the response by the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGC). We concur with the response by AOGC and have no further comment regarding the priorities. We do have comments about the investigation and cleanup plans presented in the report. With this letter we are outlining regulatory requirements related to the environmental work that is proposed and required as part of these cleanups. ADEC is concerned that the 2013 Legacy Wells Strategic Plan prepared by the BLM does not include either assessment or the contingency for assessment of known, likely, or unknown but possible contaminant releases. In addition, BLM plans for surface cleanup of these wells should be made clear in the plan. At least one of these legacy wells has extensive PCB contamination and has resulted in a multi-year cleanup totaling tens of millions of dollars. At others, solid waste disposal practices have resulted in releases to the environment with estimated cleanup costs in the hundreds of millions. Known releases documented in the records we reviewed include crude oil, gasses, refined oil and fuel, drilling fluids that include various organics, metals, and other chemicals, and unknown contaminants from drums and other containers observed to be damaged and abandoned at the various well sites. There are 13 legacy well sites with known releases currently on the DEC contaminated sites list. Many of these are in the process of being addressed, cleaned up, and closed. From our limited records review there are 15 additional legacy well sites with confirmed releases. These should be prioritized for initial records reviews and then added to the BLM contaminated sites list under our cooperative agreement. Suspected releases include fuel releases from operations, storage, and fuel spills at the sites, impacts to various surface water bodies from spilled fluids during drilling and breaches of containment at reserve and flare pits, continued surface runoff from drilling fluids uncontained at several sites, and down -hole substances that were ejected from the holes over time or during blowouts or drilling operations. , Wayne Svejnoha 2 July 11, 2013 The BUM plan to address these known, suspected, and unknown releases at legacy well sites is notably absent from the documents presented to date. The three priman, regulatory agencies that need to be involved in the plan are ADEC — Contaminated Sites, Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, and ADEC — EH/Solid Waste. Other agencies will need to be consulted as well. Below we provide recommendations for a coordinated plan using the Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans (UFP-QAPP) that will involve all of the regulatory agencies in one coordinated manner. This will allow BLM to address these sites in a consistent and coordinated project which fulfills all of the regulatory requirements so that the sites do not need to be re -visited in the future when they are closed after this project. Attached are our comments on each specific well. The acronyms used on the list include terms that are typically used in a CERCLA type investigation however they are also suitable for investigations conducted under the State of Alaska cleanup rules. These include the following; Historical Records Review (HRR) This is recommended for almost all of the well sites. Much of the information required for these reviews is already contained in various reports and appendices or in BLM files. The Historical Records Review should document the type of releases that might have occurred from drilling operations as well as historical use of the site, and should capture all available information on the drilling fluids used and any product produced or released. Preliminary Assessment (PA) This is recommended for almost all of the well sites. A Preliminary Assessment is a limited scope investigation that provides an assessment of information about a site and its surrounding area to distinguish between sites that pose little or no threat to human health or the environment and sites that require further investigation. The PA is a CERCLA defined document and typically does not require sampling. Site Inspection (SI) If the PA recommends further investigation, then an SI is necessary. The SI is a CERCLA defined document, and it is analogous to an initial report of contamination under state cleanup rules. On some legacy well drillings sites it is evident now that an SI is required just from a review of the reports. An SI investigation typically includes the collection of samples to determine what contaminants are present at the site and whether they are being released into the environment. An approved site specific workplan is required under both CERCLA and 18 AAC 75 prior to SI sampling. The SI typically is not intended to develop a full site characterization, but is limited to determining the presence or absence of a release. If contamination is found after completion of the HRR, PA, and SI then a RI/FS under CERCLA, or a Site Characterization Report and cleanup plan under 18 AAC 75 is required. DEC recommends that BLM incorporate into the strategic plan the processes outlined in this letter. A team of agencies composed of AOGC, DEC -CS, EPA as required, and DEC -EH should address regulatory and technical requirements for these well closures. By cooperating and working together with the regulatory agencies BLM will save time and expense, and regulatory uncertainties will be avoided. The strategic plan should reference a project to prepare a generic workplan. DEC suggests that BLM utilize the generic UFP-QAPP workplan format for the required environmental work. If properly prepared, the workplan could encompass most of the investigations and cleanups required at these sites over multiple years. At other multi -site projects we have found this to be an effective way to reduce uncertainties and risk in these types of investigations. A very small site specific FSP could then be developed as BLM approaches each drilling site. Regulatory decisions made during workplan development would provide more certainty in the planning process for cleanups. Ao—r;Pc\T)nT\BT.M\Proiects\Leeacv Wells\71113 Letter to BLM on Legacy Wells.docx Wayne Svejnoha 3 July 11, 2013 Please review the attached list of specific sites. if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 907-451-2181 or by email at fred.vreeman@alaska.gov. I look forward to working with you as the Federal Government fulfills its requirement to clean up these well drilling sites in Alaska. Sincerely, Fred Vreeman Environmental Program Manager Enclosure: SPAR Response with Legacy Wells cc: Bud Cribley, State Director, Bureau of Land Management Steven Cohn, Deputy State Director for Resources, Bureau of Land Management Jolie Pollet, Branch Chief, Bureau of Land Management Robert Brumbaugh, Geologist, Bureau of Land Management Michael McCrum, Environmental Engineer, Bureau of Land Management Cathy Foerster, Commissioner, Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Larry Hartig, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Kristen Ryan, Director, ADEC Division of Spill Prevention and Response Steve Bainbridge, Program Manager, ADEC Contaminated Sites Program Jennifer Roberts, Program Manager, ADEC Contaminated Sites Program GASPAR\CS\Federal Facilities\Civilian Federal Agencies \DOI \BLM\Projects\Legacy Wells\7 11 13 Letter to BLM on Legacy Wells.docx SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 1 of 14 -lEv ence o _— BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Status Simpson Core Test #5 US Navy / BLM Low None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI no data _ no data Simpson Core Test #6 US Na / BLM Low None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI no data no data Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #7 US Na / BLM Low None None Unknown assessment & workplan drilling fluids left in hole no data Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #8 US Na / BLM Low None None Unknown assessment & workplan drilling fluids left in hole no data Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #9 US Na / BLM Low None None Unknown assessment & workplan drillinq fluids left in hole no data Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #10 US Na / BLM Low None None Unknown assessment & workplan drilling fluids left in hole no data well sketch provided by Need PA incl drill fluid BLM not consistent with Simpson Core Test #11 US Na / BLM Low None None Unknown assessment & workplan AOGCC or BLM data no data Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #12 US Navy / BLM Low None None Unknown assessment & workplan drilling fluids left in hole no data Need PA and SI incl drill fluid assessment, workplan incl sampling stressed debris, partially Simpson Core Test #16 US Navy / BLM None- Uncased, i None None Unknown areas clas blowout and fire reve etated site Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #17 US Na / BLM None- Uncased, r None None Unknown assessment & workplan drilling fluids left in hole no data Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #18 US Na / BLM None- Uncased, r None None Unknown assessment & workplan drilling fluids left in hole no data Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #19 US Na / BLM None- Uncased, r None None Unknown assessment & workplan drilling fluids left in hole no data Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #20 US Na / BLM None- Uncased, r None None Unknown assessment & workplan drilling fluids left in hole no data Simpson Core Test #21 US Navy / BLM None- Uncased, r None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI no data no data Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #22 US Navy / BLM None- Uncased, i None None Unknown assessment & workplan drilling fluids left in hole no data Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #23 US Na / BLM None- Uncased, r None None Unknown assessment & workplan drilling fluids left in hole no data Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #24 US Na / BLM None-Uncased, r None None Unknown assessment & workplan drilling fluids left in hole no data Need PA incl drill fluid drilling fluids and ball Simpson Core Test #25 US Na / BLM None- Uncased, r None None Unknown assessment & workplan peen hammer left in hole no data overshot, drill collar, rock revegetated -- BLM Ik ik uk Core #1 US Na / BLM Low None None Unknown Need HRR, PA bit, and N -rods left in hole can't find it Review Report as PA. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling waste on surface. Veg Not abandoned, Square Lake #1 US Navy / BLM Low INone INone INo a ears health Plugged to surface site not cleared Page 1 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 2 of 14 U036-505—of-- i enceo BLM 2013 Risk BLM Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator I RP I Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status _ _ plugging operations Status inadequate and Wellhead left as Umiat #3 US Navy / BLM / FUDS None pending clos 335.38.001/3092 Yes, see file Plugged by BLM in 2004 incomplete historic site? plugging operations inadequate and Wellhead left as Umiat #4 US Navy/ BLM / FUDS None pendinq clos 335.38.001/3079 Yes, see file Plugged by BLM in 2004 incomplete historic site? plugging operations inadequate and Wellhead left as Umiat #8 US Na / BLM / FUDS None pending clos 335.38.001/3081 Yes, see file Plugged by BLM in 2004 incomplete historic site? plugging operations inadequate and Wellhead left as Umiat #10 US Navy / BLM / FUDS None pendinq clos 335.38.001/3082 Yes, see file Plugged by BLM in 2004 incomplete historic site? Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Plugged to 7868'. Drilling Cleanup. Photos - evidence mud and diesel to Awuna #1 USGS / BLM Medium None None Yes of erosion into lake surface. > 100 Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud Wood , metal, assessment. Surface Plugged to 2039'. Diesel plastic debris. East Simpson #1 USGS / BLM Low None None Yes Cleanup. to surface. >100 Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with Wood and metal Drilling mud assessment. debris. Pylons. Photos show areas of no Plugged to 2047'. Diesel Tankage for Ik ik uk #1 USGS / BLM Low None None Yes vegetation. to surface. flammable fluids Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Plugged to 1400'. Drilling Wood and metal Koluktak #1 USGS / BLM Low None None Yes Cleanup. mud & diesel to surface debris. Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Plugged to 1894'. Diesel Wood and metal Ku rua #1 USGS / BLM Low None None Unknown Cleanup. to surface debris. Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Plugged to 4464'. Drilling Wood & metal Ku anak #1 USGS / BLM Low None I None Yes Cleanup. mud & diesel to surface debris. Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Photos show Plugged to 1840'. Diesel Plastic and metal Lisburne #1 USGS / BLM Low None None Yes stained soil to surface debris. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Plugged to 8192'. Drilling Wood and metal North Ini ok #1 USGS / BLM I Low INone I None IYes lCleanup. mud & diesel to surface ldebris. Page 2 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 3 of 14 BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP ! Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Status Need HRR, PA, SI with a T sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Site photos show areas of stressed vegetation. No issues Plugged to 2232'. Diesel Wood and metal North Kalik ik #1 USGS / BLM Low None None Yes noted in USGS report. to surface debris. Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Plugged to 2026'. Diesel Wood and metal Peard #1 USGS / BLM Low None None Yes Cleanup. to surface debris. Pylons Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Oil reported bubbling to the surface within reserve pit in 1982- Oily residue and sheen observed adjacent to east side of reserve pit, down hole material at the Plugged to 1875'. Diesel Wood and metal South Meade #1 USGS / BLM Low None None Yes surface to surface debris. Pylons Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Reserve pit berm had breaches allowing water to exit. Oil - stained sediment was observed above the Plugged to 1478'. Diesel Wood and metal Seabee #1 USGS / BLM Low None None Yes waterline of the pit. to surface debris. Site photos may show hydrocarbon sheen on Plugged to 2600'. Drilling Wood and metal Tula eak #1 USGS / BLM Medium None None Yes water in well cellar mud & diesel to surface debris. Pylons Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Berms have been breached an allow water to flow out of reserve pit/flare pit. Rising bubbles of oil observed in flare pit 1984. Photos show Plugged to 1825'. Diesel Metal debris. Tunalik #1 USGS / BLM I Low lNone INone I Yes Istressed vegetation lto surface I Pylons Page 3 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 4 of 14 vi ence o a --r _ - _ �� - BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Status Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Breaches in berm allow water to flow into and out of reserve pit, sheen on Plugged to 2700'. Diesel Wood and metal West Dease #1 USGS / BLM Low None None Yes surface water in well cellar to surface debris. Pylons Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Water flows into the pits through breaches on the eastern berm and out of the pits through breaches on the northern and western berms. Downhole material Plugged to 2289'. Drilling Wood and metal South Harrison Bay #1 USGS / BLM Low None None yes present at surface mud & diesel to surface debris. Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Stressed vegetation noted and apparent in site photos. Plugged to 2443'. Drilling West Fish Creek #1 USGS / BLM Low None None Yes Drilling mud around well mud & diesel to surface Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. High TPH Plugged to 1977'. Drilling wellhead sticking concentrations underneath mud under plugs. Diesel up. Wood debris. East Simpson #2 USGS / BLM Low Active 300.38.109/2651 Yes, see file the rig foundation to surface Pylons South Barrow #4 US Na /North Slope Boro None None None Unknown Need Surface Status completed gas well no data South Barrow #5 USAF - BLM Unknown None None None Unknown Need Surface Status completed gas well no data South Barrow #6 US Na /North Slope Boro None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI no data no data South Barrow #9 US Na /North Slope Boro None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI no data no data South Barrow #10 US Na /North Sloe Boro None None None Unknown Need Surface Status completed gas well no data South Barrow #12 US Na /North Slope Boro None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI no data no data BLM well sketch not consistent with AOGCC South Barrow #14 US Na /North Sloe Boro None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI data no data Need PA incl drill fluid well left filled with drilling South Barrow #16 US Na /North Sloe Boro None None None Unknown assessment & workplan mud and diesel no data Need PA incl drill fluid tubing in well, no perfs, South Barrow #17 US Na /North Sloe Borol None None None Unknown assessment & work Ian unknown fluids no data Page 4 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 5 of 14 BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR lMorkgroupp Notes Status Status l South Barrow #18 US Na /North Sloe Boro None None None Unknown g — Need Surface Status completed gas well no data Walak a #1 USGS / Unknown None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI no data no data csg @ 890'. Multiple cement plugs of unknown volume. Shallowest Gubik #1 US Na / Unknown Low None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI 800' no data Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. csg @ 800'. Well blowout Drilling mud assessment. from zone at 1800' during Surface Cleanup. Photos plugging operations. show disturbed/ stained Plugging never Gubik #2 US Na / Unknown Low None None yes areas completed after blowout. no data two downhole cement plugs of unknown depth Grandstand #1 US Navy / Unknown None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI and volume. no data Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Sediment from the reserve pit was excavated and spread over the pad to drill a 2nd well at this location. Upon completion of the 2nd well, the sediment was pushed back into the reserve pit,. Area does not appear to be revegetating, perhaps from the presence properly plugged but no of drilling mud at the data on abandonment W T Foran #1 *' USGS / Unknown Low None None Yes surface status no data On Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Stressed vegetation, photos show plugged, but not open csg; metal & Cape Halkett #1 — US Na / Unknown Low Active 300.38.108/2689 Yes, see file site underwater abandoned at surface concrete debris under 5' of water, Mina Velocity #1 / BLM None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI cs to 27' o en ciscsg @ 31'. 280' of drill tSa pipe, drill collar, and coreOumalik Core #1 a / BLM None -No observa None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI. barrel left in hole. reve etated Page 5 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 6 of 14 vi ence of--- fBLM BLM2013 Risk Historic [SPAR AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator/ RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? Workgroup Notes Status Status Need HRR, PA, Workplan for SI with Sampling. Drilling Mud Assessment. Surface Cleanup. Photos show debris, stressed No csg. 15' of drill pipe Oumalik Core #2 US Navy/ BLM Low None None Yes vegetation and rock bit left in hole. no data Need HRR, PA, Workplan for SI with Sampling. open csg & other Drilling Mud Assessment. piping sticking out Surface Cleanup. Reports of ground; wood, of debris, drilling muds on metal, concrete Oumalik Core #11 US Navy/ BLM Low None None Yes surface csg to 9'. debris open csg sticking out of ground; wood & metal Oumalik Core #12 US Navy/ BLM Low None None No Need HRR, PA, SI no data debris buried by landslide, Need HRR, PA, SI. Well not no data on Sentinel Hill #1 US Navy / BLM Low None None Unknown apparent in site photos r-sg to 30'; underwater status Need HRR, PA, SI. No evidence of sheen, open csg slightly stressed veg, or drilling above ground waste on surface. Veg 37' of csg, drilling fluids level; wood and Simpson Core Test #1 US Navy/ BLM Low None None No appears healthy left in hole metal debris Need HRR, PA, SI. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling waste on surface. Veg 76' of csg, drilling fluids Simpson Core Test #2 US Navy/ BLM Low None None No appears healthy left in hole no data Need HRR, PA, SI. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling waste on surface. Veg 61' of csg, drilling fluids Simpson Core Test #3 US Navy / BLM Low None None No appears healthy left in hole no data Need HRR, PA, SI. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling waste on surface. Veg —60' of csg, drilling fluids Simpson Core Test #4 US Navy / BLM Low None None No appears healthy left in hole no data Need HRR, PA, SI. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling waste on surface. Veg csg cemented @25'; open csg sticking Simpson Core Test #13 US Navy/ BLM Low None None No appears healthy drillinq fluids left in hole out of ground Need HRR, PA, SI. Vegetated, no evidence of csg cemented @20'; open csg sticking Simpson Core Test #14 US Navy/ BLM IlLow None None No release. ldrilling fluids left in hole out of ground Page 6 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 7 of 14 vi ence o BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator I RP I Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Status Need HRR, PA, SI. -tea -lease. open casing Vegetated, no evidence of ire csg set shallow; drilling sticking out of Simpson Core Test #14a US Na / BLM Low None None No fluids left in hole ground Need HRR, PA, SI. open casing Vegetated, no evidence of csg cemented @18'; sticking out of Simpson Core Test #15 US Na / BLM Low None None No release. drilling fluid left in hole ground . Need HRR, PA, SI. Site photos appear to show oil at surface, from a natural csg @ 350'. Completed in oil seep; seep, also drilling mud in oil well. Open perfs. At wellhead sticking sacks on the tundra. one time capable of up. metal debris Simpson Core Test #26 US Navy/ BLM Medium None None Yes Plu ed by BLM in 2004. unassisted flow. and rusting barrels Need HRR, PA, SI. Site photos appear to show oil csg cemented at surface, from a natural @102%drilling fluids on oily ground; csg seep. Plugged by BLM in including diesel and & wellhead stick Simpson Core Test #27 US Navy1 BLM None None None Unknown 2004. crude oil left in hole out of ground Need HRR, PA, Workplan for SI with Sampling. Drilling Mud Assessment. open csg sticking Surface Cleanup. Site out of ground in photos appear to show a wooden cellar; pile of drilling mud about csg @110'; drilling fluids wood & metal Simpson Core Test #28 US Navy/ BLM Low None None Yes 100 feet from the well left in hole debris. Solid waste Need HRR, PA, SI. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling waste on surface. Veg csg cemented at 152'; open csg. Wood Simpson Core Test #29 US Navy/ BLM Low None None No appears healthy drillinq fluids left in hole and metal debris Need HRR, PA, SI. Drilling mud at surface, but well is also in the middle of a large in oil seep; open oil seep and surrounded by csg sticking up; pooled oil. Plugged by BLM csg cemented at150'; wood & metal Simpson Core Test #30 US Navy/ BLM Low None None Yes, see notes in 2004. drilling fluids left in hole debris Need HRR, PA, Sl. Well is on oily ground; csg in the middle of a large oil & wellhead stick seep and surrounded by csg cemented at 100'; out of ground, pooled oil. Plugged by BLM drilling mud left in hole; wellhead leaking Simpson Core Test #30a US Navy / BLM Low None None Yes, see notes in 2004. gas blowout at 423' gas Need HRR, PA, SI. Leaky valve replaced in 2001, little evidence of contamination following valve on oily ground; csg replacement. Plugged by csg cemented at 100'; & wellhead stick Simpson Core Test #31 US Na / BLM None None None Yes, see notes IBLMin2OO4. 1drilling fluids left in hole out of ground Page 7 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 8 of 14 BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR_ Workgroup Notes Status StatusAs� Need HRR, PA, Workplan csg cemented at for SI with Sampling. 1028';cement plugs at Drilling Mud Assessment. 6387' and 5520'; fish in Surface Cleanup. Drilling hole; drilling fluids left in No data. Open Simpson Test Well #1(aka US Navy / BLM Low None None yes muds near wellhead hole casing. Need HRR, PA, Workplan for SI with Sampling. Drilling Mud Assessment. Surface Cleanup. Also Wellhead sticking evidence of a natural seep- above ground, Tar sheens in the summer ST from 2552 to 3018. wood, metal, and months. BLM is concerned csg @2915. Slotted liner concrete debris. Fish Creek #1 US Navy/ BLM Medium None None Yes about exposure to wildlife to TD. Completed oil well Rusting barrels Need HRR, PA, Workplan for SI with Sampling. casing cemented at 48'; Drilling Mud Assessment. gas flow and explosion Surface Cleanup. Small gas while drilling at 863'; hole leak in wellhead flange, will filled with fresh water to Wolf Creek #1 US Na / BLM Low None None No flow if the valve iso en 330' No data. csg cemented at 53';hole left filled with fresh water; Wolf Creek #2 US Na / BLM Low None None No Need HRR, PA, SI. fish in hole No data csg cemented at 107'; bridge plugs from 1447 to 1735' and from 554 to Wolf Creek #3 US Na / BLM Low None None No Need HRR, PA, SI. 661' No data Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. csg sticking out of Drilling mud assessment. ground with wood Surface Cleanup. Sheen on plug on top; solid surface water in well cellar, csg cemented at 30'; drill waste; wood hundreds of drums indicate pipe, drilling mud and debris; about 200 Skull Cliff Core Test #1 US Navy / BLM High None None Yes potential for contamination diesel left in hole rusting barrels Need HRR, PA, SI. Two open csg; wood drums are floating on a building; pylons; pond near the well. csg cemented at 1000'; wood & metal Kaolak #1 US Na / BLM Low None None No Potential for burned landfill. drilling fluids left in hole debris Page 8 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 9 of 14 vi ffence o BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP / Land Mgr' Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status s Status Add to Site list. Need HRR, T - PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. open flange @ Surface Cleanup. Drilling Gas well. Open perfs. ground level. Mud pile overgrown with Drilling fluids and Metal & wood Meade #1 US Navy/ BLM Low None None No vegetation and lichen tubulars left in hole debris Need HRR. PA, SI. No evidence of sheen, open casing stressed veg, or drilling csg cemented at 502'; sticking out of waste on surface. Veg plug at 3470 to 3511% ground. Wood Titaluk #1 US Navy/ BLM Low None None No appears healthy drilling fluids left in hole debris. Open casing below Add to Site list. Need HRR, ground level. PA, SI with sampling. Revegetated. Drilling mud assessment. Numerous metal Surface Cleanup. Debris csg partially cemented at support structures and drilling muds. Stressed 2762'. Plug at 2543'. sticking up. Oumalik #1 US Na / BLM Low None None Yes vegetation Drilling mud left in hole Concrete debris. plate welded to pipe, V of pipe csg cemented at 1100'. sticking up. East Oumalik #1 US Na / BLM Low None None No Need HRR, PA, SI. Drilling fluids left in hole Wooden debris. Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. open csg broken Downhole material present csg cemented at 6073'; off and sticking up; at surface, area mostly original hole drilled to wood, metal, revegetated. Diesel still 7154'& junk left; concrete and other occupies the ground sidetrack hole left with debris. rusting To a uruk #1 US Navy/ BLM High None lNone Yes circulation lines. drilling fluids barrel Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Pile of csg to 1100'; plug at open casing drilling muds is next to the 1049'; drilling mud below sticking up. Wood, celler. No offical reserve pit plug; unknown fluids in metal, and glass East To a oruk #1 US Na / BLM Low None None No noted open hole debris. open casing Need HRR, PA, SI. BLM sticking up. Wood, states that there was no metal, and glass Knifeblade #1 US Na / BLM Low None None No debris at this site in 2012. csg cemented at 420', debris. Page 9 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 10 of 14 vi ence o - BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR lWorkgroup Notes Status Status open casing sticking up. Wood, metal, & concrete debris. rusting Need HRR, PA, SI. Reports barrels. One indicate solid waste csg cemented to 45';fish marked flammable Knifeblade #2 US Na / BLM Low None None No (drums) in hole hazard. open casing slicking up; metal & Knifeblade #2a US Na / BLM Low None None No Need HRR, PA, Sl. csg cemented at 38'; concrete debris Need HRR, PA, Si including leaching assessment. Site partially No wellhead. submerged intermittently csg cemented at 80'; Metal. Solid waste North Simpson Test Well 4 US Navy / BLM Low None None No during the summer drillinq fluids left in hole ? No data crude wellhead. Need HRR, PA, SI. Surface csg cemented at 685'; Wood and metal Umiat #1 US Na / BLM / FUDS Medium Cleanup con 335.38.001/3090 Yes, see file Cleanup drilling fluids left in hole debris No wellhead. Gravel pad partially csg cemented at 486'; revegetated wood Need HRR, PA, SI. Surface cement plug from 440 to debris and pipe Umiat #11 US Na / BLM 1 FUDS Low pending clos 335.38.001/3083 Yes, see file Cleanup 480'; sticking up csg cemented at 7206'; Wellhead. Gravel various plugs from 8250' pad revegetated ? South Simpson #1 US Na / BLM Low None None Yes Need HRR, PA, SI. to surface No data Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Large quantities of ferrous oxide, zinc oxide, zinc carbonate, and barium sulfate were added to drilling muds. Stains apparent in photos. BLM field camp on site. Walls between the reserve and flare pits have eroded. Wellhead and Water flows into surface gravel pad. ? No Ini ok #1 USGS / BLM I Low lNone I None lYes fwater during breakup. 1no data Idata Page 10 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 11 of 14 vi ence of BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface jStatus Well Name Operator / RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR 1lyorkgroup Notes Need HRR, PA, SI. Surface Status _ Cleanup. Photo CIMG0218 csg cemented at 53'; shows area of disturbed tubing hung to 708'; hole open casing vegetation that should be left filled with drilling mud sticking up; wood & Arcon Barrow Core #1 US Na / BLM Low None None Yes investigated during SI and diesel metal debris open casing Need HRR, PA, SI. Surface csg cemented at 816'; sticking up; wood & Avak #1 US Na / BLM Low None None No Cleanup. plugset at 1348' metal debris Not abandoned, site not cleared, Need HRR, PA, SI. Surface open casing ?? No Barrow Big Rig #1 US Na / BLM None -debris placA None None Unknown Cleanup. no data data Not abandoned, site not cleared, Need HRR, PA, SI. Surface open casing ?? No Barrow Core Rig Test #1 US Na / BLM None-uncased hc None None Unknown Cleanup no data data Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Drilling Muds on site -slowly revegetating. Not abandoned, More information on drilling site not Geared, mud specifics is being open casing ?? No Barrow Core Rig Test #2 US Navy/ BLM Low None None researched no data data Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud wellhead leaking assessment. Surface cemented csg to gas!! Wood & Cleanup. Cellar does not 1270';slotted liner to metal debris. Area Iko Bay #1 US Navy/ BLM High None None Yes -Report notes retain water 1950% tbg to 1939' affected 50'x50' Need HRR, PA, Sl. Drilling csg cemented at mud assessment. Surface 441';hole left willed with open pipe; metal & South Barrow Test Well #1 US Na /North Slope Boro Low None None unknown Cleanup, On roads stem water concrete debris Need HRR, PA, Sl. Drilling csg cemented at 2260'; mud assessment. Surface perforated liner to TD; wood, metal & South Barrow Test Well #2 US Na /North Slope Boro Low None None unknown Cleanup. On roads stem tubing. Completed well. concrete debris Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling and workplan. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Drilling csg cemented at 1046'; open csg sticking mud at surface, Sheen on hole left filled with drilling up; wood & metal South Barrow Test Well #31 US Na /North Sloe Borol Medium None None Yes surface water in well cellar fluids and water debris Page 11 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 12 of 14 vi ence o _- BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR NNorkgroup dotes Status Status no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test A US Navy/ BLM None-uncased hc None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, not in AOGCC database Monthly Meeting no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test A US Navy/ BLM None-uncased hc None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, not in AOGCC database Monthly Meeting no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test A US Navy/ BLM None-uncased hc None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, not in AOGCC database Monthly Meeting no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test A US Navy/ BLM None-uncased hc None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, not in AOGCC database Monthly Meeting no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no csg, no AP I#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test A US Navy/ BLM None-uncased hc None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, not in AOGCC database Monthly Meeting no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test 4 US Na / BLM I None-uncased hcl None lNone jUnknown lNeed HRR, PA, 1not in AOGCC database lMonthly Meeting Page 12 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 13 of 14 vi ence o - BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Votes Status Status no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no csg, no AP I#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test A US Navy/ BLM None-uncased hc None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, not in AOGCC database Monthly Meeting no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no csg, no AP I#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test A US Navy/ BLM None-uncased hc None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, not in AOGCC database Monthly Meetin no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test A US Navy/ BLM None-uncased hc None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, not in AOGCC database Monthly Meeting no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test A US Navy / BLM None-uncased hc None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, not in AOGCC database Monthly Meeting properly abandoned per then -applicable South Barrow#7 US Na / BLM None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, properly plugged re s no data to support proper Umiat #2 US Na / BLM None Pending Clo 335.38.001/3078 Yes, see file Plu ed to surface abandonment no data to support proper Umiat #5 US Na / BLM None Pending Clo 335.38.001/3078 Yes, see file Plugged to surface abandonment properly plugged and surface site Umiat #9 US Navy / BLM High -PCB deanul Active 335.38.001/3093 Yes, see file abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface site Umiat #6 US Navy / BLM None Pending Clo 335.38.001/3080 Yes, see file abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface site Umiat #7 US Na / BLM None Pending Clo 335.38.001/3091 IYes,see file labandoned remediated Need HRR, PA, Plugged by properly plugged and surface site Ati aru Point #1 USGS / BLM None None None No BLM in 2009. abandoned Iremediated Page 13 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 14 of 14 vi ence oi—".- BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator'/ RPI Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Add to Site list. Need HRR, Status Status PA, SI with workplan and sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Two large breaches on the south side of the berm allow water out of the reserve pit. Plugged properly plugged and surface site Drew Point #1 USGS / BLM lNone None INone Yes by BLM in 2010. abandoned remediated On Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with workplan and sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. In 1976 the reserve pit berm failed and drilling muds/cuttings were released onto the ice of Teshekpuk Lake. Plugged by BLM in 2008. Solid waste from camp and drilling operations buried on northern portion of pad. Erosion has exposed solid properly plugged and surface site East Teshek uk #1 US Navy / BLM None Active - waiti 300.38.110/2652 Yes, see file waste. abandoned remediated Threatened by erosion. properly plugged and surface site J. W. Dalton #1 USGS / BLM None None None No Plugged by BLM in 2005. abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface site South Barrow #8 USAF/BLM None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface site South Barrow #11 US Na /North Sloe Boro None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface site South Barrow#13 US Na /North Sloe Born None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface site South Barrow #15 US Na /North Sloe Boro None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface site South Barrow #19 US Na /North Sloe Boro None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface site South Barrow #20 US Na /North Sloe Boro None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, abandoned remediated Need HRR, PA, drilling mud assessment, containment assessment, possible releases. Breaches allow water to flow into and out of properly plugged and surface site Walak a #2 USGS/ BLM INone INone INone Yes reserve and flare pits. abandoned remediated Page 14 of 14 Well Ranking Before identifying the risks associated with the legacy wells, the BLM reviewed the list of wells to detennine ownership and well status. A break -down of the 136 is as follows: • 39 are uncased core holes that did not penetrate oil and gas zone, have naturally collapsed, and have blended harmlessly into the landscape. • 33 were either transferred to the North Slope Borough through the Barrow Gas Field Act of 1984 or were conveyed to Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. • 20 wells are being used to by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) for climatic temperature and permafrost studies (see Appendix B). • 7 wells are plugged (6 at Umiat, Square Lake #1). • 37 wells that require further evaluation. Following the 2003 field season, members of the legacy well team met to determine criteria for evaluating the risks associated with the above mentioned 37 wells and ranking each well based on these risks. For consistency purposes, the group devised a series of questions to assist in the process: • What is the condition of the existing pad and pits? (e.g. any indication of contamination?) • Is there any solid waste (old equipment, piping, barrels, etc.) or potential hazardous material conditions? • Did the hole penetrate known oil or gas stratigraphy? • Did the well have oil or gas shows, and if so, is the well capable of flowing? • Is the well near human activity, and if so are there conditions present that pose a risk to people? • What is the condition of the wellhead? Have there been any previous problems or repair work? Does the well (in its current condition) pose a risk? • What is the surficial condition of the existing pad and pits? Is contamination a possibility? • Does the presence of unplugged wells have the potential to negatively impact anticipated development? Each of the 37 wells are described in the following pages. Descriptions are ordered in terms of the ranked priority based on the above stated criteria and the concerns identified. Umiat Wells The early Navy wells in Umiat rank at the top of the list. Umiat is located on the north bank of the Colville River 60 miles upstream from the village of Nuiqsut. Natural oil seeps were discovered at Umiat by early explorers. This discovery, along with the detection of seeps at Cape Simpson, motivated the U.S. Navy to conduct a drilling program. Umiat and the Simpson Peninsula were the primary exploration targets in the mid to late 1940s. The Umiat seeps are still visible today. Their locations tend to shift over time. The seeps are currently active in Umiat Lake, just off the northeast portion of the airstrip and in a channel of the Colville River. 22 �' The 11 Umiat wells were drilled from 1945 to 1952. These wells are a concern for BLM due to their close proximity to human activity. Umiat is not a village, but serves as a camp for seismic crews: Umiat is also the primary hub for recreational activities in eastern NPR -A and western CAMA (Central Arctic Management Area). It has one of the few airstrips on the North Slope maintained year-round and is a popular location for purchasing aircraft fuel (Figure 10). The Umiat wells all lie within 2 miles of the camp, with the exception of Umiat #1, which is approximately 5 miles to the northwest. After the U.S. Navy completed drilling operations in 1952, the U.S. Air Force assumed custodial responsibility at Umiat and established the 8,000 -acre Figure 10: Umiat is a popular stopping point for Umiat Air Force Station. In June of aircraft. 1955 the Air Force returned the facility to the U.S. Navy. Since Umiat is a Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS), the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (COE) is responsible for the reduction of risk associated with surficial hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste. The COE has conducted extensive surface investigations in the area and has identified contaminants at several locations. Varying levels of barium, petroleum, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) were identified at the wellsites, the landfill, and the nearby slough (U.S. Army COE, 2003). Contamination levels were compared to the Alaska Department of Environmental cleanup standards and were used as a screening level. The COE has conducted site remediation at two well locations, Umiat #2 and #5 (Figure 11), and has plans to continue the surface clean up. To facilitate site remediation, the COE plugged wells #2 and #5 in 2002, but plugging the remainder of the wells is the responsibility of the BLM. Four wells were plugged by the BLM in the Winter/Spring of 2004. After the removal of wellheads #2 and #5, the State of Alaska Historic Preservation Office asked the BLM to leave all existing surface objects (wellheads, tanks, pipes) onsite and Figure 11: Umiat #2 and #5 prior to removal and intact, because of their potential remediation. Photo taken August 2001. historic value. The Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) included the Umiat wells in an inventory of all reported historic and prehistoric sites within the State of Alaska. This inventory of cultural resources includes objects, structures, buildings, sites, districts, and travel routes generally more than 50 years old. Therefore, the wellheads for the other Umiat wells will be left in place after plugging is completed. 23 0 Umiat #9 Umiat #9 was spudded in June 1951 and completed seven months later in January 1952. The well is cased to a depth of 1,257 feet. The purpose of the well was to determine the western extent of the producing field. It was also the first hole in which oil-based muds were used in the Umiat area. Umiat #9 is located about half mile to the north-northwest of the Seabee pad. Figure 12: Aerial view of Umiat #9. The drill hole penetrated several known oil and gas formations; Ninuluk, Chandler, Grandstand and Topagoruk. Hydrocarbon shows were prevalent within both the Grandstand and the Topagoruk formations. Multiple sands were perforated and tested. Production exceeded 217 barrels per day, thus seemingly showing the benefit of using an oil-based mud. However, the muds did not allow the different formations to be distinguished. Cement was used in an attempt to "plug back" and isolate individual formations. Samples were taken and sent to a Bureau of Mines lab where the chemical tracer (used during drilling) was measured and the various sandstone samples were examined. This allowed a study of the different lithologies be conducted. The tracer Aroclor used in the well has raised concerns about PCB contamination. However, the well was allowed to flow for seven weeks at 200 barrels per day (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956) prior to shutting it in, possibly purging the potential contaminants. As it stands today, insufficient energy exists in the reservoir for the well to flow to surface and the wellhead has no pressure on it. The well is located within the Northeast planning boundary (see Map 2) on lease AA - 081726. There is some potential for future development to occur in the area within the next 20 years and the well has the potential to leak to surface if development occurs and may adversely affect future development. Surfrcial wastes around Umiat #9 could present an issue. As was common with early Navy drilling, a gravel pad was not created. Wooden debris exists around the wellhead and there is a pile of drilling muds directly to the north which is void of vegetation (Figure 12). Samples taken by the COE from around the wellhead detected elevated levels of diesel range organics (DRO), residual range organics (RRO) and PCBs (U.S. Army COE, 2003). 24 • 0 The wellhead is equipped with two bull plugs, a flange and a 2 3/ -inch nipple. There are no fresh water aquifers in the area, but due to potential contaminants downhole and existing contaminants on the surface, the well does pose a risk to human health and the environment in its current condition. Umiat #6 Umiat #6 was spudded August 1950 to test the southern limits of the Umiat anticline. The hole was drilled to a depth of 825 feet. The well was cased to 35 feet and a 42 -foot cement plug was placed on the bottom of the well in order to stop water influx from sands at the base of the permafrost. The well encountered very poor shows in the Killik Tongue (Chandler Formation) and a productive sand in the upper Grandstand Formation. Oil recovered in open -hole pumping tests was produced at rates averaging 53 barrels of oil per day. Insufficient energy exists in the reservoir for the well to flow to surface and there are no fresh water aquifers present. Major caving of the hole occurred and the well was backfilled with mud (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). The well is located within the Northeast planning boundary (see Map 2) on lease AA - 081726. There is some potential for future development to occur in the area within the next 20 years and the well has the potential to leak to surface if development occurs and may adversely affect future development. The well lies about 500 feet to the northwest of a gravel spur road which connects the Colville River to the eastern edge of the Umiat airstrip. The well is located in wet tundra adjacent to an empty 55 -gallon drum. The well is left open with 8 5/8 -inch casing to the surface. It has no gauges, valves or a cover plate. Two thermistor protrude to the surface and rests on the lip of the casing. This well poses no threat to human health or the environment unless development occurs. Umiat #7 Umiat #7 was drilled in 1951 to a depth of 1,384 feet, cased to 1,196 feet and completed as a dry hole. It was the southern most well drilled on the Umiat anticline. The objective was to further delineate the southern extent of the producing Figure 13: Umiat #7 summer and winter photos. field. The well encountered residual hydrocarbons in the Chandler and Grandstand formations. Oil recovered in bailing tests was so minute that it was measured in gallons. The small amount of crude recovered in each test is indicative of residual oil staining. The sands encountered in Grandstand are downdip of the productive reservoir and are water bearing. Minor gas shows were encountered at 260 feet (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). The well is located within the Northeast planning boundary (see Map 2) on lease AA - 081726. There is some potential for future development to occur in the area within the 25 • next 20 years but since the well is located below the oil/water contact it has less potential to be adversely affected or affect future development. The wellhead assembly consists of 7 -inch casing (with collar) clamped inside 11 3/ -inch casing at a total height of 30 inches (Figure 13). Surrounding the open hole is wet tundra with no indication of remaining debris or other surficial issues. The hole poses no threat to humans or the environment. The well location is currently situated on Alaska Dept. of Transportation land that was transferred in 1966, but the well remains the property of the BLM. Additional Ufniat Work Umiat has been a site of recent cleanup projects. The cleanup process began in 1994 with the removal of about 1,000 diems, some containing petroleum and transformer oil with PCBs, from the main gravel pad. Another 200 cubic yards of PCB -contaminated soil was removed in 1998 along with 60 cubic yards of lead -contaminated soils. In 2001, 50 cubic yards of PCB soil was excavated with an additional 10 cubic yards removed the following year by the Corps of Engineers (U.S. COE, 2003). J.W. Dalton #1 J.W. Dalton #1 was drilled in 1979 to a depth of 9,367 feet. It is cased down to 8,898 feet and plugged back to 1,530 feet. (Husky Oil NPR Operations for U.S. Geological Survey-J.W. Dalton, 1982). The primary objective of the well was to determine if hydrocarbons were present within the Sadlerochit and Lisburne Groups. Gas shows were encountered in trace amounts in the Ivishak Formation, and the Lisburne and Endicott Group. ,Poor to good oil shows were discovered in the Ivishak Formation and in the Lisburne Group. A drillstem test of the Lisburne Group recovered 22 barrels of oily water (Gyrc, 1988). This well has been a USGS monitor well since its completion in 1979. Approximately 230 barrels of diesel fuel were placed downhole to act as a neutral medium for collecting wellbore temperatures. In the summer of 2004, warmer temperatures, wind, and wave action eroded 200 feet of the coastline adjacent to the well (Figures 14, 15). This erosion placed the J.W. Dalton #1 well and reserve pit precariously close Figure 14: Photo of J.W. Dalton taken October 26, 2004. Soil cracking is occurring around the wellhead and the north and east side of the cellar is exposed. Figure 15: J.W. Dalton wellhead with pilings. Photo was taken August 2000. C" LO the edge of the Arctic Ocean. As a result, casing is now exposed to a depth of 15 feet on the present day beach (Figure 16). The top of the diesel is approximately 60 feet below the present beach level. The reserve pit has been breached on the northwest corner from the advancing shoreline (Figure 17). The pit is known to contain chromium, cobalt, zinc, and barium. However, chromium, cobalt and zinc were detected in background levels, due to the east -west water movement into and out of the pit. Barium is a constituent of the drilling muds and is consolidated with other sediments (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Geological Survey, 1992). Figure 16: J.W. Dalton with exposed conductor (left), and rat hole (right). The mouse hole (not pictured) is completely exposed. The well is located within the Northeast planning area (see Map 2), on a tract currently closed to leasing. In its current condition, the well does not pose a threat to humans or the environment, but if the casing were to break in its exposed condition, the diesel fuel would, over time, leak into the ocean. The release of heavy metals from the reserve pit may pose an immediate risk to human health and the environment. The pit was sampled October 26, 2004, and results are pending. 27 i 0 aimpson t oa30A e impson 0144 14A dpsbea#31 asi $fAtiDsoh #t Figure 18: Simpson Peninsula showing well locations. Simpson Core Test #26 Simpson Core Test #26 was drilled in the middle of one of the larger, active oil seeps in NPR -A (Figure 19). The Navy described this location as Seep 3. The hole reached a total depth of 1,171 feet and was cased to 350 feet. The well encountered one very poor gas show and one productive oil sand in the Ninuluk/Seabee undifferentiated formation. In production tests, the well flowed at rates averaging 110 barrels of oil per day (Robinson and Brewer, 1964). Other formations encountered include the Gubik, Seabee, and Grandstand Formations. Gas bubbles have been observed around the base of the casing since the 2000 field season. Bob Burruss of the USGS, sampled and analyzed gas from Simpson Core #27 which is part of the same oil field, located less than half mile to the east. His findings showed the gas to be biogenic methane indicating that microbial alteration (breakdowns) of the hydrocarbons has generated the gas. Additionally, oil sampled in the well was extremely biodegraded. Simpson Figure 19: The wellhead is located in the center of Core #26 has a wellhead flanged to the the photo. The green color liquid defines the area of active seepage. The orange color is oil -eating casing, a 2 -inch line pipe, and four bacteria. wing valves and will likely flow oil if 28 the valves are opened. Access to the wellhead is limited by the depth of oily -water surrounding its base (Figure 20). There are no concerns with contaminating fresh water aquifers if the well is left unplugged, but the well could potentially flow oil and cause damage to surface resources if the well equipment corrodes or, through human intervention, the well is opened or damaged. The well is located within the Northwest planning boundary (see Map 2). The tract was recently leased, receiving a high bid of $7.51 per acre during the NW NPR -A lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this well will have an adverse impact on development since any development will likely target deeper, more productive formations. The area around the wellhead looks to have been bulldozed in an attempt to collect the seeping Figure 20: Simpson Core #26 drilled in the middle of an oil. The scraped -up earth was oil seep. Depth of the oily -water prohibits access to the then used to build berms around wellhead. the depression. Light amounts of trash appear to have been buried in these berms. The Navy cleaned up the site in the late 70s, removing most of the drums and other debris, but solid wastes, including half barrels and other drums can be found in the wet tar that fills the depression. Simpson Core Test #31 Simpson Core Test #31 is a shallow core test drilled in 1951 to a depth of 355 feet and cased to 101 feet. The objective of drilling was to collect a core to view the material at the bottom of the seep. The well does not meet standard oil and gas exploration well definitions. The casing is not cemented in place and the well is probably not capable of holding substantial pressure. The well encountered a few sands with shows and one productive sand in the Ninuluk/Seabee undifferentiated formation. In 65 hours of testing, this zone flowed oil to the surface at rates averaging 125 barrels and 2,000- 4,000 cubic feet of gas per day. active oil seep. Flowing pressure was measured at 60 29 i 0 psi. The well also penetrated the Gubik and Seabee Formations, which were unproductive (Robinson and Brewer, 1964). The well is located within the Northwest planning boundary (see Map 2). The tract was recently leased and received a high bid of $7.51 per acre during the NW NPR -A lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this well will have an adverse impact on development since any development will likely target deeper, more productive formations. A drilling pad does not exist as the well was drilled in an active oil seep, which remains active today (Figure 21). The Simpson Peninsula contains few permanent settlements, but a multitude of summer camps. The well had been a source of fuel for the inhabitants as evidenced by a 10 -foot extension pipe hooked up to the wing valve. The extension allowed for the oil to flow down the pipe and collect in a bucket. In 2000, BLM learned that oil was seeping out of a corroded swedge on the wellhead. The potential harm was mitigated by the fact oil was seeping into a natural oil seep. In June 2001, BLM spent $35,000 to remove the old wellhead and install a new master valve and needle valve. Oil and gas samples were taken by the USGS prior to the replacement. There are no fresh water aquifers in the well so there are no risks to sub -surface resources but there are risks to surface resources if the well is left unplugged. Oil will flow to surface if the wellhead or casing corrodes or if the well is left open. There are no solid wastes or hazardous materials (besides the natural oil) that would present a concern or pose a risk to the health and safety of the land and people. Simpson Core Test #30A Simpson Core Test #30A is an oil well drilled in 1951 to a depth of 693 feet and cased to 152 feet. The well encountered some very poor gas shows and one productive sand in the Ninuluk/Seabee undifferentiated formation. The well was bailed and averaged oil rates of 6 barrels per day during bailing tests (Robinson and Brewer, 1964). The well is located within the Northwest planning boundary (see Map 2). The tract was recently leased and received a high bid of $7.51 per acre during the NW NPR -A lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development is a. distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this well will have an adverse impact on development since any development will likely target deeper, more productive formations. The wellhead consists of casing swedge, a nipple, and a brass gate valve and will flow oil to surface if the valve is opened. There are no sub -surface fresh water aquifers at risk. However, if the well is left unplugged it could pose a risk to surface resources. In its current state, oil could flow to surface if the well is damaged, corroded, or the valves are opened. Additionally, concerns have been raised regarding the bubbling around the base of the casing. When the valve is opened, the bubbling subsides. This indicates a small leak around the base of the casing or through a hole in the casing. The gas was sampled by the USGS and has been identified as reservoir -produced biogenic gas. While the well does pose a risk, it is mitigated by the fact that the well is drilled in an active, natural oil seep. 30 0 Simpson Core Test #30 U Simpson Core Tests #30 and #30A were drilled about 100 feet apart in the same oil seep. The seep is part of the same regime that contains Cores #26 and #27. These wells were drilled to gain an understanding of the producing field limits and to help determine underlying structure. Simpson Core #30 is an oil well drilled in 1951 to a depth of 1,500 feet. No plugs were set and the well was cased to 102 ft. The hole encountered the same formations as Cores #26 and #27; Gubik, Seabee, undifferentiated Ninuluk/Seabee, and the Grandstand with a few poor gas shows and one productive sand in the Ninuluk/Seabee undifferentiated formation. Poor oil shows were also noted in the deeper Grandstand Formation. During production tests of the shallow oil sand the well was bailed at rates averaging 5 barrels of oil per day (Robinson and Brewer, 1964). Figure 22: Light trash is present in the seep between Cores #30 and #30A. The well is located within the Northwest planning boundary (see Map 2). The tract was recently leased and received a high bid of $7.51 per acre during the NW NPR -A lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this well will have an adverse impact on development since any development will likely target deeper, more productive formations. The well was left with sheared, open casing above ground. Even though the well produced oil 50 years ago, it is static today. This suggests the hole has collapsed below the shallow casing. There are no fresh water aquifers in the well, however, since the well was drilled to a reservoir with sufficient energy to flow oil to surface, the well should probably be considered a risk if left unplugged. This well would probably be plugged by placing a 100 foot surface plug downhole to eliminate risks to surface resources. The potential risk is alleviated by the fact that the well is drilled in an active, natural oil seep. There is no drill pad as the Navy drilled within the seep and camped on the tundra. Some light trash is present in the seep between the Core #30 and Core #30A, which may prove difficult to clean (Figure 22). The well lies three tenths of a mile from both Core #26 and #27 (Figure 18). Simpson Core Test #27 Simpson Core Test #27 is an oil well that was spudded February 1951 and completed one month later. Total depth of the well is 1,500 feet, with casing down to 102 feet. Oil was encountered at a depth of 380 feet and was bailed at a rate of 3 barrels per day. The core test encountered the same formations as Simpson Core Test #26, with a few very poor gas shows and one productive oil bearing sand in the Ninuluk/Seabee undifferentiated formation. Oil-based muds were used from the drilling depth of 325 to 661 feet. At that point the oil was displaced and the drilling crew resumed using water based muds. 31 Figure 23: There is no surface debris present at Simpson Core #27. 0 Additional crude was added downhole at a depth of 1,320 feet. The drill pipe was stuck and the two front derrick legs collapsed below the four -foot extension in an effort to free the pipe. The drilling muds in place were re -circulated during the repair process. In an attempt to free the pipe, 73 barrels of crude and 23 barrels of diesel were used to replace the muds and the pipe was worked free. The oil was gradually replaced by mud as the drilling continued, however, some oil remained in the hole after completion. The crude used downhole came from Simpson Core Test #26 (Robinson and Brewer, 1964). There are no fresh water aquifers in the well so there are no risks to sub -surface resources but there are risks to surface resources if the well is left unplugged. Oil could flow to surface if the well equipment corrodes, the well is damaged, or left open. This potential risk is mitigated by the fact that the well is drilled in an inactive, natural oil seep. The well is located within the Northwest planning boundary (see Map 2). The tract was recently leased and received a high bid of $7.51 per acre during the NW NPR -A lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this well will have an adverse impact on development since any development will likely target deeper, more productive formations. There is no existing pad. The wellhead consists of 8 %-inch casing, a flange and a brass gate valve. The casing was set in a small inactive oil seep. It will flow oil to surface if opened. There is no surface debris present at Core #27 (Figure 23). The well poses little threat to human health and the immediate environment around it in its current condition. Simpson Core Test #29 Simpson Core Test #29 is a dry hole drilled in 1950 to a depth of 700 feet and cased to 152 feet. The purpose of the well was to determine the limits of the producing field encountered at Core #26. A very poor oil show was identified in the Seabee Formation. The productive sand present in the other Simpson Cores does not exist in this well. The test hole also penetrated the Gubik and Grandstand Formations. No oil was recovered from this well (Robinson and Brewer, 1964). The well is grouped higher on the priority list due to its close approximation to Simpson Cores #26, #27, #30 and #30A (Figure 18). The well is located within the Northwest planning boundary (see Map 2). The tract was recently leased and received a high bid of $7.51 per acre during the NW NPR -A lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this well will have an adverse impact on development if left unplugged since any development will likely target deeper, more productive formations. The well was left with 8 1/2 -inch casing, open to the atmosphere at a height of 6 inches. Thermistor cables protrude from the casing. It is located in a four-by-four foot wooden 32 LI cellar filled with water. A drilling pad was never established. There is some light trash around the wellhead including drill pipe, and various sized wooden scraps. A small barrel pump and other small debris can be seen in the casing and within the cellar (Figure 24). This well poses no threat to the human population or the environment. Umiat #1 0 Figure 24: Simpson Core #29 Umiat #1 was spud in 1945, and completed in 1946. Total depth reached was 6,005 feet and the well was cased to 685 feet. The well encountered residual hydrocarbons and a few poor gas shows in the Seabee, Ninuluk, Chandler, Grandstand, and Topagoruk Formations. The sands of the Grandstand were outside the productive area encountered by other Umiat wells, which are located five miles to the east. Oil recovered in bailing tests was so minute that it was measured in pints and officially recorded as a trace. Lab tests determined the oil to be of a different type of crude oil than that found in the productive Umiat wells (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). The small amount of crude recovered in each test is indicative of residual oil staining. No fresh water aquifers exist in the Umiat area, so this well poses no threat to sub -surface water resources. There is no pressure on the wellhead and it is fitted with a blind plate, a 2 -inch nipple and a brass gate valve (Figure 25). The well is located on an unleased tract at the crest of a hill that divides the north and south forks of Seabee Creek. Future development is unlikely because of its location outside the Umiat structure. Left unplugged, the well poses no threat to the environment and has no potential to adversely affect future development. The surficial landscape is dominated by willows with the exception of three piles of drilling muds that are located to the east and north of the wellhead. Vegetation is absent on the slick, clay - type material. The COE tested the piles and found them to be contaminated with barium, Figure 25: Umiat #1 is located about 5 which is not surprising given that barite is a miles from the Umiat airstrip. common drilling fluid component. Through sampling, the COE determined the barium has not migrated down the hill and poses no danger to the Seabee Creek drainage (Ecology and Environment, 1999). There is no 33 indication of stressed vegetation down -gradient from the drill muds. Additionally, solid waste in the form of steel framing and scrap metal are near the wellhead. The solid wastes pose no threat but are unsightly. Umiat #11 Umiat #11 was spud June 1952 and completed two months later. The well reached a total depth of 3,303 feet with 486 feet cased. One cement plug was placed at 440 feet. The objective was to test production possibilities of the Grandstand Formation on a fault that parallels the Umiat anticline. The well encountered residual hydrocarbons in the Seabee, Ninuluk, and Grandstand Formations but no oil or gas was recovered during production tests. The sands of the Grandstand were outside the productive area encountered by other Umiat wells, which are over one mile to the south. The well is located within the Northeast planning boundary (see Map 2). The tract is located on lease AA -084141 but there is little possibility of the well interfering with future development due to its location outside the Umiat structure. The well was drilled in the alluvial plain of Bearpaw Creek, 0.6 miles from Umiat #8. A drilling pad was never created as operations consisted of mounting the drill rig on a sled and then placing it on top of large timbers that were secured to pilings (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). A pile of unvegetated drilling muds is present 30 feet west of the wellhead in between the wellhead and the creek. The wellhead consists of a 10 3/ -inch open-ended casing with a collar sticking up inside a 30 -inch conductor that is filled with water. Minor wood debris can be found around the wellhead. The well poses no risk if left unplugged. Wolf Creek Area Three test wells were drilled in the Wolf Creek area. The wells were drilled in the early 1950s with the intent of testing the northwest -trending Wolf Creek anticline structure. Wolf Creek #1 and #3 (Figure 26) are located at the crest of a hill with about 250 feet of relief from the valley. Wolf Creek #2 is located about one and one- third miles north within the Wolf Creek valley. Wolf Creek #2 and #3 are open holes but Wolf Creek #1 is equipped with a wellhead. Figure 26: Wolf Creek #1 after adding a new ball valve to the wellhead. August 2004. Wolf Creek #1 Wolf Creek #1 is a gas well drilled in 1951 to 1,500 feet and cased to 48 feet. The well encountered very poor gas shows in the Killik Tongue and productive sands in the Grandstand Formation. The well produced at rates up to 881 MCFPD in open hole tests 34 9 • of the Grandstand. The well is equipped with a blind plate, a 2 -inch nipple and a brass gate valve (Figure 26). There is a small gas leak in the threaded wellhead flange and, if the valve is opened, the well will flow about 10 MCFPD but the pressure is so low it does not register on a gauge. In its current condition, the well does not appear to pose a risk to surface or sub- surface resources. The drill pad is shared with Wolf Creek #3. Throughout the pad, there are some wooden pilings, metal anchors and scrap metal. The scraps should not be considered hazardous in this remote region. The leaking gas is of minor concern, however given the weak gas pressure and remote location; the overall risk is very minimal. Wolf Creek #2 Wolf Creek #2 is a dry hole. The well was drilled in 1951 to 1,618 feet and cased to 53 feet. It is located roughly 1 '/ miles north of the other Wolf Creek test wells. The purpose of drilling was to determine if the gas -bearing sandstone beds previously encountered in Wolf Creek #1 would contain any oil. The records indicate a very poor gas show was encountered in the Killik Tongue but no oil or gas was recovered in production tests (Collins and Bergquist, 1959). The hole also penetrated the Seabee, Ninuluk, Chandler, and Grandstand Formations. Figure 27: Wolf Creek #2 had casing cut off at ground level. The well is located on an unleased tract within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2). No offers were received in the June 2004 lease sale for the tract and near-term development is unlikely. The wellhead consists of a plate welded onto the 11 3/ -inch casing cut off at ground level (Figure 27). There is no existing drill pad. Solid wastes consist of a few empty 55 -gallon drums upstream along the upper floodplain of the creek. The well poses no threat to surface or sub -surface resources and has no potential to adversely affect future development. Wolf Creek #3 Wolf Creek #3 is a gas well. The well was drilled in 1952 to a depth of 3,760 feet and cased to 625 feet. It is deeper than the other two Wolf Creek wells because its primary purpose was to test the Grandstand Formation (the producing formation around Umiat, 35 miles to the west). The Grandstand Formation produced from four different sands. In 35 open hole flow tests of the well produced at rates up to 445 MCFPD. The gas appeared to be sufficient to supply a small camp, but not of commercial proportions (Collins and Bergquist, 1959). Two plugs were set in the well above the Grandstand Formation. The top of the shallowest plug is inside the casing at 554 feet. In addition to the Grandstand, the hole penetrated the Ninuluk, Chandler, and Topagoruk Formations. Upon abandonment, the hole was filled with oil-based drilling inuds and left open to the environment. A total of 103 barrels of crude were used. The well is located on an unleased tract within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2). No offers were received in the June 2004 lease sale for the tract and near-term development is unlikely. The well poses no threat to surface or sub -surface resources and has no potential to adversely affect future development. The drill pad is shared with Wolf Creek #1. There is some minor debris at the site as noted in the Wolf Creek #1 description. The wellhead was cut off six inches from the ground surface. This allows seasonal precipitation to accrue in the hole and spill over the sides, but the well poses no threat to surface or sub -surface resources and has no potential to adversely affect future development. Fish Creek #1 Fish Creek #1 was drilled by the Navy in 1949 near an oil seep. Total depth of the well was 7,020 feet. The well was plugged back to approximately 2,550 feet, drilled to a new total depth of 3,018 feet and cased to 3,017 feet. The well was drilled to test a large gravity anomaly that suggested the possible presence of petroleum -bearing rocks and some structural anomaly that might be a trap for oil. Very poor oil shows were identified in the Topagoruk Formation at depths from 5,550 - 6,000 feet and a productive sand was reported at 3,000 feet. The well is not a flowing well but was pump -tested at rates averaging 12 barrels of oil per day through a gravel -packed completion. It also produced a small amount of methane gas. The hole encountered the Gubik, Shrader Bluff, Tuluvak, and Seabee Formations. 36 0 producing by 2008. Given the low level of risk, the plugging of this well should be postponed until infrastructure is established. Surficially, there are still some solid wastes present. The drilling pad and cellar construction consists of concrete reinforced with steel matting. The concrete, matting, and pilings are still in place today, albeit heaved by permafrost (Figure 28). Several 55 - gallon trash drums filled with debris are located off the concrete pad. Other light debris is also present within 500 feet of the pad. The oil seep is located about 1.5 miles to the southwest of the well site and is inactive. The USGS 305-I reports the dimension of the seep as being 6' x 20' (Florence and Brewer, 1964), however, BLM personnel located the seep in 2001 and noted its dimension to be 3' x 6'. Simpson Core Test #28 Simpson Core Test #28 was drilled in September 1950 to a total depth of 2,505 feet and cased to 110 feet. Despite the depth, the hole did not encounter any hydrocarbon shows. The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) on a recently leased tract that received a high bid of $21.51 per acre during the lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this well will have an adverse impact on development since the well did not penetrate productive zones and future development will likely target deeper, more productive formations. A drill pad does not exist, however- a large area of disturbance is visible. The wellhead consists of open casing inside a wooden cellar. There is considerable solid waste near the well. These include: numerous metal pilings, drill pipe, large wood fragments (spool, plywood, timbers), and some partially crushed drums. The solid wastes are unsightly, but pose no threat to humans or the environment. Simpson Core Test #13 Simpson Core Test #13 was drilled in the summer of 1949. It was a relatively shallow test and did not generate any significant oil or gas shows. The well encountered residual hydrocarbons in the Seabee and Grandstand Formations at depths of 1,079 - 1,084 and 1,138 - 1,148 feet (Robinson and Brewer, 1964). No oil or gas was recovered during production tests. The well is over three miles north of the Simpson Core wells that penetrated productive Grandstand sands. Total depth of the well reached 1,438 feet. The top 26 feet are cased and the hole was filled with water-based drilling mud. Fresh water aquifers were not encountered. The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) on a recently leased tract that received a high bid of $21.51 per acre during the lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this well will have an adverse impact on development since the well did not penetrate productive zones and future development will likely target deeper, more productive formations. 37 A drilling pad does not exist. Seven-inch casing was cut off at ground level and is very difficult to locate. The well is open to the atmosphere. There is no solid waste, nor is there anything hazardous regarding this location. It should not be considered a risk to surface or sub -surface resources. Simpson Core Test #15 Simpson Core Test #15 was drilled in August 1949 near an active oil seep. The well was drilled to a total depth of 900 feet and cased to 18 feet. The well encountered only residual hydrocarbons in the Ninuluk/Seabee and Grandstand Formations (Robinson and Brewer, 1964). No oil or gas was recovered during well tests. Additionally, fresh water aquifers were not encountered. The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) on a recently leased tract that received a high bid of $21.51 per acre during the lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this well will have an adverse impact on development since the well did not penetrate productive zones and future development will likely target deeper, more productive formations. There is no existing pad. The well was drilled about '/8 of a mile north of a natural seep. The well consists of open ended casing with a height of 18 inches (Figure 29). The area is clean with no solid waste. This well poses no risks to the environment or human activities. Simpson Core Test #14 Simpson Core Test #14 was drilled in 1949 to a depth of 290 feet. The records do not clearly state how much casing was run but the well was left with casing above ground open to the atmosphere. Its present day location lies within 1000 feet to the west of an active oil seep. The well was not drilled deep enough to encounter the hydrocarbon stained sands evident in the Simpson Core #14A well. The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) on a recently leased tract that received a high bid of $21.51 per acre during the lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development in the area is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years. This shallow well did not penetrate any hydrocarbon bearing zones and poses no risk to surface or sub- surface resources, nor- does it have the potential to adversely impact future development. 38 • 0 Simpson Core Test #14A Simpson Core #14A was drilled in 1949 to a depth of 1,270 feet and casing was set to a depth of 32 feet. The well encountered only residual hydrocarbons in the Ninuluk/Seabee and Grandstand Formations. No oil or gas was recovered during tests (Robinson and Brewer, 1964) and fresh water aquifers are not present. Present day location of the well is approximately 1000 feet to the west of an active oil seep. The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) on a recently leased tract that received a high bid of $21.51 per acre during the lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this well will have an adverse impact on development since the well did not penetrate productive zones and future development will likely target deeper, more productive formations. East Simpson #2 East Simpson #2 was drilled in 1977 to 7,505 feet and cased to 6,427 feet. Five cement plugs were set, with the top of the shallowest plug set at 1,997 feet. The primary objective of the well was to test the Ivishak Sandstone where it onlaps the Pre -Devonian age basement rock (Husky Oil NPR Operations for U.S. Geological Survey, 1982). Small scale faulting was found between the wells in the area, possibly accounting for the thin section representing the Sadlerochit Formation. The well encountered very poor oil shows at 6,000 feet in the Torok Formation and Endicott age sandstones were cored with poor porosity and dead oil shows. The well is officially listed as a dry hole. Upon completion of the production tests, the well was plugged back to 1,997 feet and filled with approximately 280 barrels of diesel to facilitate permafrost temperature measurements. However with East Simpson #1 less than five miles away, the USGS has no plans to use this well for temperature monitoring. The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) on a recently leased tract that received a high bid of $21.51 per acre during the lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this 39 0 i well will have an adverse impact on development. If this exploration and development establishes infrastructure nearby, it would greatly facilitate plugging this well and significantly reduce costs. Figure 31: East Simpson #2 is partially submerged during the spring thaw. Photo taken June 2003. Kaolak #1 The wellhead consists of a casing head, side gate valve, a master gate valve, and a needle valve. The drilling pad is of the thin pad variety and is slowly being reclaimed by natural processes. Exposed pilings stick up a height of two feet from the surface, but no other objects needing removal are present (Figure 31). The cellar is a wooden 12' x 12' with standing water. With the existing plugs and the static condition of the well, there is no risk to surface or sub -surface resources. The well is located on an unleased tract, in Southern NPR -A (see Map 2) where a lease sale is scheduled for 2008. Exploration and development in the area is a possibility within 40 • the next 20 years, but since this well did not penetrate productive oil and gas zones it will not have an adverse impact. There are no major surface issues. The working area is still visible due to a multitude of wooden pilings around the wellhead and a cabin on the north end of the pad (Figure 32). Off the pad, the area is clean. The wellhead is missing its upper components. All that remains is the top flange above the base plate and the casing spool, leaving 11 3/ -inch casing open to the enviromnent. The well is left with a casing head and is open to atmosphere. The wellsite is 45 miles southwest Wainwright, which is the nearest community. There are no hazardous materials or anything that would pose a risk to the general health and safety of the land. The cabin may be a concern, but dealing with the situation is outside the scope of this report. Meade #1 Meade #1 is a gas well drilled to a depth of 5,305 feet in 1950. The well was cased to 2,785 feet and two cement plugs were set, with the top of the shallowest plug tagged at 2,783 feet inside the casing. The well encountered some gas shows in one productive sand within the Grandstand Formation. The gas tested at rates up to 1.1 MMCFPD during openhole flow tests of the sand at 2,949 - 2,969 feet. The well is estimated to have gas reserves of 10 BCF. Gas pockets are relatively common in this portion of NPR -A due in large part to the underlying coal. At one point while conducting tests, some problems were encountered while attempting to pull a testing tool out of the hole; a ball -peen hammer was inadvertently dropped downhole, causing the tubing to stick. The tubing could not be freed and as a result, it twisted off leaving tubing in the hole. When the lost tubing could not be pulled out, heavy muds were pumped downhole and the well was abandoned (Collins and Bergquist, 1958). The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2). The well is adjacent to a recently leased tract that received a high bid of $10.26 per acre during the 2004 lease sale. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years and has the potential to target the Grandstand Formation. If left unplugged the well has no potential to adversely affect future development. There is no pad present at Meade #1 Figure 33: Meade #1 wellhead. Several pilings and light trash are present, but s at ground level and consists of an open flange bolted to the top of the casing (Figure 33). This differs from the Navy reports that indicate the wellhead was abandoned in place. There is no record as to why it was removed. A BLM field crew bailed the hole and discovered a swedge and 2 -inch needle valve junked downhole. This site is very remote (30 miles south of Atqasuk) and since the gas zones are currently isolated below the cement plugs there is a limited risk of adverse impacts to surface or sub -surface resources. 41 0 Titaluk #1 Titaluk #1 was drilled in 1951 to a depth of 4,020 feet and is a dry hole. The well was drilled on the end of an anticline to test the oil and gas potential of formations within the Nanushuk Group. A few very poor oil and gas shows were encountered in the Grandstand and Topagoruk Formations, but no oil or gas was recovered during multiple production tests. The Ninuluk and Chandler Formations were also encountered, but with no shows. One cement plug was set at 3,471 feet. The placement of this plug is curious since the shows (albeit poor) were reportedly discovered above this level (Robinson and Bergquist, 1959). The well remains in a static condition. Titaluk #1 is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) on an unleased tract. No offers were received in the June 2004 lease sale. Near-term development is unlikely. Surficially, there are no concerns with this well. The well is open, 10 3/ - inch casing above ground to a height of 3 feet. It is open to the atmosphere. The area of disturbance is completely revegetated Figure 34: Titaluk #1 wellhead with wooden cellar. with no solid waste concerns. The wooden cellar is in a state of disrepair and filled with water (Figure 34). The site is clean with very little debris. There are no hazardous conditions associated with the surface. The nearest settlement is Umiat, 60 miles to the east. The well poses no risks to human safety or the environment. Skull Cliff Core Test #1 Skull Cliff Core Test #1 was drilled in 1947 to a depth of 779 feet and is a dry hole. No shows of oil or gas were reported while drilling through the Gubik, Grandstand, and Topagoruk Formations. While drilling to the target depth of 1,500 feet, the drillstring was lost in the hole and fishing attempts were unsuccessful in recovering the lost drillstring. The drilling mud was bailed down to the top of the fish and the remainder of the well was filled with diesel to 54 feet to prevent the wellbore from freezing and facilitate downhole temperature measurements. It is plausible that the casing could corrode and the diesel fuel could seep into the sub -surface strata, but since there are no fresh water zones in the well it is not considered a risk that would adversely impact sub -surface resources (Collins and Brewer, 1961). The well is located within the Northeast planning area (see Map 2). The well lies adjacent to a recently leased tract that received a high bid of $10.77 per acre during the 2004 lease sale. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it 42 0 is unlikely this well will have an adverse impact on development since industry will likely target deeper, productive formations. An oil seep located at the base of Skull Cliff (land/ocean contact) was observed and documented in the 1940s, which influenced the Navy's decision to drill. BLM and USGS crews searched for the seep when they were in the area but nothing was found at the cliff/beach contact. However, another seep was reported in 1996 by a group from the Academy of Natural Sciences in a small gully about a mile to the east near the old radio tower site. This seep was never confirmed by BLM. Surficially, a drill pad was never established, but a large area of activity is defined by roughly 200 drums, metal tracks, wood debris and various other scraps that litter the site (Figure 35). Presently, the well consists of open casing with a wooden plug shoved into it. There does not appear to be any stressed vegetation that might indicate a hazardous situation. Since the well did not encounter oil and gas Figure 35: Solid waste primarily in the form of empty formations and has no pressure at drums litter the area around Skull Cliff Core Test. The the surface, it is not considered a wellhead is in the upper left portion of the photo. risk to surface resources. The only potential risk is that this site lies near a popular winter route between Barrow and Wainwright and it is possible for a snowmachine to impact the solid waste. Barrow is approximately 30 miles to the northeast and Wainwright is about 60 miles to the west. Oumalik #1 Oumalik #1 was drilled in 1950 and is a dry hole. The well was drilled to a total depth of 11,872 feet and cased to 2,762 feet. It is the deepest well drilled by the early U.S. Navy program. The well location was positioned on the apex of the Outnalik Anticline and drilled with the intent of revealing the oil, gas, and water content of the penetrated stratigraphy. Two cement plugs were set, the shallowest of which is inside the casing at 2,543 feet. Very poor oil and gas shows were reported in the Grandstand Formation, and poor gas shows were noted in both the Topagoruk and Oumalik Formations. Small undetermined volumes of gas were recovered during multiple production tests. It is believed that the gas encountered was large enough to furnish fuel to a camp but not large enough to become a commercial producer. The gas encountered during drilling showed high gas pressure, but the sandstones in which they were observed are thin with low porosity (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). The gas zones are currently isolated by the cement plugs and pose no risk to sub -surface resources. The wellhead and a fabricated plate are below ground level. Two 2 '/z -inch nipples open to the atmosphere are above ground to allow thermistor cables to be run into the well. The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) on unleased tract that received no bids during the lease sale of 2004. Near-term development is unlikely. If left 43 0 • unplugged, the well has no potential to adversely affect future development. The existing pad contains piping from a ground refrigeration system similar to Topagoruk #1. The ground in this area is somewhat swampy with high susceptibility to permafrost melt. Circulating cooled diesel fuel in the pipes enabled drilling to occur without thawing the ground. The steel pilings were pulled from the ground to be reused at another site (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). However, steel pipe filled with diesel fuel remains. A 6 - inch circumference of stressed vegetation was noted around several of the low-cut pipes. Despite the diesel, the well does not pose a risk to any existing communities or habitation. It is in a remote location approximately 55 miles southeast of Atqasuk. Overall, the well poses no risk to people or the environment. East Oumalik #1 East Oumalik #1 was drilled on a ridge that overlooks an unnamed tributary of the Oumalik River. Topographic relief is approximately 100 feet. The drill site is highly remote as the nearest village (Atgasuk) is 65 miles away. The well was drilled in 1951 and reached a total depth of 6,035 feet and is cased to 1,100 feet. It is a dry hole. Very poor oil and gas shows were reported in the Grandstand Formation and very poor gas shows were reported in Topagoruk Formation. The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) on an unleased tract that received no bids during the lease sale of 2004. It is unlikely that exploration and development will occur in the vicinity of this well in the near future. If left unplugged, the well has no potential to adversely affect future development. The well was left with open casing below ground level and has thermistor cables protruding from inside the casing. The casing is marked by a 7 -foot, 3/ -inch pipe. The open pipe lies within a water -filled cellar. The standing water has produced numerous algae and other aquatic vegetation obscuring the wellbore. Surficial hazards consist of several 10 -foot timbers and a few 4 -foot pipes (probably rig anchors) sticking up out of the ground. The site is mostly overgrown with shrubs and appears to be relatively clean. The airstrip, incoming, and outgoing trail scars are obvious and can be used to navigate to the wellsite. There are no risks associated with the well in its current condition and was given this ranking due to its close proximity to Oumalik #1. Topagoruk #1 Topagoruk #1 was drilled in 1951 to a depth of 7,154 feet and is a dry hole. The intent was to test a small, buried anticline and the various formations associated with it. The well was cased to 6,073 feet, plugged back to 6,175 feet and then drilled to a new total depth of 10,503 feet. Prior to re -drilling to total depth, approximately 250 barrels of crude oil from Cape Simpson were added downhole to help offset lost circulation and caving. Additionally, 20 barrels of diesel were added downhole during the drilling phase. No plugs exist in this well. The well is left with open casing to the surface and thermistor cables protruding from the casing (Figure 36). The well encountered the following stratigraphic units while drilling; Gubik, Grandstand, Topagoruk, and Oumalik Formations, Middle and Upper Jurassic rocks, Shublik Formation (Triassic age), Permian rocks, and Lower -Middle Devonian rocks. Hydrocarbon shows were limited to a few very poor gas shows in the Oumalik Formation. No oil or gas was recovered during 44 • multiple production tests (Collins and Bergquist, 1958). The well penetrated no fresh water aquifers and does not represent a threat to surface or sub- surface resources. The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2). It is adjacent to a recently leased tract, receiving a high bid of $50.00 per acre during the NW NPR -A lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development in the area is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but since this well did not penetrate productive oil and gas zones it will not have an adverse impact. There is not a visible pad, but rather an area of disturbance. Disturbance stretches t/4 mile in an Figure 36: Topagoruk ##1 casing on its east -west direction and /8 of a mile in a north- side. When the casing was pulled out of south direction. Solid wastes exist in the form of the ground, thermistor cables were piping remaining from a refrigeration system that discovered. circulated diesel to keep the permafrost frozen. A potential hazard exists because diesel still occupies the ground circulation lines. These lines stretch approximately 750 feet to the east, 250 feet to the north, and 100 feet to the south from the wellhead. Other debris on site include some large, partially -burned timbers, a water -filled wooden box (Figure 37) that resembles a cellar (1/4 mile east of the wellhead), and drilling muds. Atqasuk is the closest village approximately 30 miles to the southwest. The well is remote with the exception of a subsistence camp approximately one mile southwest of the wellhead along the Topagoruk River. El Figure 37: Drilling muds and a wooden box that resembles a cellar are located about % mile east of the wellhead. East Topagoruk #1 Topagoruk's wellhead consists of an open hole cut off at the ground surface with several thermistor cables. A thin piece of weathered metal fits around the cut-off casing to resemble a marker. The weathered metal has been smashed at the base and now lies bent in half on its side. Overall this site poses little hazard to the environment or human population. East Topagoruk #1 was drilled on top of a small ridge in the Chipp River delta in 1951. It reached a total depth of 3,589 feet and is cased to 1,100 feet. The purpose of the well was to test an anticline with closure as well as test the fluid content of the permeable Cretaceous sandstone (Collins and Bergquist, 1958). A very poor gas show in the Topagoruk Formation is the only reported hydrocarbons encountered in the well and no oil or gas was recovered during multiple production tests. One cement plug was set in the 45 well at 1,049 feet. The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) on a recently leased tract. The tract receiving a high bid of $84.99 per acre during the NW NPR -A lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development in the vicinity of this well is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this well will have an adverse impact on development since the well did not penetrate productive zones and future development will likely target deeper formations. A drill pad does not exist. There are a few rig anchors near the wellhead, but no other surficial debris. The current state of the wellhead is open-ended 10 3/ -inch casing. Casing height is three feet above the ground surface. It is housed in a small 9' x 9' water -filled cellar. The area is remote and poses no health and safety risks to humans or the environment. Knifeblade Wells There were three shallow test wells drilled in the Knifeblade Ridge area. Knifeblade #1 was drilled on the ridge at the head of a small stream, with wells 2 and 2A drilled about a mile downstream. The wells are in a highly remote location with Umiat being the nearest settlement, 65 miles to the east. Knifeblade #1 Knifeblade #1 is a dry hole drilled in 1951. The well was drilled to a depth of 1,805 feet and cased to 1,211 feet. The purpose of the well was to test the oil and gas properties of the Grandstand and Tuktu Formations (Robinson and Bergquist, 1959). The well encountered very poor gas shows in the Killik Tongue of the Chandler Formation and very poor oil and gas shows in the Grandstand Formation. The well is located on an unleased tract, in Southern NPR -A (see Map 2) where a lease sale is scheduled for 2008. It is unlikely that exploration and development will occur in the vicinity of this well in the near future. If left unplugged, the well has no potential to adversely affect future development. Surficially, there are no concerns associated with this well. A drill pad does not exist and the wellhead consists of open-ended casing (Figure 38). The wellhead is 8 '/8 - inch pinup inside 11 by 12 V4 -inch Figure 38: Knifeblade #1 is located in a marshy area at collar. The plumb -bob hit solid at 12 the headwaters of a small creek. feet. Total height for the well is about three feet. If this well is left in its current condition, it poses no risk to adversely impacting the surface or sub -surface resources. 46 • 0 Knifeblade #2 Knifeblade #2 is another dry hole drilled in 1951. It was the first of the three Knifeblade wells drilled and reached a total depth of 373 feet, cased to 45 feet, before being junked and abandoned. The purpose of the well was to test the oil and gas properties of the Grandstand and Tuktu Formations (Robinson and Bergquist, 1959). The well did not encounter any hydrocarbon shows. The well is located on an unleased tract, in Southern NPR -A (see Map 2) where a lease sale is scheduled for 2008. It is unlikely that exploration and development will occur in the vicinity of this well in the near future. If left unplugged, the well has no potential to adversely affect future development. Surficial issues are negligible. A drill pad does not exist and the wellhead consists of open-ended casing. There are approximately eight empty drums near Knifeblade #2 and #2A. The wells are highly remote and should not be considered a threat to the environment or human activity. Knifeblade #2A Knifeblade #2A, also drilled in 1951, reached a total depth of 1,805 feet and was cased to 38 feet. The well lies 28 feet to the north of Knifeblade #2A. The purpose of the well was to test the oil and gas properties of the Grandstand and Tuktu Formations (Robinson and Bergquist, 1959). Only very poor oil and gas shows were reported in the Grandstand Formation. The well was left with casing open to the atmosphere and poses no threat to surface or sub -surface resources in its current condition. The well is located on an unleased tract, in Southern NPR -A (see Map 2) where a lease sale is scheduled for 2008. It is unlikely that exploration and development will occur in the vicinity of this well in the near future. If left unplugged, the well has no potential to adversely affect future development. Simpson #1 Simpson #1 test well was drilled with a rotary rig in 1948 by the U.S. Navy. The well was drilled to a total depth of 7,002 feet and cased to 5,954 feet. The purpose of the well was to test the various formations of the Lower Cretaceous and Upper Jurassic rocks. The well encountered several very poor oil and gas shows and one productive gas sand in the Lower Jurassic at a depth of 6,183 - 6,193 feet. The well produced gas at rates up to 3.0 MMCFPD during open hole flow tests of this Lower Jurassic sand. The gas zones are currently isolated from other formations and the surface by two cement plugs set above the productive sand. The top of the shallowest plug is at 5,520 feet (Robinson and Yuster, 1959). The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) adjacent to recently leased tract that received a high bid of $7.51 per acre during the lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development in the vicinity of this well is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years and this exploration has the potential to target the Lower Jurassic. Since the well is partially plugged, however, it poses little risk to surface or sub -surface resources and will not likely adversely affect any future development. 47 0 . The pad is highly visible and was constructed in the same fashion as Fish Creek #1 in which concrete was used as a working pad. Concrete was poured over a landing mat which was placed on pilings. As a result of ground movement from permafrost freeze/thaw cycles, the concrete has buckled in numerous places creating a partially - collapsed surface. This feature provides excellent shelter to small animals and rodents. Additionally, there is a small pile of drilling muds near the wellhead. The well was left equipped with a casing flange, spool w/ side bull plug, and another flange and nipple and is shut-in with no pressure at surface. The components past the flange have since been removed. Overall, the current condition of the site is non -threatening to the sparse human population and the surrounding environment. North Simpson #1 North Simpson #1 was drilled in 1950 to a depth of 3,774 feet and cased to 109 feet. No hydrocarbon shows were reported during the drilling of this well as no sandstone was encountered (Robinson and Yuster, 1959). Upon completion, no plugs were set and the hole was filled back with muds. The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) adjacent to a recently leased tract that received a high bid of $12.76 per acre during the NW NPR -A lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development in the vicinity of this well is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this well will have an adverse impact on development since the well did not penetrate productive zones and future development will likely target deeper formations. Surficially, the area is wet with the wellhead partially submerged intermittently throughout the summer (Figure 39). The drill site lies only a few miles from the Arctic Ocean. The work area is visible with metal pilings around the wellhead. It is unknown if additional solid wastes exist under water. The well was left with a bull plug installed on summer. top of a swedge. The well is not near human activity, and does not pose a threat to surface or sub -surface resources. South Simpson #1 South Simpson #1 was drilled in 1977. The purpose of the hole was to test the Sadlerochit Formation where it laps onto the south flank of the Barrow Arch. The well was drilled to 8,795 feet and cased to 7,206 feet. Reports show that poor gas shows were identified in the Nanushuk Group, Kingak Shale and Shublik Formation. Gas flowed at a rate of 75 MCFPD between 6,522 - 6,568 feet within the Kingak Shale (Gyrc, 1988). The gas contained more than 70% nitrogen. The origin of the high nitrogen content is unknown, but appears to be a localized phenomenon (Bunuss, 2003). Sandstone tongues 48 (Simpson sand) within the Kingak Shale in the Simpson and Barrow localities are known to display good gas reservoir quality (Houseknecht 2001). Poor oil shows were discovered in the Nanushuk Group and Shublik and Torok Formations. Drill stem tests did not recover any oil. Figure 40: South Simpson #1 had its cellar backfilled with silt, consequently burying the casing head. The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) on a recently leased tract that received a high bid of $5.01 per acre during the lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility in the near future since the well is properly plugged it will have no adverse impacts on development. Surfrcially, the pad and pits are in good shape. The cellar has been backfilled with silt which resulted in the burial of the casing head (Figure 40). Above the surface, the wellhead consists of a 4 -inch line pipe and a master valve. The master valve is frozen in the open position. The needle valve previously located above the master valve no longer exists. Beneath the casing head the well is plugged to surface and has no potential to adversely effect surface or sub -surface resources. The wellhead stands about eight feet high. A plumb -bob was dropped and hit solid at 8 feet and stuck. It was subsequently lost. An old, stripped snowmachine sitting next to the wellhead is the only sizable object that would be considered solid waste. Overall, there is no risk associated with this well. Inigok #1 Inigok #1 was drilled in 1979 to a depth of 20,102 feet and cased to 17,432 feet. The well objective was to test a structural/stratigraphic trap within the Sadlerochit and Lisburne Groups (Husky Oil NPR Operations for U.S. Geological Survey-Inigok, 1983). Some very poor gas shows were recorded in the Sag River, Nanushuk, and Endicott Group. Poor oil shows were reported for the Kingak Shale and Lisburne Group. The best shows were found in the base of the Torok Formation at 8,852 feet. No oil or gas was recovered during multiple production tests. The wellhead consists of three spools, each with a gate valve, a master valve, and a needle valve. Ten cement plugs were set in the well and it is plugged to surface. The well is located within the Northeast planning area (see Map 2) on a recently leased tract that received a high bid of $20.34 per acre during the lease sale of 2002. Total E&P Incorporated drilled an exploratory well 15 miles north of Inigok #1 and used the gravel 49 pad and airstrip near the well for staging areas and a camp. It would be fairly simple to remove the wellhead but the well has no potential to adversely affect surface or sub -surface resources. Additionally, the well poses no threat to adversely affect future development. Inigok #1 is one of the few logistical centers Figure 41: Aerial view of Inigok #1. The drill pad and reserve pit within NPR -A (Figure are visible in the top of photograph. A road leads from the apron of 41). The airstrip and pad the airstrip to the drilling pad. are maintained with no solid wastes present. The wellhead poses no risk, and with the plugs already in place, could be removed. Additionally, this well has a year-round airstrip and serves as a logistical base to various NPR -A activities. • USGS Monitored Wells The USGS has used wells drilled in the NPR -A for collecting temperature data to better understand both the global temperature pattern and its effects on the permafrost. The wells that are currently used are properly plugged above the hydrocarbon bearing zones and into the well casing. The wells are filled with diesel fuel down to the shallowest plug at depths ranging from 1,500 - 3,000 feet. For a list of wells see Appendix B. The program began in 1958 and will continue for the foreseeable future. After this project ends, the wells will have the diesel extracted and the well will be properly plugged to surface. Diesel is a non -corrosive agent, and even if the casing should corrode there would be no impact to the surface resources and minimal impact on the sub -surface resources as there are no known fresh water aquifers in NPR -A. The following wells are monitor wells with surficial issues. It is difficult to establish a rank since the wells are sufficiently plugged. The cleanup priority is difficult to determine as the primary threat lies with wells having downhole issues. However, political concerns could influence the timing in which the surface issues are dealt. East Teshekpuk #1 East Teshekpuk #1 was spudded in March 1976. The well was drilled to a depth of 10,664 feet. It is an active USGS monitor well that was properly plugged. The top of the shallowest plug is located at 2,400 feet. From that point to the surface, the hole is filled with diesel fuel. With the well properly plugged and diesel fuel being a non -corrosive agent, there is no downhole issue with the well at this time but there are solid wastes buried on site that may warrant removal. 50 • 0 East Teshekpuk #1 was drilled on a small peninsula on the southeast side of Teshekpuk Lake. The southern shore of the peninsula is protected from the prevailing northerly winds, however the north shore doesn't have the luxury of a barrier and is subject to erosion. Unfortunately, solid wastes from the camp and drilling operation were buried on the northern portion of the pad, possibly in the old reserve pit. The northern shore has been battered by numerous storms which have eroded the shoreline and exposed the solid wastes. The wastes are unsightly and potentially hazardous. While the nearest village of Nuiqsut is 52 miles to the southeast, Teshekpuk Lake is rich in subsistence resources and numerous summer cabins dot the lake's shoreline. It is possible that at the time of surficial restoration, the downhole could be pumped free of diesel and plugged to the surface. Awuna #1 Awuna #1 was spudded February 1980 and completed April 1981. It is the only well drilled in the southwest portion of NPR -A and is 90 miles south-southwest of Atqasuk. Awuna is the most remote well in the entire petroleum reserve. The well was drilled to a total depth of 11,200 feet. Drilling was conducted over two consecutive winters. Ice roads and an ice airstrip were constructed for logistical support. The project cost approximately $6 million (Husky Oil NPR Operations-Awuna, pg 5). Due to the orientation of the pad, the prevailing winds force wave action into the drilling pad, undermining the sands and silts which make up the pad. Below the sands and silts, Styrofoam was used to insulate the underlying permafrost. Wave action has eroded tens of feet into the drilling pad, exposing the Styrofoam, which consequently breaks loose and blows away. Wooden pilings exposed from erosion show how much attrition has taken place. Styrofoam can be seen all around the pad with pieces blown up to 5 miles away. Downhole, the well is in good shape with sufficient plugs. Diesel fuel fills the top 4,000 feet. The well is an USGS monitor well. Wellhead components are in working condition with no problems. The immediate concern with this site is the blowing Styrofoam, but as the years progress erosion could become a major issue (Figure 42). The loose Styrofoam should be cleaned Figure 42: Awuna wellhead with exposed wooden pilings and up and erosion progress Styrofoam. should be monitored on an annual basis. It is also worth mentioning that the same type of scenario is unfolding at Tunalik #1 (another USGS well). Wave action from the reserve pit is beginning to 51 undermine Styrofoam from the drilling pad. Tunalik #1 differs from Awuna #1 in that prevailing wind direction does not force erosion in the direction of the wellhead. Uncased Core Tests There are thirty-nine uncased core test holes. These holes were typically left filled with drilling mud and abandoned without being plugged. Drilling depths ranged between 500 and 1,500 feet depending on the purpose of the test. By nature, core tests were drilled to test soils, permafrost, or lithologic units. They were not drilled for oil or gas exploration purposes and did not encounter hydrocarbons. Many of the cores are stored in the Alaska Geologic Materials Center (Figure 43). The BLM has examined the cores and they are extremely friable. It is likely that these Figure 43: Core samples from Simpson Core Test #25, an uncased core test, are stored in the Alaska Geologic Materials Center. Barrow Gas Wells uncased core holes have naturally collapsed and harmlessly blended into the environment. There is no surface indication of their location and BLM has been unsuccessful in locating them during several visits to their reported location. They do not pose any potential risks. The Barrow Gas Field Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-366, 98 Stat. 468, July 17, 1984) allowed the U.S. Navy to transfer several wells to the North Slope Borough. The Navy drilled six shallow wells between 1953 and 1974 to test the natural gas potential. Between 1974 and 1982, 10 additional wells were drilled to help supplement the local gas supply. The wells were developed for use by the local government agencies and Barrow residents. The act conveyed the sub -surface estate, held by the federal government and any other interest therein, to the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC). The BLM acknowledges the surface and sub -surface lands as conveyed and the Office of the Regional Solicitor has confirmed that the Transfer Act included the wells and well locations, and any liabilities associated with these wells are the responsibility of ASRC. 52 0 0 Plugged Wells Square Lake #1 Square Lake #1 is a Navy well that was drilled to a depth of 3,984 feet. Its primary intent was to test the Cretaceous rocks in east -west trending anticline structure (305H pg 424). No significant shows of oil were found. Gas shows were encountered in various sandstone beds between 1,600 and 1,900 feet, but otherwise the hole was dry. Upon completion, four plugs were reported to be set with the upper plug at 728 feet, well above the gas shows. Two other plugs were reported to be set in the gas zone, spanning depths of 1,640 - 1,840 and 1865 - 1934 feet. In addition to the six plugs, water and mud fill the remaining distance to the surface (Collins and Berquist, 1959). Upon successive visits to the site, BLM field crews dropped a plumb -bob down the hole and hit a solid obstruction between 8 and 10 feet. Don Meares, Northern Field Office, visited the site in August 2003 with an underwater camera and determined the solid surface to be cement. The Square Lake area is clean of debris with a few deadmen pilings (anchors) near the wellhead that could pose a ground hazard. The wellhead is open casing cut off at ground level. Umiat #2 and #5 The Umiat #2 and #5 wells were plugged and abandoned in 2002 by the COE (Figure 44). The wells were drilled on a common four -acre pad in 1947 and 1951. The purpose of the wells was to test for producing lithologies and determine petroleum quantities. Umiat #2 penetrated the Gubik Formation, Nanushuk Group (Chandler and Grandstand Formations), Topagoruk Formation and Oumalik Formation. Problems with the drilling muds were encountered while drilling Umiat #2. Analysts determined that the fresh water drilling fluid caused formation damage and the Umiat #5 well was drilled adjacent to the #2 with a cable -tool rig. The well produced 400 barrels per day with the most productive sandstones in the lower Chandler and upper Grandstand. Below a depth of 1075 feet, 107 barrels of crude oil from both Umiat and Simpson were used as a drilling fluid, as well as 11 barrels of diesel fuel (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). In 2000, the Colville River threatened to erode both wellsites away. The COE took action under the FUDS program in the winter of 2001-2002 to plug, abandon and remove any surface features. The concrete lined cellar of Umiat #2 and wooden platform from Umiat #5 were removed. Costs were approximately $25 million dollars due in part, to soil Approximately 30,000 tons of petroleum -contaminated soil was excavated. 53 remediation. The soil was transported on an ice road to the Umiat camp where it was thermally treated in a rotary kiln to remove petroleum residues. Small quantities of PCB contaminants were unexpectedly encountered after the excavation was completed. The source of the PCBs has been linked back to the #5 well and the fluids used downhole. The ever -shifting Colville River continues to erode the north bank and is approximately 50 feet from the old wellbores. With the removal of hazardous soils, this site should not be considered a threat to humans or the environment. Umiat #3 Umiat #3, also known as Umiat Core Test #1, was spudded in December 1946 and drilled to test some of the oil bearing zones encountered while drilling Umiat #1. The well was drilled on the northeast corner of Umiat Lake just below the hill from Umiat #4 (Figure 45). Umiat #3 penetrated the Gubik Formation and the Nanushuk Group. The Grandstand Formation within the Nanushuk Group is considered to be the primary source of oil between the depths of 258 and 514 feet. The hole produced 50 barrels per day prior to shutdown. The well was re- tested nine months later with production dropping to 24 barrels per day (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). The wellhead consists of homemade components with a single water service type valve and is capped with a needle valve. There is no seeping present at this Figure 45: The view from Umiat #4 looking southwest site, however seeps are common in toward Umiat Lake and Umiat. Umiat #3 is located on the area, including an active seep in the near shore of Umiat Lake. Umiat Lake. An extensive piping system is still visible. The pipes probably supplied water during the drilling phase. They connect Umiat #3 to #4 which then follow the hill from Umiat #4 to a side channel of the Colville River. Their function was to either carry water to the drilling sites or assist during the well's production phase. The overall surficial conditions including the wellhead and piping, do not pose a threat to human health nor the environment. BLM plugged the well in May 2004. Umiat #4 After encountering relatively poor oil shows on the first three wells, operations were suspended until 1950. Cable tool drilling rigs were introduced to determine if the fresh water muds had hindered the oil production in the previous wells (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). Cable tool wells did not require the excavation of a cellar; therefore Umiat wells #447 did not have cellars. Umiat #4 is located on top of the hill to the northeast of Umiat #3 (Figures 45, 46). The well was drilled May 1950 to a maximum depth of 840 feet. The hole bored through the Ninuluk, Chandler and Grandstand Formations. Oil was found in the upper and lower 54 • sandstone of the Grandstand Formation. Drilling encountered good oil shows around 300 feet with a total 500 barrels produced (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). The wellhead consists of 11 3/ -inch casing protruding 36 inches above the ground surface. The casing is capped with a steel plate. Upon removal of the cover, the hole was open to the environment. No valves or gauges are present. The well was plugged by the BLM on May 9, 2004. The well poses no risk to humans or the environment. 1] Figure 46: Umiat #4 prior to plugging. The wellhead is located in the center of the photograph. Umiat #8 Like the other wells drilled in the 1950s, Umiat #8 was drilled using cable tools. The well was spudded May 1951 and completed August 1951. It is located on top of a ridge that separates Umiat from the Bear Paw Creek valley. Drilling intention was to determine the quality and quantity of hydrocarbons in the Grandstand formation near the crest of the anticline structure. The hole encountered the Seabee, Ninuluk, Chandler, and Grandstand Formations. The Grandstand Formation produced approximately 60-100 barrels per day of oil and more than 6 million cubic feet per day of gas. The well was shut in with a gas pressure of 275 pounds per square inch. The gas was analyzed by the Bureau of Mines and determined to be 97.3 per cent methane. Brine was mixed (35 lbs of salt per barrel of water) and used in the drilling fluid to prevent freeze up. Brine solution of approximately the same ratio of salt per barrel of water was used to kill the well and set the plug while cementing casing. A total of 21,695 pounds of salt were used in the well (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). The well was plugged May 2, 2004. Prior to plugging, the well was nicknamed the "Whistling Well" due to the gas of which was escaping through fittings and valves in the wellhead. The wellhead is easily the most complex of the 11 Umiat test wells. It consists of five valves and multiple gauges. It has several homemade components and reaches a total height of ten feet. After reporting the seeping gas in 1996, two new valves and gauges were installed in 1997. The new gauges have been checked regularly since 1998 and have consistently read 250 psi. Despite replacing the two valves and gauges, gas continued to leak from the wellhead. The largest of the leaks occurred just above the top flange where a 4 -inch nipple and collar are welded together. Other leaking occurred at the fittings of some of the gauges. The wellhead is sited on a gravel pad. A series of piping extends from the wellhead to a small stock tank about 100 feet to the south. The tank probably was used as a holding tank for the oil while testing the production potential of the hole. The same style of stock tank is present in various old photographs found in the Umiat area and may be the same 55 9 i tank. Oil from inside the tank was sampled in 2004 with test results positively identifying PCB contamination which is slightly below the level of concern. Umiat #10 Umiat #10 was spudded September 1951 and completed January 1952. This well was drilled to test the Umiat anticline and is located about a half mile northwest of Umiat #8. Total depth of the well is about 1,573 feet. When the well was bailed, it produced 222 barrels of oil in a 24-hour time span. The most productive layers occurred at 980 feet and 1,095 feet, penetrating both the Ninuluk and Grandstand Formation (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). Also encountered were the Seabee and Chandler Formations. The hole was somewhat problematic as it caved considerably during drilling. Operations consisted of a drill rig set on a foundation of 12" x 12" timbers with a thin layer of gravel in between. Twenty-five pounds of salt mixed with Aquagel and water (per barrel) were used ,1,..-1.,.1,. �_ 1...1._ 1_1_*....a.. i -- approximately _ approximately 10 feet. The 8 �i 5/8 -inch casing is flared and open at the top. This well was b plugged May 6, 2004 (Figure 47). Figure 47: Plugging operations at Umiat #10. May 2004. The surface near Umiat 910 is in good shape. There is no existing pad and no solid wastes. With the recent plugging of the well, it is not a risk to human health and safety or the environment. 56 0 APPENDIX B 0 20 Wells Currently Monitored by the United States Geological Survey: NAME Atigaru Awuna* Drew Point East Simpson #1 East Teshekpuk West Fish Creek #1 Ikpikpuk Kugura Koluktak* Kuyanak Lisburne North Inigok North Kai ikpik Peard Bay Seabee* South Meade South Harrison Bay Tunalik* Tulageak West Dease HOLE DEPTH(meters) 648 884 640 600 727 735 615 582 227 856 532 625 660 591 393 549 399 556 756 823 *Are also part of the CALM network (Circumpolar Active -Layer Monitoring). 57 0 Conclusion The Umiat wells, due to their proximity to the Colville River, the high level of activity in the area, their presence on an active lease and a known oil field, and the identified hazardous materials in the area, have been identified as the highest legacy well priority. Zn At present, Umiat wells #2 and 45 have been successfully plugged and abandoned. Umiat wells #3, #4, #8, and #10 have also been plugged, but all surface objects have been left in place. There are three more Umiat wells that are open to the known oil reservoir that should be plugged next. With plugging equipment already staged at Umiat, it is in the BLM's best interest to plug the remaining of these three wells at the earliest possible time. The cost to finish the Umiat plugging is estimated to be $500,000. The well that poses the next greatest risk is the J.W. Dalton #1 well on the coast of the Arctic Ocean. The well is properly plugged up to 1,580 feet but is filled with diesel fuel above the plug. Recent erosion has washed away over 200 feet of beach and continued erosion threatens to wash away the drill pad and the reserve pit. There is the possibility that the wave action directly on the well will cause the well casing to fail which would spill hundreds of barrels of diesel fuel into the Arctic Ocean. Limited sampling in 1989 found elevated heavy metal presence in the pit (chromium, zinc, cobalt, and barium). Further sampling is warranted and removal of contaminated soils may be necessary to prevent the soil from washing into the ocean. The cost to plug the well is estimated to be approximately $1,000,000. The cost to remove and dispose of the contaminated dirt in the reserve pit is estimated to be $4,000,000. The other wells that represent some risk are the four Simpson wells that flow oil. The wells are not currently leaking, but if the surface equipment corrodes or is otherwise damaged, oil would flow onto the tundra. There are also 3 wells in the immediate area that could be plugged for a relatively small additional cost if plugged at the same time. The cost to plug these 7 wells is $5,000,000. Due to the remoteness of many of the wells, and the high costs associated with plugging, the BLM recommends no action on the remaining low risk wells until better infrastructure is in place. Additionally, any effort to remove the equipment, barrels, and pipe that have been left behind at some of the wellsites is very difficult to justify unless some potential risk of harm is identified. Some would view these locations as unsightly but, given the costs that would be incurred, it makes sense to wait until a better infrastructure is in place before addressing this relatively benign situation. It is also recommended that BLM continue to monitor the coastal wells on an annual basis and the remaining wells on a three-year schedule to identify emerging risks and keep records current. 13 A 3 $ Alaska's giant Umiat oil field, discov- ered in the late 1940s by the US Navy in search of new sources of oil after World War II, remains undeveloped to this day. The field is untapped in spite of delineation by 12 legacy wells; the shal- low depth of its consolidated, produc- tive reservoirs; sweet, light 37° gravity oil; and over 1 billion bbl of original oil in place. To this point, re- moteness (92 miles from the Trans Alas- ka Pipeline System (TAPS)), permafrost, and low reservoir energy have been the main development challenges. All of these challenges have been ad- dressed through modern technologi- cal advancements such as multilateral horizontal drilling, electric submers- ible pumps, and cold gas injection for pressure maintenance that bring Umiat development closer to fruition. Remoteness and environment is still a key challenge; however, the State of Alaska announced in December 2009 an aggressive plan to build an all -sea- son gravel road from TAPS to the Umiat r i! +! giant James S. Watt Allen Huckabay Mark R. Landt Renaissance Alaska LLC Houston I %-"-\clk V—�L�% �\\Q KA NORTH SLOPE Well Name I PTD # UMIAT TEST 01 -� 1002090 geoscience UMIAT TEST 03 �v 1002110 UMIAT TEST 04 1002120 l:JMIA:F:FE-G:F 85 q8821198 UMIAT TEST 06 1002140 UMIAT TEST 07 1002150 survey shot UMIAT TEST 09 1002170 'UMIAT TEST 10 I 1002180 UMIAT TEST 11 1002190 (UMIAT 14 2071780 30 National Petroleum Reserve -Alaska Umiat �refand basin Re^ea Front Alaska i Bird and Molenaar, 1992 area that would substantially reduce the threshold for commerciality. Geologic mapping by the US Navy in 1944 first defined the Umiat anticline with its associated oil seeps. The Navy and the US Geological Survey conducted an extensive mapping and drilling program in this remote part of northern Alaska from 1944 to 1953. In particular, between 1946 and 1952, a total of 11 wells were drilled on the Umiat anticline. Eight wells have an oil column and two wells had long- term tests. Much of this early drilling was ex- perimental utilizing a variety of types of drilling rigs as well as different types of drilling fluids. A deeper test, the Seabee -1, was drilled in 1978 and tested gas from a deeper horizon. The Navy established an air base at Umiat and used the light oil for fuel. So unlike other Arctic pending de- velopments, Umiat has an established footprint including an airstrip, lodging, warehouse storage, etc. Renaissance Alaska LLC, through Renaissance Umiat LLC, controls 19,358 acres over the undeveloped Umiat oil field and a portion of the undeveloped Gubik gas field 12 miles east-northeast. Arctic Falcon Exploration Fig 1 LLC is a mi- 150° 140° Beaufort Sea ............ ....--- -- Prudhoe="'.r room . Kuparuk Anaft National �• CANADA o� Wildlife Refuge 1, `r 4 nority owner of Renais- sance Umiat LLC. Since acquiring the acre- age in 2006 and 2007, Renaissance has derisked the project through extensive `` ��0 E�7r 00,01", - geoscience studies and , an 86 sq mile 7 ' a 3D seismic o' survey shot in 2008. Re- Oil & Gas Journal / Jan. 17, 2010 `` ��0 E�7r 00,01", - O TOFTy� A United States Department of the Interior 1 Cd BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT TAKE PRIDE' �gACH 3 10p9 Alaska State Office INAMERICA, 222 West Seventh Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504 http://www.ak.blm.gov 3160(AK 930) SCP 2 6 2006 Mr. John R. Norman, Chairman Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission l06 333 West Seventh Avenue, # 13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Dear Mr. Norman: This letter is in response to your letter, dated September 8, 2006, regarding recent work at NPRA Simpson Wells and prior Umiat work. Enclosed are Forms 10-404, providing a subsequent report of the 2004 plugging and abandonment of the government drilled Umiat Wells 3, 4, 8 and 10, requested in your letter. You also requested forms for the 2002 plugging of Umiat Wells two and five. The Corp of Engineers contracted the plugging and abandonment of those two wells. Please contact the Corp of Engineers for those forms. Thank you for informing us of this oversight. If you have further concerns regarding this matter, please contact Greg Noble, Energy Branch Chief at (907) 267-1429. Sincerely, Julia Dougan Acting State Director 4 Enclosures (Forms 10-404 for Umiat Wells 3,4,8 and 10) • RECErvEL) SEP 2 8 206 r���� awl • STATE OF ALASKA Alaska Oil & Ga3 cons, commission t� ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION Anchorage r� -REPORT OF SUNDRY WELL OPERATIONS /19f Pfo, * A 4.24.a( 1. Operations Abandon X Repair Well Plug Perforations Stimulate Other Performed: Alter Casing Pull Tubing Perforate New Pool Waiver Time Extension Change Approved Program Operat. Shutdown Perforate Re-enter Suspended Well 2. Operator Bureau of Land Management 4. Current Well Class: 5. Permit to Drill Number: Name: Development Exploratory X Stratigraphic Service 1002110 ' 3. Address: 6881 Abbott Loop Road Anchorage, AK 6. API Number: 502871000300 ' 7. KB Elevation (ft): 9. Well Name and Number: 360 RKB 351 GL ' UMIAT TEST WELL #3 ' 8. Property Designation: 10. Field/Pool(s): AA -081726 !2±Mfj y Q. e(a 11. Present Well Condition Summary: Total Depth measured 572 feet Plugs (measured) 60-150 true vertical 572 feet Junk (measured) N/A Effective Depth measured 572 feet true vertical 572 feet Casing Length Size MD TVD Burst Collapse Structural Conductor 62 7 72 72 Surface Intermediate Production Liner Perforation depth: Measured depth: N/A True Vertical depth: N/A Tubing: (size, grade, and measured depth) Packers and SSSV (type and measured depth) 12. Stimulation or cement squeeze summary: SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT REFERENCE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED DESCRIPTION OF WORK 13. Representative Daily Average Production or Injection Data Oil -Bbl Gas-Mcf I Water -Bbl Casing Pressure Tubing Pressure Prior to well operation: 0 0 10 0 0 Subsequent to operation: 0 0 10 0 10 14. Attachments: 15. Well Class after proposed work: Copies of Logs and Surveys Run No Exploratory X Development Service Daily Report of Well Operations 16. Well Status after proposed work: Oil X Gas WAG GINJ WINJ WDSPL 17. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Sun u r or N/A if .I xempt: Contact Greg Noble xfi. K/ /n Printed Name Greg Noble Title Petroleum Engineer Signature Phone 907-267-1429 Date 9/21/2006 a r-0-06 RROMS BR o CT 4 3 2006 � : fe lal, E � .:I NAL BLMSud: Umiat #3 Rig:Failing Model 1500 (314-C) November 15, 1946 -� - Umiat Meridian Township Range Section Start P+A Umiat is 1W 3 5/9/04 Current Wellbore Schematic GL: 351' AMSL KB: 360' AMSL End P+A Open Hole Wellhead is 6' above GL 5/11/04 Uriginal KKtD = 9.U' Above GL 30 sx of Portland 9" Hole Cement x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x� 7.3 sx of Arctic Set 3 ter. <ri�/r �fr1 Fluid Level = 118' 5 7/8" Hole 538' 3" Hole TD = 572' or .; A PBTD = 572' Casing and Tubing Detail Size Weight Grade Type ID Top Btm 7" --- --- Conductor --- 8 72 ??? --- --- Tubing --- ??? ??? 0 Gel Pill MI Gel; 10 ppg Wellbore Fluids Unknown Well Fluids Item Location Top Btm Vol (bbl) Comments 1 OH/Csg 66 93 5.75 Surface cement plug ✓ 2 Open Hole 93 118 0.82 Gel pill 3 Open Hole 118 572 ? Wellbore Fluids Fish/Fill Information Item Date Depth Comment A 5/11/04 ??? Tubing cut and dropped in well x x x Cement Arctic Set 3; yield 1.533 cf/sx; 10.7 ppg x x x x x Gel Pill MI Gel; 10 ppg Wellbore Fluids Unknown ' Y V"wm^.t. • i NT Of T United States Department of the I wenol- O 9 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT CH 33 �0°9 Alaska State Office �rN K ���� 222 West Seventh.Avenue �Mt�F�iCA Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504 http://www.ak.blm.gov 3160(AK 930) 'SEP 2 6 2006 Mr. John R. Norman, Chairman Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 333 West Seventh Avenue„# 13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Dear Mr. Norman: This letter is in response to your letter, dated September .8, 2006, regarding recent work at NPRA Simpson Wells and prior Umiat work. Enclosed are Forms 10-404, providing a subsequent report of the 2004 plugging and abandonment of the government drilled Umiat Wells 3, 4, 8 and 10, requested in your letter. You also requested forms for the 2002 plugging of Umiat Wells two and five. The Corp of Engineers contracted the plugging and abandonment of those two wells. Please contact the Corp of Engineers for those forms. Thank you for informing us of this oversight. If you have further concerns regarding this matter, please contact Greg Noble, Energy Branch Chief at (907) 267-1429. Sincerely, /S/Julia S. Dougan ACTING State Director Julia Dougan Acting State Director 4 Enclosures (Forms 10-404 for Umiat Wells 3,4,8 and 10) 930: GNoble.jdh:09/22/06:1429c:/data/Itr/AOGCCIetterl.doc STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION REPORT OF SUNDRY WELL OPERATIONS 1. Operations Abandon X Repair Well Plug Perforations Stimulate Other Performed: Alter Casing Pull Tubing Perforate New Pool Waiver Time Extension Change Approved Program Operat. Shutdown Perforate Re-enter Suspended Well 2. Operator Bureau of Land Management 4. Current Well Class: 5. Permit to Drill Number: Name: Development Exploratory X 1002110 3. Address: 6881 Abbott Loop Road Anchorage, AK Stratigraphic Service 6. API Number: 7. KB Elevation (ft): 502871000300 9. Well Name and Number: 360 RKB 351 GL UMIAT TEST WELL #3 8. Property Designation: 10. Field/Pool AA -081726 842000 11. Present Well Condition Summary: Total Depth measured 572 feet Plugs (measured) 60-150 true vertical 572 feet Junk (measured) N/A Effective Depth measured 572 feet true vertical 572 feet Casing Length Size Mn TIM �..__. In Perforation depth: Measured depth: N/A True Vertical depth: N/A Tubing: (size, grade, and measured depth) Packers and SSSV (type and measured depth) 12. Stimulation or cement squeeze summary: SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT REFERENCE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED DESCRIPTION OF WORK 13. Rep eseniaave Dany ,overage Production or Injection Data Oil -Bbl Gas-Mcf Water -Bbl Casing Pressure Tubing Pressure Prior to well operation: 0 0 0 10 0 Subsequent to operation: 0 0 0 10 0 14. Attachments: 15. Well Class after proposed work: Copies of Logs and Surveys Run No Exploratory X Development Service Daily Report of Well Operations 16. Well Status after proposed work: Oil X Gas WAG GINJ WINJ WDSPL 17. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Sundry Number or N/A if C.O. Exempt: Contact Greg Noble Printed Name Greg Noble Title Petroleum Engineer Signature Phone 907-267-1429 Date 9/21/2008 BLM Umiat #3 Ri Failing Model 1500 (314-C) S ud: November 15, 1946 Umiat Meridian Township Range Section Start P+A Umiat is 11W 3 T 5/9/04 Current Wellbore Schematic GL: 351' AMSL KB: 360' AMSL End P+A Wellhead is 6' above GL 5/11/04 Original RKB 9' 57 3" TD = 572' PBTD = 572' sx of Portland ment if Arctic Set 3 Casing and Tubing Detail Size Weight Grade Type ID - Top Btm Conductor 8 ?2 - ??? — — Tubing ??? ??? `11s' Item Location TOF 1 OH/Csg 66 2 Open Hole 93 3 Open Hole 118 Well Fluids Btm Vol (bbl) Comments 93 5.75 Surface cement plug 118 0.82 Gel pill 572 ? Wellbore Fluids FishlFill Information Item Date . Depth Comment A 5/11/04 ??? Tubing cut and dropped in well Lx x x x x Cement Arctic Set 3; yield 1.533 cf/sx; 10.7 ppg . x. x Gel Pill MI Gel; 10 ppg Wellbore Fluids Unknown E U SSP-26-2UU6 TUE 08:29 AM rHA NU, yU( 2(! 4tyb 0 r, u To hem - 4A 14 - --ons- =-- NtAmbw of pages Includne a ohm* --- 10 /00 -011 w r HX NU. JU (i 4byb r • United States Department of the Interior _- - 13LJ EAU Of LAND MANAGEMENT Alaska State Office TAKE Pard 222 West Seventh Avenue c14MER1CA Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504 http://www.ak.blm aov _ 3160(AK 930) SEP 2 6 2006 Mr. John R. Norman, Chairman Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 333 West Seventh Avenue, # 13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Dear A4r. Norman: This letter is in response to your letter, dated September 8, 2006, regarding recent work at NPRA Simpson Wells and prior Umiat work. Enclosed are forms 10-404, providing a subsequent report of the 2004 plugging and abandonment of the government drilled Umiat Wells 3, 4, 8 and 10, requested in your letter. You also requested forms for the 2002 plugging of Umiat Wells two and five. The Corp of Engineers contracted the plugging and abandonment of those two wells. Please contact the Corp of Engineers for those forms. Thank you for informing us of this oversight. If you have further concerns regarding this matter, please contact Greg Noble, Energy Branch Chief at (907) 267-1429. Sincerely, Julia Dougan Acting State Director 4 Enclosures (Forms 10-404 for Umiat Wells 3,4,8 and 10) f U SEP -26-2006 TUE 08:29 AN AK STATE DIRECTOR FAX N0, 90i' 2(1 4b9b • STATE OF ALASKA Tv ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION REPORT OF SUNDRY WELL OPERATIONS E Abandon X RepairWelt Plug PerforationsStimulate Or Alter Casing Pull Tubing Perforate New Pool Waiver Time Extension Approved Program Operat, Shutdown Perforate Re-enter Suspended Well Bureau of Land Management 4. Current Welt Class: 5. Permft to Drill NumberDevelopment Exploratory X 1002120 6881 Abbott fvRoad Anchorage, AK Sttaiigraphic Service e, APt Number: 502871000400 7. KB Elevation IL g. Welt Name and Number, 483 RKB 482 GL t1M1AT TEST WELL I14 e. Property Assignation: 10. FiTESpl(S}: AA -081726 Ml Depth measured 840 teat Plugs (measured) 5.105 _ true vertical 840 feet Junk (measured) 792 :cove Depth measured 792 feet true venlcal78z" feet erfOratlon depth: Measured depth: NIA True Venice( depth: N/A rbing: (size, grad&, and measured depth) lckere and SSSV (type and measured depth) . Stlmulation.or cement squeeze summary; SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT REFERENCE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED DESCRIPTION OF WORK Prior to weir operation: FO Subsequent to operation: 6 14. Attachments: Copies of logs and Surveys Run No Daily Report of well Operations 17. I hereby certify that the foregoing Is true and correct to th Contact Greg Noble Printed Name Greg Noble Signature or Exploratory X Development Service Well Status after proposed work; Oil X Gas WAS GIN WIND WDSPL f my knowledge- ISundry Number or NIA if C.O. Exempt: Title Petroleum Engineer Pnone 907.267-1429 Date 9/212006 IV IOU 6"" DILM TD = W- PBTI) = 60. Umiat #4 Umiat Current Wellbore Schematic c of caWSMI f Arelic Se13 ;209' Wellbore fluids Unknown WfteshWater �cr-co-cuue t uc un �u rn �Lr) nn ti i n; ,_ v t�c�� 1 urc ; nn Ivu, �u + c c i 4�yo r, UC Tubing: (size, grade, and measured depth) STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION REPORT OF SUNDRY WELL OPERATIONS 1. Operations Abandon x Repair Well Performed: Plug Perforatfone 5d Other Alter Casing Pull Tubing Change Approved Program g Operat. Shutdown Perforate New Pool WaiveaTter Wawer Time Extension " — 2. Operator Bureau of Land Management Perforate Re -anter Suspended Wel) Name: 4. Current Wel! Crass S. Permit to Drill Number 3, Address: 6881 Abbott Loop Road Anchors qK Oe• ❑everopment Exploratory X 1002110 3. Straligrapnic Service 8. API Number- 7. K8 Elevation (ft): 502871000300 360 RK8 351 GL 9, Welt Name and Number. 8. Property Designation; UMIAT TEST WELL #3 AA -081728 10, Field/Pooi(S): 11. Present Well Condition Summary: 842000 Total Depth measured 572 feet _—fee: Plugs (measured) 50 true vertical 5i2 Junk (measured) N/A N/A Effective Depth measured 672 feet true verdcai 572 feet Casing Length Srze .,. mar wranon aepin: Measured depth; NSA True Verticat depth: NIA Tubing: (size, grade, and measured depth) Packers and SsSV (type and measured depth) 12. Sttmufatlon or cement squeeze summary: SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT REFERENCE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED DESCRIPTION OF WORK 3. Representative Dalry Average Production or Injection Data Oil Sbf Prior to wall operation: 0 Gas Mct Waier`8bl 0 Casing Pressure Tubing Preset $ubsequent to operation: 0 0 0 0 0 Aftadlment3: ogles of Logs and Surveys Run No 0 1S• Weft Clow after proposed work- 0 0 t Report of weu O Aerations Exploraaory x Development Service 18. Well Status after P—ro- ed W. l hereby Certify that the foregoing ie true antl rgrreCt to the best of my kn w)6dgCg S WAG GINJ WIND WDSPL Sundry Number or N/A If C.O. Exempt: Contact Greg Noble Printed Name Greg Noble Title Petroleum Engineer Signature Phone 907-267-1429 Date 9/21/2008 i 9' 67 3'' DILM TD = 572' PBTiD = 572' Umiat #3 Umiat Current Wellbure Schematic sac of PorHand Ment if Arctic Set 3 :IIr Gel Pill MI Gel; 90 ppg INWellbore Fluids Unknown . SEP -26-20U6 TUE U6:30 AM AK STAi a i KEU1UK Su i H { NU, y i 1 4b'b r, s - STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA OIL. AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION REPORT OF SUNDRY WELL OPERATIONS ]perations Abandon X Repair Well Plug Perforations stimulate formed: After Casing Pull Tubin Other 9 Perforate New Pool Waiver Time Extension Change Approved Program Operat. Shutdown )perator Bureau of Land Management Ferfdrafe Reenter Suspended Wen rre: 4. Current Well Class: 5. Permit to Drill Number: tltlress; 6881 Ab=L.0d Anchors e, AK Development ExplOrarory X 1002160 g Stratigraphic Service e, API Number: 8 Elevation (ft): 502171001000 fR1f13 741 C+L9. Well Name and Number UMIATTEST WELL #1a if Depth measured 1573 feet Plugs (measured) 5-100 true vertical 15-73 feet .funk (measured) (meq awe Depth measured 1573 feet true vertical —1573' feet rerroration depth: Measured depth: NSA True Vertical depth: N/A Tubing: (sl2e, grade, and measured depth) Packers and SSSV (type and measured depth) 12. Stimuladon cr cement squeens summary: SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT REFERENCE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED DESCRIPTION OF WORK 13. Representative Dally Average Production or Infection Data Prior to well operation; 0 0 �.aang rr@ssure Tuning Pressure p 0 0 Subsequent to operation: 0 0 0 0 ►. Attachments 0 15. Well Class after proposed work Spies of Logs and Surveys Run No 11 Class aiory X Development service liiy Report of Well Operations 15. Well Status aft@r proposed work: Off X Gas WAG GIN,I WINJ WDSPL 1 hereby certify that the fOregofng Is true and COrtGO to the best of my knowledge, Sundry Number or NIA if C.O. Exempt: Contact Greg Noble Printed Name Greg Noble Tine Petroleum Englneer, Signature Phone 907-267.1429 Data 9/21/2006 qMR.; Cement 4M-Oc Set 3; Yleld 4A4 cf1sx; 10.7 ppg TI) = 1573' PBM - 1573' Im Wellbore Fluids Unknown Fresh Water SEP -26-2006 TUE 08:30 AM B AK STATE DIRECTOR FAX NO, 907 271 4596 P, 09 .,6 . • Total Depth measured 1327 feet Plugs (measured) 5-100 S 927-1327 true vertical 4327 feat Junk (measured) N/A Effective Deptn measured 1327 feet true vertical 1327 feet Perforation depth: Measured depth: N/A True Vertical depth: NIA Tubing: (size, grade, and measured depth) 2.5 6.5A H40 _ 1312 ?ackers and SSSV (type and measured depth) NA 12. Stimulation or camera squeeze summary. SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT REFERENCE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED DESCRIPTION OF WORK Prior to well operation. 10 - Subsequent Subsequent to operation:: 0 14. Attachments. :Opies of Logs and Surveys Run No )ally Report of Well Operations 7. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct to th Contact Greg Noble Printed Name Greg Noble / Signature - iir'/mss or -OR %lass aver proposed work: - - - Exploratory X Development Service Well Status after proposed work, Oil Gas X WAG GIN,! W1NJ WDSPL f my knowledge. ISUndrY Number or NIA If C.O. Exempt: Title Petroleum Engineer Prone 907.267-1429 Date 90/20o8 STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION REPORT OF SUNDRY WELL OPERATIONS 1.j0per=ationsmAbantlon X Repair Wall Plug PerforatJong Stimulate OtherPmed: Alter Casing Change Approved Program Pull Tubing Perforate New Pool Waiver Time Extennsiion Operas Shutdown 2.rator Sureau of Land Management Perforate Re-enter Suspended Wall a. Current wall Class:Na5. Permit to Drill Number: Development Exploratory X 1002180 3. Address: 8881 Abbott Laop Road Anchorage, AK Stratigrapnie Service 13. API Number: 7. KB Elevation (h): 502871000800 740 736 GL 9. Well Name and timber Nu - UMIAT TEST WELL #8 Total Depth measured 1327 feet Plugs (measured) 5-100 S 927-1327 true vertical 4327 feat Junk (measured) N/A Effective Deptn measured 1327 feet true vertical 1327 feet Perforation depth: Measured depth: N/A True Vertical depth: NIA Tubing: (size, grade, and measured depth) 2.5 6.5A H40 _ 1312 ?ackers and SSSV (type and measured depth) NA 12. Stimulation or camera squeeze summary. SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT REFERENCE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED DESCRIPTION OF WORK Prior to well operation. 10 - Subsequent Subsequent to operation:: 0 14. Attachments. :Opies of Logs and Surveys Run No )ally Report of Well Operations 7. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct to th Contact Greg Noble Printed Name Greg Noble / Signature - iir'/mss or -OR %lass aver proposed work: - - - Exploratory X Development Service Well Status after proposed work, Oil Gas X WAG GIN,! W1NJ WDSPL f my knowledge. ISUndrY Number or NIA If C.O. Exempt: Title Petroleum Engineer Prone 907.267-1429 Date 90/20o8 BLA4----- AW404MAMW ,wr 13 718^ Nene i0 3W Holm, Umiat #8 Umiat Current Wellbore Schematic = s,u Abeve GL �• 18 sx of caf3eal 12 sx of cars" 2.1 ax of Arc is Set 3 6.2 sx of Arctio Set 3 TOC - 680 140 9x of P*Iftnd Cement 37.4 sx of Arctic Sm,t 3 7D = 132r Pl3 - 132r Tubing pressure 0 psi Q40 Casing pressure 0 psi no tom, .00 �% �lfllf�� � t312• ���. - -- - 'Y t Cement Arctic Set 3; yield 4A4 cflsx; 't0.7 PPg Gel Pill MI Gel; yield cflsx; M 10 ppg Fresh Water Henri R. Bisson State Director Bureau of Land Management 222 West 7ch Avenue, # 13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 September 8, 2006 40 /oo- atl - v FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, GOVERNOR 333 W. 7" AVENUE, SUITE 100 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501-3539 PHONE (907) 279-1433 FAX (907) 276-7542 Re: Recent Work at NPRA Simpson Wells and Prior Umiat Work Dear Mr. Bisson: The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ("Commission") recently received Reports of Sundry Well Operations (Form 10-404) for work conducted on five Simpson wells in NPRA. These reports document work conducted in mid to late April of this year. Our review has identified two concerns with the submitted documents. These new concerns are in addition to other lingering matters from similar work conducted at Umiat in 2002 and 2004. Since these latter issues have remained unresolved despite multiple requests to BLM staff members, the Commission would like to bring all the issues to your attention. 1. 20 AAC 25.280(d) requires the operator to file a Report of Sundry Well Operations 30 days after completion of workover operations. While the work was completed on these wells in late April, these reports were not submitted to the Commission until August 16. 2. It appears from these five Simpson well Reports that the work actually performed on the wells is substantively different from the work plan that was originally described in the Application for Sundry Approvals (Form 10-403) submitted for each well and approved by the Commission. A change to an approved program or activity may not be undertaken without Commission approval. If operational necessity requires prompt action, oral approval of a change may be obtained from the Commission. The Commission has staff available to address regulatory variances 24 hours a day, either by contacting our North Slope inspector at 907- 659-2714 (pager 907-659-3607) or the after hours duty engineer at 907-244-1467. 3. Reports of Sundry Well Operations (Form 10-404) have not been submitted for work done in early May 2004 in Umiat wells 03, 04, 08 and 10, although description of the work was provided to the Commission. Henri R. Bisson September 8, 2006 Page 2 of 2 4. Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Form 10-407) have never been filed for the plugging and abandonment work done on Umiat wells 02 and 05 by the Corp of Engineers in March 2002. Again, work descriptions from your onsite Inspector were received but not Forms 10-407. I know you agree that compliance with applicable Federal and State oil and gas regulations is of critical importance to all of us here in Alaska. Your assistance in helping ensure regulatory compliance and in prowift these documents so that the AOGCC's well files can be brought up to date wil e ap reciated. AILL 2 K� ; j' FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, GOVERNOR 1 �t �►�t�rNA OIL AHD GAS i 333 W. 7H AVENUE, SUITE 100 CONSERVATION ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501-3539 PHONE (907) 279-1433 FAX (907) 276-7542 Stan Porhola Petroleum Engineer Bureau of Land Management 6881 Abbott Loop Road Anchorage, AK 99507 Re: Umiat Oil Field, Umiat Undefined Oil Pool Umiat #3 PTD: 100-211 Sundry: 306-105 Umiat #6 PTD: 100-214 Sundry: 306-106 Umiat #7 PTD: 100-215 Sundry: 306-107 Dear Mr. Porhola:= Enclosed are the approved Applications for Sundry Approval relating to the above referenced wells. Please note the conditions set out in the enclosed forms. The Commission strongly encourages the BLM's efforts to plug these legacy wells. Proper well plugging serves multiple purposes. These include isolation of fluids to their native formations for environmental and conservation reasons, protection of fresh water, and isolation of the wells from the surface environment. The work at Umiat is complicated by the remoteness of the location, the age of the wells, and the potential presence of hazardous materials in the wellbores. Based upon our previous meetings we understand that the proposed work plans submitted in the Sundry applications are a practical alternative to isolate old wellbores from the surface environment. i These plans do not represent a proposal to fully abandon the wells. Rather, they have a more limited purpose: to manage the most pressing problems or potential problems associated with the wells' current conditions. Additionally, we understand that placing surface plugs as planned will not preclude your re-entry into the wells at some later date for additional 1 See attached correspondence. plugging and abandonment operations. Accordingly, approved copies of the Sundry applications for Umiat #3, #7 and #9 are attached. Please note that the Commission's records will classify these wells as having surface plugs, but not as abandoned. Abandonment requires: • downhole and surface plugs in accordance with 20 AAC 25.112; • installation of an abandonment marker in accordance with 20 AAC 25.120; and • clearance of the location in accordance with 20 AAC 25.170. As a' condition of this approval, BLM must provide to the Commission a Report of Sundry Well Operations (Form 10-404) and history of operations for each of the above referenced wells within 30 days after the completion of plugging operations. Sundry 306-106 for Umiat #6 supersedes Sundry 304-115, issued April 21, 2004. It is our understanding that the BLM did not commence any of the operations approved by Sundry 304-115. When providing notice for a representative of the Commission to witness any required test, please contact the Commission's petroleum field inspector at (907) 659-3607 (pager). As provided in AS 31.05.080, within 20 days after written notice of this decision, or such further time as the Commission grants for good cause shown, a person affected by it may file with the Commission an application for rehearing. A request for rehearing is considered timely if it is received by 4:30 PM on the 23rd day following the date of this letter, or the next working day if the 23rd day falls on a holiday or weekend. A person may not appeal a Commission decision to Superior Court unless rehearing has been requested. %-I1d1I-Ilial l f� DATED this f day of April, 2006 Encl. Umiat Well Pluggings — 2004 Operations Summary BLM initiated well plugging operations in the Umiat area --on April 21, 2004 under contract to Olgoonik Environmental Services (OES). The following legacy wells were plugged before the cessation of operations on May 11, 2004: • Umiat #8 • Umiat #i® NED MAR 2010 • Umiat #4 • iJmia #3,P' Plugging operations were conducted to stop a leaking gas well (Umiat #8) and to plug other wells in the Umiat area that were abandoned following the U.S. Navy's exploration efforts in the late 1940's and 50's. At the completion of operations, the well heads were preserved due to their potential historical significance. The wells are located near Umiat, a former Navy site constructed in the 1940's as a base of operations supporting oil exploration within the formerly named Naval Petroleum Reserve — 4. Umiat is located on the banks of the Colville River approximately 100 miles southwest of Prudhoe Bay. 100-211 • a. Figure 2 — Umiat #8 and #10 wellheads during the summer of 2003. 7 Figure 3 — Umiat #4 and #3 wellheads during the summer of 2003. Figure 4 — Umiat Camp April 25, 2004 ,t _k s . Figure 5 — Offloading equipment at L miat runway E �J Figure 6 — Operations at Umiat #8 (Well is inside wooden enclosure) Figure 7 — t mint #8 wellhead inside wooden enclosure i +Y Figure 7 — t mint #8 wellhead inside wooden enclosure ■ 0 Figure a—Operations kLm k qn \p@9—Operations #tmarq 9gn a e P) -Operations at Umiat #3 L 1\4Sud: -�� Umiat #8 Ri . Cardwell Unitized Spudder Model K May 2, 1951 Umiat a Section Start P+A Meridian TownshipgDF: Umiat 1N 34 4/22/04 Current Wellbore Schematic GL: 735' AMSL 740' AMSL End P+A Wellhead is 10' above GL 5/2/04 13 718" Hole urlglnal Kut- = b.U' Above UL 4 16 sx of Cal -Seal -- 12 sx of Cal -Seal 2.1 sx of Arctic Set 3 6.2 sx of Arctic Set 3 TOC = 580' t 140 sx of Portland Cement r' I x x x x x 37.4 sx of Arctic Set 3 10 3/4" Hole x �c !' x't. x *— x X V x x TD = 1327' PBTD = 1327' Tubing pressure 0 Casing pressure 0 psi psi 200 300 200 300 100 100 400 400 Fish/Fill Information Item__ Date Depth Comment A 5/1/04 1312 Tub01g string cemented u1 place Cement Arctic Set 3; yield 4.44 cf/sx; 10.7 ppg Gel Pill MI Gel; yield cf/sx; 10 ppg Fresh Water • Casing and Tubing Detail Size Weight Grade Type ID Top Btm j 113/4" 47# --- Conductor 11.0" 0 50 8 5/8" 32# Surface 7.921" 0 1231 2.5" 6.5# H-40 Tubing 2.102" 0 1312 Well Fluids Item Location Top Btm Vol (bbl) Comments 1 Tubing 949 1312 2.10 Bottom cement plug 2 Tubing 431 949 3.00 Fresh water spacer 3 Tubing 287 431 0.82 Gel pill 4 Tubing 0 287 1.67 Surface cement plug 5 Annulus 949 1327 27.47 Bottom cement plug b Annulus 243 949 37.38 Fresh water spacer 7 Annulus 166 243 3.29 Gel pill 8 Annulus 73 166 4.93 Surface cement plug 9 Annulus 11 73 3.29 Fresh water Fish/Fill Information Item__ Date Depth Comment A 5/1/04 1312 Tub01g string cemented u1 place Cement Arctic Set 3; yield 4.44 cf/sx; 10.7 ppg Gel Pill MI Gel; yield cf/sx; 10 ppg Fresh Water • T Umiat #10 Ri Cardwell Unitized Spudder Model K S ud: September 9, 1951 j_� Casing and Tubing Detail x x x r. 73 7/8" Hole � x yf x Arctic Set 3 Meridian Township lRange ISection Start P+A Weight Grade Type ID Umiat Umiat 1N 11W 133 5/1/04 Current Wellbore Schematic GL: 741' AMSL DF: 746' AMSL End P+A 0 Wellhead is 10' above GL 5/6/04 Fluid Level = unknown al -Seal V13 Original Rur = 5.0 hoove;aL x TOC = 315' Wellbore Items Casing and Tubing Detail x x x r. 73 7/8" Hole � x yf x Arctic Set 3 , size Weight Grade Type ID To Btm 1 Structural --- 0 ? Fluid Level = unknown al -Seal V13 11 3/4" Conductor 0 70 28 5/8" -- Surface --- 0 1339 al -Seal OH/Csg ? Unknown ? --- Wellbore Fluids • TOC = 315' Wellbore Items Item Location Top Btm Vol (bbl) Comments 10 3/4" Hole 1 Casing 0 100 6.16 Surface cement plug • Fluid Level = unknown 2 Casing 100 105 --- Inflatable Bride plug 3 3 Casing ? Unknown ? -- Circulating Bune 4 OH/Csg ? Unknown ? --- Wellbore Fluids Fish/Fill Information - Item Date Depth Comment zoo sx of T ype C W / 500# CaCl2 1 Not Applicable g 7 3W' Hole x x x x x x x x Cement Arctic Set 3; yield 4.44 cf/sx; 10.7 ppg TD = 1573' PBTD = 1573' Wellbore Fluids Unknown Fresh Water • ✓� - � Umiat #4 Umiat _ray AM Current Wellbore Schematic Original Conductor Pipe = 1' above GL x 12 sx of Cal -Seal xFx x x 1�" rl�le X 7C x x X� X X x x x x x x x x Vx x 7; x 7 x x x x x' 17.7 sx of Arctic Set 3 U s;a reit 425' x H�Ie 892' e" Hale TD = 840' Fluid Level = 201' F-1 PBTD = 840' P: 483' AM 1' above G Casing and Tubing Detail Size Weight Grade Type ID Top Btm 11 3/4" --- --- Conductor --- 0 33 ??? --- -- Tubing --- ??? ??" Gel Pill MI Gel; yield cf/sx; 10 ppg Well Fluids Wellbore Fluids Unknown Item Location Top Btm Vol (bbl) Comments 1 OH/Csg 11 70 13.98 Surface cement plug 2 Open Hole 70 102 3.33 Gel pill 3 Open Hole 102 201 1'1.90 Fresh V'Jater 4 Open Hole 201 840 ? Wellbore Fluids Fish/Fill Information Item Date Depth Comment A 5!8/04 Rods cut aiid dropped in hell inwde ltibmg B 518/U4 7"» Tubing cut and dropped in well C 7/29/50 792 Cable Tool Fish N xxxx X x Cement Arctic Set 3; yield 4.44 cf/sx; 10.7 ppg Gel Pill MI Gel; yield cf/sx; 10 ppg Wellbore Fluids Unknown Fresh Water E • BVI UM Umiat #3 Rig: Failing Model 1500 (314-C) Sud: November 15, 1946 Umiat Meridian Township lRange ISection Start P+A Umiat is 11W 13 5/9/04 Current Wellbore Schematic GL: 351' AMSL KB: 360' AMSL End P+A Wellhead is 6' above GL 5/11/04 Original RKB = 9.0' Above GL Casing and Tubing Detail .+, 30 sx of Portland Size Weight Grade Type ID Top Btm 9" Hole Cement 7" --- Conductor --- 8 72 i x .,x x �7? --- --- Tubing �» ??? r x x. x x x A x x x x 7.3 sx of Arctic Set 3 5 7/8" Hole 538' 3" Hole �J 0 Well Fluids Fluid Level = 118' Item Location Top Btm Vol (bbl) Comments 1 OH/Csg 66 93 5.75 Surface cement plug 2 Open Hole 93 118 0.82 Gel pill 3 Open Hole 118 572 ? Wellbore Fluids Fish/Fill Information Item Date Depth Comment A 5/11/04 Tubing cut and dropped in well Cement Arctic Set 3; yield 1.533 cf/sx; 10.7 ppg x x x x x Gel Pill MI Gel; 10 ppg Wellbore Fluids Unknown TD = 572' PBTD = 572' �J 0 • ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION April 21, 2004 Mr. Greg Noble Mr. Stan Porholla Mr. Steve Martinez Bureau of Land Management Campbell Track Facility 6881 Abbott Loop Road Anchorage, AK 99507-2599 Re: Proposed Plugging of Wells at Umiat • FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, GOVERNOR Umiat #6 PTD: 100-214 Sundry: 304-115 Umiat #8 PTD: 100-216 Sundry: 304-117 Umiat #9 PTD: 100-217 Sundry: 304-116 Umiat # 10 PTD: 100-218 Sundry: 304-114 Gentlemen: 333 W. T" AVENUE, SUITE 100 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501-3539 PHONE (907) 279-1433 FAX (907) 276-7542 On April 20, 2004 a meeting was held between staff members of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ("Commission") and the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") at BLM's office. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss upcoming work to place surface plugs in the referenced wells. This meeting followed earlier oral discussions and e-mail correspondence with Commission staff concerning this project as well as discussions with Commission staff on April 15 and 16, 2004. I want to thank you for meeting with Commission staff members to discuss the planned work. At the meeting, an approved copy of the proposed abandonment plan for Umiat # -8 was delivered. Please note that the Commission's records will probably not classify this well as abandoned, since the location clearance requirements in connection with well abandonment include removal of the wellhead and installation of an abandonment marker in accordance with 20 AAC 25.120 and 25.170. Discussions have indicated that since these wells were drilled more than 50 years ago, they require protection as historic sites and therefore the wellheads are to be reinstalled. If your plans change in this respect, please let us know so our records can be updated accordingly. With regard to the remaining well plans, the most recent meeting has allowed the Commission to confirm the study and preparations BLM has made to design workable plans to place surface plugs in the remaining wells. The Commission initially had concerns that the plans as proposed would not meet Alaska plugging requirements at 20 AAC 25.112. Proper well plugging serves multiple purposes. Thei5e ,include isolation of fluids to their native formations for envrfonrinxt sand ©iz`servation • Stan Porholla April 21, 2004 Page 2 of 2 reasons, protection of fresh water, and isolation of the well from the surface environment. The work at Umiat is complicated by the remoteness of the location, the age of the wells, the potential presence of hazardous materials in the wellbores and on the surface, and realistic appropriation limits. During the meeting yesterday, the geology, well construction and present condition of all 11 Umiat wells were reviewed and the proposed work for each well discussed, along with available funding. As represented to Commission Staff, the proposed work plans submitted in the Sundry applications are the most practical alternative to isolate the old wellbores from the surface environment. We now better understand that the work plans do not represent a proposal to fully abandon the wells notwithstanding incomplete plugging. Rather, the work plans have a more limited purpose, to manage the most pressing problems or potential problems associated with the wells' current conditions. Placing surface plugs as planned will not preclude re-entry into the wells at some later date for additional plugging operations. Accordingly, approved copies of the Sundry applications for Umiat #6, #9 and # 10 are attached. The Commission strongly supports your efforts to plug and abandon these legacy wells and we stand ready to assist in anyw an. Please feel free to contact the Commission staff at any time to discuss o inate this or any future well work. DT `S 3 3// STATE OF ALASKA ALIWA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION CO SION APPLICATION FOR SUNDRY APPROVALS 20 AAC 25.280 ARECEIVED �. . Mr Alaska aiq & Gesnns. is5io,n 1. Type of Request: Abandon Suspend Operational shutdown Perforate Waiver LJ Anchataher Alter casing ❑ Repair well ❑ Plug Perforations ❑ Stimulate ❑ Time Extension ❑ Change approved program ❑ Pull Tubing ❑ Perforate New Pool ❑ Re-enter Suspended Well ❑ 2. Operator Name: 4. Current Well Class: 5. Permit to Drill Number: Bureau of Land Management Development ❑ Exploratory ❑� Stratigraphic ❑ Service ❑ JD82"T /44>Z-1/6 AD 3. Address: 6. API Number- umber6881 6881Abbott Anchorage, 006 Loop Road Alaska 99507 50-287-1 Fiv 7. KB Elevation (ft): 9. Well Name and Number: ig Floor GL 3.31'O� Umiat Test Well #3 8. Property Designation: 10. Field/Pools(s): 'iD AA -081726 $ywoo _842860 11. PRESENT WELL CONDITION SUMMARY Total Depth MD (ft):l Depth TVD (ft): Effective Depth MD (ft): ive Depth TVD (ft): Plugs (measured): Junk (measured): - 84'65.72 t?Z ,6Dt.3/•.� P 7872' jr Pct S"7L 7.82' Casing Length Size MD TVD Burst Collapse Structural Conductor (otr ' 7" /2— ?y' Surface 3,31•oi Intermediate Production Liner Perforation Depth MD (ft): Perforation Depth TVD (ft): Tubing Size: Tubing Grade: Tubing MD (ft): N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Packers and SSSV Type: N/A Packers and SSSV MD (ft): N/A 12. Attachments: Description Summary of Proposal � 13. Well Class after proposed work: Detailed Operations Program Q BOP Sketch Q Exploratory ❑� Development ❑ Service ❑ 14. Estimated Date for 15. Well Status after proposed work: Commencing Operations: 4/20/2006 Oil ❑ Gas ❑ Plugged Abandoned ❑ WAG ❑ GINJ ❑ WINJ ❑ WDSPL ❑ 16. Verbal Approval: Date: Commission Representative: 17. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Contact Stan Porhola Printed Name Stan Porhola Title Petroleum Engineer Signature Phone 907-267-1469 Date 23 Qk COMMISSION USE ONLY Conditions of approval: Notify Commission so that a representative may witness Sundry Number: Plug Integrity ❑ BOP Test ❑ Mechanical Integrity Test ❑ Location Clearance ❑ (C Other. Subsequent Form Required: APPROVED BY Approved by: COMMISSIONER THE COMMISS Date: M APR 6 1006 Form 10-403 Revised 07/2005 ?:, s o - ( + L_- Solibmit in Duplicate 3.3t-c� RECEIVED STATE OF ALASKA AL& OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION CO SION APPLICATION FOR SUNDRY APPROV%,,, Uj, c, uas uu commission �n eery �� gun 1. Type of Request: Abandonk/1 Suspend Operational shutdown Perforate Wa nular Dispos. Alter casing ❑ Repair well ❑ Plug Perforations ❑ Stimulate ❑ Time Extension ❑ Other ❑ Change approved program ❑ Pull Tubing ❑ Perforate New Pool ❑ Re-enter Suspended Well ❑ 2. Operator Name: 4. Current Well Class: 5. Permit to Drill Number: Bureau of Land Management Development ❑ Exploratory Q Stratigraphic ❑ Service ❑ 1002110- 002110-3. 3.Address: 6. API Number: 6881 Abbott Loop Road Anchorage, AK 99507 502871000300 ' 7. KB Elevation (ft): 9. Well Name and Number: 360' RKB 351' GL Umiat Test Well #3 ' 8. Property Designation: 10. Field/Pools(s): AA -081726 842000 ' 77 11. PRESENT WELL CONDITION SUMMARY Total Depth MD (ft): Total Depth TVD (ft): Effective Depth MD (ft): Effective Depth TVD (p): ugs (measured): Junk (measured): 572' 572' 572' 572' Q N/A N/A Casing Length Size MD .ti D Burst Collapse Structural Conductor 62' 7" 72' 7 C Surface A. Liner I 110 ` ' Perforation Depth MD (ft): Perforation Depth TVD (ft): Tubing Siz Tubing Grade: Tubing MD (ft): N/A I N/A I N/A N/A I N/A Packers Detailed Operations Program Q BOP Sketch FYI Exploratory Q Development ❑ Service ❑ 14. Estimated Date for 15. Well Status after proposed work: Commencing Operations: 4/20/2006 Oil ❑ Gas ❑ Plugged ❑Q Abandoned ❑ 16. Verbal Approval: Date: WAG ❑ GINJ ❑ WINJ ❑ WDSPL ❑ Commission Representative: 17. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is true and rrect to the best of my knowledge. Contact Stan Porhola Printed Name Stan orhola Title Petroleum Engineer SignatureJ� Phone 907-267-1469 Date 3 22-/ COMMISSION USE ONLY Conditions of approval: Notify Comsion so that a representative may witness Sundry Number: 1 Plug Integrity ❑ BOP Test ❑ Mechanical Integrity Test ❑ Location Clearance ❑ Other: Subsequent Form Required: BY ORDER OF by: COMMISSIONER THE COMMISSION Date: Form 10-403 Revised 12/2003 INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE ORIGINAL ubmit in Duplicate Umiat #3 Pressure: No pressure was encountered during plugging operations in May 2004. This was found to be consistent with the other wells in the area and systematic of the low pressure Umiat oil reservoir(s). Ice Plug: No ice plug was encountered during plugging operations in May 2004.'' However, it may be possible that an ice plug exists somewhere in the well from surface to the top of the cement plug in place at approximately 66 feet. Well Casing: Umiat #3 consists of 7" casing from 1 foot above surface to 63 feet below ground level (GL) and openhole down to 572 feet. Tubing that had been in the well was cut and dropped in the hole during plugging operations in May 2004. Well Fluids: Umiat #3 was found to have a fluid level @ 118 feet. A 10 pound per gallon gel pill was set on top of the fluid and cement was pumped on top of the gel pill. Returning the next day, the cement was found to have fallen to 66 feet. It will be necessary to bring the cement top as close as possible to surface. Well Plugging Procedure: This well will be plugged by removing the wellhead and re- entering the wellbore with a 5 1/2" bit down to find the top of cement. Once this has been determined, the workstring and bit will be pulled out of the hole and open-ended 2 1/2" drill rods will be run to within 20 feet of the top of cement and Arctic Set Lite cement (10.7 ppg) will be pumped up to 5 feet below ground level. The cement will be allowed to set for up to 6 hours and the cement top tagged to ensure placement. • Attachment 1 Umiat #3 • Wellhead / Photo Well Head Description (stick up 6'): 7" casing (with 1' stick up) leading to flanged casing head with side plugged outlets 1 side has 2" bull plug other side has nipple, 90, and plug flange, 8 x 1" studs top flange 4 1/2" welded connection with threads 3" from welded connection to 2 3/4 flaired, welded pipe 3" collar, nippled to 2 3/4, collar swedge 2 3/4 to 2" w/t w/2" plug reduced to 3/4" water valve BLM 3/13/2006 19 BUM A t{� � - - Umiat#3 Rig: Failing Model 1500 (314-C) Sud: November 15, 1946 Umiat Meridian Township Range ISection F Start P+A Umiat 1S 1W 13 1 5/9/04 Current Wellbore Schematic GL: 351' AMSL KB: 360' AMSL End P+A Wellhead is 6' above GL 5/11/04 C)rlglnal KKtS = U.U- Above Cit_ 30 sx of Portland 9" Hole Cement Ix x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x '0 > 7.3 sx of Arctic Set 3 5 7/8" Hole 538' 3" Hole TD = 572' Fluid Level = 118' A� PBTD = 572' Casing and Tubing Detail Size Weight Grade Type ID Top Btm 7" --- --- Conductor -- 8 72 ??? --- --- Tubing --- ??? ??? • Well Fluids Item Location Top Btm Vol bbl Comments 1 OH/Csg 66 93 5.75 Surface cement plug 2 Open Hole 93 118 0.82 Gel pill 3 Open Hole 118 572 ? Wellbore Fluids • Fish/Fill Information Item Date Depth Comment A 5/11/04 ??? Tubing cut and dropped in well x x x x x x x x Cement Arctic Set 3; yield 4.44 cf/sx; 10.7 ppg Get Pill MI Gel; yield cf/sx; 10 ppg Wellbore Fluids Unknown Statement of Work ANT OF NY& A c3 ..w"" ■V rn u 37 'RC's{ �. a" U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Well Plugging Umiat Test Wells #3, #61 #7, and #9 FY 2006 National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska March 8, 2006 Bureau of Land Management - Alaska Division of Energy and Solid Minerals and Northern District Office Branch of Energy Arctic Field Office 6881 Abbott Loop Road 1150 University Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Fairbanks, AK 99709 (907)267-1469 Phone (907)474-2303 Phone (907)267-1304 Fax (907)474-2282 Fax 1 Table of Contents Background.....................................................................................................................................................3 ProjectDescription..........................................................................................................................................3 1 - Planning and Permitting........................................................................................................................4 2 - Project Management and Engineering..................................................................................................4 3 - Coordination with other activities in the area.......................................................................................4 4 - Site Reconnaissance...............................................................................................................................4 5 - Project Mobilization — Demobilization..................................................................................................5 6 - Remote Camp Operations......................................................................................................................5 7 - Personnel...............................................................................................................................................5 8 - Fuel Use and Supply..............................................................................................................................5 9 - Water Use and Supply............................................................................................................................5 10 - Air Support...........................................................................................................................................5 11 -Equipment ............................................................................................................................................6 Flat-bed Trailers......................................................................................................................................6 Heaters..................................................................................................................................................... 6 CatCamp.................................................................................................................................................6 FuelSloops..............................................................................................................................................6 PumpingEquipment................................................................................................................................6 MixingTank............................................................................................................................................6 Connexes.................................................................................................................................................6 SafetyEquipment....................................................................................................................................7 12 - Materials..............................................................................................................................................7 Cement....................................................................................................................................................7 BridgePlugs............................................................................................................................................7 PipingNeeds...........................................................................................................................................7 WellControl............................................................................................................................................7 SpillPrevention.......................................................................................................................................7 Tarping/Scaffolding................................................................................................................................8 FluidPumps............................................................................................................................................8 13 - Vehicles................................................................................................................................................8 SteigerStx375.........................................................................................................................................8 Challenger..................................................................................:............................................................ 8 TuckerSno-Cat....................................................................................................................................... 8 14 - Well Plugging Procedures...................................................................................................................8 Umiat#3..................................................................................................................................................8 Umiat#6..................................................................................................................................................9 Umiat#7..................................................................................................................................................9 Umiat#9................................................................................................................................................10 15 - Wellbore Fluid and Waste Disposal..................................................................................................10 16 - Wellhead Removal............................................................................................................................10 17- Attachments....................................................................................................................................... 11 Attachment 1 — Wellhead Diagrams and Photos...................................................................................11 Attachment 2 — Current Wellbore Diagrams......................................................................................... 11 Attachment3 — Route Map...................................................................................................................11 Attachment 4 — Equipment Spread........................................................................................................ 11 Attachment 5 — Christensen CS 1000 P6L Coring Rig Specifications...................................................11 Attachment 6 — Wellsite Layout............................................................................................................ 11 Attachment 7 — Project Timeline........................................................................................................... 11 Table of Figures Figure1 — Project Location.............................................................................................................................3 BLVI 2 I - Planning- and Permitting Contractor will meet with BLM to refine the Plan of Work for the wells, accounting for the unique characteristics at the wellsites. Also, all permits will be identified for which the contractor must submit to various government agencies for approvals and waivers. The necessary permits include but are not limited to: Permit Agency Incidental Take LOA FWS Fish Habitat/Stream Crossing AF&G Temporary Water Use DNR State Well Plugging Approval AOGCC Federal Well Plugging Approval BLM Right -of -Way BLM Coastal Zone Review DNR NPDES EPA Umiat Runway Use AKDOT&PF Spill C -Plan DEC A winter time schedule will be agreed upon which will allow for operations to take place from mid to late April 2006. The expected duration of operations is 10 days plus 1 day of resupply after the conclusion of the Cape Simpson project. The average tundra travel closure date since 2000 has been approximately May 7th. Plan to have all well plugging operations completed well before this date. The contractor is responsible for developing a Site Specific Health and Safety Plan for the duration of the operations and for maintaining a copy of it on-site. 2 - Prosect Management and En ing eering A final report on the project will be submitted detailing all the work carried out. The report will be a typed compilation of each day's hourly log of the work performed. One or more sentences will be written describing work performed for each hour of the working day, documenting rigging up, vehicle travel, fluids volumes generated or pumped and depths of cement plugs. 3 - Coordination with other activities in the area Other activities in the area include the removal of a thermal treating unit from the Umiat camp location. The contractor responsible for this unit is Agviq LLC and the contact is Darren Lawless at 341-6249. It is planned that the mobilization into Umiat will be through Rolligons and that they will be traveling in empty. This may provide an opportunity to mobilize some equipment for the Umiat well pluggings. 4 - Site Reconnaissance BLM 4 No site reconnaissance is anticipated for this project. The BLM staff has sufficient photographic and documented information on the sites that will be provided to the contractor. 5 - Proiect Mobilization — Demobilization Equipment, supplies, and personnel used for the project will be mobilized to the site by mobile sled camp. The mobilization should start near the Kuparuk 2P drillsite operated by ConocoPhillips and proceed overland to Umiat. This project will be coordinated with the Cape Simpson project and when the demobilization from Cape Simpson is complete, 1 day will be spent in Deadhorse for resupply before starting the Umiat project. The Umiat camp has a 5000' airstrip and should be maintained to support potential flights into the location. Following the completion of operations, the mobile sled camp and all equipment and materials will be demobilized overland back to the Kuparuk 2P drillsite runway prior to closure of the tundra. 6 - Remote Camp Operations Camp facilities will be required at or near the project location. The camp space necessary for this project will be 10 beds. See attachment 4 for the necessary camp spread. 7 - Personnel The required personnel for well plugging operations are expected to be a single crew with one project manager, one mechanic, one cook, two vehicle operators, three USGS drilling crew members, and two BLM staff members for project and regulatory oversight. Workers will be required to provide documentation of current certification or documentation in (1) 40 Hour HAZWHOPPR and concurrent 8 Hour Refresher; (2) Fit for Work Statement; and (3) Respirator Fit Testing for respirator usage. 8 - Fuel Use and Supply Rough estimations of fuel usage are 1000 gallons per day of diesel. For the expected 10 days of operations, this equals 10,000 gallons of diesel. Two 5000 gallon fuel sloops should be mobilized into the site along with the mobile camp. 9 - Water Use and Supply A supply of water from a permitted source will be needed for well plugging and camp operations. A pump will be required along with associated hoses to transport the water from the snow melter to the Connex with the water tank. Volumes needed are a maximum of 1500 gallons per day for camp use, well circulation, and cementing work for each wellsite. 10 - Air Support BLM 5 Air support should be limited to a small fixed wing aircraft for personnel transportation in the event of a possible medical evacuation flight. It may also be necessary to fly some BLM staff members from the Fairbanks Northern District Office into the location using small fixed -wing aircraft. 11 - Equipment The following equipment is what will be required to accomplish the project. The contractor is encouraged to think of alternatives if it will improve the quality of the project and reduce costs. Flat-bed Trailers Flat-bed trailers with rubber tracks (Marcep trailer or equivalent) will be used as the platforms from which the well plugging operations will take place. A total of three trailers will be necessary for the entire duration of the well plugging operations. The trailers should have dimensions of at least 8' x 40' trailers. The maximum load expected for any of the trailers will be 42,000 lbs. Heaters Two Chinook 800 or equivalent heaters will be needed during the project. Cat Camp A four -man mobile trailer with generator, bathroom, kitchen and four beds will be needed at the wellsites for the entire duration of the project. Fuel Sloops Two 5000 gallon fuel sloops will be needed during the operations. Pumping Equipment The pumping equipment should be capable of pumping a cement slurry into the well by mixing water and cement sacks in a hopper and pumping cement down pipe at a maximum surface pressure of 300 psi into the wells to achieve the desired 100-150 feet cement plug. This grout pump will be supplied by the USGS out of Deadhorse. Mixing Tank A heated water tank will be required to hold at least 300 gallons of water and provide heat to the water to raise the temperature uniformly to 80°F. This water will be used for making the cement slurry. Connexes The necessary pumping and mixing equipment should be placed in connexes to provide adequate shelter from the elements. The connexes should be no more than 21 feet long and 8 feet wide to both fit on a flat-bed trailer with other equipment and provide some protection from the elements. Lighting and heat will be necessary inside the convexes. BLM 6 Safety Equipment Necessary safety equipment includes proper PPE, certified fire extinguishers and rental of complete gas detection equipment and protective masks. Satellite or radio communications will be needed for possible emergency situations. Medical personnel should be trained in CPR and First Aid. 12 - Materials The following materials are what will be required to accomplish the project. The contractor is encouraged to think of alternatives if it will improve the quality of the project and reduce costs. Cement Artic Set III has been chosen because of its permafrost capability, its lower density of 10.7 ppg, and the ability to create an impermeable plug between the well bore and the surface. Approximately 120 sacks (65 lbs/sack) of Arctic Set III cement at a yield of 1.56 ft3/sack would be used to set the surface plugs in the wells. The cement should be brought to Umiat in dry form in sacks. All cement will be purchased by the USGS or BLM and will likely be flown into the location. Bridge Plugs An inflatable bridge plug or similar plug will need to be set in all of the wells except Umiat #3. Any associated equipment needed for setting of the plugs will need to be brought to the well locations on flat-bed trailers. All plugs will be purchased by the USGS or BLM and will likely be flown into the location. Piping Needs Associated flowlines, including check valves, pipe elbows, tees, and flow nipples will be required. Pipe lifting equipment will be a Christensen CS1000 P6L coring rig (see Attachment 15) provided and used by the USGS drilling crew. Light weight steel pipe for use in running plugs and spotting cement will be provided and used by the USGS drilling crew. Attachment 5 shows the bottomhole assemblies (BHAs) that will be used during the project. All pipe for rig use will be purchased by the USGS or BLM and will likely be flown into the location. Well Control Adequate well control equipment will be provided by the USGS drilling crew to insure proper well control is maintained at all times during well plugging operations. All well control will be purchased by the USGS or BLM and will likely be flown into the location. Spill Prevention Adequate spill prevention materials should be placed on the tundra to prevent any spilled fluids from draining off onto the surrounding tundra. Additional spill prevention materials such as duck ponds should be used underneath all idling vehicles. BLM 7 �L Tarping/Scaffolding To provide protection from wind and the elements, tarps will need to be set across the tops of the connexes with a small opening available for the rig mast. Other tarps will be set up across the front and back of the connexes to help insulate the coring rig and USGS drilling crew during well plugging operations. Fluid Pumps Fluid pumps will be necessary to move water from the water tank to the pumping equipment. Additional pumps may be necessary for fuel transfers, water pumping, and wellbore fluid transfers to disposal tanks. 13 - Vehicles The following vehicles are what will be required to accomplish the project. The contractor is encouraged to think of alternatives if it will improve the quality of the project and reduce costs. Steiger Stx375 One of these vehicles will be used during mobilization and demobilization to the wellsite and/or camp. It will be responsible for assisting in pulling trailers and fuel sloops. Challenger Two of these vehicles will be used during mobilization and demobilization to the wellsite and/or camp. They will be responsible for assisting in pulling trailers and fuel sloops. Tucker Sno-Cat This vehicle will be used to move personnel between wellsites and the camp location. One Tucker Sno-Cat will be necessary and should be able to transport at least five people. 14 - Well Plug�zing Procedures Listed are the unique characteristics of the four (4) wells (Umiat #3, Umiat #6, Umiat #7, and Umiat #9) requiring plugging for this winters work. BL s 15 - Wellbore Fluid and Waste Disposal It is planned that some water will be removed from the wells in the form of ice or slush, a volume of which will not exceed 500 gallons. This however is not the case for the Umiat #9 well. Evidence of PCBs both in the surrounding area and inside the well requires that any fluids or equipment in contact with the well be considered contaminated with PCBs and disposed of properly. It is planned that this will be the last well plugged and any equipment used in the well will be junked in the well prior to cementing. 16 - Wellhead Removal Due to the requirements of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the wellheads are not to be removed or permanently altered. If the wellheads are altered in any fashion, they must be returned to the original configuration and appearance after the conclusion of operations. 17 - Attachments Attachment 1— Wellhead Diagrams and Photos Attachment 2 — Current Wellbore Diagrams Attachment 3 — Route Map Attachment 4 — Equipment Spread Attachment 5 — Christensen CS1000 P6L Coring Rig Specifications Attachment 6 — Wellsite Layout Attachment 7 — Project Timeline BL.M 13 ,,Ipv. ik Yi •.. Attachment r Route Map ` m TJ ape bimpson F1 4_ ¢.,,cid -r ._ � t-' =fs'' �.,.. `k � ^ , �...S,s•� -3 ��� Ja `�� l ,.� - ,, ` �; ����+w�..l if \ 1. \�`: ` S l' ♦ t '_ -— e / _ (11 tG4 t4t4 �%�._\����� -'-.,. .��\\ i'� ',,. i:- ~ _ -� �r �•rt. + a- _. -4���- ScyRfA� F wd -��t` �!'7 1` ��. " t ' x'rwl• 1 . ��c�l � ' - 4s ` ( SAY � .. � •�; � - r � t .. c - - i �'�}.1 � � 4�. '� ` � R 1 � 1 a _ �.. .q�, t --`� - `� 11 �� Er .� �, `� � ' icy, � r �P.d�gMAl �f�PA�11 __, • _ _ .r' — . t ' r.- J �'--r j . _£ , oute length 1 . 7 LM Roue -. _ a t 1 sbui•1r; t4K!' ..i' atl C ! a•1 - 7 j Eltt'arl 4r u S"i' For! of 11A'A"c N y t r E1 / I s 1tyr3 ht44 3118 e11t7tPIlN}rllf- }R % i } n Ala f0 r'_1YiGH Nf'fi a iy�I 7 his `p c r z uis a UIr, 1. Afar} a ¢ pant Qn jG NP1s_g vl1 Tcl1 nhis 10. Rei ! � l• 3` _._ i i�Ry 91LG JU tiU E11 -E i4D. !n -IH USOS 7 zr aw,n; UI -1, 10 31 ad. 1 }* R ' 7 ! xr ett '9 � 2-1 I:OFj s♦,9F - BLM 3113/2006 41 41 Attachment 4 Equipment Spread Chollonlor Chollopf BLM 3/13/2006 umiat • • Chn'stausen CK 000 P6L Coire Mill 4 k AWL., G F? • • 611 's DEPTH CAPACITY CORING (WIRELINE OR CONVENTIONAL) WEIGHT B WIRELINE 4,500 FT (1,370 M) HIGHWAY FLY -IN MAJOR N WIRELINE 3,500 FT (1,070 M) TOTAL WET TOTAL WET COMPONENTS WET H WIRELINE 2,400 FT (730 M) 9,205 LB (4,176 KG) 8,605 LB (3,904 KG) 8,120 LB (3,683 KG) P WIRELINE 1,300 FT (400 M) DEPTH RATINGSARE BASED ON VERTICAL AND DRY HOLE DRILLHEAD: MAIN HOIST SINGLE LINE CAPACITY: BARE DRUM 12,000 LB (5,443 KG) DOUBLE LINE CAPACITY: BARE DRUM 24,000 LB (10,886 KG) LINE SPEED: BARE DRUM 132 FT/MN (40 MNN) CABLE SIZE: 110 FEET (33.5 M) x 9/161N (14.3MM) WIRELINE CAPACITY: 6,000 FT (1,830 M) OF 3/16 IN (4.76 MM) 3,200 FT (975 M) OF 1/4 N (6.35 MM) LINE PULL BARE DRUM: 2,500 LB (1,134 KG) LINE PULL FULL DRUM: 700 LB (318 KG) LINE SPEED: BARE DRUM 390 FT/MN (119 M/MIN) FULL DRUM 1,500 FT/MFN (457 M/MN) MAST AND FEED SYSTEM FEED TRAVEL: 11.5 FT (35 M) FEED SPEEDS: FAST AND SLOW WITH VARIABLE CONTROL THRUST: 12,250 LB (5,556 KG) PULL: 20,000 LB (9,070 KG) DRILLING ANGLE: 45 TO 90 DEGREES ROD PULL LENGTH: 20 FT (6.09 M) POWER UNIT MFG.: CUMMINS MODEL: 6BTA 5.9 LITER 6 CYLINDER POWER: 175 HP (131 KW) RPM: 2,500 ENGINE TYPE: DIESEL TURBOCHARGED/AFTER COOLED COOLING: WATER OTHER ENGINES AVAILABLE ON REQUEST HYDRAULIC SYSTEM PRIMARY PUMP: 3,500 PSI -43 GPM (24.1MPA-162 LPM) SECONDARY PUMP: 3,000 - 15GPM (20.6 MPA - 56 LPM) AUXILIARY PUMP: 2,500 PSI - 8 GPM (17.2 MPA - 30 LPM) HYDRAULIC OIL COOLING: AIR DRILLHEAD AND SPINDLE SPEEDS POWER: HYDRAULIC MOTOR -VARIABLE SPEED/REVERSIBLE FINAL DRIVE: 4 N HV CHAIN DRIVE N OIL BATH -2.5 RATIO SPINDLE: 4 5/81N (117MM) SPINDLE SPEEDS: GEAR RATIO SPEED (RPM) TORQUE, FT LB (NM) 1 ST 6.63:1 130-196 3,232-2,218 (4,382-3,007) 2ND 3.17:1 270-410 1,545-1,060 (2,095-1,437) 3RD 1.72:1 500-756 839-575 (1,138-780) 4TH 1.00:1 857-1,300 488-335 (662-454) RANGE SELECTION: MANUAL CONTROL FROM OPERATOR'S STATION HINGED HEAD: SWING AWAY CHUCK ASSEMBLY TYPE: HYDRAULIC OPEN, SPRING CLOSED MAXIMUM NSIDE DIAMETER: 4 5/8 N (I 17MM) HOLDING CAPACITY: 40,000 LB (18,143 KG) DRILL BASE SUPPORTS OUANTITY: 4 PAD DIAMETER: 12 N (305 MM) TRAVEL LENGTH: 12 N (305 MM) 1,040 LB (472 KG) 1,040LB (472KG) 1,040LB (472KG) DRILL BASE: 134 LB (61 KG) 134 LB (61 KG) 680 LB (309 KG) 680 LB (309 KG) 680 LB (309 KG) LOWER MAST: OPERATOR'S PLATFORM: 58 N (1,473 MM) 2,000 LB (908 KG) 2,000 LB (908 KG) 2,000 LB (908 KG) UPPER MAST: 104 LB (47 KG) 104 LB (47 KG) 800 LB (363 KG) 800 LB (363 KG) 800 LB (363 KG) ENGINE COMPONENT WET: HITCH: 200 LB (91 KG) 29 N (737 MM) 1,500 LB (681 KG) 1,500 LB (681 KG) 1,500 LB (681 KG) HYDRAULIC COMPONENT WET: 900 LB (408 KG) 900 LB (408 KG) 900 LB (408 KG) DRAW WORKS COMPONENT INCLUDING CABLE: 1,200 LB (545 KG) 1,200 LB (545 KG) 1,200 LB (545 KG) TOWING PACKAGE & MISCELLANEOUS FUEL TANK WET: 125 LB (57 KG) 125 LB (57 KG) BATTERY BOX & BATTERY: LENGTH 134 LB (61 KG) 134 LB (61 KG) DRILL BASE SUPPORTS (4): -HYDRAULIC JACKS 100 LB (45 KG) 100 LB (45 KG) OPERATOR'S PLATFORM: 58 N (1,473 MM) 22 LB (10 KG) 22 LB (10 KG) MUD TANK OUTRIGGERS (4): 200 N (5,080 MM) 104 LB (47 KG) 104 LB (47 KG) WHEELS & STUB SHAFT (4): 400 LB (182 KG) 145 N (3,683 MM) HITCH: 200 LB (91 KG) 29 N (737 MM) DIMENSIONS -HYDRAULIC P -SIZE HOLDING CLAMP LENGTH WIDTH HEIGHT DRILL BASE: -HYDRAULIC JACKS -HYDRAULIC DRIVEN MUD PUMP FMC 114 N (2,896 MM) 64 N (1,626 MM) 58 N (1,473 MM) LOWER MAST: 200 N (5,080 MM) 26 N (660 MM) 33 N (838 MM) UPPER MAST: 145 N (3,683 MM) 21 N (533 MM) 29 N (737 MM) ASSEMBLED MAST: 28.8 FT (8.8 M) DRILL HEAD: HORIZONTAL VIEW 31 N (787 MM) x 44 N (1,118 MM) VERTICAL VIEW 21 N (533 MM) x 44 N (1,118MM) ENGINE COMPONENT: 43.5 N (1,105 MM) x 49 N (1,245MM) x 29 N (737 MM) HYDRAULIC COMPONENT: 37.5 N (953 MM) x 49.5 N (1,257 MM) x 29 N (737 MM) DRAW WORKS COMPONENT: 27.8 N (706 MM) x 56.5 N (1,435 MM) x 26 N (660 MM) STANDARD EQUIPMENT -HYDRAULIC MAST RAISE -DERRICK N TWO SECTIONS -TOWING PACKAGE -FUEL TANK 34 GAL (125 L) -HYDRAULIC OIL RESERVOIR FILL -FUEL FILTER & WATER PUMP & FILTRATION SEPARATOR OPTIONS -HYDRAULIC P -SIZE HOLDING CLAMP -HYDRAULIC MUD MIXER -SINGLE, LARGE DIAMETER MAN HOIST -MAST LIGHTING K.IT SHEAVE -HYDRAULIC JACKS -HYDRAULIC DRIVEN MUD PUMP FMC -SKID MOUNTING WI122BCD MAX FLOW: 37 GPM (140 LPM) -CRAWLER MOUNTING MAX PRESSURE: 700 PSI (4.9 MPA) ALL WEIGHTS AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE Atlas Copco'Exploration=Products 640 McKeown Avenue, North Bay, Ontario Canada Tel (705) 472-3320, Fax (705) 472-6843 Attachment 6 3/13/2006 Wellsite Layout Spill Control Umiat Legend Feat BLM o 5 10 to 20 42 • • April 11. Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8� 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Umiat Umiat Umiat Umiat Umiat Umiat Umiat Resupply Mob Day #1 Mob Day #2 Mob Day #3 Work Day #1 Work Day #2 Work Day 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Umiat Umiat Umiat Umiat Deadhorse Deadhorse Work Day #4 Demob Day #1 Demob Day #2 Demob Day #3 Demob Day #1 Demob Day #2 3U Umiat Project Schedule As of 3/08/06 . WASHINGTON STATING CONTROL HEADS, INC. ".' .'�.�:. Cltu� _'..,}..,. i2 �-.I n •,' Ft•�^.� " �.:Yi.n -:�•:' „ '. -�.:I F,313 Call or send us your inquiry for pricing. The 3022 with stripper rubber open and compression lock attached The 3022 with stripper rubber closed and compression lock attached 0MPM Q ; �asftv*-" CLICK HERE FOR DIMENSIONS • Me" The 3022 Diverter is manufactured to work on your casing. It can be flanged to casing, threaded on casing, or can be made up with the compression lock system, which is simple and foolproof. Simply slide the diverter over casing and tighten 3 to 6 bolts on compression ring. The rubber rings enclosed are then compressed around your casing providing a slip -proof lock and seal on plastic casing as well as steel. It utilizes the 3010 series stripper rubber. Because of the 3010's two- piece construction, bit and/or hammer can be lowered into casing by simply opening the stripper rubber, passing the tool, and closing back around drill pipe. Drill cuttings are now contained and diverted to desired location through the flow line. r,1VM 4rlkr ral MON I [ADDIF US] rGlJR PRODUCTS ] AGILTIDRUG US ] (SEND US YOUR INQUIRY ] EVENTS] • Background • The Umiat Test Wells were drilled by the US Navy between 1945 and 1952 and are located approximately 2-3 miles from the camp in Umiat. The wells involved in this project are numbered #3, #6, #7, and #9. The wells were drilled to an average depth of 1000 feet, left unplugged with some wells having oil production from a shallow reservoir in the permafrost. LM Figure 1— Project Locatio Project Description \,z tea..\\�� •1--��5� � ALL cc�`�r ;� � c� `�ab�.�� The goal of this project is to plug and abandon four (4) wells located north of the Umiat camp and runway. The BLM will oversee the project and grant final approval of work performed. Final approval is granted: When the well has been plugged to the satisfaction of both BLM and AOGCC or having been field assessed as having an issue preventing plugging. The contractor shall provide all materials, supplies, equipment, labor, and supervision to accomplish the work. The contractor's bid price shall cover any and all costs associated with the project, including, but not limited to subcontracting, planning, permitting, reporting, communications, mobilization/demobilization, transportation, catering, fuels, inspections, removal and off-site disposal/demolition of all wastes and junk, clean-up, pollution fines, penalty costs for regulation violations, etc. a Subject: Work Reporting 6 From: Thomas Maunder <tom_maunder@admin. state.ak.us> Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 16:02:02 -0800 0 Tim, Further to our review of the Umiat work. Last summer (I think), Stan brought in some drawings and brief summary reports for the work done at Umiat in 2005. Copies of our report form (404) were not included then. I remember mentioning that such forms were needed and without them the information was incomplete. It does not appear that the reporting forms were ever submitted to complete the information required by our regulations. He also included some information on the well work accomplished by the Corp in 2003 (I think). The documents look like portions of the report the Corp submitted to you all. Again, there was no 404 form included. When this campaign is concluded, it would be appreciated if the reporting forms and attachments could be submitted for the wells worked on previously. Please call and we can discuss. Thanks, Tom Maunder, PE AOGCC 1 of 1 4/12/2006 10:32 AM t0o-C�-I\ M -- ♦ ; - �►' x; Umiat #3 Rig:Failing Model 1500 (314-C) Sud: November 15, 1946 Umiat Meridian Township Range iSection Start work Umiat 1 S 1 W 3 5/9/04 Current Wellbore Schematic GL: 351' AMSL KB: 360' AMSL End work Wellhead is 6' above GL 5/11/04 Uriginai KKU = 9.U' Above GL 30 sx of Portland 9" Hole Cement x x x x x X x x x " 7.3 sx of Arctic Set 3 KI 5 7/8" Hole [cll■:f:4a • 538' TD = 572' Fluid Level = 118' PBTD = 572' Casing and Tubing Detail Size Weight Grade Type ID Top Btm 7" Conductor 8 72 ??? Tubing ??? ??? Item Location Top Well Fluids Btm Vol (bbl) Comments 1 OH/Csg 66 93 5.75 Surface cement plug Open Hole 93 118 0.82 Gel pill 3 L2 Open Hole 118 572 ? Wellbore Fluids Fish/Fill Information + Item Date Depth Comment A 5/11/04 ??? Tubing cut and dropped in well x x Cement Arctic Set 3; yield 4.44 cf/sx; 10.7 ppg x x Gel Pill MI Gel; yield cf/sx; 10 ppg Wellbore Fluids Unknown Notes: Umiat Wells CK) � `� Traveled on 4-27-04 to the NPRA for Umiat well inspections. Flew from Anchorage to Fairbanks on Alaska and then from Fairbanks to (via Nuiqsut) Umiat on a charter flight (Wright Air). Mike Worley, Richard Kremnitz and two other hydrologists were on the plane also. We flew directly to Nuiqsut to drop off everybody except Mike Worley. From Nuiqsut we flew over the ice road routes, then flew over Lonely (DEW Line site) and then over the Total well site near Inigok. We arrived at Umiat @ 1345. Bo Brown, Stan Porhola, Mike Kunz and Steve Martinez went to Umiat on the 21st. Stan and Bo flew out on the plane I flew in on. The Umiat Commercial Corp. (UCC) put us up in the main camp and in a geophysical camp they had just purchased from Western Geo. Three Polaris snow machines (UCC) and 2 new skidoos (OES) were used for crew transportation. One skidoo burned out a piston (4-29-04) due to bad gas or choked off oil injection line. Two people could ride on the skidoos but only one on each Polaris. The UCC Nodwell was used to transport people (up to 6 including operator) and water (1000 gal. tank) to each site. The Nodwell is a 1970's version that is slow and fragile. It takes at least 1 1/2 hours to get water from Umiat to the well sites on the hill. Using a Sno-cat or Tucker (maybe 2) for crew transportation and water hauling next year should be strongly considered. Bill Culbertson (OES) also said they have an ice / snow melter they could use for water. Caribou Construction provided the 977 cats and associated equipment. Caribou also provided a heated warm up shack and a double lined (diesel) fuel sled. After getting everything set up and working out the kinks, plugging the wells went pretty good. In my view, Steve and Stan did a commendable job setting everything up especially considering the time crunch. The OES crew worked in a very professional and competent manor. The Caribou operators did a great job and working Mike Kunz was one of the real benefits of the project. The weather warmed up on Sunday the 9th and the snow started to melt awfully fast. On the day I left (May 11) it was sunny and about 50 deg F. Tues -4-27-04 Leave Anch @ 0630 Arrive Fairbanks @ 0730 Leave Fairbanks @ 0915 Arrive Nuiqsut @ 1130 Drop off Kemnitz and two others Leave Nuiqsut @ 1145, fly over ice road routes, fly over Lonely, fly over Total well (Inigok) Arrive Umiat @ 1335 Nodwell up to #8 Weds 4-28-04 Continue to set up on #8 well. Generator problem — electrician flown in from Deadhorse (delayed because of bad weather in Deadhorse) Thurs 4-29-04 Nodwell up to #8 — water (1000 gallons) brought up also. S. Flora, M. Worley from Fairbanks- M. Worley flies on to Inigok. S. Flora wants to get rid of tank- Mike Kunz doesn't. It stays. Generator still screwed up. S. Flora, M. Worley fly back to Fairbanks with the OES welder. Fri 4-30-04 To #8 via Nodwell Start pumping brine down well @ 1300 y • • Went back to camp @ 1800 — will switch out with S. Martinez @ 0030. Back up the hill @ 2330 — S. Martinez cemented well before I returned. Balanced plug set @ 2355. Sat 5-01-04 Hauling water to #8 all day. Sun 5-02-04 To well #8 @ 1200 Started pumping H2O down well @ 1500 Finished pumping H2O down well @ 1720 Pumped gel pill from 1825 to 1840 Start pumping cement @ 1845, finish @ 1915. Cement tubing to surface. Well #8 plugged. Mon 5-03-04 Moving everything from #8 to #10. Weatherford rep (Lyle Savage) flown in camp for packer on #10. Tues 5-04-04 Still moving everything from #8 to #10. Weds 5-05-04 S. Flores, D. Carpenter, Mike Worley, R.Kemnitz fly in. Everyone except Kemnitz to well site. Brine pumped down hole @ 1400 to 1445 to melt ice plug. D. Carpenter gave OK to pump circulated water back down well. Packer set @ 1445. Carpenter and Flora asked about HS &E plan @ site. Did not bring up enough cement — will plug well Thurs. morning. Fairbanks BLMers fly out. Thurs 5-06-04 To well #10 @ 0800; start cement @ 1115; finish @ 1140. Cement to surface. Well #10 plugged. Cold and windy- crew comes down early because of weather and lack of visibility. State will close tundra travel @ 1200 on the 9th. Friday 5-07-04 Moving to well #4. Cold and windy but better visibility. Sat 5-08-04 To well #4, cut off tubing and it falls away @ 1230. Still setting up equipment. Sun 5-09-04 To well #4, pumped gel pill @ 1130 - 1145. Pumped cement @ 1205 to 1525. Needed extra sacks of cement from camp. Well #4 plugged. Mon 5-10-04 Move to well #3. Some of the equipment moved to Seabee pad. Tues 5-11-04 To well #3, pumped gel pill 1205-1210. Pumped cement 1215 to 1315. Fairbanks BLMers fly to Umiat. Bill Culbertson (OES), S. Flores, M. Worley, Craig McCaa to well site via Nodwell. Arrive @ 1330. Leave Umiat @ 1600 via Wright Air, arrive Fairbanks 1800. Leave Fairbanks @ 2030, arrive Anch @ 2130. Mike Kunz also left Umiat and flew to Fairbanks. Tim Lawlor OES Bill Culbertson — GM -OES Don Lancaster — Supervisor - Wainwright Billy Bester — Wainwright "Super" Dave Gerke- Barrow Chuck ? -Anchorage Loren ? - Welder- Anchorage Dink Heim — driller -Anchorage- (Wildcat Enterprises, Inc.) Caribou Construction (977 cats) Jimmy Brazel — mechanic / operator -New Mexico Bill Durner — operator-Wasilla BLM-Anchorage Steve Martinez- Petroleum Engineer Stan Porhola — Petroleum Engineer Bo Brown — P.E.T. Tim Lawlor- P.E.T. BLM-Fairbanks Mike Kunz — Archeologist Susan Flora — Haz Mat Mike Worley - Realty Doug Carpenter — H.S.E. Craig McCaa- P.R. Richard Kemnitz — Hydrologist- flew up but worked on his own project. Subject: Re: Umiat From: Stan_Porhola@ak.blm.gov Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:46:12 -0800 To: Thomas Maunder <tom maunder@admin. state.ak.us> Umiat #8 was plugged with a downhole plug through the tubing across the active reservoir. A surface plug was set in both the annulus and tubing, with the top of the plug at 73' and 0' respectively. Umiat #10 was plugged with a bridge plug and 100' of cement above. Umiat #4 was plugged with a fluid level at 2011, followed by water to 1011, a gel pill to 70' and a surface plug to 111. Tubing and rods were cut and left in the well. Umiat #3 was plugged with a fluid level at 1181, followed by a gel pill to 93' and a surface plug to 66' (after falling 601). Tubing was cut and left in the well. Work scheduled for winter 2005 includes topping off the surface plug for Umiat 43 and setting surface plugs for Umiat 46, #7 and 49. Previous plans to plug Umiat #1 and 411 have been put on hold. Work scheduled for summer 2004 includes PCB testing of well fluids for Wolf Creek #3 and possible wellhead improvements to Wolf Creek 41. The next likely target for plugging efforts by BLM (pending additional funding) would be the Wolf Creek area (wells 1,2,3). Stan Porhola BLM - Alaska Petroleum Engineer 267-1469 1 of 1 7/21/2004 3:50 PM Subject: Umiat From: Thomas Maunder <tom_maunder@admin. state.ak.us> Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 15:14:26 -0800 To: Stan Porhola <Stan_Porhola@ak.blm.gov> Hi Stan, I just got the summer edition of "BLM Alaska Frontiers". Your activities at Umiat are discussed on page 13. I was wondering what your schedule might be regarding the reporting paperwork on the wells you were able to work on. We would appreciate getting those reports to at least close out that portion of the files. Thanks in advance. I also looked at the 2 and 5 files. The Corp has never sent in the final paperwork on those wells. I do have Greg's summaries. Did BLM ever get anything of reports from the Corp?? Regards, Tom Maunder, PE AOGCC 1 of 1 7/21/2004 3:50 PM Umiat getting a Little cleaner With funding secured from Congress, BLM began plugging some of the "legacy wells" in the National Petroleum Reserve -Alaska this spring. BLM awarded a contract to Olgoonik Environmental Services (OES) of Wainwright, Alaska, to plug nine wells near Umiat. Umiat was the site of oil exploration conducted by the U.S. Navy, who contracted various Arctic contractors to drill 11 wells between 1944 and 1953. None of these wells were initially plugged and abandoned but the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers plugged two Umiat wells during the winter of 2002. Umiat was chosen due to its proximity to the Colville River and the relatively easy access provided by the existing air strip. OES mobilized equipment at Umiat in late April and was able to plug four wells in 27 days. BLM suspended operations on May 11 to prevent damage to the tundra as the weather warmed. BLM and OES plan to return to Umiat next winter to finish plugging the remaining five wells. Depending on future funding, BLM will plug other legacy wells in the petroleum reserve. Wells that pose the greatest risk to the environment and resource values will get priority. After multiple field seasons collecting field data and compiling literature on the wells drilled by the U.S. Government, BLM will issue its final report on the legacy wells in the rational Petroleum Reserve - Alaska later this year. BLMers on the preliminary site visit to Umiat No. 6 in February were greeted with -40°F temperatures and three feet of snow. 131-Mers visit Umiat No. 8 in May as crews begin scraping five feet of snow away to allow work on the wellhead. Late breaking news... The Northeast National Petroleum Reserve -Alaska Draft Amended Integrated Activity Plan /Environmental Impact Statement is now available for public comment. The plan includes BLM's preferred alternative for making additional land available for leasing in the northeast NPR -A. Public comments will be accepted for 45 days beginning June 18, 2004. See BLM's website www.ak.blm.gov for more information. A followup story will appear in the next issue of BLM-Alaska Frontiers. SUMMER Zoo+ bLM ALASKA FRONTIERS 13 0,. 0 0 Well Pluggings — 2004 Agency: Bureau of Land Management Contractor: Olgoonik Environmental Services Wells: Umiat 43, Umiat #4, Umiat #8, Umiat #10 Umiat #8 Known locally as the "whistling well", plans to plug this gas well with several other wells in the Umiat area began only a few months before well plugging operations in April 2004. Initially, the well had 250 psi of pressure and was leaking from multiple fittings and valves. Considered one of the most difficult legacy wells to plug, a considerable amount of preparation went into setting up the wellsitc, including the building of a 6' tall snow pad to access the well. Utilizing a cement mixer, pump, and hoses hooked up to the wellhead, plugging operations commenced with the melting of a small surface ice plug. Following the removal of the ice plug, a 378' cement plug was set at the bottom of the well, a 93' plug was set in the tubing annulus near the surface, and a 287' plug was set in the tubing at the surface. In all, time spent at this well began with prep work starting April 22, 2004 and ended with the completion of plugging operations on May 2, 2004. Umiat #10 Following the successful plugging of Umiat #8, operations were moved to Umiat 410. The well operations started with the melting of a surface: ice plug. The wellbore was much different than that of Umiat #8 because it was an exploratory oil well that had low reservoir pressure which prevents the well fluids from flowing to surface. In fact, the fluid level was probably several hundred feet below ground surface. Therefore, an inflatable bridge plug was easily run into the well down to 100' and inflated with nitrogen. A cement plug was set on top of the plug to just a few feet below ground surface. Operations were completed on May 6, 2004 and moved to Umiat #4. Umiat #4 Located near the edge of a hill to the east of Umiat #8, well plugging operations began on May 7, 2004. When the flange on the top of the well was opened, a string of tubing and rods were found hanging from the bottom of the flange. The tubing and rods were cut at the surface and dropped in the hole. An interface meter determined the fluid level to be at 201'. To set the plug in the openhole, a water spacer with a viscous gel pill was pumped ahead of the cement. The cement plug was tagged at l 1', the flange placed back on the well and operations concluded on May 9, 2004. Umiat #3 Located to the northeast of Umiat Lake, this well was accessed on May 9, 2004. The wellhead was removed and tubing found to be hanging from the bottom. The tubing was cut and junked in the hole just as had been done in Umiat #4. An interface meter determined the fluid level to be at 118'. To set the plug in the openhole, no water spacer was used due to the higher fluid level but a viscous gel pill was pumped ahead of a cement plug. The cement was tagged at 66', meaning the cement had fallen from a calculated depth closer to the surface. However, warmer weather led to the cessation of operations on the tundra and further well operations have been suspended pending a return to Umiat for additional well plugging activities. BILMSud: Umiat #3 Rig: Failing Model 1500 (314-C) November 15, 1946 _ ==- Umiat Meridian Township Range Section Start P+A Alk 0- ^'= '-7(i Umiat is 1 W 13 5/9/04 Current Wellbore Schematic GL: 351' AMSL KB: 360' AMSL End P+A Wellhead is 6' above GL 5/11/04 0 9' 5 Y TD = 572' PBTD = 572' sx of Portland ment )f Arctic Set 3 Casing and Tubing Detail Size Weight Grade Type ID Top Btm 7° — — Conductor -- 8 72 ??? __ -- Tubing — ??? ??? :118' Item Location To lamalam Well Fluids Btm Vol (bbl) Comments 1 OH/Csg 66 93 5.75 Surface cement plug 2 Open Hole 93 118 0.82 Gel pill 3 Open Hole 118 572 ? Wellbore Fluids Fish/Fill Information Item Date Depth Comment A 5/11/04 ??? Tubing cut and dropped in well X x X x X i Cement Arctic Set 3; yield 1.533 cf/sx; 10.7 ppg x x x Gel Pill MI Gel; 10 ppg Wellbore Fluids Unknown US Arm Corps ps of Engineers ALASKA DISTRICT The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) requests your comments on this Proposed Plan. The Proposed Plan covers 12 areas; two areas at the former Umiat Air Station and the areas surrounding ten Umiat Test Wells in the former National Petroleum Reserve -4 (NPR -4). The sites are shown on Figure 1 and listed below: • Air Strip Complex • Main Gravel Pad • Umiat Test Well 2 • Umiat Test Well 3 • Umiat Test Well 4 • Umiat Test Well 5 L • Umiat Test Well 6 • Umiat Test Well 7 • Umiat Test Well 8 • Umiat Test Well 9 • Umiat Test Well 10 • Umiat Test Well 11 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC): the state agency responsible for protecting public health, safety, and welfare, and the environment from adverse effects of environmental contamination. Proposed Plan: a docum& informing Alaska Tribes, community leaders, and the public about contaminated sites, aiternatives that were considered for cleaning up the sites, and which alternatives were identified as the presarred alternatives. 100 O 8 .Seep -i 0;9 3Q 0 Airstrip Complex' 6 (UnItA) _ L'�_r- 701;' Seasonal Stream- .Main Gravel Pad= (Unit B) Lar;dt;ll; _ ; (Unit C) " ii Shut-in NPR -4 Oil well O ... Dry NPR -4 Test Hole ® ---, Estimated Erosion Area ® �:_ .- - •.. -____ - Scale in Wiles'! = Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC): the state agency responsible for protecting public health, safety, and welfare, and the environment from adverse effects of environmental contamination. Proposed Plan: a docum& informing Alaska Tribes, community leaders, and the public about contaminated sites, aiternatives that were considered for cleaning up the sites, and which alternatives were identified as the presarred alternatives. At a later date, additional Proposed Plans will be prepared that will address Umiat Test Well 1, Umiat Lake, and the landfill and Seasonal Slough The purpose of this Proposed Plan is to: • Describe the environmental conditions at each site. • Describe the cleanups levels for the sites. • Describe the cleanup alternatives that were considered. • Present the Proposed cleanup alternative for each site. • Request public comment on the Proposed Alternatives. • Prcv;!P information on how the public can be involved in finai c --a IIuN d0c siurls- Final decisions on the proposed alternatives will not be made until all comments submitted by the end of the public comment period have been reviewed and considered. Changes to the preferred alternatives may be made if public comments or additional data indicate that such changes would result in more appropriate solutions. Preparation of this Proposed Plan and the associated public comment period is required under Section 117(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as "Superfund". Although the sites described in this Proposed Plan are not CERCLA sites, this project follows CERCLA guidance. Formerly Used Defetlse Sites lit JD ) Pt'oigf"arn The Department of Defense (DoD) is tasked with correcting environmental damage caused by past DOD activities. The Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) was set up to accomplish this. The cleanup of Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) is a part of this program. FUDS are those properties that the Department of Defense once owned or used, but no longer controls. These properties range from privately owned farms to National Parks. They also include residential areas, schools, colleges, and industrial areas. The FUDS program includes former Army, Navy, Marine, Air Force, and other defense properties. Over 600 FUD sites have been identified in Alaska. Alternatives: appropriate waste management options that ensure the protection of human health and the environment. CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (also known as Superfund)... The federal law that guides cleanup of hazardous waste sites. Site Looation and History Umiat is located about 150 miles southeast of Barrow and 70 miles southwest of Nuiqsut on the north shore of the Colville River. Access is limited mostly to air travel with occasional river traffic in the summer and over -land snow machine traffic in the winter. The natives of arctic Alaska have known and used oil shales and seepage tars since before recorded history. In 1886, Lt. George M. Stoney described lumps and pebbles of oil shale along. the Etiviuk River. His report may have been the first record of arctic Alaska's oil potential. Geologic and topographic surveys were started in 1901. In 1923, President Warren G. Harding established the NPR -4 .F vi 111. n .. Ppafd \mn nu. Alk n f / Tunallk Meade r . Square Lake# umiat X^ Wolf Creek;.EastUmrat_Yf umia_r- ®ou rww (;rrl:•il(c!'irr.� Oil Weil ® oil satP ma G:u I;ew Dry Huk In 1944, Lt. W.T. Foran reported "&petroleum potential of major importance existed in the NPR - 4." Based on this report, an exploration program called Pet -4 was established. Under the Pet -4 program, 45 shallow core tests and 36 test wells were drilled between 1945 and 1952. The drilling resulted in oil finds in Umiat, Cape Simpson, and Fish Creek. In Umiat the first well was drll�ed in June 1945. Only a trace of oil was discovered. About 120 gallons were recovered from the well the following year when operations were resumed. As the first well was under construction, a base camp was set up in present day Umiat. Ten other wells were drilled in the immediate area over the next eight years. Seven of the ten had significant oil production. II �n J y ow ci4) A�' u 4y N? �sbl av €h B Umiat was used to support the drilling operations from 1944 to 1953 when oil exploration activities were abandoned. The main camp area was relinquished to the Air Force in 1953, returned to the Navy in 1955, and then transferred to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in 1960. In 1976, NPR -4 became NPR -A. Approximately 115 acres, including the Umiat Air Strip Complex and the Main Gravel Pad areas are currently owned by the State of Alaska. EnvironAtal Investigation and Cleanup History Environmental investigations and cleanup activities at Umiat have been ongoing since the early 1980's. The actions presented in this Proposed Plan are based largely on the investigations from 1994 to the present. The investigations have been performed in many phases, with each new phase building on the previous phases. The goals of the investigations are to locate and identify areas of contamination and to gather enough information to develop a cleanup plan. Figure 2 shows the history of the studies and cleanup actions that have been performed at Umiat and the Umiat Test Well locations since 1994. The results of the studies are presented in the listed documents and summarized in this Proposed Plan. The documents can be found in the Administrative Record located at the USACE Office on Elmendorf AFB, or at the Informational Repository located at the City Office in Nuigsut. The first major environmental study, the Remedial Investigation, was performed at Umiat in 1994. The Remedial Investigation looked at the Air Strip Complex, the Main Gravel Pad and the landfill. The study separated these areas into 11 smaller areas. Area 1 was the Air Strip Complex. Areas 2 through 10 were on the Main Gravel Pad. Area 11 was the landfill. The results of the Remedial Investigation showed that contaminants were present throughout the areas. j RI Work Plan (Areas 1 through 11)1994 RI Report (Areas 1 through 11)1995 Risk Assessment Work Plan (Areas A. B and C)1995 j Phase II RI Work Plan (Areas A, B and C)1995 i Phase II RI Report (Areas A, B and C)1997 Risk Assessment Report (Areas A. B and C) 1997 easabllity, Study (Areas A, B and C)1997 Ph as III RI Work Plan (11 NPR -4 Wells) 1997 Dioxin Study (Area 7) 1997 Phase III RI Report (11 NPR -4 Wells)1998EE/CA PCB Soil Removal (Area 7)1997 CB Soil Removal Action (Area 7)1998 Phase IV RI (6 NPR -4 Welk) Work Plan 1998 Phase IV RI (6 NPR4 Welk) Report 1999 Risk Assessment (Wells 1, 7 and 9)1999 Dioxin Study (Area C and Well 9) 1999 EE/CA (Welt 2 and 5) 2000 Phase I Stockpile Construction 2000 Phase 11 (Well 2 and 5) Plug and Soil Removal Focused Feasibility Study Welk (4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11) Phase III Soil Treatment 2002 2003 Evaluation of Lead at Well 7, 2003 DDT Sal Study 2002 PCB Oct Study 2002 In 1995, Phase II of the Remedial Investigation was performed. In this study the eleven areas were combined into three areas; (Area A was the Air Strip Complex. Area B was the Main Gravel Pad. Area C was the landfill). This phase of the study concentrated on areas identified in the first phase as having elevated contamination levels. After the Phase II investigation, several follow-on studies were completed. A Risk Assessment and Feasibility Study were completed for Air Strip Complex, the Main Gravel Pad and the Landfill. A dioxin study was performed at Area 7 (part of Main Gravel Pad). An Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis was completed for a small PCB soil removal action, also on the Main Gravel Pad. In 1997, Phase III of the Remedial Investigation was performed. In this phase the areas around 11 Umiat Test Wells were investigated through the collection and analysis of soil, water and sediment samples. In 1998, the Remedial Investigation (Phase IV) continued. In this phase of the study, areas surrounding six Umiat Test Wells (1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9) were investigated further. Based on the results of that study, a risk assessment was performed for Wells 1, 7, and 9 and a follow-on dioxin study was performed for Well 9 and the landfill. Also based on the results of the Phase IV study, an Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis was prepared for Wells 2 and 5. The well closure and soil removal project proposed in the Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis began in 2001 and is scheduled for completion by the fall of 2003. Clc.�nuF� Levels Soil The cleanup levels and goals for the Well sites are taken from Alaska's regulations for contaminated sites (18 AAC 75). For Well sites 2 and 5, ADEC Method 1 cleanup levels for soil (18 AAC 75:340, Table A2) were selected to protect the water quality of the Colville River because the contaminated soil was beginning to erode into the river. For the Main Gravel Pad and Air Strip Complex, where most human activity is expected to occur, ADEC Method 2 Cleanup Levels (18 AAC 75:341, Table 131 and B2, Arctic zone) were selected. These values are protective of human health to residential standards. Site-specific risk assessments for the Main Gravel Pad and Airstrip Complex showed that human health risks were similar to or greater than risks to wildlife, so the proposed cleanup levels will also protect wildlife. PCBs were detected at Well 9 and the Main Gravel Pad. The ADEC cleanup level of 1 mg/kg was selected for PCBs. Dioxins were also detected at these sites. There is no predetermined cleanup level for dioxins; instead it is determined for each site based on a risk assessment. The risk assessments showed that the low levels of dioxins did not pose a significant risk. Since there was no significant risk from The Information Repository contains the Administrative Record for Umiat, including detailed investigation reports, evaluation of potential cleanup technologies, and test results from field studies. RI - Remedial Investigation The CERCLA process of determining the extent of hazardous substance contamination and, as appropriate, conducting treatability investigations. RA - Risk Assessment The study and estimation of risk from a current or proposed activity. Involves estimates of the probability and consequence of an action. FS - Feasibility Study The Superfund study following a remedial investigation which identifies, develops, evaluates and selects remedial action alternatives. EE/CA - Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis CERCLA document prepared to address interim `! cleanup activities. dioxins at either site, no cleanup level was calculated. However, at both sites the dioxins will be removed with the removal of PCB contaminated soil. The cleanup goals for the other well sites (Wells 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11) where petroleum was the primary contaminant, a risk-based approach is proposed. At these sites, a risk comparison was made based on other site-specific risk assessments. The goal at these well sites is to ensure that there is no significant risk to human health or the environment, and not to determine a specific cleanup number. Water Subsurface drinking water aquifers are not present at Umiat due to the presence of shallow permafrost. However, water exists seasonally in the layer above the permafrost. The risk assessments showed that contaminants in this shallow water does not pose a risk to human health or the environment. There are no sites in this Proposed Plan that have contaminated groundwater or surface water that require cleanup actions. Although no cleanup of water is proposed, the soil cleanup actions are proposed to protect nearby surface water bodies and wetlands from potential migration of contamination. As part of the proposed cleanup actions shallow water will be monitored. The water will be compared to cleanup levels from 18 AAC70—,Water Quality Standards, which establish water quality criteria for surface water, and from 18 AAC 75.345 which provides cleanup levels for groundwater that are equivalent to the EPA drinking water standards. The Site Summaries sections discusses the proposed sampling. MGM UP AUUMMIM The 12 sites\,'in this Proposed Plan were very similar in the\potential cleanup actions that would be appropriate. The alternatives were presented in several reports. A Feasibility Study evaluated cleanup alternatives for the Air Strip Complex and the Main Gravel Pad. An Engineering Evaluation / Cost Assessment evaluated alternatives for a removal action at Umiat Test Wells 2 and 5. A Focused Feasibility Study evaluated alternatives for Umiat Test Wells 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11. The Feasibility Study for the Air Strip Complex and Main Gravel Pad provided detailed analysis on four alternatives; • No Action, • Natural Attenuation with Institutional Controls, • Excavation with On -Site Landfarming and • Excavation with On -Site Low Temperature Thermal Desorption. The EE/CA for Umiat Test Wells 2 and 5 provided detailed analysis on four alternatives; • No Action • Excavation with On -Site Low Temperature Thermal Desorption, • Excavation with On -Site Hot Air Vapor Extraction, and • Excavation with On -Site Landfarming. (The three alternatives involving excavation also included the decommissioning of the wells to prevent future hazards if the Colville River was to erode back to the wellheads. Excavation with On -Site Hot Air Vapor Extraction, is not summarized below. This alternative was not proposed for any of the other sites, and was not selected for well sites 2 and 5). The Focused Feasibility Study for the Umiat Test Wells (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11) sites provided analysis on five alternatives; • No Action, • Natural Attenuation, • Excavation with On-site Landfarming, • Excavation with On -Site Low Temperature Thermal Desorption, and • Excavation with Off -Site Disposal. A technical description of the alternatives is provided below. No Further Action (NFA) CERCLA required evaluation of a No Action alternative as a baseline reflecting current site conditions without any cleanup effort. This option is also used as a baseline to compare to the other options. Natural Attenuation is defined by the US EPA as the "biodegradation, diffusion, dilution, sorption, volatilization, and/or chemical and biochemical stabilization of contaminants to effectively reduce contaminant toxicity, mobility, or volume to levels that are protective of human health and the environment." Simply stated, natural attenuation occurs when physical, chemical and biological processes act to reduce the mass, toxicity, and mobility of subsurface contamination in a way that risks to human health and the environment are decreased to acceptable levels. The term "monitored natural attenuation (MNA) refers to the reliance on natural attenuation processes, within the context of a monitored site cleanup, to achieve site- specific remedial objectives. Institutional Controls may be a part of any alternative. Institutional Controls are non - engineered instruments such as administrative and/or legal controls that minimize the potential for exposure to contamination by limiting land or resource use. They can generally be used in conjunction with, engineering measures such as waste removal and treatment or containment. Some examples of Institutional Controls include easements, covenants, well drilling prohibitions, zoning restrictions, and special building permit requirements. Temporary physical barriers such as fences are also considered an Institutional Control. Excavation with Treatment or Off-site Disposal are active cleanup processes involving the removal of contaminated material followed by treatment and or reuse or reburial according to current regulations. The treatment and disposal or reuse of the cleaned material may be performed on-site or off-site depending on the type and amount of contamination remaining. Post excavation options that were considered include; Landfarming involves spreading excavated contaminated soil in a thin layer over a liner and stimulating soil bacteria to break down petroleum compounds into simpler harmless compounds. This is done by tilling to aerate the soil, adding nutrients (fertilizer), and adding water as needed, to create the best possible conditions for the soil bacteria. Landfarming requires periodic monitoring to determine if cleanup levels are met and can work well for gasoline and diesel but slower for heavier hydrocarbons. Landfarming operations would be performed on the Main Gravel Pad. Low Temperature Thermal DesorptionDesorption (LTTD) uses a rotary kiln heated to approximately 700 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate petroleum compounds from contaminated soil. The petroleum vapors are destroyed in an afterburner to prevent discharge of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere. LTTD operations would be performed with a portable unit located on the Main Gravel Pad. Off-site Disposal simply is the reburial of waste or contaminated material in a permitted disposal facility. The alternatives were evaluated based on the best ways to accommodate the severe climatic, logistical, and environmental conditions at Umiat. Each cleanup alternative was also evaluated with respect to seven of the nine criteria established under CERCLA (Table 1 - next page). The final two modifying criteria are evaluated during this Proposed Plan process. �i'tc Sllillilll�-ics The following sections provide specific descriptions, investigative histories and proposed alternatives for each site. Air Strip Complex INVESTIGATIONS The Air Strip Complex was originally designated as Area 1 and then Area A. It encompasses the entire Air Strip Complex that includes the former bulk fuel storage area and drum storage area west of the airstrip, a tank farm adjacent to the former Umiat Lodge, Runway Lake, and the runway apron. The Air Strip Complex was initially studied in August 1994 during the first major environmental investigation of the Umiat facility. Soil borings were drilled and samples collected. Each sample was analyzed for residual petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, TRPH, GRO and BTEX), volatile organic compounds, semi -volatile organic compounds (including PAHs), pesticides and PCBs, 8- metals and fuel identification. The borings targeted former fuel tank locations and suspected fuel spill areas. SOILC0*N A2O0%7A%4 SB -12 • 1996 R SAMPLE LOCATON Is ; OF ESTIMATED TO BE 2.5; ESTIMATED SOIL SNI -1 • 1994 M SAMPLE LOCATION VOLUME EXCEEDING CLEANUP CRam 116 CT. MW -1 $ 1996 W MONnOMNG WELL LOCATION .+�. TUNDRA RWL-1 • 1996 R SURFACE WATER AND -.-- EDGE OF GRAVEL SEDIMENT SIMPLE LOCATION -- ---' EDGE OF WATER 017 -SL • 1996 R SAMPLE LOCATION E)(IEP1T UNKNOWN tW1E Fxnn � caxFuewl•II cavo ox son 9WlFs I � .r` •RWL 7 CICfmL 1x[ NLLYIIYG I6uUl0M EIl•NILF lft'FL4 • (JIpFOSEB IlInG)3}. $B-0 1 Mc 1Z - Z -21 •R'BL-2 21=ops iUPmnt l/J!E If eSG-7 I(� /58-17 �_ . •C -15 -2 � E7A OF GfLNE. -38-3• SCALE M FEET p 100 i00 300 _ _ r • SB -32 �! • SS -31 • SB -30 SO -29 SSB -25 P,11N*Ai APRON SO -34 •58--33 � •SB -18 0SB-28 •SB -19 • SB -21 • SB -20 OSB -6 • •Se -5 017 -SL SB -2• ,G O Sii FORMEF ADOT • • N1 f"s x-39 1 „i ,A• In 1996, Phase II of the Remedial Investigation was completed. During this phase, 44 soil borings and two groundwater monitoring wells were completed. Also during this phase, three samples of sediment and surface water were collected from Runway Lake. Runway Lake is adjacent and west of the airstrip. The sample locations are shown on Figure 3 above. Petroleum Hydrocarbons: a group of chemicals commonly found in fuel products. Petroleum hydrocarbons include total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) an older method used to detect full range hydrocarbons, diesel range organics (DRO) which are chemicals found in diesel, (residual range organics (RRO), and gasoline range organics (GRO) and'benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) which are chemicals found in gasoline. • 0 SB -2S FUEL � I ass -13 •x-41 11`EDGE 3F GP. *SB -23 • SS -22 ®� •BN1-3 •se -I OSS -12 BN:2 1 SB -i20 41 \ ice• c � SO -45 • �nl(1 1( AL -J,< `EDGE 3` G.FVEL AL Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): a group of chemicals with low boiling points. VOCs, such as trichloroethylene, were commonly used as degreasers in the maintenance of equipment. Semi -Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs): a group of chemicals with higher boiling points generally found in diesel or fuel oil. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) are also in this group Pesticides: chemicals used to eliminate or control populations of insects such as Mosquitoes. PCB - Polychlorinated biphenyl, a synthetic, organic chemical once widely used in electrical equipment, specialized hydraulic systems, heat transfer systems, and other industrial products. Metals: elements that occur naturally in the environment and are used to produce many products (i.e., sheet metal, drums). RESULTS In the first phase, eight of the ten samples showed petroleum related contamination above Method 2 cleanup levels. The highest levels reported were 15,500 mg/kg DRO and 12,000 mg/kg GRO. The Method 2 cleanup levels are 12,500 mg/kg for DRO and 1,400 mg/kg for GRO. Benzene and xylenes were shown to be elevated in one sample. Benzene and xylenes were reported at 31 mg/kg and 200 mg/kg, respectively. The Method 2 cleanup level is 13 mg/kg of benzene and 81 mg/kg for xylenes. The second phase of study showed two areas of soil contamination that exceeded Method 2 cleanup levels for petroleum products. The two areas are near monitoring wells MW- 1 and MW - 2. At each area the DRO concentration was above the cleanup level of 12,500 mg/kg. Soil samples near MW -1 had concentrations of 17,000 mg/kg and soil samples near MW -2 had concentrations of 22,000 mg/kg. The shallow groundwater (2 feet below the ground surface) at each monitoring well also showed petroleum related contamination above ADEC groundwater cleanup levels. The surface water and sediment samples showed no contamination above ADEC cleanup levels. The surface water results were compared to ADEC groundwater and surface water quality standards and the sediment results were compared to Method 2 cleanup levels. The results are summarized on Table 2. RISK ASSESSMENT After the second phase of the study, a human health and ecological risk assessment was performed. No significant human health or ecological risks were identified at this site. ALTERNATIVE EVALUATIONS The cleanup options for the Air Strip Complex and Main Gravel Pad included; • No Action, • Natural Attenuation with Institutional Controls, • Excavation with On -Site Landfarming and • Excavation with On -Site Low Temperature Thermal Desorption The evaluation and comparison of these alternatives are summarized below; Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment The No Action alternative provides no direct protection to human health or the environment. However, the results of the risk assessment indicated that there are no significant risks associated with this site. The second alternative, Natural Attenuation with Institutional Controls, will provide some minimal protection to people from exposure to contamination through fencing and signs, but will not protect animals that may burrow under the fence or birds that may fly over a fence. This alternative will monitor the rate at which contaminants degrade, but will take many years to reach cleanup levels. The other two alternatives, excavation with Landfarming, or LTTD, have the potential to reduce the petroleum contamination in the soil to below the cleanup levels within a short period of time. There would be no further exposure potential. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements All alternatives considered for this area have the potential to comply with regulations as presented in the Feasibility Study, primarily meeting Method 2 cleanup levels. The difference is the time frame in which the cleanup levels would be met. The No Action and Natural Attenuation alternative would take the longest to achieve the goals. The No Action alternative would not provide any monitoring data to detect whether contamination is migrating off site through the active zone water and entering adjacent water bodies or wetlands. The excavation with LTTD would take the shortest amount of time. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence The No Action alternative provides no long-term effectiveness or permanence. Natural Attenuation relies on natural processes and a significant time period (greater than 30 years). Landfarming and LTTD are more active cleanup processes. Both are expected to be able to provide long-term effectiveness and permanence. The LTTD alternative is significantly faster in reaching the end point. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment The No Action and Natural Attenuation alternatives provide no direct reduction of toxicity, mobility and volume through treatment, because no active treatment is involved with these alternatives. It is expected that the petroleum contamination would degrade with time. Landfarming, or LTTD, have the potential to permanently reduce the toxicity, mobility and volume of the contaminants. The difference again is the time frame that would be required. LTTD requires hours to treat a batch of soil and landfarming would require months or perhaps years to complete treatment. Short-term Effectiveness The No Action alternative would have no short- term impact because no field work is involved, thus no exposure to the soil would occur. The Natural Attenuation with Institutional controls could have a minor impact during the construction of fences around the areas. The other alternatives include the digging and transportation of the soil to a central treatment area. The handling of the soil throughout the treatment process has the potential to expose the workers to the contaminants. Additionally, the excavation work can potentially create dust and runoff. The LTTD have the potential to release petroleum vapors or dust as the soil is being treated. It is expected that any short-term impact to workers or the environment can be reduced through proper protective clothes, engineering controls on the treatment equipment, and carefully planned work practices to prevent dust generation during soil handling activities. Implementability Each alternative considered is implementable. The No Action and Natural Attenuation with Institutional Controls are the simplest to implement because little or no field work is required. The excavation and treatment alternatives require significantly more equipment, materials and land to implement. In the original Feasibility Study the LTTD alternative was described as the most difficult to implement. It involves mobilizing large pieces of equipment to Umiat, and also requires highly trained technical workers to operate and maintain the equipment. The Feasibility Study was based on the volume of soil that required treatment from the Airstrip and Main Gravel Pad. However, when the volume of soil to be treated expanded due to the Well 2 and 5 work, LTTD became the preferred alternative. There is not sufficient area available at Umiat to treat all of the soil by landfarming unless it was done in stages over many years. This would require long-term stockpiling of soil that was waiting for treatment Cost The costs presented here are for cleanup of the petroleum contamination at the Airstrip Complex and the Main Gravel Pad. The costs associated with Aealternatives ranged from $0 for the No Action Alternative, $526,000 for Natural Attenuation, $1,290,000 for LTTD and $756,000 for Landfarming. The Natural Attenuation also had operation and maintenance costs of $29,000 per year with a 30 -year present worth cost of $329,000 and a total cost of $820,000. The Landfarming alternative had operation and maintenance costs (0 &M) of $67,000 per year with a five-year present worth cost of $172,000 and a total cost of $930,000. No 0 & M costs and no present worth costs are calculated for cleanup work that is planned for one mobilization. State Acceptance The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has been involved in the planning and implementation of the investigations through their review and approval of project documents. The ADEC has also been involved in the production of this Proposed Plan and has agreed that the proposed action below meets State regulations and will protect human health and the environment. PROPOSED CLEANUP ACTIONS Based on the site investigations, a soil excavation and treatment action, (limited to the two areas (near MW -1 and MW -2) containing petroleum contaminated soil) is proposed for the Airstrip Complex. Approximately 116 cubic yards of soil shall be excavated. The excavation will i target soil with contamination levels above the Method 2 cleanup levels. The soil shall be treated in the thermal unit that is currently at Umiat. If the excavation is delayed, another on- site treatment option will be proposed. Although the shallow groundwater has been affected by petroleum contamination, the groundwater will not be directly treated. The removal of the contaminated soil will reduce the source of contamination in the water. ADEC has developed guidance that shallow groundwater above a permafrost area does not need to be considered as a possible drinking water source. The risk assessment also evaluated the potential exposure pathways and risk associated with contamination in the shallow groundwater, and did not identify any significant risks. However, the contamination of shallow groundwater must be evaluated with respect to the potential that the groundwater has to impact adjacent surface water. Because the contaminated area is near Runway Lake, the shallow groundwater will be monitored at wells that will be placed near the lake's edge. A network of five shallow monitoring points will be installed between the excavated area (near MW -2) and Runway Lake. The purpose of the monitoring is to detect any contamination before it enters Runway Lake. This monitoring network will be sampled annually for five years. The samples will be tested for petroleum products (DRO, RRO, GRO, BTEX and PAHs). After the first five years, the data will be evaluated and a determination made on whether additional information is needed to document that cleanup of the area has been successful. If the five-year review demonstrates that cleanup was successful, data collection may then be terminated or the frequency of monitoring decreased. Main Gree[ Pad INVESTIGATIONS The Main Gravel Pad was initially designated as Areas 2 through 10 and then renamed Area B. The Umiat Main Gravel Pad includes the former drum storage areas west of the ADOT Maintenance Building, scattered empty drums north and west of the ADOT Maintenance Building, former drum storage areas on and around the Main Gravel Pad and a former transformer storage area. The Umiat Main Gravel Pad was studied in August 1994 during the first environmental investigation of the Umiat facility. The area was investigated by installing 40 soil borings and collecting 124 soil samples. Each sample was analyzed for residual petroleum products (DRO, TRPH, and GRO), volatile organic compounds, semi -volatile organic compounds, pesticides and PCBs, 8 metals and fuel identification. The borings targeted former fuel tank locations and drum storage areas and suspected fuel spill areas. In 1996, Phase II of the Remedial Investigation was completed. During this phase, 119 soil borings and nine temporary groundwater - monitoring wells were completed. Sediment and surface water samples were also collected from the nearby Floatplane Lake. Samples were analyzed for DRO, RRO, GRO, volatile organic compounds, semi -volatile organic compounds, pesticides and PCBs/dioxins and metals. A follow-on dioxin study was performed in December of 1996 to further evaluate the presence of dioxins. The sample locations are shown on Figure 4 below. RESULTS Results of the first study showed contamination levels in soil above Method 2 cleanup levels. Area 2 showed DRO and DDT. Area 3 showed DRO and lead and antimony; and Area 7 showed DRO, DDT and PCBs. Phase II results showed soil contamination that exceeded Method 2 cleanup levels for petroleum products (DRO RRO and GRO), lead and PCBs. The results from the shallow groundwater showed petroleum, DDT and PCB contamination above ADEC groundwater cleanup limits. None of the surface water or sediment samples from Floatplane Lake detected contamination. Dioxins were also identified in the soil. The results are summarized in Table 3 on the next page. Dioxins: a group of chemicals that can be a contaminant of herbicides or I produced by incomplete burning of solvents and oils. LEGEND SEE -165 SB -s6• 1998 RI SIMPLE LOCATION W-182{ 9-,695 )i S,K-FLA•� 1996 RI FIELD LAB SAMPLE LOCATION ` SB�1Ss-81 h MW-fOq 1996 RI MONRORQC WELL LOCATION S41H� 9Ir,6s '1 6X10-]• 1994 RI SAMPLE LOCATION 9-,6166„t0-. y GE OF GRAVEL �'M• A✓ •' 832 ED -7 - EDGE OF WATER CONCRETE PAD �� �l�/=.4 eN,6-6 J"" .se-'sa UNDERGROUND STORAGE TAB( (6 N PLACE) iL91 •��:.N:� •BF,a / nwT n1A,E .A� ABOMEOWUND STORAGE TANK (I IN PLACE) 810-6 / SB 111. K ID -1]9 0-113 •6e -17I L s se-li) 5t11 -GEL 51�-R M'! 3 StIS�L • 9-)1. •3116 -FL StK-GEL se- •'6e -Y 56-181! Sem •1 4IEA ] -l9-tM sl« -FL AREA . /-mss'' ,'�� � se-Isz •sn-a �Mw-1• °i ]_,L sla}EL// MU 3 a6-,lz• j 61n_z 99_ ;� 'A• �BL1h1 T� 1 +-J --9N5a � se-,,, i sfi-1:,. a s6-lzz t�\ .,,:,•_/_: . � Ili• _m -)1 ss -1,s •se -119'58'»3 q 68_62 X59-36 eN •1 0 MN'l0 •se -ml /� •�-M �J ARFA 2 e.ls- • .`.��/ � A �,D m-lK• � t� SB -101• .� / _v Y �� �' •SB -6) •SB-!) 9X9-3• TYM-9 /;-'>' SBNt • _ .• :e w 's •m -6s e -6s exz-,..s� z�/ ss -,w 9B-„� •se tsz i 68-99 `T �, •m -M „_,. �� •se -los ��`�.. •se-, is Anl-,e.� � se-eo• •99-m •ss -9z a •se -Ks I ;1 •9-10 x_61 .A. "es—N, •sM2-6 : ^, h r I R K se -,R• �- i 1 ' `__��.-M•99_,PN L/ •eN6-3 .Se -,a W -1a1 .:I .,. •9-0] SB -69• SmmLs-i >a =6O •m-+o3•se-,.v SEE— SID APPRO% AREA OF SQL CONTAINMTION - 90D FT' •Se -1E? ! •s6-,]0 -'= umN OF CWTAMMAeM QM IS NIMATED 10 A FEET. +P / . *9 -DF . 1 MINA70 SQL VOLUME- 133 CY. 58-,02 •9-t56 •9-126 MA R115 A 6 Q.WRFPRI.Y N NOR -DID USE BY A .T Oi A' / e1M-2• •sB-1D •SB -IK `I OEfENSE PARTY ARE Q NOT INCLUDED N INE VMME ES7BMTE // i9 -se -1�9-E2• Sss_,x - - NM -t •58-126 AEWIOX. AREA OF SQL CWTA NATION - KO FT' NOTE: \�' .\ •NM -3 SCALE IN FEET DEPM OF CWTAYINADQI Q ESTIMATED TO BE 2 FEET. APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION BASED�yyNN 500. SAMPLES MWATED SOL VOLUME = 3D CY. EXCEEDING REGULATORY GUIDANCE LEVELS (PRWOSEO IB)ACl5) 69-AA't 9-1K �FQ-• _.1 0 130 300 K0 OR MSK -BARED CONCENTRATIONS.: PROPOSED ISAAC]5; 9-6J YW-I5 APPROX. AREA OF SQL ONIITAMNATION -625 FT' tR20 129 ppm 5B-t5e• , _ DEPDI OF CQITWIANDEI R ESINATEO TO BE 2 W 5 FEET. DRO 12,pp,,,AREA 2 ESINATED SQL VOLUME = 5e CyRRO22222 PPT \ \ AOEC NORM SLOPE PADS ( WRNN 50' OF EDGE OF PADS) APPROX. ATEA OF SQL CONTAMINATION = 625 FT' GRD 1GG Ppm \ \\ DEPTH OF CONTMUUh0* IS FSIWATED TO BE 2 FEET. ORO 200 ppm [SINNED SOL VOLUME - K IN RRO 2000 1996 EPA REGION 3 RISK-BASED CONCENTRATIONS CLEAN UP LEVELS AT SU-ERFUND SGES: APPRDX MFA M SQL GDK_NAB. ANTIMONY 31 Ppm LEAD 100 Pte., LOCATED NMN 50 FEET OF TM .MIDS MEILCOPPER 3.100 PWM _. EXQEONG TIE NWS, %GA, CLEANUP lEVE15 = ),5]O FT' IRON 23.600 ppm CONTAAMA111ON Is ESDYARD TO BE 3 FEET I1PCN. BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS: .e. FSTMAIED SOAR VQIILIE - %1 4Y. ARSENIC 6.1 Ppm 1991 EPA INTERIM CUWAHCE NR ESTALNAMNG 500. LEAD j ' RISK ASSESSMENT After the Phase I I and dioxin study were completed, a human health and ecological risk assessment was performed. The 1997 Risk Assessment Report indicated that elevated risks at the site were due to PCBs and dioxins. ALTERNATIVE EVALUATIONS For petroleum contaminated soil at the Main Gravel Pad, cleanup options that were considered and the evaluation of those alternatives was combined with Airstrip Complex in the Feasibility Study. Please refer to the Alternatives Evaluation for the Air Strip Complex for this information. Non -petroleum soil contamination, consisting of PCB/dioxin, lead and antimony contaminated soil was not considered in the Feasibility Study. A detailed analysis of alternatives for these contaminants was not considered and is not reflected in the evaluation of the CERCLA criteria. Excavation with off-site transportation and disposal in a permitted landfill was the only cleanup alternative considered for the PCB/dioxin, lead and antimony contaminated soil areas. PAST CLEANUP ACTIONS Because of the immediate exposure potential from the PCB/dioxin contaminated soils, an Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis was completed and a limited removal action was performed in the summer of 1998. Approximately 200 cubic yards of PCB - contaminated soil were excavated from the northeastern edge of the Main Gravel Pad. A liner was placed over the bottom of the excavation and it was backfilled with clean soil. Also during this action, 21,300 gallons of contaminated groundwater were pumped from the excavation site, treated and discharged. Ten tons of PCB -contaminated metal debris were removed from the site. The excavated soil and metal waste were shipped off site for disposal in a permitted facility. Approximately 60 cubic yards of lead and antimony contaminated soil has also been excavated and disposed in an off-site facility. This removal action was incidental to the construction of the soil stockpiles. Approximately 50 cubic yards of contaminated soil was excavated in 2001 and an additional 10 cubic yards were excavated in 2002. PROPOSED CLEANUP ACTIONS To complete the cleanup actions on the Main Gravel Pad, it is proposed that a total of 975 cubic yards of soil (from the colored areas identified in Figure 4) should be removed. This is the estimated volume of soil that exceeds the Method 2 cleanup levels. The soil would be treated in the thermal unit that is currently at Umiat. If the excavation is not completed while the LTTD system is at Umiat, another on-site treatment option will be proposed. It is also proposed that the PCB removal site be revisited and additional PCB contaminated soil excavated and transported offsite to a disposal facility. The high dioxin contamination is located with the PCB contamination. Thus, removal of the PCB contaminated soil would also remove the dioxin contamination. The amount of PCB soil to be removed will depend on soil sampling performed during the excavation actions. Approximately 5 cubic yards of lead and antimony soil shall be excavated and disposed of in a permitted landfill. Umiat Test Wells 2 and 5 INVESTIGATIONS Umiat Test Wells 2 and 5 are located two miles northeast of Umiat and approximately 150 feet from the Colville River. The area is upland tundra dominated by tall willows. A concrete lined pit surrounded Well 2. Well 5 is located 150 feet east of Well 2. Well 5 was surrounded by a wood foundation. Both wells shared a four -acre gravel pad. A 1,500 square foot mud pit was located west of the gravel pad. Although each well was initially studied separately, Well 2 and Well 5 were close enough to one another to be addressed as one site. The wells were first studied during the August 1997 Phase III Investigation. Four surface soil samples were collected for the investigation near Well 2. Three samples were collected from the concrete pit area and the other was collected from the mud pit. Five surface soil samples, and five co -located sediment / surface water samples were collected for the investigation at Well 5. One sample was collected near the wellhead, three were collected from a stained area near a debris pile, one was collected at the end of a discharge pipe and one was collected on the cut bank of the Colville River. The sediment/surface water samples were collected both upstream and downstream of stained soil and the discharge pipe. All samples were analyzed for residual petroleum products (DRO, RRO, and GRO), volatile organic compounds, semi -volatile organic compounds, pesticides and PCBs and twenty-three metals. The surface water analysis excluded RRO but included Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TRPH). Because of the rapid erosion of the soil near Well 2 and 5 and the potential impact of the petroleum products on the river, another investigation was conducted. In August of 1998, 22 soil borings were completed in the area of Wells 2 and 5. Eleven surface soil samples and 23 sub -surface samples were collected. All samples were analyzed for DRO. The surface soils were also analyzed for RRO, volatile organic compounds, semi -volatile organic compounds. The sample locations are shown on the Figures 5 and 6 on the next page. RESULTS The results of the first study showed no samples exceeding Method 2 cleanup levels. However, because the soil is close to the river, which is quickly being eroded, more stringent cleanup levels were considered. Four of those sample results had levels of DRO, RRO and GRO higher than the Method 1 levels. In the second study, DRO and RRO values were above the Method 1 cleanup levels in nearly every sample analyzed. The highest concentration was 7,000 mg/kg for DRO and 2,600 mg/kg for RRO. The Method 1 level is 200 mg/kg for DRO and 2000 mg/kg for RRO. APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 50 100 Feet ..._---� 9" Diameter capped if Reber primary well head Drilling mud pit p W/Al cap 9 iameler vertical Well No.2 AI ,y steel pipe--. 0 200SS 201SS 202SS Concrete C"-A"t, 3.5' Deep pitI pad 203SS Approximate gravel pad boundary KEY SD,SW Colocated sediment and surface water sample SS surface Sample Wood framing Erosicn on Colville River near Well No.5 (sample 205SS) Well No.5 Distribution valve assembly Rebar Stained photopoint soil WIAI crap Discharge \_ pipe ®®® 209SD,SW 210SD,SW 205SS 211SD,SW / Vertical pipe 212SD.SW. *Bottom of slope p i (gravel pad) ,-X 517 SB '( c 213SD.SW 23OSS 231SS 232SSS i D ALTERNATIVE EVALUATIONS Because the proposed cleanup actions at Umiat Test Well 2 and 5 are nearly complete, the alternatives that were considered and not selected, are not compared or repeated in this Proposed Plan. The Final Engineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis, NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 provides this information and is available in the Administrative Record. The evaluation of cleanup actions performed under the direction of the Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis, also referred to as a "Non - Time -Critical Removal Action", are evaluated in a more streamlined method than those evaluated under the direction of a Feasibility Study. During the Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis process the alternatives that are being considered are evaluated against three criteria; Effectiveness, Implementability, and Cost. These criteria; however, are very similar to those evaluated during a Feasibility Study process. The Effectiveness of the alternatives considers the Protectiveness and the Ability to Achieve Cleanup Goals. Furthermore, Protectiveness considers how well the alternatives protects human health and the community, protects workers during cleanup operations and complies with ARARs. The Implementability of the alternatives depends on their technical feasibility, the availability of resources to support the actions and their administrative feasibility. The Costs are determined by looking at initial costs and operations costs. The evaluation of the selected alternative, Excavation with LTTD treatment is summarized below; Effectiveness This alternative provides significant protection to human health and the environment because it removes the contaminated soil from the well sites and then thermally treats the soil. Worker protection achieved through engineering controls and protective equipment. Cleanup would be complete, satisfying Method 1 cleanup levels and other ARARs. Implementability This alternative has been difficult to implement. The site conditions, weather and the location of Umiat have all played a role in making implementation of this project challenging and expensive. Cost The cost associated with this alternative is currently in excess of $25,000,000, exceeding the $10,000,000 estimated in the Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis. CLEANUP ACTIONS The Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis describes the soil removal and treatment actions and the well closure operations. The plan was also presented in a November 2000 Public Notice. The removal and treatment actions are on going and are scheduled for completion in the Fall of 2003. Work at Wells 2 and 5 that has been completed includes: • Construction of stockpiling facilities at the Main Gravel Pad, • Plugging and abandonment of Well 2 and 5 with the removal of well casings to approximately 34 feet below the ground, • Excavation of 20,000 cubic yards (30,000 tons) of soil including 6,000 tons of drilling mud, • Removal and disposal of PCB contaminated oil and equipment, • Removal and disposal of 14 tons of metal and wood debris. • Thermal treatment of 6000 cubic yards of soil. The thermal treatment will resume in the spring of 2003 and is expected to be finished by the end of fall 2003. The soil and mud removal, LTTD treatment, and the well closures, will complete all the planned cleanup actions at the Well 2 and 5 areas. The site will be evaluated and a determination made if reseeding would provide sufficient benefit against on-going erosion. A mixture of native grasses may be applied to the disturbed areas. Uriat Test Wells 3, 4•. 6; ; 810 and l l Umiat Test Wells (3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11) are all located in tundra areas characterized by grasses and low willows. At each site, the investigations showed similar results. For this reason the well sites are discussed together. The goal for these well sites is to ensure that there is no significant risk to human health or the environment. In the follow sections, the results of each well site investigation are compared to ADEC Method 2 Cleanup Levels. These levels are provided to show the relative amount of contamination and not to show a proposed cleanup level. INVESTIGATIONS AND RESULTS Well 3 is located approximately two miles northeast of Umiat near the northeast end of Umiat Lake. The lake is approximately 150 feet south of the wellhead. The entire area is densely vegetated with willows. Wetlands surround the area. The Well 3 area was first studied during the August 1997 Phase III Investigation. Two soil samples were collected around the wellhead. Three sediment and three surface water samples were collected from Umiat Lake. Each sample was analyzed for residual petroleum products (DRO, RRO, and GRO), volatile organic compounds, semi -volatile organic compounds, pesticides and PCBs and twenty- three metals. The surface water analysis excluded RRO but included total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH). A second phase of investigation was performed in August of 1998 in which 31 soil samples were collected. The soil was collected from the interface of the water saturation zone, which varied from 0.5 feet to 3.5 feet below the ground surface. Each sample was analyzed for residual petroleum products (DRO and RRO), volatile organic compounds, and semi -volatile organic compounds. The 1998 study also re-evaluated the lake water and sediments. Eleven sediment and surface water locations were sampled. The sediments were analyzed for volatile organic compounds and semi -volatile organic compounds. The water was analyzed for residual petroleum products (DRO and TRPH), volatile organic compounds, and semi -volatile organic compounds. The Augus*998 study also looked for drums and other debris in Umiat Lake. The report of debris was brought forward by persons familiar with the area and confirmed during the 1997 study. A Ground -Penetrating -Radar system was used to look for metal debris in the lake. The sample locations are shown in Figure 7 on the next page. The results from the first study showed no contamination exceeding Method 2 cleanup levels in the soil. However, the sediments from Umiat Lake did show some elevated residual petroleum levels. In the second study, again none of the soil results had DRO or RRO levels that exceed the Method 2 cleanup levels. The highest DRO concentration was 7,300 mg/kg and the RRO concentration was 6,000 mg/kg. One of the 31 samples (sample 318 -SL) contained xylene. The Method 2 cleanup level for xylenes is 81 mg/kg for the inhalation pathway and 274,000 mg/kg for the ingestion pathway. Because this sample was taken below the ground surface (6 inches to 1 foot), near the water interface, and in a remote undeveloped area, the inhalation cleanup level is not appropriate. Therefore, xylenes do not require cleanup at this site. The geophysical study revealed possible drum/ debris locations along the east shore of the lake. The study could not determine the nature of the metal debris or total amount. The survey identified 43 possible metal debris areas. It is estimated that the total weight of the metal could range from 2,000 pounds to 20,000 pounds. Well 4 is located approximately three miles northeast of Umiat on top of a ridge near Umiat Lake. A four -inch diameter pipe extends south from the Well 4 area towards Well 5 and the Colville River. The length and final termination point of the pipe are not known. In the1997 Phase III study, four surface soil samples were collected from the well area. The sampling targeted petroleum stained soil and the around the well. One sample contained RRO above the Method 2 cleanup level of 13,700 mg/kg. The highest reported RRO level was 15,000 mg/kg. The analytical results are summarized in Table 4 on the next page. The sample locations are shown in Figure 8 on the next page. Summary of Chemicals Detected at Well 4 Chemical ADEC Method 2 Criteria Highest Reported Concentration Number of Samples Above Method 2 Chemical ADEC Method 2 Criteria Highest Reported Concentration Number of Samples Above Method 2 Soil m lk Soil (mg/kg) 125008 37000 3 RRO 137008 15000 1 Notes: e This value is the lower of the ingestionrnhalation level in 18 AAC 75.341, Table B1 and B2, Arctic Zone rrg/kg mill' rams 22r Idlograrn Summary of Chemicals Detected at Well 6 Chemical ADEC Method 2 Criteria Highest Reported Concentration Number of Samples Above Method 2 Soil m lk DRO 125008 37000 3 RRO 137008 44000 3 Notes: e This value is the low er of the ingestion/inhalation level in 18 AAC 75.341, Table B1 and B2, Arctic Zone milt rams per la ram Well 6 is located approximately two miles northeast of Umiat. A drum debris pile is located near the wellhead. In the1997 Phase III study, four surface soil samples were collected from the well area. The sampling targeted suspected petroleum -contaminated soil and soil beneath the drum debris pile. Three of the samples contained DRO and RRO levels above the Method 2 cleanup levels, 12,500 mg/kg and 13,700 mg/kg, respectively. The highest reported DRO and RRO levels were 37,000 mg/kg and 44,000 mg/kg, respectively. The analytical results are summarized in Table 5 on the previous page. The sample locations are shown in Figure 9 above. Well 7 is located approximately three-quarters of a mile northeast of Umiat near the end of the Umiat runway. The wellhead is located in surface water of a grassy wetland area. The area surrounding the wetlands is upland tundra consisting of low willows. The Well 7 area was first studied during the 1997 Phase III Investigation. Three surface soil samples were collected from the area. The samples targeted stained soil and soil near possible petroleum sheen areas. Each sample was analyzed for residual petroleum products (DRO, RRO, and GRO), volatile organic compounds, semi -volatile organic compounds, pesticides and PCBs and twenty-three metals. A second phase of investigation was performed. In August of 1998, 38 soil samples were collected. All samples were analyzed for DRO, RRO and volatile organic compounds. Six samples from locations closest to the wellhead, were also analyzed for lead. Figures 10 and 11 on the next two pages show the sample locations. From the first study none of the soil samples showed any organic petroleum related contaminants above Method 2 cleanup levels. The highest levels reported were 12,000 mg/kg DRO, 11,000 mg/kg RRO and 90 mg/kg GRO. The Method 2 cleanup levels are 12,500 mg/kg for DRO, 13,700 mg/kg for RRO and 1,400 mg/kg for GRO. One sample, 256 -SS, also contained lead at 700 mg/kg, which exceeds the residential cleanup level of 400 mg/kg. This sample was collected immediately adjacent to the wellhead. The other two samples, located within 50 feet of the wellhead, contained lead at 140 mg/kg and 77 mg/kg. 717 SL 716 SL 0 0 718 SL 719 SL 724 SL 0 0 0 KEY: i 0 Surface soil sample location !� Well location APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 50 100 Feet 715 SL 723 SL 0 0 Ponded Water 713 SL 714 SL 720 SL 72.1 SL/722 SL 730 SL 0 0 0 0 0 705 SL 704 SL 0 711 SL/712 SL 709 SL 728 SL 729 SL 0 0 0 0 255 SS Well No. 7 700 SL 703 SL 710 SL 706 SL 732 SL/733 SL 725 SL 731 SL 0 0 0 0 0 707 SL 726 SL 0 0 708 SL 734 SL 735 SL/736 SL 737 SL 727 SL 0 0 0 0 0 KEY: i 0 Surface soil sample location !� Well location APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 50 100 Feet In the second study all of th9DRO values (except one at 25,000 mg/kg) and all RRO values were below the Method 2 clean up levels of 12,500 mg/kg for DRO and 13,700 mg/kg RRO. The results of the analyses showed that lead was present in one sample at 2,600 mg/kg. The other five samples contained lead ranging from 15 to 77 mg/kg. No other contaminants were detected above Method 2 cleanup levels. The analytical results are summarized in Table 6 below. iJ. F Summary of Chemicals Detected at E millgrams per kilogram Well 7 Chemical ADEC Method 2 criteria Highest Reported Concentration Number of Samples Above Method 2 Number of u ADEC Highest Samples 18000 1 Method 2 Reported Above 1 Chemical Criteria Concentration Method 2 Soil m Ik DRO 125008 25000 1 Lead 4008 2600 2� 1 Notes: E• a This value is the low er of the ingestionrnhalation level in 18 AAC 75.341, Table 131 and B2, Arctic Zone., ffgft milligrams per Idlograrn €i Well 8 is located approximately three miles north of Umiat. Drainage ditches surround the well. An aboveground storage tank (AST) is located approximately 150 feet south of the wellhead. In the1997 Phase III study, three surface soil samples were collected from the well area. The sampling targeted suspected petroleum - contaminated soil and soil beneath the drain spout of the AST. One sample (collected by the AST spout) contained DRO and RRO levels above the Method 2 cleanup levels, 12,500 mg/kg and 13,700 mg/kg, respectively. The highest reported DRO and RRO levels were 18,000 mg/kg and 29,000 mg/kg, respectively. The analytical results are summarized in Table 7 above. The locations are shown on Figure 12 on the next page. Well 10 is located approximately three miles north of Umiat. The well is located within an intermittent drainage ditch that flows into Bearpaw Creek. In the1997 Phase III study three surface soil samples were collected from Summary of Chemicals Detected at Wel 8 mglkg 1r millgrams per kilogram Chemical ADEC Method 2 criteria Highest Reported Concentration Number of Samples Above Method 2 Soil (mg/kg) DRO 125008 18000 1 RRO 137008 29000 1 Notes: a This value is the low er of the ingestionfnhalation level in 18 AAC 75.341, Table 131 and B2, Arctic Zone min' raps per Wlograrn around the well area. The sampling targeted suspected petroleum -contaminated soil, a drainage ditch and a mud pit. Two samples contained DRO and RRO above the Method 2 cleanup levels of 12,500 mg/kg and 13,700 mg/kg, respectively. One sample contained GRO above the Method 2 cleanup level of 1,400 mg/kg. The highest reported DRO, RRO, and GRO levels were: 17,000 mg/kg; 18,000 mg/kg; and 1,800 mg/kg, respectively. The analytical results are summarized in Table 8 below. The locations are shown in Figure 13 on page 25. cum cunt �.�w �, ' auro o ' enu oc, "gr' mglkg 1r millgrams per kilogram - - -7- - - - Well 11 is located approximately four miles north of Umiat and adjacent to the north fork of Bearpaw Creek. In the1997 Phase III study, three surface soil samples were collected from around the well area. The sampling targeted suspected petroleum -contaminated soil, a drainage ditch and drilling mud. One sample contained DRO and RRO above the Method 2 cleanup level, 12,500 mg/kg and 13,700 mg/kg. The highest reported DRO and RRO levels were 29,000 mg/kg and 30,000 mg/kg, respectively. The analytical results are summarized in Table 9. The locations are shown on Figure 14 on Page 26. RISK ASSESSMENT Site-specific human health and ecological risk assessments were not performed at many of the well sites because the only contaminants detected were low levels of petroleum products (DRO, RRO and GRO, with no significant detections of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes or polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs]). Lead was the only significant non - petroleum contaminant and was only detected at Well 7. a This value is the low er of the ingestion/inhalation level in 18 AAG 75.341, Table B1 and 62, Arctic Zone milligrams per kilogram 1 KEY: @3 1997 Surface soil sample APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 20 40 Feet A site-specific risk assessment was completed at Wells 1, 7 and 9, and also for former Umiat Air Station. The risks associated with petroleum products (DRO, RRO and GRO) at Wells 4, 6, 8, 10 and 11 are expected to be comparable to potential North Fork of learpaw Creek risks identified at Wells 9 and the Air Strip Complex because of similar site conditions, and type and concentration of contaminants. Human Heath Risks Umiat Test Wells 4, 6, 8, 10 and 11 The main human health risk comparison was I based on the risk assessmeetfrom Umiat Test Well 9. Well 9 had the highest detected levels of both DRO (54,000 mg/kg) and RRO (75,000 mg/kg) of all of the well sites. The location of Well 9 is similar to the other well sites. The Air Strip Complex had the highest GRO concentration (4,375 mg/kg). The risk assessment evaluated various exposure scenarios. The scenario most applicable to the remote well sites is the visitor scenario. At each of the well sites the DRO and RRO concentrations were less than the values at Well 9 and the GRO concentrations were less than the value at the Air Strip Complex. The risk calculations indicated that no significant risk resulted from the DRO, RRO and GRO concentrations at Well 9 and the Air Strip Complex, therefore, no risks will result from lower concentrations at Well site 4, 6, 8, 10, and 11. Human Heath Risks Umiat Test Well 7 A site-specific risk assessment was performed for Umiat Test Well 7. The assessment indicated that no significant carcinogenic or non - carcinogenic risks are present at the Well 7. Analytical results from the soil near Well 7 did show detected lead concentrations, which exceed the default ADEC Method 2 cleanup level of 400 mg/kg. In the Technical Memorandum - Evaluation of Lead at NPR -4, Umiat Test Well #7 (May 2003) the potential risks associated with lead exposure at Well 7 were further evaluated using the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children (IEUBI). The model predicted child blood -level levels ranged between 3.8 and 6.6 ug/dL, less than the action level of 10 ug/dL. Therefore, the lead concentrations surrounding test Well 7 do not pose an adverse risk to human health. Ecological Risks Umiat Test Wells 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 The ecological risk evaluations for all sites were similar with the exception of the lead evaluation for Well site 7. The ecological risk comparisons were based on the DRO concentration at Well 7 (25,000 mg/kg) and the RRO concentration at Well 9 (75,000 mg/kg). These concentrations most resemble the other well site concentrations. Potential ec'alogical risks associated with petroleum and organic contamination were evaluated. Of the eight indicator species (moose, caribou, willow ptarmigan, arctic warbler, collared lemming, arctic shrew, arctic fox, and snowy owl), two species (collared lemming and the arctic shrew) may have a significant potential to be adversely affected by RRO. The risk assessment indicated that the potential adverse effects were not propagated up the food chain to the arctic fox or snowy owl. No significant potential for adverse effects was associated with the DRO contamination. There are many uncertainties associated with calculating ecological risks due to the toxicity of petroleum contamination. The assumptions overestimate actual exposures and subsequent tissue concentrations in wildlife. The use of maximum contaminant concentrations also introduces uncertainty in the exposure estimates. Therefore, petroleum contamination is not expected to significantly contribute to potential ecological risks at any of the well sites. Additional risk evaluations specific to Well 7, identified four species, the collared lemming, ptarmigan, arctic warbler, and arctic shrew as having the potential for adverse ecological effects due to other non -petroleum compounds, primarily lead. The area surrounding Well 7 is not likely to support large small mammal and bird populations, since the low willow vegetative community in the vicinity provides marginal habitat for these species. The wetland conditions at Well 7 may also inhibit the presence of small mammals or avian species that prefer dry ground nesting sites. Given the uncertainties associated with the ecological risk assessment, the potential for adverse ecological effects at Well 7 is not significant. ALTERNATIVE EVALUATIONS The cleanup options for the Umiat Test Wells sites included; • No Action, • Natural Attenuation, • Excavation with On-site Landfarming, • Excavation with On -Site Low Temperature Thermal Desorption, and • Excavation with Off -Site Disposal. The evaluation and comparison of these alternatives are summarized below; Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment It is expected that four of the alternatives (Natural Attenuation, LTTD, Landfarming and Off-site Disposal) have the potential to reduce the contaminant concentrations in the soil. The LTTD option destroys the contaminants whereas the Off-site Disposal option removes the exposure pathway. The Natural Attenuation and Landfarming options both rely on natural processes to degrade the contaminants. Although the No Action alternative assumes that no changes in the contaminant concentrations occur over time, based on the risk comparisons there is currently no significant risk to either human health or the environment. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements There are limited ARARs associated with the soil at the well sites. The primary ARAR is taken from 18 AAC 75.325. The four alternatives with remedial action components all have the ability to meet the listed ARARs. The No Action option assumes that no change in the contaminant concentrations would occur. However, the current concentrations do not present an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. Thus all alternatives, including the No Action option would satisfy the ARARs. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence This criterion addresses the risks associated with the site after the response objectives have been met. Each of the four remedial alternatives would further reduce concentrations. Also as noted before, there are currently no elevated risks associated with these sites. The LTTD and the Off -Site Disposal alternatives provide a more immediate long-term effectiveness and permanence. The ex -situ Landfarming alternative provides a less immediate response. The Natural Attenuation option will also achieve a permanent reduction in contamination levels but require significantly more time. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment Only the LTTD provides a complete reduction of the petroleum contamination's toxicity, mobility and volume. The Off-site Disposal alternative provides no reduction in toxicity or volume but is expected to provide complete reduction of mobility once is the material is disposed of in a permitted landfill. The alternatives (Natural Attenuation and Landfarming) are expected to provide some reduction in toxicity. The natural processes of biodegradation irreversibly convert the petroleum contamination into carbon dioxide and water. The No Action must assume that no biological degradation processes occur. Short-term Effectiveness The short-term effectiveness includes; the protection of the community and workers during the remedial actions; environmental impacts and time required until remedial response objectives are achieved. It is expected that no impacts to the community or workers would occur during site operations for any of the alternatives. Each remedial alternative has the potential to create dust and surface water runoff. Appropriate protective measures would need to be implemented during excavation and treatment activities to prevent exposure and spread of the contaminated material. The short-term effectiveness also considers the time period required complete the remedial actions. The LTTD or Off-site Disposal would likely be completed in one field season, whereas the Landfarming alternative would likely require 5 to 10 years to compete. The Natural Attenuation alternative would likely require more than 20 years to show any significant reduction in contamination levels. The options involving excavations (LTTD, Off-site Disposal and Landfarming) would have an impact on the environment. These options would disturb the revegetated areas, which over the past 50 years, have recovered from the original drilling operations. Due to equipment staging, the areas disturbed would likely be larger than the areas being remediated. Although aspects of the short-term effectiveness (the actual excavating or operating the treatment system) would be limited to a few months to a few years, the effects of the excavation removal would remain for many years. Implementability All alternatives are implementable to a degree. The degree to which they are implementable is quite variable. Obviously, the No Action alternative would be the simplest to implement because it requires no additional fieldwork. The difficultly of the implementability increases slightly with the Natural Attenuation option and increases significantly more with the LTTD, Landfarming and Off-site Disposal alternatives. For the Natural Attenuation alternative the implementability difficulties are associated the general logistic challenges at Umiat. Small helicopter services would be required for each mobilization. For the options requiring excavation, significant logistical and engineering support would be required for either a summer (requiring large helicopter support) or a winter (requiring ice roads) project schedule. The Landfarming option also has an implementability challenge associated with available land for a treatment facility. It would not be feasible to construct individual Landfarms at each well site, because the area for the Landfarm would be many times larger than the area to be remediated, and the wells sites do not have open areas (e.g. gravel pads) associated with them that could be used for a landfarming operation. Conversely, if the soil were to be consolidated at Umiat, the Landfarm would likely use a large area of the Main Gravel Pad for many years. This would likely not be acceptable to the current landowners and could potentially have an impact on area development. Cost Because of the small volume of potentially contaminated soil at each of the well sites, most of the costs associated with any response would be from mobilizing equipment and materials to Umiat. For this reason the costs presented are for all of the well sites. The elimination of one or more well site would not significantly affect the total cost. The costs of the alternatives vary widely from $0 for the No Action Alternative to over $3.9 million for the Ex -situ Landfarming alternative. Excluding the No Action alternative, the costs range from $1.5 million for Natural Attenuation to $3.9 million for the Landfarming alternative. • No Action - $0. • Natural Attenuation - Capital costs, annual O&M cost and 30 year present worth costs for this option are $256,000, $155,000 and $1,590,000, respectively. • Excavation with On -Site LTTD -Total costs for this option is $1,970,000. No O&M cost were considered and no present worth cost was calculated because the option would be completed in one field season. The cost for this option assumes that the LTTD currently on-site would be used for the treatment. Additional $750,000 would be incurred with mobilizing a new unit or extending the duration of the existing unit. • Excavation with On-site Landfarming - Capital costs, annual O&M cost and 30 year present worth costs for this option are $1,785,000, $257,000 and $3,988,000, respectively. • Excavation with Off-site Disposal - Total cost for this option is $2,285,000. No O&M costs are considered and no present worth cost is calculated because the option would be completed in one field season. State Acceptance The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has been involved in the planning and implementation of the investigations through their review and approval of project documents. The ADEC has also been involved in the production of this Proposed Plan and has agreed that the proposed alternative meets State regulations and protects human health and the environment. PROPOSED CLEANUP ACTIONS Based on the contamination observed, the limited exposure potential, and the fact that the areas are nearly completely revegetated, it is proposed that No Action be taken at Umiat Test Well sites (3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11). Even though a No Action alternative is proposed, this option is considered to satisfactorily address the CERLCA criteria. Additional consideration for the proposed No Action is provided below. The Focus Feasibility Study prepared for the well sites evaluated several likely cleanup alternatives. The study evaluated the nature and extent of contamination, and the potential scope of cleanup efforts, including costs, benefits and damage resulting from the excavation actions. At each site, sampling activities targeted features such as petroleum -stained soil and an AST drain area. The targeted features were expected to have elevated levels of residual petroleum products. Therefore, the sampling results likely represent the highest levels of contamination present. Residual petroleum products were detected at six of the seven well sites. However, no petroleum related contaminants that cause human health risks from direct contact (for example BTEX or PAHs) were detected. Because of the variable levels of residual petroleum, it is apparent that natural processes are reducing the contamination. Therefore, an attempt to provide a more immediate cleanup at the site would involve the excavation of soil. Damage resulting from excavating the tundra and wetlands, which has nearly completely regrown, would be greater than the potential risk to humans or the environment. It should be noted that although No Action is proposed for Well site 3, because the lake water had low petroleum levels and the potential impact from the metal debris, Well 3 and Umiat Lake will be separated into two sites. Additional studies will be proposed for Umiat Lake. Urniat Test Well 9 INVESTIGATIONS Umiat Test Well 9 is located approximately two miles north of Umiat in an area of upland tundra consisting of grasses and low willows. The Well 9 area was first studied during the August 1997 Phase III Investigation. Three surface soil samples were collected from the area. The sampling locations targeted stained soil, drilling mud piles and a drainage ditch, down gradient from the wellhead. Each sample was analyzed for residual petroleum products (DRO, RRO, and GRO), volatile organic compounds, semi -volatile organic compounds, pesticides and PCBs and twenty-three metals. A second phase of investigation was performed in August of 1998, 19 soil borings were completed. From these locations, 44 surface soil samples and 22 subsurface soil samples were collected. Each sample was analyzed in the field (field -screened using immunoassay test kits) for PCBs. Eighteen samples were sent to a laboratory and analyzed for DRO, RRO and PCBs. The discovery of the burned area led to a third investigation at Well 9. In August of 1999, a study was performed to evaluate if dioxins and furans were present in the burn area. Dioxins and furans are often present when PCBs are burned. The study consisted of collecting twelve surface soil samples (see Figures 15 and 16 on pages 30 and 31). RESULTS The results from the soil samples collected in 1997 showed that two areas had DRO/RRO and PCB levels above Method 2 cleanup levels. One area was adjacent to the well head and the other area was in the drainage ditch 18 feet from the well head. The contamination levels at the wellhead were 20,000 mg/kg DRO; 25,000 mg/kg RRO; and 1,100 mg/kg PCB. The ditch area had 13,000 mg/kg DRO; 21,000 mg/kg RRO; and 530 mg/kg PCB. The Method 2 cleanup levels are 12,500 mg/kg for DRO; 13,700 mg/kg for RRO; and 1 mg/kg for PCBs. The 1998 results indicate that PCBs are present, at levels exceeding the Method 2 cleanup level of 1 mg/kg, in the area immediately surrounding the well head and extending west approximately 125 feet. Three samples had PCBs concentrations ranging from 3.8 mg/kg to 23 mg/kg and four samples were below 1 mg/kg. The burned area is approximately 1250 square - feet and is approximately 500 feet from the well head. All of the samples showed DRO and RRO levels above Method 2 limits of 12,500 mg/kg for DRO and 13,700 mg/kg for RRO. The highest values were 54,000 mg/kg for DRO and 75,000 Notes: e This value is the low er of the ingestion/inhalation level in 18 AAC 75.341, Table 131 and B2, Arctic Zone rrig/kg milligrams per kilogram for RRO. PCBs were found in three samples above the cleanup levels of 1 mg/kg. The highest value was 15 mg/kg. The samples analyzed from the third study showed that dioxins were present in the soil. The analytical results are summarized in Table 10. RISK ASSESSMENT A site-specific risk assessment was performed for Well 9. The risk assessment identified potential risks to human health and to wildlife, with the majority of the risk caused by contact with PCBs in soil. The risk assessment found potential cancer risks to future residents from contact with PCBs, dioxins, and aldrin in soil, and from arsenic and aldrin in berries. Site visitors would have potential cancer risks from contact with PCBs and aldrin in soil, and from arsenic and aldrin in berries. PCBs account for the majority of the cancer risk. Potential non -cancer risks to future residents and site visitors were found from contact with PCBs in soil, and from arsenic, DRO, and RRO in berries. Harvest rates for Nuiqsut were used to calculate risks for subsistence use of berries, ptarmigan, and caribou by future residents and by site visitors. The harvest information came from studies by the North Slope Borough and by the Alaska Department of Fish and game. It was assumed that future residents and site visitors would collect their entire berry harvest from the contaminated areas, as well as their annual supply of caribou and ptarmigan. Models were used to predict the amount of contamination that would be absorbed into berry plants, caribou, and ptarmigan. Although potential risks were found from eating berries, no risks were found from subsistence use of caribou and ptarmigan. The risk assessment found potential adverse effects for some forms of wildlife. The Arctic shrew, Arctic warbler, collared lemming, and willow ptarmigan have potential adverse effects from contact with PCBs, petroleum compounds, and dioxins. No adverse effects were found for moose, caribou, Arctic fox, and snowy owls. PROPOSED CLEANUP ACTION For the Well 9 site an extensive evaluation of possible cleanup actions was not performed. Instead, what USEPA refers to as "Presumptive Remedy" was selected. A presumptive remedy is appropriate when the contamination allows for an obvious and commonly accepted cleanup action. This is the case for PCBs in shallow soil where there is no control in the exposure potential and capping or covering presents significant long- term maintenance problems. Based on the studies at Well 9 it is proposed that a soil removal action be performed. It is expected that approximately 300 cubic yards of PCB and petroleum contaminated soil will be removed from the wellhead area and 75 cubic yards from the burn area. 972 SS 9B8 SS 971 SS APPROXIMATE SCALE O O 0 50 100 Peet —300' 967 SS 966 SS O O 961 SS 962 Ss KEY O Y 0 Sample locations 9608S 959 SS 97o SS O O p NPRA well location —300' 957 SS 9558S %9 SS 956 SB 958 SB 954 SS 953 SS 952 SS O C O O O O 973 SS 964 SS 947 SS 965 SS 983 SS 951 SS 948 SB 946 SS 9458S O O O O O O Outline of 931 SS Depression in Slope 950 SS 949 SS MSS 934 SS 9338S 932 S8 938 SS 939 SS O O• O O O O O 0 905 SS 904 SS 903 SS 902 SS 900 SS/901 SS 98'L SS ,J 981 Ss 937 SS 935 SS 920 SB 919 SB 91858 917 SB 915 S8/916 SB 01 O O O O O O O ! 98oss O n SS 909 SS 908 SS 907 SS NPR -4 906 SS O S5 930 SS 923 S8 922 SB 924 SB Well N0.9 921 SB I{ 976 O 974 SS 0 O 0 ' c I 975 SS 914 SS 913 SS 812 SS 811 SS 910 S5 O 978 SS Bumed Area 929 SB 928 SB 927 SB 926$8 925 SS 840 SS 0 0 c e 0 O 979 SS I Drainage dioxins, and aldrin in soil, and from arsenic and aldrin in berries. Site visitors would have potential cancer risks from contact with PCBs and aldrin in soil, and from arsenic and aldrin in berries. PCBs account for the majority of the cancer risk. Potential non -cancer risks to future residents and site visitors were found from contact with PCBs in soil, and from arsenic, DRO, and RRO in berries. Harvest rates for Nuiqsut were used to calculate risks for subsistence use of berries, ptarmigan, and caribou by future residents and by site visitors. The harvest information came from studies by the North Slope Borough and by the Alaska Department of Fish and game. It was assumed that future residents and site visitors would collect their entire berry harvest from the contaminated areas, as well as their annual supply of caribou and ptarmigan. Models were used to predict the amount of contamination that would be absorbed into berry plants, caribou, and ptarmigan. Although potential risks were found from eating berries, no risks were found from subsistence use of caribou and ptarmigan. The risk assessment found potential adverse effects for some forms of wildlife. The Arctic shrew, Arctic warbler, collared lemming, and willow ptarmigan have potential adverse effects from contact with PCBs, petroleum compounds, and dioxins. No adverse effects were found for moose, caribou, Arctic fox, and snowy owls. PROPOSED CLEANUP ACTION For the Well 9 site an extensive evaluation of possible cleanup actions was not performed. Instead, what USEPA refers to as "Presumptive Remedy" was selected. A presumptive remedy is appropriate when the contamination allows for an obvious and commonly accepted cleanup action. This is the case for PCBs in shallow soil where there is no control in the exposure potential and capping or covering presents significant long- term maintenance problems. Based on the studies at Well 9 it is proposed that a soil removal action be performed. It is expected that approximately 300 cubic yards of PCB and petroleum contaminated soil will be removed from the wellhead area and 75 cubic yards from the burn area. Although the dioxin contaminated soil does not require removal, the dioxins are found in the same soil as the PCBs and will be removed as well. The actual excavated amounts will be determined by infield sampling and post excavation confirmatory sampling. The soil shall be tested for PCBs and petroleum compounds. The goal for the cleanup action will be to remove all contaminated soil with PCBs greater than 1 mg/kg and petroleum contamination which would cause a significant risk to human health or the environment. The excavated soils shall be transported off-site to a proper waste disposal facility. ALTERNATIVE EVALUATIONS Although the proposed cleanup at Well 9 is not compared to other alternatives, it is evaluated against the CERCLA criteria. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment PCB contamination would be removed and petroleum contamination reduced to levels that resulted in no significant increase in health or cancer risks to either human health or to the environment. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements The removal of the PCBs would meet the State regulations, primarily meeting Method 2 cleanup levels. Short-term Effectiveness Potential exposure during remedial action During the removal and transportation activities there would be an increased potential for exposure to contaminants. Potential health effects would be limited with the use of proper protective equipment. Controls would be used to prevent runoff or contaminated dust from spreading to other ecological or human receptors. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence The contamination would remain in the soil, but will be disposed of in a landfill permitted to accept PCB waste. Residual petroleum contamination may remain onsite would be below levels that resulted in significant risk to human health or the environment. The alternative would provide a permanent remedy for this site. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment The disposal of the PCB and petroleum contaminated soil would only reduce the mobility of the contaminants. Implementability The excavation and disposal is feasible to implement. This alternative would likely involve construction of an ice road and winter excavation of the soil. The removal project at Wells 2 and 5 has demonstrated that this is feasible to implement at Umiat. Cost The cost associated with the excavation and off- site disposal alternative is approximately $1,000,000 for capital costs. No O&M cost are needed and no 30 year present worth cost is calculated because it is assumed that all work would be completed in one year. State Acceptance The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has been involved in the planning and implementation of the investigations through their review and approval of project documents. The ADEC has also been involved in the development of this Proposed Plan and agrees that the alternative meets State regulations and will protect human health and the environment. Suc�ir���ry of ProE�oseci Clc�n�a�� The proposed cleanup actions for the 12 sites discussed in this Proposed Plan are: • Air Strip Complex - Soil excavation with on-site LTTD treatment and on-site disposal/reuse (petroleum contaminated soil) and monitoring shallow groundwater at the lake edge. • Main Gravel Pad - Soil excavation with on-site LTTD treatment and on-site disposal/reuse (petroleum contaminated soil) and soil excavation with off-site disposal (PCB and lead/antimony contaminated soil). Umiat Test Wells 2 and 5 - Soil excavation with on-site LTTD and on-site disposal (petroleum contaminated soil). Closure of Wells 2 and 5. PCB waste and debris disposal off-site. Possible reseeding of formerly excavated areas. • Umiat Test Wells 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 - No Further Action. • Umiat Test Well 9 - Soil excavation with off-site disposal (PCB contaminated soil). Sect�iori Guide Introduction------ --------_-------------- --------------- –---------------- ------- ------------------------ ------------ 1 Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) Program 2 Site Location and History -«---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Environmental Investigation and Cleanup History ----- ------------------____–._______— ------ _---- __--- 3 Cleanup Levels 4 Cleanup Alternatives --------------------- 5 Site Summaries 6 AirStrip Complex ------- --------- ------------- -------- –------------- –----- ---------- –----------- _---_-------------- 6 MainGravel Pad------__-------------------------------------------------------------- ----__------___–_------- 11 UmiatTest Wells 2 and 5-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 Umiat Test Wells 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 ------ –-------- –---- ----------------- -------------------__---------------- 17 Umiat Test Well 9 ----------------------- 30 Summary of Proposed Cleanup Actions--------------------------------------------------___-___.________.__ 34 US Army Corps of Engineers ALASKA DISTRICT PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENT FORM • • Proposed Plan for Remedial Action Umiat, Alaska Your input on the remedial alternative discussed in this Proposed Plan is important to the USACE. Comments provided by the public are valuable in helping the agency select a final remedy. You may use the space below to provide your comments. When you are finished, please fold and mail. A return address has been provided on the back of this page for your convenience. Comments must be postmarked by August 7, 2003. Name: Address: Telephone: • 0 Please Fold at Dotted Line Affix Stamp Here U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska CEPOA-PM-C Attn: Curtis King, PE PO Box 6898 Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506-6898 Please Staple Here Before Mailing Community Comments �r�ci F''�rtci��ton You are encouraged to provide comments on the preferred alternatives for addressing chemical concerns and cleanup activities at Umiat during the public comment period. Your comments can make a difference in deciding which cleanup alternative will be chosen. USACE will not select a final course of action until the public comment period ends and all comments have been reviewed and considered. Your comments may be presented in writing or at the Public Meeting. A pre -addressed comment form is included in this Proposed Plan. The public comment/review period is from June 16 to July 25, 2003. The Public Meeting to discuss the Proposed Plan for Umiat, answer questions and address concerns, and receive public comments will be held on July 16, 2003 at the Kisik Community Center in Nuiqsut from 7:00 P.M. until all comments are heard. The USACE will prepare a written response to all significant comments and new data submitted in reference to this Proposed Plan. A summary of these responses will accompany the Decision Document and will be made available in the Administrative Record and the Information Repository noted below. Information on the Umiat site can be obtained from the Information Repository. The repository contains site information, including detailed investigation reports, test results from rield studies, and removal actions performed. The Information Repository is located at the following address: Native Village of Nuiqsut P.O. Box 166 Nuiqsut, Alaska Hours of Operation: 10:00 am to 9:00 pm, Monday - Friday 10:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturday 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm on Sunday For further assistance in locating these documents, or for answers to any questions you may have, you may email Curtis King at Curtis.A.King@poa02.usace.army.mil or contact him at the address below: U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska CEPOA-PM-C Attn: Curtis King, PE PO Box 6898 Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506-6898 (907) 753-5665 0 0 US Army Corps of Engineers ALASKA DISTRICT Draft Engineering Evaluation/ Cost Analysis NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 Former Umiat Air Force Station Umiat, Alaska Contract No. DACA85-98-R-0013 Task Order No. 0006 November 1999 Prepared for: UNITED STATES ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA Engineering Project Management P.O. Box 898 Anchorage, Alaska 99506-0898 International Specialists in the Environment 840 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, Tel: (907) 257-5000, Fax: (907) 257-5007 recycled paper Table of Contents Section Page ExecutiveSummary....................................................................1 1 Introduction............................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Scope and Objectives........................................................................................1-1 1.2 Report Organization.......................................................................................... l-1 2 Site Characterization............................................................... 2-1 2.1 Site Description and History .............................................................................2-1 2.2 Source, Nature, and Extent of Contamination..................................................2-4 2.2.1 Field Investigations..............................................................................2-4 2.3 Potential Impacts on Public Health, Welfare, and Environment .....................2-13 2.4 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements.................................2-13 3 Identification of Removal Action Objectives ......................... 3-1 4 Removal Action Alternative Development ............................. 4-1 4.1 Identification of Removal Technologies...........................................................4-1 4.2 Screening of Technologies............................................................ 4-6 4.3 Removal Alternatives........................................................................................4-6 4.3.1 Alternative No. 1: No Action..............................................................4-7 4.3.2 Alternative No. 2: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and On -Site Thermal Treatment by LTTD.................................................4-7 4.3.3 Alternative No. 3: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and On -Site Thermal Treatment by HAVE..............................................4-11 4.3.4 Alternative No. 4: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and Ex Situ Bioremediation by Landfarming...........................................4-12 5 Analysis of Proposed Removal Action Alternatives ............. 5-1 5.1 Individual Analysis of Alternatives...................................................................5-1 5.1.1 Alternative No. 1: No Action..............................................................5-1 5.1.2 Alternative No. 2: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and On -Site Thermal Treatment by LTTD................................................. 5-7 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_A803 111 R-UMIAT.DOC-1 1/03/99-HP4 Tables of Contents V nt.) Section Page 5.1.3 Alternative No. 3: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and On -Site Thermal Treatment by HAVE................................................5-8 5.1.4 Alternative No. 4: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and Ex Situ Bioremediation by Landfarming.............................................5-8 5.2 Comparison of Removal Action Alternatives...................................................5-9 6 Conclusions and Recommended Removal Action ................ 6-1 7 References ......................... :..................................................... 7-1 Appendix A Derived Cost Sheets................................................................ A-1 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_A803 IV R UMIAT.DOC-11/03/99-FIP3 h of Tables Table Page 2-1 1997 Investigation Surface Soil Sampling Results; NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and5......................................................................................................................... 2-5 2-2 1998 Investigation Surface Soil Results; NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 ..................2-8 4-1 Potential Removal Action and Technology Screening Summary for Petroleum - Contaminated Soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 ..............................................4-2 5-1 Removal Action Cost Analysis—Alternative No. 2; Excavation and On -Site Low -Temperature Thermal Desorption Treatment; Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis; NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 ..........................................................5 -2 5-2 Removal Action Cost Analysis—Alternative No. 3; Excavation and On -Site Hot Air Vapor Extraction Treatment; Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis; NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5................................................................................... 5-3 5-3 Removal Action Cost Analysis—Alternative No. 4; Excavation and On -Site Bioremediation by Landfarming; Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis; NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5...................................................................................5-4 5-4 Comparative Analysis of the Implementability of Soil Treatment Methods for Alternative Nos. 2, 3, and 4; NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 .....................................5-5 5-5 Comparative Analysis of Removal Action Alternatives for Petroleum - Contaminated Soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 ............................................5-10 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_A803 v R_UMIAT.DOC- I 1 /03/99-HP4 Lst of Illustrations Figure Page 2-1 Site Location Map......................................................................................................2-2 2-2 Site Vicinity and Topography Map............................................................................ 2-3 2-3 Extent of Contamination; NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5....................................... 2-10 2-4 Cross Section A -A'; Subsurface Stratigraphy at NPR -4 Test Well No. 5 ...............2-11 2-5 Cross Section B -B'; Subsurface Stratigraphy at NPR -4 Test Well No. 2 ................2-12 4-1 Proposed Haul Route................................................................................................4-10 4-2 Potential Landfarming Cell Locations ................ ...4-14 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_A803 Vii R UMIAT.DOC-11/03/99-HP4 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 D ITA AT AT nr%e' 11/0l/00. LTDA Executive Summary Pursuant to United States Army Engineer District, Alaska, Contract AFS No. DACA85-9-8-R-0013, Ecology and Environment, Inc., pre- KirforceStation pared this engineering evaluation/cost analysis for a removal action NPR to address contaminated soils at two petroleum exploration wells Naval PetroleumReserve- located near the former Umiat Air Force Station (AFS) at Umiat, No. 4 Alaska. mg/kg milligrams per kilogram What is now the former Umiat AFS was withdrawn from public domain as part of the 23 -million -acre Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4 (NPR -4). In 1944 and 1945, the United States Navy con- structed the airstrip and Main Gravel Pad at Umiat to support re- source exploration within NPR -4. Eleven oil exploration wells subsequently were drilled from 1945 to 1952 as part of the oil ex- ploration activities. This document addresses the removal actions for NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 only. Environmental issues pertaining to other NPR -4 test well sites will be addressed as needed under separate contract actions. NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 are located approximately 2 miles northeast of the Umiat Airstrip Complex. The wells are situated on a common gravel pad immediately adjacent to the west bank of the Colville River. Based on field investigations conducted in 1997 and 1998, the river is eroding toward the well structures and threat- ens to breach the well casings. Petroleum -contaminated soil and buried debris (i.e., drums) were found during the field investigation and are eroding into the river. Because of the size of the Colville River and the remote nature of the site, measures to protect the riv- erbank from futher erosion are not feasible. Therefore, a removal of the contaminated materials is necessary to protect the environ- ment. In order to safely remove the contaminated material, the two wells should be plugged and abandoned properly. Cleanup values for the removal were based on Alaska regulations (18 Alaska Administrative Code 75.340) and are proposed to be 200 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and 2,000 mg/kg for diesel 1 .. 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 D ITA AT AT nr%e' 11/0l/00. LTDA ecology and environment, utc. Executive Summary - range organics and residual range organics, respectively. The vol- cY ume of soil that is contaminated above these limits was estimated cubic yards to be 14,000 cubic yards (cy; in place). Upon removal, approxi- LTTD mately 16,800 cy of soil will require treatment. low-temperature thermal desorption Several removal technologies were subjected to an initial screen- ing. The four alternatives listed below were brought forward for a detailed analysis. The associated cost of each is provided in pa- rentheses. ■ Alternative No. 1: No Action (no cost); ■ Alternative No. 2: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and Low -Temperature Thermal Desorption (LTTD; $10.2 million); ■ Alternative No. 3: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and On-site Treatment via the Hot Air Vapor Extraction Sys- tem ($9.1 million); and ■ Alternative No. 4: Well Decommissioning System, Soil Exca- vation, and Ex Situ Landfarming ($8.6 million). After a comparison of the alternatives, Alternative No. 4: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and Ex Situ Landfarming, was selected as the preferred removal alternative because of lower costs and ease of implementation. Landfarming would require signifi- cantly less equipment, power, fuel, and water to complete the soil treatment process. The thermal treatment methods included in Al- ternative Nos. 2 and 3 would require sophisticated equipment and large quantities of fuel. LTTD treatment also would require a steady supply of quench water. These factors weighed heavily against use of thermal treatment at the former Umiat AFS. I .-M 1 -4 AA nI OQ A QM 0 0 11 USAED Alaska United. States: Army Engineer District, Alaska E'& IE Ecology and Environment, Inc. EEJCA- engineering evaluation/cost analysis NPR -4 Naval_ Petroleum Reserve No.4: AFS Air Force Station 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 Introduction 1.1 Scope and Objectives Pursuant to United States Army Engineer District, Alaska (USAED Alaska) Contract No. DACA85-98-R-0013, Ecology and Environment, Inc., (E & E) prepared this engineering evalua- tion/cost analysis (EE/CA) for a removal action to address petro- leum -contaminated soils at two Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4 (NPR -4) exploratory test wells near the former Umiat Air Force Station (AFS) at Umiat, Alaska. The purpose of this document is to summarize the contaminant conditions existing at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5, to document the need for a removal action at the site, to review regulatory requirements and define removal ac- tion objectives, to identify and evaluate potential removal alterna- tives for the removal action, and to recommend a preferred alter- native for the site. The scope of this document is limited to petroleum -contaminated soils adjacent to NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 that have been im- pacted by historical releases of hazardous substances resulting from well drilling activities. This evaluation does not address po- tential threats posed by site conditions at the remaining NPR -4 test wells located near Umiat. Surface contamination above regulatory guidance levels at the remaining wells will be addressed under separate contract actions. 1.2 Report Organization This EE/CA is organized as follows: ■ Section 2 presents the site description, site history, nature and extent of contamination, and rationale for a removal action at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5; ■ Section 3 presents the removal action objectives (RAOs) for the removal action, the rationale for selecting cleanup levels, and an estimate of the volume of contaminated materials at the well site; 1-1 5 .1oFv and environment, inc. 1. Introduction ■ Section 4 identifies and screens potential removal technologies to address soil contamination at the well site, and describes re- moval action alternatives to be carried forward for analysis; ■ Section 5 provides detailed analyses of the removal action al- ternatives identified in Section 4; ■ Section 6 describes the recommended removal action alterna- tive for contaminated soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5; and ■ Section 7 provides references used to prepare this EE/CA. 1 7 Site Characterization This section presents a brief summary of the location, site condi- FIRs tions, and history of the former Umiat AFS, and the nature and ex field investigation reports tent of contamination at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5. A discus- ADOT&PF sion of the potential public health and environmental threats posed Alaska Department'.of by the contamination and the need for a removal action at the well Transportation and Public site also is presented. Additional detailed information concerning Facilities the site history and characterization is available in the previously BLM published field investigation reports (FIRs; E & E 1998a, 1999). Bureau of Land Management 2.1 Site Description and History The former Umiat AFS site is located in northern Alaska approxi- mately 120 miles southwest of Prudhoe Bay, within the Colville River Valley north of the Brooks Range (see Figure 2-1). This re- mote site is accessible by airplane and, depending on weather con- ditions, by boat during summer and overland snow route during winter. The AFS site comprises 8,000 acres adjacent to the Colville River. Of the 8,000 acres, 115 are developed with a gravel pad and air- strip. The developed area has been elevated with gravel approxi- mately 4 feet to 6 feet above the surrounding tundra and consists mainly of the Airstrip Complex and the Main Gravel Pad. As de- tailed below, 11 NPR -4 oil exploration well sites are located in the undeveloped tundra north of Umiat (see Figure 2-2). Current ownership of the former AFS facility resides with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF), with leases for buildings and space granted to sev- eral parties. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages the lands surrounding the former Umiat AFS, where NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 are located. Figure 2-2 shows the current prop- erty boundaries between the ADOT&PF and BLM lands (LCMF, Inc. 1996). 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 2-1 N 1 W US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT At ASKA r / �r ( _I� 2 .. f.. -'A''., if• L��p r+'. { a � �:��H. +1� { .;�Y-- � \•:! } ` .,i .. •. it .. '.. ,• t ;' �• ; t 7 �.. \ :`.; l :/,.� J': :: ! %� ,. '' > i .a t "'. k�';`�t. 'J"t✓ * S '. is \ f n,:A h ': }, :,•, 4� } /t�Lt rl .y ) it iA.. y 1 1�g -.,: � - � h - `^x I',1�,7�b^�'\5 ('i' { ..,:• •..j.Aao)'tne\) j t .:. .:: ir, _:, a } ... r sj .. ti:" rt r •T4 �'. ,....-�021R7•p {, ''•,. � X '`}.',.; ,., 'C I .. :::�4, R r (�t'1 �" P .� �.`i � { t I. � 'C�` ' r ♦ � r .... .,,\, `. \ t, � •; ` \ � : n i ;.. �� i v � ff . { : �..� n� � +moi ,! xi G • NPR -4 TEST WE LLS;1 < ',/ v' - t:�ti ' �" ?"'I'1 l J ` .��`•! Yl� �;� t' ' ! �{ .., . \ ,� f�) /• �� IJNR„ - \ .fit 1y ., sy.i ,..,e : , i ,\ - (11 TOTAL) ` ;� � � '\ _• � . � / s`/ � y4,.� ..., •. P 'moi € d •� f .. ,t r `, ,5. f r < ', � � 2x„ ;.,...db • ^. 's1" .,�. Z •, ? , -jN _...• s rl.,. ti -.- _; .... \ t\• ,.. S 7 ._ j i \ a� t rt ,1, rar j j� •-^'` r TTnm`. `�;'P _ IV 1 °x, •. L .... ye .:. „w .�; .,.1 t(f •. 4 t I Gf ,/ ?1: r�7��1 i �.._ :: , iLTl,.i 1 % i� t A; i l /'"-a r'.a `p ..' :::.: •j.` 1. �., .: Ail- i \ TltplA. .. �; \ + • • 3 AIRSTRIP COMPLEX , „ ) ESTIMATED AREA l Ir OF EROSION u � 7! y 5 1� T y Yi (lmlol - ! �` .. a"`a- , , �•\, •. "r n� r7. \ .;i 4 ...' \ ........ �.!. i r ...f ..:? ....... r44 D'ocC<€ --gid It 1 1 j MAIN GRAVEL PAD -. .... d'>ff ✓ h,, gY4 Apt fs/.l i r.3•t :/�"> an. i z i,;; ��yy ... :.. d .. Mr„� .. :gig .'� �.:` .. ^�•. f! a' Yf + .-,i R -• f if «a { 23 •t r/ , .• � irA '� %' '- r C \, L� i .:, M.C:•• ,�• //* ! i Z a t i r + 1 �l �\ y t �',' r Y:� � rx :.', .. �,- �i:.fti � � t . ,.. � `.:.. , f .: '�� i ; } .. r-. � "� `§ s ri C , .. � ; t .... w ;b. � rr ; `� - {- ,j ar4 _:;:.., t fid.<, ,-.... . N.;:,�• :j,t...r: .... 1 ..:9tti - 8�.E4 h 3 7,f) i 1 f j f • s i, 7�k KEY: earolew+y aw+:A .w..en�ym4lna U.S. ARMY EN0lNiFA jjjn T. ALASKA ecology and environment, erd b International Specialists In the Environmem U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA FORMER UMIA7 AIR FORCE STATION O Shul-in NPRJ oil well Extent of and ty A PF Property Y Dry NPR-41eat hole SCALE 0 h 1 2 Miles ANCHORAGE, ALASKA Figure 2-2 SITE VICINITY AND TOPOGRAPHY MAP FORMER U AIR FORCE STATION Anchorage, Alaska ANCHORAGE, ALASKA Umiat, Alaska This area (estimated) has � o .5 t z Kilometers Abandoned NPR -4 oil well eroded into CColville River Un Umiel Former r Umlal Air Force Station Alaska SIZE JOB NO, i FILE NO. DATE SGURCE: USGS (Topogrephic) Quadrangle: Umiak I13-4) Alaska 1956 1 A esoeTr_uros 90 02 se 1 FI92-2.CDR f190CT25 0 ecoloe and environment, inc. 2. Site Characterization NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 are located on a common gravel pad AOGCCapproximately 2 miles northeast of the Airstrip Complex. The Alaska..Oil and Gas gravel pad, which is approximately 3 feet thick, is situated on a low Commission bluff (15 feet ±) above the Colville River. The surrounding area is upland tundra dominated by tall willow. Alaska Oil and Gas P&Aed Commission (AOGCC) records indicate that NPR -4 Test Well No. plugged and abandoned 2 was decommissioned (i.e., plugged and abandoned [P&Aed]) in 1947 and that NPR -4 Test Well No. 5 was suspended (i.e., shut in) in 1971, (E & E 1998a). However, the P&A procedures did not meet current AOGCC standards. Left unchecked, ongoing erosion of the Colville River bank near these wells could compromise the well casings and cause a release of petroleum and drilling muds to the surface. 2.2 Source, Nature, and Extent of Contamination This section briefly reviews the scope and results of the investiga- tions conducted at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5. More detailed information about the investigations can be found in the Phase III remedial investigation report (E & E 1998a) and the 1998 FIR (E & E 1999). 2.2.1 Field Investigations Field investigations at the 11 NPR -4 test wells were conducted in two phases during summer 1997 and summer 1998. The primary objective of the 1997 investigation was to screen surface soils at each NPR -4 test well to determine whether well drilling or devel- opment activities had impacted soils in the vicinity of the well- heads. At NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5, analytical results indi- cated that petroleum contaminants were above Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation screening levels in surface soils. The surface water and sediment data indicated that contaminants were migrating to the river. Table 2-1 provides detailed analytical results of the 1997 investigation. The objective of sampling in 1998 was to define the extent of con- tamination. Subsurface and surface soil samples were collected and analyzed during that field investigation. Analytical data are summarized in Table 2-2. Although there is no clear subsurface pattern, the petroleum contamination appears to be migrating from the wells toward the Colville River, following the contour of the underlying permafrost, which dips toward the river. Permafrost generally was encountered at about 8 feet to 9 feet below ground surface at the well site. Figures 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5 graphically repre- sent the results of these efforts. 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 2-4 0 0 Sample Location: Table 2-1 1997 INVESTIGATION SURFACE SOIL SAMPLING RESULTS NPR4 TEST WELL NOS. 2 AND 5 FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION UMIAT, ALASKA NPR4-2-1 NPR4-2-1 NPR4-2-2 NPR4-2-3 NPR4-5-1 NPR4-5-2 NPR4-5-3 NPR4-5-3 Sample Number (97-UMT-): 200 -SS 201 -SS 203 -SS 233 -SS 204 -SS 205 -SS 230 -SS 231 -SS Duplicate Sample (97-UMT-): 201 -SS 200 -SS 231 -SS 230 -SS Sample Date: Zi -R-0 8/13/97 4.8 8/13/97 5.2 8/13/97 6.5 8/16/97 UJ (10) 8/13/97 U (2.7) 8/14/97 U (4.5) 8/16/97 U 3.2) 8/16/97 4.1 DRO 9,400J 9,400 67 1,500 240J 160 13,000 21,000 RRO 10.000 9,800 240 1 3,700 4101 970 22,000 36.000 Metals Aluminum 14.000 13,000 12,000 8,800 3,600 NA 8,400 7,600 Arsenic Ili 16 J 12 6.5 J 4.4 NA 9.91 6.8 J Barium 4.200 4,100 1,000 260 190 NA 270 360 Ilium 0.6 0.59 0.59 1 B 0.19 NA 0.59 B 0.5 B Cadmium 1.6 1.2 U (0.59) U (1.7) U (0.51) NA U (0.64) U (0.65) Calcium 11,000 11,000 14,000 5,600 1,300 NA 2,700 2,600 Chromium 36 37 27 18 7.6 NA 21 19 Cobalt 15 15 14 8.8 4.9 NA 10 9.9 Copper56 62 29 33 29 NA 21 21 Iron 36,000 36,000 34,000 27,000 12,000 NA 24,000 23,000 Lead 120 J 180 J 45 14 37 NA 510J 51 J Magnesium 8,500 8,500 8,200- 3,000 1,700 NA 3,800 3,800 Manganese 370 370 330 290 280 NA 430 J 240 J Mercury 0.042 U (0.028) 0.065 U (0.067) U (0.02) NA 0.051 J 0.026 J Nickel 49 48 43 27 18 NA 29 32 Potassium 1,900 J 1,700 1,700 5201 320 NA 650 J 610J Selenium U (0.27) 0.31 U (1.2) UJ (0.67) 0.34 NA 0.31 J 0.28 J Tballium U (0.14) 0.140.12 U (0.34) U (0.1) NA U (0.13) 0.14 Vanadium 32 31 29 27 14 NA 29 26 Zinc 1,400 1,400 470 76 45 NA 87 100 Pesticides/PCBs 4' -DDD 0.018 J 0.027 R 0.019 R 0.11 0.0034 R U (0.0056) 0.041 0.36 J 4' -DDE 0.0045 R 0.0065 R 0.015 0.04 U (0.0034) U (0.0056) U (0.0042) U (0.085) 4' -DDT 0.041 J 0.062 R 0.045 0.0121 0.036 U (0.005§L_0.049 J 0.13J PCB -1254 U (0.045) U (0.047) U (0.039) U (0.11) U (0.034) U (0.056) U (0.042) U (0.85) VOCs 2-Butanone U (0.068) U (0.07) U (0.059) 0.074 J U (0.051) 0.12 J UJ (0.05) UJ (0.05) Acetone 0.26 J 0.07 R 0.18 J 0.27 J 0.0981 0.941 U (0.1) U (0.1) m- &-Xvlene U (0.0014) U (0.0014) 0.0025 U (0.021) U (0.001) U (0.001) U (0.0063) U (0.0067) Methylene chloride 0.0071 J UJ (0.014) 0.0068 J 0.03 B 0.0076 J 0.011 0.063 0.071 J Toluene U (0.0014) U (0.0014) 0.002 U (0.021) U (0.001) U (0.001) U (0.0063) U (0.0067) SVOCs 2 -Meth Ina hthalene U (0.45) 6.71 1.6 2 0.191 U (0.56) 0.17 J 1.2 J Meth 1 henol U (0.45) U (4.6) U (3.9) 0.23 U (0.34) U (0.56) 0.066 U (1.7) Bis(2-eth lhexvl) hthalate U (0.45) U (4.6) U (3.9) U (1.1) 0.044 U (0.56) U (0.42) U (1.7) Di -n -butyl phthalate U (0.45) U (4.6) U (3.9) 0.72 0.055 U (0.56) U (0.42) U (1.7) Dibenzofuran U (0.45) U (4.6) U (3.9) U (1.1) U (0.34) 0.048 U (0.42) U (1.7) Fluorene U (0.45) U (4.6) U (3.9) 2.1 U (0.34) 0.09 U (0.42) U (1.7) Naphthalene U (0.45) 2.6 J 0.73 0.31 0.1 J U (0.56) 0.075 J 0.57 J Phenanthrene U (0.45) U (4.6) U (3.9) 1.5 0.037 0.081 0.088 U (1.7) Notes: All concentrations reported in milligrams per kilogram or parts per million. Number in parentheses represents the detection limit for the sample. Kev to abbreviations: B - Attributed to blank contamination. DDD - Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane. DDE - Dichlorodiphenyldiehloroethylene. DDT - Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane. DRO - Diesel range organics. GRO - Gasoline range organics. 1- Estimated. NA - Not analyzed. PCBs - Polychlorinated biphenyls. R - Rejected. RRO - Residual range organics. SS - Surface soil. SVOCs - Semivolatile organic compounds. U - Undetected at the reported limit. VOCs - Volatile organic compounds. 19;000977.AK06.00029B_A8M "J w _ FI¢; INPRA65- 1113M -HPI . L - t,�'i L:C�: !:F. E -:•r ,�Fi C, -.-. t[; �'. Cwt'[ 0 0 Table 2-1 1997 INVESTIGATION SEDIMENT SAMPLE RESULTS COLVILLE RIVER NEAR TEST WELL NO.5 FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION UMIAT, ALASKA Colville River (Near Well No. 5) Sample Location: NPR4-5-4 NPR4-54 NPR4-5-5 NPR4-5-6 Sample Number (97-UMT-): 210 -SD 211 -SD 212 -SD 213 -SD Duplicate Sample (97-UMT-): 211 -SD 210 -SD Sample Date: GRO 8/14/97 U (3.1) 8/14/97 U (3.4) 8/14/97 4.8 8/14/97 U (3.6) DRO 240 J 310650 I 46 RRO 220 J 280 430 200 Metals Aluminum 6.200 5,000 2,400 6,600 Arsenic 3.5 4.5 2.1 5.1 Barium 420 330 130 310 Beryllium 0.37 0.36 0.13 0.38 Calcium 2.300 2,000 940 2.100 Chronnum 13 11 3.5 14 Cobalt 8.2 8.2 4 8.9 Copper18 21 12 17 Iron 17.000 15.000 6,200 18,000 Lead 51 5.11 3.4 J 6.2 J Magnesium 3,100 2.400 1,400 3.100 Manganese 330 470 240 250 Nickel 29 26 18 28 Potassium 420 J 360 J 140 J 30J Selenium 0.39 0.390.3 0.32 Vanadium 23 20 9.1 25 Zinc 52 43 25 54 Pesticides/PCBs 4' -DDD NA NA NA NA 4,4' -DDE NA NA NA NA Aroclor 1254 U (0.026) U (0.022) U (0.02) U (0.022) VOCs Acetone 0.062 J 0.13 J 0.181 0.18 J Benzene 0.00099 J U (0.0013) U (0.0013) U (0.0015) Methylene chloride 0.044 J UJ (0.013) 0.006 JB 0.0061 J Toluene 0.0026 J 0.0023 J 0.021 J U (0.0015) SVOCs 2 -Meth Ina hthalene 0.1 0.077 0.068 0.3 4 -Meth I henol 0.079 U (0.45) 0.17 U (0.44) Benzoic acid U (2.6) U (2.2) 0.099 U (2.2) Dibenzofuran 0.039 U (0.45) U (0.39) 0.23 Fluorene U (0.52) 0.039 U (0.39) U (0.44) Naphthalene 0.064 0.035 U (0.39) 0.15 Phenanthrene 0.078 0.063 0.052 0.33 Notes• All concentrations reported in milligrams per kilogram or parts per million. Number in parentheses represents the detection limit for the sample. Key to abbreviations: B - Attributed to blank contamination. PCBs - Polychlorinated biphenyls. DDD - Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane. R -Rejected. DDE - Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene. RRO - Residual range organics. DRO - Diesel range organics. SD - Sediment. GRO - Gasoline range organics. S VOCs - Semivolatile organic compounds. J - Estimated. U -Undetected at the reported limit. NA - Not analyzed. VOCs- Volatile organic compounds. 19A00977AK06.00.02.98 AB02 2-6 Fit; INPPASD -11/d9"N 19:(NH)977.AK06.(8).02.98_A803 2-7 UMIAT EECATABLEZ-1XLSNPRASW-11/3/99 Table 2-1 1997 INVESTIGATION SURFACE WATER SAMPLE RESULTS COLVILLE RIVER NEAR TEST WELL NO.5 FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION UMIAT, ALASKA Sample Location: NPR4-5-4 NPR4-5-4 NPR4-5-5 NPR4-5-6 Sample Number (97-UMT-): 210 -SW 211 -SW 212 -SW 213 -SW Sample (97-UMT-): 211 -SW 210 -SW Sample Date: 8/14/97 8/14/97 8/14/97 8/14/97 Diesel range organics U (270) 300 U (260) U (250) Total petroleum hydrocarbons U (400) 400 U (100) U (100) VOCs Methylene chloride 1.91 U (5.7) 1.8 U (10) etals luminum 220 240 390 250 arium [Manganese 86 88 92 86 on 550 590 980 610 17 18 44 20 PAHs All analytes ND ND ND ND Notes All sample concentrations reported in micrograms per liter or parts per billion. Number in parentheses represents the detection limit for the sample. Kev to abbreviations: - Estimated. U - Undetected at the reported limit ND - Nondetect. VOCs - Volatile organic compounds. PAHs - Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. SW - Surface water. 19:(NH)977.AK06.(8).02.98_A803 2-7 UMIAT EECATABLEZ-1XLSNPRASW-11/3/99 19:000977.AK06.'-8_AB03 --LE3 If"' I 0 Table 2-2 1998 INVESTIGATION SURFACE SOIL RESULTS NPR -4 TEST WELI. NOS. 2 AND 5 FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION UMIAT, ALASKA Sample Number (98-UMT-): 500-8S 501 -SS 502 -SS 503 -SS 504 -SS 505 -SS Duplicate Sample (98-UMT-): Sample Date: 8/12/98 8/12/98 8/12/98 8/12/98 8/12/98 8/12/98 Sample Depth (feet BGS): 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 Diesel range organics 160 J 1,200 J 920 J 480 J 460 J 1,300 J Residual range organics 330 J 790 J 710J 740 J 750 J 2,600 J 2-Butanone ND [0.004] ND [0.00391 ND [0.004] ND [0.0039] ND [0.0045] 0.038 Acetone 0.075 J 0.053 0.039 0.029 J 0.062 0.17 Benzene ND [0.00033] ND [0.000321 J ND [0.00032] J ND [0.00032] J 0.01 _ ND [0.00032] Naphthalene ND [0.0054] J ND [0.0053] ND [0.0053] J ND [0.0052] J ND [0.0061] J ND [0.0053] J Phenanthrene ND [0.1] ND [0.098] ND [0.099] ND [0.11 ND [0.11] ND [0.099] ibis- (2-eth lhex 1)Phthalate ND [0.31] 1 ND. [0.3] ND [0.3 ND [0.31] 1 ND [0.34] 1 0.36 J Sample Number (98-UMT-): 506 -SS 507 -SS 508 -SS 509 -SS 510 -SS Duplicate Sample (98-UMT-): Sample Date: 8/12/98 8/12/98 8/12/98 8/12/98 8/12/98 Sample Depth (feet BGS): 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 Diesel range organics 1,300 J 58 J 140 J 200 J 190 J Residual range organics 1,600 J 520J 330J 1,100 J 1,200 J 2-Butanone 0.04 ND [0.004] ND [0.004] ND (0.0043] 0.03 J Acetone 0.17 0.12 ND [0.0037] 0.089 0.18 J Benzene ND [0.00032] J ND (0.00033] ND [0.000321 ND [0.00035] ND [0.00032] J Naplttltalene ND [0.0053]] ND [0.0054] J ND (0.0053] J 0.0068 ND [0.0053] _ Phenanthrene ND [0.099] ND [0.11 ND (0.1] 0.057 ND (0.1] bis-(2-eth lhex 1)Phthalate ND [0.31] ND [0.32] ND [0.31] ND [0.341 ND [0.31] otes• All concentrations reported in milligrams per kilogram or parts per million. Number in brackets represents the detection limit for the sample. lKey to abbreviations: BCS = Below ground surface. = Estimated value. ND = Nondetect at the reported limit. SS = Surface soil sample. - 19:000977.AK06.'-8_AB03 --LE3 If"' I 0 19:000977. A K0G.00.02.98_ A 803 UMIAT EECA TABLE 2-2.XI.S - 11/3/99 0 �j Table 2-2 1998 INVESTIGATION SUBSURFACE SOIL RESULTS NPR -4 TEST WELL NOS. 2 AND 5 FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION UMIAT, ALASKA Sample Number (98-UMT-): 511 -SB 512 -SB 513 -SB 514 -SB 515 -SB 516 -SB 517 -SB 518 -SB 519 -SB 520 -SB 521 -SB 522 -SB Duplicate Sample (98-UMT-): Sample Date: 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 Sample Depth (feet BGS): 5.0-5.4 5.0-5.4 3.0-3.4 3.0-3.4 5.0-5.6 9.0-9.4 4.5-5.0 5.0-5.5 8.0-8.2 3.0-3.4 0.7-1.0 2.3 Diesel range organics 4,500 J 5,200 J 1,000 J 1,100 J 5,300 J 1,200 J 890 Ili I 28J 34 J 69 J 310J Sample Number (98-UMT-): 523 -SB 524 -SB 525 -SB 526 -SB 527 -SB 528 -SB 529 -SB 530 -SB 531 -SB 532 -SB 533 -SB Duplicate Sample (98-UMT-): Sample Date: 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/14/98 8/14/98 8/14/98 Sample Depth (feet BGS): 5.0-6.5 2.0-2.5 5.0-5.4 8.0-8.4 5.0-5.4 6.0-6A 2.0-2.4 5.0-5.4 2.0-2.5 5.0-5.5 5.0 Diesel range organics 360 J 760 1,200 J 1,700 J 18 J 15 47 J 2,800 J 23 4,400 J 7,000 J Notes• 1. All concentrations reported in milligrams per kilogram or parts per million. 2. Residual range organics were not analyzed in subsurface soil samples at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5. Key to abbreviations: BGS = Below ground surface. = Estimated value. SB = Subsurface soil sample. 19:000977. A K0G.00.02.98_ A 803 UMIAT EECA TABLE 2-2.XI.S - 11/3/99 0 �j s 0 A North NPR -4 Well No.5 S85-4 (projected Into (projected into cross section A -A) cross section A -A) A' South s ;; w t \:a 1200 92 t s r,txro r. SB 5 -IS Soil Boring Location ORO Diesel range organics 92 24' Permafrost . s s {Sr ecology and environment, Inc. IVW F F t Y 91 . S ' 91 4T Pen"! 0 2 4 Feet a. � t � � � 4 Y 91 04 Permafrost g � mg/kg Milligram per kibgram S 50OSS 160 CROSS SECTION A -A' � � Sill and clay ® Peat HORIZONTALSCALE Well S Caring Extends` - e5- - to 1,085' BGS Permafrost - Break in horizontal scala (shut In with diesel in place) coMBe Alver Note: Elevations are relative to local datum, not state plane coordinates. AT NPR -4 TEST WELL NO.5 KEN Approximate extent of contamination based on soil Vertical Exaggeration 1:10 515SB FT,200 Sample number DRO concentration in mg/kg SB 5 -IS Soil Boring Location ORO Diesel range organics VERTICAL SCALE {Sr ecology and environment, Inc. IVW U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA ANCHORAGE, ALASKA Sandy Fill -sandy 0 2 4 Feet Figure 2-4 mg/kg Milligram per kibgram CROSS SECTION A -A' Sill and clay ® Peat HORIZONTALSCALE SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY N Break in horizontal scala 0 20 40 Feet AT NPR -4 TEST WELL NO.5 Approximate extent of contamination based on soil Vertical Exaggeration 1:10 Urrtlat Former Umiat Air Force Station Alaska SIZE JOB NO. FILE NO, DATE SOURCE: Ecology end Emkonmont. Inc. 1999. samples exceeding ADEC screening value of 200 mg/kg A 000977_AK06o0 02.98 Fig2-4.CDR 990CT25 0 a -I Test Well No. 2 and Borings SB 5-13, SB 5.16, 80 i, . " '; �: 'i .' : ,•, SB 5.110, SS 6-17 and 88 - .,.. _ 5•e protected into cross section B-B'. Note: Elevations are relative to local datum, not state plane coordinates. KEY: taey a�n4 Fmlr. enmen�41n<. j� r,.,w U lle.ARIC ENOMEER S.ARW AIASNA 'vup DPAGE• 4u`sxn ? Extent or depth unknown SOBS Sample number Fill -sandy gravel HORIZONTAL SCALE 0 40 Feel Figure 2-5 140 20 SB 5-14 Soil boring location DRO concentration in mg/kg Peat CROSS SECTION 8-B' SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY Sandy gravel VERTICAL SCALE AT NPR -4 TEST WELL NO2 DRO Diesel range organics Approximate extent of contamination based on soil 0 4 8 Feet Umiat Former Umist Air Force Station Alaska SIZE JOB NO. FILE NO. DATE mg/kg Milligram per kilogram samples exceeding ADEC screening value of 200 mg/kg DRO SOURCE: Ecology and Environment, Inc. 1999. Vertical Exaggeration 1:5 *roper axon 00 02 99 Fig2-5.CDR 99OCT25 0 a "ololry and enilrownent, hm 2. Site Characterization 2.3 Potential Impacts on Public Health, Welfare, and Environment Significant petroleum contamination has been identified in surface and subsurface soils in the vicinity of NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5. The contamination poses a threat to the Colville River. Contin- ued erosion of the riverbank at this location is contributing to the migration of petroleum hydrocarbons to surface water and sedi- ments within the river. The eroding riverbank soils consist of non- cohesive sands and gravels to 20 feet below grade (measured from the top of the gravel pad). Based on historic aerial photographs and recent ground survey information, the riverbank has eroded toward the well site approximately 480 feet since 1974. The aver- age erosion rate of 20 feet per year is consistent with the 21 feet of erosion that was measured over the one-year period between sum- mer 1997 and summer 1998. As of August 1998, NPR -4 Test Well No. 5 was approximately 80 feet from the edge of the riverbank. More significant releases of contaminants to the river could occur should the bank erode to the point that the well casings are com- promised. Records indicate that NPR -4 Test Well No. 2 was aban- doned with 22,600 gallons of drilling mud that contains petroleum product, and that NPR -4 Test Well No. 5 apparently was shut in with 3,170 gallons of diesel -grade crude oil. 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 2-13 2.4 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements Although the former Umiat AFS is not listed as a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) site, USAED Alaska is following CERCLA guidance CERCLA Comprehensive document protocols for remedial investigations and feasibility Environmental Response, studies. Consistent with the CERCLA process, regulatory re - Compensation,, and quirements included for consideration at the former Umiat AFS are Liability Act those that are "applicable" or "relevant and appropriate" (defined ARARs applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements applicableor relevant and [ARARs]). In conjunction with ARARs, to -be -considered re - appropriate requirements quirements (TBCs) must be identified during consideration of re- moval alternatives at CERCLA sites. TBCs are promulgated fed- TBCs eral or state advisories, guidance, or proposed rules that are not le - to -be -considered requirements Bally binding and do not have the status of a potential ARAB, but they are useful in determining the necessary level of cleanup for protection of human health and the environment where ARARs are unavailable. 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 2-13 ". F9 ecology and emironmeK inc 2. Site Characterization Potential action -specific ARARs and TBCs identified for the pur- poses of this EE/CA are: ■ The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); and ■ The Clean Water Act (CWA). '1 1 A ■ Alaska Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Control Regulations (18 Alaska Administrative Code [AAC] 75); AAC Alaska Administrative Code E Alaska Solid Waste Management Regulations (18 AAC 60); RCRA ■ Alaska Air Quality Regulations (18 AAC 50); Resource Conservation And Recovery Act ■ Alaska Water Quality Criteria (18 AAC 70.020); CWA Clean Water Act ■ Alaska Abandonment and Plugging Regulations (20 AAC 25.105 through 25.172); ■ The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); and ■ The Clean Water Act (CWA). '1 1 A Identification of Removal Action Objectives As previously described, this EE/CA addresses petroleum - contaminated soils adjacent to NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5. Based on the findings of the field investigations, general RAOs have been established for the site. These RAOs are: ■ To prevent the migration of petroleum -contaminated soil to sediments and surface waters of the Colville River in order to maintain compliance with surface water ARARs; ■ To reduce the potential for human and ecological exposure to hazardous substances associated with petroleum -contaminated soil at the site by reducing contaminant concentrations and/or eliminating significant exposure routes; and ■ To treat and/or dispose of waste materials generated from the removal action using appropriate technologies to satisfy all regulatory requirements. 3.1 Rationale for Selecting Cleanup Levels A review of federal and state chemical -specific ARARs was made DRO to determine cleanup levels for the removal action. There are no diesel range organics federal chemical -specific cleanup levels for petroleum hydrocarbon RRO contamination in soils. Alaska regulations (18 AAC 75.340) residual.range organics stipulate cleanup levels for hazardous substances in soil for spe- cific exposure pathways and scenarios. These numerical and risk- based cleanup levels include levels for defined ranges of petroleum compounds (e.g., gasoline range organics, diesel range organics [DRO], and residual range organics [RRO]) as well as levels for individual compounds that may be associated with petroleum products. Based on the results of the field investigations, DRO and RRO constitute the contaminants of concern at the site. Eighteen AAC 19:000977AK06.00.02.98 A803 3-1 V ecolee and emir mnent, Etc. 3. Identification of Removal Action Objectives 75.340, Table A2, specifies cleanup levels for petroleum hydrocar- bons on manmade pads and roads in the Arctic Zone. Because the soil contamination at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 is co- incidental with the gravel pad at this location, the following cleanup objectives for surface and subsurface soils are proposed for the removal action: mg/kg ■ 200 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) of DRO, and milligrams per kilogram ■ 2,000 mg/kg of RRO. Cy cubic yards 3.2 Estimated Soil Volume In order to properly evaluate removal technologies and develop appropriate alternatives for this EE/CA, the volume of soil ex- ceeding the soil cleanup objectives was estimated. Because the vertical extent of contamination was not delineated completely at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5, the volume estimate is based on conservative assumptions regarding site conditions (specifically permafrost depths), which are expected to limit the vertical migra- tion of contaminants. Using the proposed removal level of 200 mg/kg for DRO and the 1997 and 1998 sampling data, the soil that requires removal is shown in Figures 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5. The volume of contaminated soil depicted in these illustrations is estimated to be approximately 14,000 cubic yards (cy) on a bank volume basis. For ex situ tech- nologies, a soil bulking factor of 20% was assumed, which results in a total of 16,800 cy of contaminated soils at the well site. Removal Action Alternative Development In this section, specific actions and technologies for addressing pe - EPA troleum-contaminated soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 are United States identified and screened using the evaluation criteria developed by Environmental Protection Agency the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with consideration of the well site conditions and the RAOs identified in Section 3. The technologies and process options that are not screened out are assembled into removal action alternatives. 4.1 Identification of Removal Technologies Removal actions evaluated by this EE/CA focus on the RAOs by preventing migration of contaminated soil and debris into the Col- ville River and treating contaminated media to reduce chemical concentrations. These general response actions and technologies can be divided into the following categories: ■ Actions commonly applied to toxic -contaminated soils (e.g., institutional controls, excavation, landfill disposal, and cap- ping); ■ Established technologies commonly used to treat soils con- taminated with petroleum hydrocarbons (e.g., thermal desorp- tion and bioremediation); and ■ Emerging technologies proven effective but not commonly used for removal of petroleum hydrocarbons from soils (e.g., soil washing). In situ technologies (e.g., bioventing, soil vapor extraction, and steam stripping) were omitted from the list of potential actions and technologies because of the ongoing erosion of petroleum - contaminated soils into the Colville River. Table 4-1 lists the potential removal technologies selected for ini- tial screening. Section 4.2 discusses the screening process. 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 4-1 Table 4-1 Potential Removal Action and Technology Screening Summary for Petroleum -Contaminated Soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5: Former Umiat Air Force Station_ Umiat. Alaska ):000977. AK06.00.02.98_A803 4 LDOC- 11003/99-HP4 Process Screening ;emoval Method Technology Option Effectiveness Implementability Relative Cost Result dminis- Institutional Access Does not reduce contaminant Restricts land use. Requires Low capital Retain; can be Ative controls restrictions concentrations, the volume of approval by site owner. Typically and O&M used in ;tions contaminated soil, or the future used in conjunction with other costs. conjunction migration of contaminants into the removal actions or technologies. with other river. Does not achieve RAOs by actions or itself. technologies. ontain- Capping Impermeable Effective in preventing exposure to Relatively simple to implement if Low to Reject; sent composite contaminated surface soils and materials are readily available. moderate cap- capping cover reducing vertical migration of Restricts future land use. Long- ital and O&M material in contaminants via infiltration and term maintenance required. costs. place is leaching. Does not reduce the infeasible concentration or volume of because of contamination. Ineffective for bank erosion. wastes below the water table or for areas prone to erosion. emoval Excavation Soil A reliable and commonly used Relatively simple to implement. Low capital Retain. excavation method for removing contaminated May require dewatering or dust costs and no soils from a site. Excavated control. Excavation in wetland O&M costs. materials would require further areas may require a permit. treatment and/or disposal. reatment Physical/ Stabilization/ Reduces mobility of contaminants Treatability testing needed to Moderate to Reject; cost,10 chemical solidification but does not concentrate or destroy verify effectiveness. Requires high capital to implement them. Waste volume increases. import of large volumes of and O&M and long-term Sensitive to media and contaminant reagent. Treated material requires costs. effectiveness type. Moderately effective on disposal in a secure landfill or questionable. petroleum -contaminated soil. restrictions on future land use if Would not achieve RAOs because disposed of on site. Regulatory contaminant concentrations would concerns with possible leaching of not be reduced. solidified mass. ):000977. AK06.00.02.98_A803 4 LDOC- 11003/99-HP4 Table 4-1 Potential Removal Action and Technology Screening Summary for Petroleum -Contaminated Soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. and 5; Former Umiat Air Force Station; Umiat, Alaska Removal Method Technology Option Effectiveness Implementability Relative Cost Result Soil washing Separates contaminants from soil Soil washing systems could be Moderate to Reject; and concentrates them into the mobilized to the Umiat site. high capital effectiveness wash water, reducing the volume of Treatability testing would be and O&M on heavy hazardous material that must be needed to verify effectiveness. costs. petroleum treated. Effectiveness depends on Requires large quantities of water. fractions soil and contaminant characteris- Process residuals require further questionable. tics. Less effective for clayey soils treatment and disposal. Discharge and for contaminants with low permit would be needed to dispose water solubilities. Might not of treated wash water. achieve RAOs with a single washing. Thermal Incineration Very effective in destroying organic United States Environmental High capital Reject; contaminants including petroleum Protection Agency -permitted and O&M transportation hydrocarbons. Provides the highest incineration facilities are available costs. of large soil level of thermal treatment possible. in Lower 48. Ash requires further volumes off treatment and disposal. Trans- site is cost- portation of large soil volumes off prohibitive. site would be prohibitive. LTTD Traditional units use a rotary -kiln A site-specific air permit would be Moderate to Retain; device to heat the soils such that required for units that burn more high capital mobile organic contaminants will be-0than 5 tons per hour. A trial burn costs. No systems ar removed via volatilization. would be necessary. Dust control O&M costs. available in Contaminants typically are measures also would be necessary. High mobili- Alaska. destroyed in an afterburner. Soil can be treated in one field zation costs for Effective for petroleum hydrocar- season. Large volumes of water remote sites. bon removal, particularly for the and fuel would be required, which lighter fractions. Thermally treated significantly increases logistical soil may be used on site as backfill. considerations at remote sites. Process rates for mobile systems can vary from 5 tons to 20 tons per hour. 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 T41DOC- I 1/03199-HP4 Table 4-1 Potential Removal Action and Technology Screening Summary for Petroleum -Contaminated Soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5: Former Umiat Air Force Station: Umiat. Alaska ,lemoval Process Screening Method Technology Option Effectiveness Implementability Relative Cost Result Hot air vapor Uses hot air to heat soils within a An air permit would not be Moderate to Retain; extraction 500-cy to 600-cy treatment pile required because these units treat high capital mobile such that organic contaminants will soils at rates of less than 5 tons per costs. No systems are be removed through volatilization. hour. Dust control measures O&M costs. available in Effective for petroleum hydrocar- would be necessary when handling Moderate Alaska. bon removal, particularly for the treated soils. Process rates are mobilization lighter fractions. Thermally treated generally slower than rotary -kiln costs for soil may be used on site as backfill. LTTD units, so it may not be remote sites. possible to treat soil in one field season. Large volumes of fuel would be required, which significantly increases logistical considerations at remote sites. Ex situ Landfarming Involves the biodegradation of Because soils must be spread out Low to Retain; biological organic contaminants in an in relatively thin layers to facilitate moderate sufficient land engineered system. Commonly treatment, landfarming has large capital and is available at used for petroleum contaminants land requirements for treatment O&M costs. Umiat for although less effective for heavier cells and soil staging areas. Poor landfarm fractions. weather conditions can severely cells. hinder treatment. Biocell Involves the biodegradation of Requires less area than land- Moderate Reject; air, organic contaminants in an farming because soils can be capital and water engineered system. Proven managed in greater thickness. O&M costs. distribution effective for treating petroleum- Requires air and water distribution systems would contaminated soils in Alaska, systems to create an environment require although it is less effective for conducive to microbial breakdown continuous heavier fractions of petroleum. of the contaminants. Contaminant power and Long-term operation likely is breakdown likely would be limited monitoring. required to meet RAOs. to the warmer summer months. 1:000977. AK06.00.02.98_A803 41.DOC-11/03/99-HP4 Table 4-1 Potential Removal Action and Technology Screening Summary for Petroleum -Contaminated Soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. and 5; Former Umiat Air Force Station: Umiat. Alaska Key: 0 ' cy = ProcessRemoval LTTD = Low-temperature thermal desorption. NPR -4 = Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4. Method Technology Option Effectiveness Implementability Relative Cost Result Disposal Off site Landfill Placement of contaminated soil in a Waste must meet facility disposal High capital Reject; permitted commercial facility standards. Transportation of large costs and no transportation would be an effective and reliable soil volumes off site would be O&M costs. of large soil disposal method. Toxicity or prohibitive. volumes off volume of contaminated soils site is cost - would not be reduced. Generator prohibitive. would retain long-term liability for the waste. On site Containment Engineered containment cell could Permit required for construction High capital Reject; cell be designed and constructed to hold and operation. Requires approval and moderate approval by treated or untreated soil such that by the site owner. Regulatory O&M costs. landowner human health and the environment approval likely to be difficult. unlikely. are protected. Long-term maintenance and institutional controls would be necessary. Likely subject to negative public opinion. Restricts future land use. Key: 0 ' cy = Cubic yard. LTTD = Low-temperature thermal desorption. NPR -4 = Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4. O&M = Operation and maintenance. 0,Os = Removal action objectives. 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 T41.DOC-I W3/99-HP4 s` V ecology and environment, utc. 4. Removal Action Alternative Development 4.2 Screening of Technologies Consistent with Guidance on Conducting Non -Time Critical Re- moval Actions Under CERCLA, each potential removal action was evaluated for long- and short-term effectiveness, implementability, and cost. Removal technologies that clearly did not meet these criteria were eliminated from further consideration. ■ Alternative No. 1: No Action; ■ Alternative No. 2: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and LTTD; ■ Alternative No. 3: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and On -Site Treatment via the HAVE System; and ■ Alternative No. 4: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and Ex Situ Landfarming. The no -action alternative (Alternative No. 1) is included to provide a baseline to which other alternatives may be compared. Well de- commissioning would involve P&Aing NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 in accordance with current AOGCC and BLM requirements. This technology is included in Alternative Nos. 2, 3, and 4 because the integrity of the well casings likely would be compromised by soil removal activities, and P&Aing is considered necessary to pre- vent future releases of hazardous substances to the environment. Detailed descriptions of the components included in each alterna- tive are contained in the following sections. Based on the screening criteria and information provided in Table 4-1, the following actions and technologies were retained for as- LTTD sembly into removal action alternatives: institutional controls, ex - low -temperature thermal cavation, low-temperature thermal desorption (LTTD), ex situ desorption hot air vapor extraction (HAVE), and ex situ landfarming with enzymatic additives. HAVE, hot air vapor extraction 4.3 Removal Alternatives Based on the screening analysis presented above, removal action alternatives for addressing petroleum -contaminated soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 were identified for further analysis. These alternatives comprised various combinations of actions or tech- nologies that were not screened out during the process discussed in Section 4.2. The removal alternatives carried forward for analysis are: ■ Alternative No. 1: No Action; ■ Alternative No. 2: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and LTTD; ■ Alternative No. 3: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and On -Site Treatment via the HAVE System; and ■ Alternative No. 4: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and Ex Situ Landfarming. The no -action alternative (Alternative No. 1) is included to provide a baseline to which other alternatives may be compared. Well de- commissioning would involve P&Aing NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 in accordance with current AOGCC and BLM requirements. This technology is included in Alternative Nos. 2, 3, and 4 because the integrity of the well casings likely would be compromised by soil removal activities, and P&Aing is considered necessary to pre- vent future releases of hazardous substances to the environment. Detailed descriptions of the components included in each alterna- tive are contained in the following sections. ecology and emironment. inc. 4. Removal Action Alternative Development 4.3.1 Alternative No. 1 No Action The no -action alternative would involve no removal action and, therefore, would not include any type of engineering controls, in- stitutional controls, or environmental monitoring. The petroleum - contaminated soil and well structures at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 would remain in their current state, subject to the erosional forces of the Colville River. 4.3.2 Alternative No. 2: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and On -Site Thermal Treatment by LTTD In this alternative, the wells would be P&Aed. Soil with petroleum hydrocarbons exceeding cleanup levels would be excavated and treated on site using a permitted rotary -kiln LTTD unit. Because a large portion of the gravel pad surrounding NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 requires excavation, there is insufficient room at the well site to set up and operate an LTTD unit. Consequently, it was as- sumed that LTTD operations would occur at the Main Gravel Pad at Umiat. Because of the amount of equipment needed to P&A the wells and remove the impacted soils from the well site, the decommissioning and excavation phases of the project would be conducted during winter, when overland mobilization to the site is possible. As a result, this alternative would be implemented in three phases: 1. The soil stockpile pad would be constructed at the Main Gravel Pad during the summer before the soil excavation. Materials and equipment to construct the pad would be flown to the site. Implementation for this phase is estimated to take approxi- mately three weeks, including mobilization and demobilization. 2. Excavation and well abandonment equipment would be mobi- lized over land to the site during mid -winter, once conditions permit travel on the selected access route. An advance group would be deployed to complete an ice road. Implementation for the excavation and well abandonment phase is estimated to take approximately eight weeks, including mobilization and demobilization. This would allow for one week for mobiliza- tion, three weeks for well decommissioning, three weeks for soil excavation, and one week for demobilization. 3. The LTTD unit would be mobilized to the Umiat site in late- spring/early summer via air cargo. Assuming that soils would be processed at an average rate of 10 tons per hour, for 20 hours per day (to allow time for equipment failure and routine c I -, un�_, _ _;r I9:000977.AK06,00.02.98_A803 4-7 ecotoLy and environment, inc. • 4. Removal Action Alternative Development maintenance), implementation for the soil treatment phase is estimated to take approximately 160 days, including mobiliza- tion and demobilization. Excavation and well abandonment equipment would be mobilized from the Kuparuk Oil Field (see Figure 2-1) to Umiat using rolli- gons and designated winter overland travel routes. The exact route would be determined during the design phase. Permits and/or ac- cess agreements would be required before mobilization. A route from Kuparik was chosen because it has a north -south orientation. An east -west route is not recommended because it would cross many drainages instead of traveling along the drainages. Well P&A activities would occur before soil excavation opera- tions. This would be accomplished by removing the drilling mud and diesel fluids from the well casings, then filling the boreholes with concrete according to AOGCC and BIM policies. The top portion of the well casing also would be removed so that at the completion of well decommissioning activities, the top of the cas- ing would be approximately 20 feet below the pre -excavation grade of the gravel pad. This is necessary to prevent the casing from be- coming a hazard once the river inundates the wellheads. The fluids removed from the wells would be containerized and shipped off site (by rolligon) for recycling or disposal at a facility on the North Slope. British Petroleum's (BP's) disposal unit lo - BP's cated at the Kuparik Oil Field would be the most logical disposal British Petroleum's site. An exemption from disposal restrictions at the BP facility would be required. Ample time should be allotted for this task during the design. Excavated soil would be transported by truck to a designated treatment area on the Main Gravel Pad and stockpiled on a lined and bermed pad. At the completion of excavation activities, the soil in the stockpile pad would be covered with an impermeable liner to minimize infiltration of precipitation for the remainder of the winter. The stockpile pad would be built the previous summer using three layers of geosynthetic materials (two geotextile layers with an im- permeable geomembrane layer in between). A 6 -inch layer of soil would be placed over the top geotextile layer to serve as a running surface during the winter soil stockpile activities. The soil used for this layer could include the petroleum -contaminated soils resulting from separate removal actions at Units A and B of the former Umiat AFS. Additional borrow material, however, would be nec- e 0 ter" ecoloRp and emwunnen4 inc 4. Removal Action Alternative Development essary. Figure 4-1 shows the proposed haul route between the well site and the Main Gravel Pad. Most of the route follows existing road structures. A portion of the route (between NPR -4 Test Well No. 2 and the existing road) would require overland tundra travel because the river has washed out the old road structure. An ice road would be created in this section to support the dump trucks and to mini- mize damage to the tundra. Assuming a width of 30 feet and a thickness of 6 inches, it is estimated that 360,000 gallons of water would be needed to create the ice road. Water would be obtained from the Colville River. Confirmation samples would be collected from the base and side- walls of the excavation during excavation activities to confirm that cleanup levels are met. Most of the samples could be analyzed on site using quantitative field test kits that detect petroleum hydro- carbons. Split samples would be collected at a frequency of 10% and shipped to an off-site laboratory for DRO and RRO analyses. The excavation would not be backfilled following completion of excavation activities. The backfill could not be compacted ade- quately to prevent erosion into the Colville River, and therefore would only add to sedimentation of the river. The excavation sidewalls, however, would be sloped to minimize localized slumping. Thermal treatment of the contaminated soils would be conducted during the summer following excavation activities. The LTTD unit would be equipped with an afterburner to destroy the petroleum hydrocarbons in the off -gases. The LTTD unit also would be equipped with air pollution control devices (e.g., wet scrubbers or baghouses) to maintain emission rates within permitted levels. Wet scrubbers would require a continuous water supply during treatment operations. Treated soil would be quenched with water to recondition it and minimize dust formation during subsequent handling activities. A temporary water distribution system would be needed to supply water to the treatment area. Water would have to be obtained from the Colville River in order to meet the esti- mated flow requirements of 10 gallons to 15 gallons per minute (14,400 gallons to 21,600 gallons per day). Confirmation samples would be collected from treated soil at regular intervals to ensure that the treatment levels are met. In or- der to minimize future restrictions on the use of treated materials, the soil would be treated to Category A levels (less than 100 mg/kg 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_A803 4-9 n t ecology and emiramneny hic 4. Removal Action Alternative Development of DRO and 2,000 mg/kg of RRO). At these levels, the soil could be used as fill material for road and/or pad maintenance or im- provement projects, provided that it is not placed in direct contact with surface waters. Treated soil would be stockpiled in a desig- nated area to serve as future borrow material at Umiat. Once soil treatment operations are complete, the stockpile pad would be de- molished and the geosynthetic materials used to construct the pad would be transported off site for disposal in a landfill. 4.3.3 Alternative No. 3: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and On-site Thermal Treatment by HAVE This alternative has the same components as Alternative No. 2, ex- cept that the excavated soils would be treated on site using the HAVE process. The HAVE system would treat individual soil piles in a batch process. Each treatment pile would have a volume of 500 cy to 600 cy. The piles would be constructed on a liner to prevent cross -contamination of clean areas, and in layers with a pipe distribution system embedded in the soil so that air could be circulated through the piles. The piles then would be enclosed within a metal Quonset hut. Hot air (approximately 1,000° Fahr- enheit) would be circulated through the pipes to heat the soils and to facilitate removal of volatile organic contaminants from the soils. The off -gases from the HAVE system would be vented di- rectly to the atmosphere. Air pollution control devices and air permitting would not be required because the units would process soils at less than 5 tons per hour. Treatment times for individual piles typically range from seven days to 10 days, depending on the contaminant. Heavier petroleum fractions typically would require longer treatment times because of reduced volatility. Confirmation samples would be collected from the treated soil piles to verify that treatment levels are obtained. Once treatment levels are confirmed, the Quonset but and pipe distribution system would be removed. The treated soil piles would be sprayed with water to recondition the soil and to control dust during subsequent soil handling operations. An estimated 5,000 gallons to 10,000 gallons of water would be needed to recondition each treatment pile. Treated soil then would be moved to a designated area to serve as future borrow material at Umiat. To reduce downtime, treatment activities would be conducted such that while one pile is being treated, another pile would be under construction. There is sufficient room on the east side of the Main Gravel Pad for the soil stockpile pad and for construction of sev- eral soil treatment piles. For cost estimating purposes, it was as - F 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_A803 4-11 a ecology and en v aunem inc- 4. Removal Action Alternative Development sumed that two HAVE systems would be mobilized to the site in late spring or early summer via air cargo so that soils could be treated in one field season. Treatment activities would occur 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Alternative No. 3 would be implemented in the same sequence as Alternative No. 2. Implementation times for the soil stockpile pad, well decommissioning, and excavation phases would be the same as those described in Section 4.3.2. Assuming that 1,100 cy of soil could be treated every 12 days, the implementation time for the soil treatment phase is estimated to be 210 days, including mobilization and demobilization. The HAVE system can operate in cold weather. 4.3.4 Alternative No. 4: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and Ex Situ Bioremediation by Landfarming This alternative has the same components as Alternative No. 2, ex- cept that the excavated soils would be treated on site by land - farming. This alternative would be implemented as follows: ■ The landfarm cells would be constructed during the summer before the soil excavation. Materials and equipment to con- struct the cells would be flown to the site. Implementation for this phase is estimated to be approximately eight weeks, in- cluding mobilization and demobilization; ■ Excavation and well abandonment equipment would be mobi- lized to the site during mid -winter, as described in Alternative No. 2. Implementation for the excavation and well abandon- ment phase is estimated to be approximately eight weeks, in- cluding mobilization and demobilization; and ■ Landfarming equipment would be mobilized to the site over land near the end of the soil excavation activities and stored in Umiat. For cost estimating purposes, it was assumed that land - farming operations would occur four months each for two years. During these months, maintenance tilling would be per- formed weekly and watering would be performed no less than once every two weeks. Under this alternative, contaminated soil would be excavated and hauled to several preconstructed landfarm cells for treatment. The landfarm cells would be bermed and lined with a durable geomem- brane to contain the soil and prevent infiltration of contaminated leachate (generated from the percolation of precipitation through ecology and environment, uic 4. Removal Action Alternative Development the soils) into underlying layers. A 6 -inch layer of soil would be placed in the cells to serve as a protective cushion during the sub- sequent winter earthwork activities. The soil used for this layer could include the petroleum -contaminated soils resulting from separate removal actions at Units A and B of the former Umiat AFS. Contaminated soil would be placed in the cells at a maximum thickness of 28 inches. Using the estimated volume of 16,800 cy, approximately 194,400 square feet (or 4.5 acres) of lined and ber- med area would be needed to treat the soils. Potential sites for landfarming cells are shown in Figure 4-2. At the completion of excavation activities, the soil in the landfarm cells would be cov- ered with an impermeable liner to minimize infiltration of precipi- tation into the cells for the remainder of the winter. The soil piles would be uncovered during the summer following the excavation, once ambient temperatures have allowed the soil to thaw. The soil would be tilled thoroughly to break up any remain- ing frozen areas and to homogenize the soil. Baseline samples would be collected to assess initial contaminant concentrations. The soil then would be treated with enzymes and nutrients to fur- ther enhance biodegradation. The enzyme and nutrient application is a proprietary formulation from a vendor in the Northwest. The vendor has successfully used this product in landfarming opera- tions at other Arctic sites with similar contaminants. Other ven- dors may be investigated during the design phase. Once the soils are inoculated, maintenance tilling (for aeration) and watering would take place on a predetermined basis throughout the summer. Routine sampling would be conducted monthly to monitor contaminant degradation rates and to determine when cleanup levels are met. Because of the harsh winter conditions and short summer season at Umiat, and heavy fractions of petroleum contaminants present in soils from the well site, it is assumed that landfarming operations would be needed for two summer seasons in order to meet Category A cleanup levels. At the end of the first season, the soil cells would be covered to minimize intrusion of precipitation during winter. Treatment operations would resume the following summer. Once sampling shows that the soil is treated successfully, the soil would be removed from the cells and stockpiled in a designated area for future use as borrow material. The landfarm cells then would be decommissioned. Geosynthetic materials used to con- struct the cells would be transported off site for disposal in a land- 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_A803 4-13 _ , eh ecology and mironment, inc. It 4. Removal Action Alternative Development 19:0OW-MAKW.00.02.98-A803 r 4-15 Analysis of Proposed Removal Action Alternatives Previous sections of this document provide the rationale, the proc- ess details, and an initial screening of various potential removal alternatives. In this section, the removal alternatives that were not screened out are discussed and compared. 5.1 Individual Analysis of Alternatives Each alternative is evaluated for its overall effectiveness in achieving RAOs, its implementability under the site-specific con- ditions at Umiat, and total costs based on detailed cost estimates. Tables 5-1 through 5-3 summarize cost estimates for Alternative Nos. 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Supporting information for the al- ternative cost estimates is in Appendix A. Because of the com- plexity of site logistics, Table 5-4 provides a comparison of the implementability of all alternatives except the no -action alterna- tive. This table points to the difficult and costly nature of fuel and water requirements for the soil treatment methods included in Al- ternative Nos. 2 and 3. 5.1.1 Alternative No. 1: No Action For this alternative, the petroleum -contaminated soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 would remain as they are. Effectiveness. This alternative would not meet the RAOs identi- fied in Section 3. Erosion of contaminated soil by the Colville River would continue unchecked, violating state regulatory re- quirements for protection of surface water resources. Continued erosion of the riverbank eventually could compromise the integrity of the well casings, potentially causing releases of crude oil or contaminated drilling muds into the river. This alternative would not be protective of human health or the environment. Implementability. This alternative would be implemented easily because no work would be involved. ICost. No cost would be associated with this alternative 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 5-1 R_UMIAT. DOC -11 /03/99-HP4 5-2 19'000977. AK06.00.02.99_ASM COPY UMIAT EECA COST ESTIMATEALS - 11/4199 Table 5-1 REMOVAL ACTION COST ANALYSIS - ALTERNATIVE No. 2 EXCAVATION AND ON-SITE LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION TREATMENT ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND COST ANALYSIS NPR-4 TEST WELL NOS. 2 AND 5 FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION UMIAT. ALASKA _ Capital Costs Reference Item Description Quantity UnitCosWnit Factor Cost 2 DC15 Stockpile Pad Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization I lura sum $87.242 1.35 $117.780 DC16 Stock ile Pad Construction 1 lump sum $179,160 1.35 $241,870 Contractor Well Abandonment Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization 1 lump sum $1,360,000 1 $1,360.000 Contractor Plug and Abandon Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 2 each $670,000 1 $1,340,000 DC03 Earthwork Equipment Mobil ization/Demobilization I lump sum $266,552 1 $266.550 DC04 Excavation, Hauling and Stockpiling of Impacted Soil I lump sum $315.969 1.35 $426.560 DC05 Excavation compliance soil sample collection and analysis 125 sample $69 1 1.35 $11.640 E & E Trial Bum I IUME sum $50,000 1 1 $50,000 LTTD Equipment Mobilization & Demobilization from Anchorage to Umiat' 1 lump sum $120.852 1 $120.850 DC11 DC12 LTTD (Low Temperature Thermal Desorption) Treatment 18,200 cubic yard $150 1 $2.730,000 DC05 Compliance soil sample collection and analysis (I sample/200 CY) 100 sample $69 1.35 $9,320 Subtotal Direct Capital Costs $6.674,570 Overhead and Profit (250) $1,668,640 Total Dirert Capital Costs (Rounded to Nearest $1.000) $8,343,000 . Indirect Capital Costs LTTD Performance Bond (290 of treatment cost) $57,020 Engineering and Design (2'70) $166,860 Legal Fees and License/Permit Costs (0.5%) $41.720 Contractor Reporting Requirements (1.5%) $125,150 Construction Oversight (2%) $166,860 Total Indirect Capital Casts (Rounded to Nearest $1,000) $558.000 Subtotal Capital Costs $8.901.000 Contingency Allowance (15%) $1,335.150 Total Alternative Cost (Rounded to the nearest $100,000) $10,200,000 Notes: The factors represent adjustments for materials and installation by specific city location, the USAED Alaska utilizes a factor of 1.35 for Alaska work. Z Due to rounding, the amount in the Cost column may be slightly different than the product of the values in the Quantity, CostfUnit, and Factor columns. Cost provided is a conservative estimate; actual mobilization/demobilization cost may vary depending on the location of the unit at the time of the project. 5-2 19'000977. AK06.00.02.99_ASM COPY UMIAT EECA COST ESTIMATEALS - 11/4199 a7�1VV.VVV Notes: ' The factors represent adjustments for materials and installation by specific city location, the USAED Alaska utilizes a factor of 1.35 for Alaska work. a Due to rounding, the amount in the Cost column may be slightly different than the product of the values in the Quantity, COSt/Unit, and Factor columns. 3 Cost provided is •a conservative estimate. actual mobilization/demobilization cost may vary depending on the location of the units at the time of the project. The unit cost includes the cost of confirmation sampling and analysis. 5-3 f 9:000977.AK06.00.02.99_Aeo3 Table 5-2 REMOVAL ACTION COST ANALYSIS - ALTERNATIVE NO.3 EXCAVATION AND ON-SITE HOT AIR VAPOR EXTRACTION TREATMENT ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND COST ANALYSIS NPR -4 TEST WELL NOS. 2 AND 5 FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION UMIAT, ALASKA capital Costs Reference DC15 Item Description Quantity Unit I Cost/Unit Factor' Cost = Stockpile Pad Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization 1 lump sum $87,242 1.35 DC16 Stockpile Pad Construction $117.780 Contractor 1 lumpsum Well Abandonment ui ment Mobilization/Demobilization I I lum sum $179,160 $1,360,000 1.35 $241,870 Contractor Plugand Abandon Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 1 $1, 60,000 DC03 2 each Earthwork ui ment Mobilization/Demobilization $670,000 1 $1,330,000 DC04 1 lum sum Excavation. Haulm and Stock ilio of Im • cted Soil $266,552 1 $_66,550 DC05 1 lumpsum Excavation compliance soil sample collection and analvsis $315.969 1.35 $426.560 DC13 125 sample HAVE Equipment Mobilization & Demobilization from Anchora a to Umiat 3 $69 1.35 $ 11,640 DC14 2 each HAVE (Hot Air Vapor Extraction) Treatment 4 $75.176 1$150.350 18?00 cubic yard Subtotal Direct Capital Costs $I 12 t 1 $2,038.400 Overhead and Profit (25%) $5,953.150 Total Direct Capital Costs (Rounded to Nearest $1.000) $1,488.290 Indirect Capital Costs $7,441.000 HAVE Performance Bond (2% of treatment cost) En ineerin and Design (290) $43.780 Le al Fees and License/Permit Costs (0.5%) $148.820 Contractor Reporting Requirements (1.590) $37,210 Conswction Oversight (290) $111,620 Total Indirect Capital Costs (Rounded to Nearest $1.000) S148.820 Subtotal Capital Costs 5490.000 Contingency Allowance (1590) $7.931.000 Total Alternative Cost (Rounded to the nearest $100,000) $1.189.650 a7�1VV.VVV Notes: ' The factors represent adjustments for materials and installation by specific city location, the USAED Alaska utilizes a factor of 1.35 for Alaska work. a Due to rounding, the amount in the Cost column may be slightly different than the product of the values in the Quantity, COSt/Unit, and Factor columns. 3 Cost provided is •a conservative estimate. actual mobilization/demobilization cost may vary depending on the location of the units at the time of the project. The unit cost includes the cost of confirmation sampling and analysis. 5-3 f 9:000977.AK06.00.02.99_Aeo3 Total Capital Costs (rounded to the nearest $100,000) $8,600,Ot Notes: ' The factors represent adjustments for materials and installation by specific city location, the USAED. Alaska utilizes a factor of 1.35 for Alaska work. Due to rounding, the amount in the Cost column may be slightly different than the product of the values in the Quantity, Cost/Unit, and Factor columns. 3 Cost provided for 2 years of landfarm treatment. 5-4 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_A803 COPY UMIAT EECA COST ESTIMATE.XLS - 11/4/99 Table 5-3 REMOVAL ACTION COST ANALYSIS - ALTERNATIVE NO.4 EXCAVATION AND ON-SITE BIOREMEDIATION BY LANDFARMING ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND COST ANALYSIS NPR4 TEST WELL NOS. 2 AND 5 FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION UMIAT, ALASKA Capital Costs Reference Item Description Quantity UnitCost/Unit Factor' Costt DC06 Landfarm Cell Construction Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization 1 lump sum $114,242 1.35 $154,230 DC07 Construction of Landfarm Cell 1 lump sum $432,490 1.35 $583,860 — Contractor Well Abandonment Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization 1 lump sum $1,360,000 1 $1.360,000 Contractor Plug and Abandon Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 2 each $670,000 1 $1,340.000 DC03 Earthwork Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization 1 rum sum $266,552 1 $266,550 DC04 Excavation, Hauling and StockTiling of Impacted Soil 1 lump sum $315,969 1.35 $426,560 DC05 Excavation compliance soil sample collection and analysis 125 sample $69 1.35 $11,640 Contractor Landfarm treatment' 16.800 cubic vard $73 1 $1.228,250 DC09 Landfarm Cell Decorrunissioning I lump sum $201,634 1.35 $272,210 DC05 Compliance soil sample collection and analysis (1 sample/200 CY) 84 sample $69 1.35 $7,820 Subtotal Direct Capital Costs Overhead and Profit (25%) $5.651,120 $1,412,780 Total Direct Capital Costs (Rounded to Nearest $1,000) $7,064,000 Indirect Capital Costs Landfarm Performance Bond (2% of treatment cost) Engineering and Design (2%) $24,570 $141,280 Legal Fees and License/Permit Costs (0.5%) Contractor Reporting Requirements (1.5%) $35,320 Construction Oversight (2%) $105,960 $141,280 Total Indirect Capital Costs (rounded to nearest $1,000) $448.000 Subtotal Capital Costs Contingency Allowance (15%) $7,512,000 $1,126,800 , Total Capital Costs (rounded to the nearest $100,000) $8,600,Ot Notes: ' The factors represent adjustments for materials and installation by specific city location, the USAED. Alaska utilizes a factor of 1.35 for Alaska work. Due to rounding, the amount in the Cost column may be slightly different than the product of the values in the Quantity, Cost/Unit, and Factor columns. 3 Cost provided for 2 years of landfarm treatment. 5-4 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_A803 COPY UMIAT EECA COST ESTIMATE.XLS - 11/4/99 Table 5-4 Comparative Analysis of the Implementability of Soil Treatment Methods for Alternative Nos. 2, 3, and 4; NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5; Former Umiat Air Force Station; Umiat, Alaska 19:000977. A K06.00.02.98_A803 T54.DOC- I 1 /03199-HP4 No. 4 EvaluationAlternative Criteria • On -Site E;timated 160 days 210 days (if two units used 2 years treatment simultaneously) duration Logistical The most difficult alternative to Somewhat easier to implement than Much easier to implement than considerations implement for the following reasons: Alternative No. 2 for the following Alternative Nos. 2 and 3 for the following • Requires significant logistical reasons: reasons: planning to supply fuel to the LTTD • HAVE system equipment is easier to • Does not rely on sophisticated equipment—estimated daily mobilize to remote sites; equipment to treat the soils; consumption rate is 4,000 gallons to c5,000 onsumption • A batch water system (e.g., water • Does not require highly trained labor truck) may be sufficient because water 1 during treatment operations; • Requires installation of a water is needed only for reconditioning distribution system to meet water treated soil piles—the quantity of . Does not require large volumes of fuel demands for quenching and/or water needed per pile is estimated to to be mobilized to the site; pollution control—daily water needs be 6,000 gallons to 10,000 gallons; • Does not require the installation of a are estimated to be between 14,400 •Uses less -sophisticated equipment water distribution system—watering gallons to 21,600 gallons depending than rotary -kiln LTTD units, so delays can be accomplished with a truck; and on the type of air pollution control; caused by equipment failure are less • Does not require an air permit. • Uses sophisticated equipment, so likely; treatment operations are more susceptible to delays caused by • Fuel consumption rate is less than that equipment failure; and for a rotary -kiln LTTD unit— estimated consumption rate is 1,600 • Requires an air permit if processing gallons to 2,400 gallons per day for rates are greater than 5 tons per hour. two treatment units; and • Does not require an air permit. 19:000977. A K06.00.02.98_A803 T54.DOC- I 1 /03199-HP4 Table 5-4 Comparative Analysis of the Implementability of Soil Treatment Methods for Alternative Nos. 2, 3, and 4; NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5; Former Umiat Air Force Station: Umlat. Alaska OtherI Reliability of the method in meeting considerations treatment levels is high. Key: HAVE = Hot air vapor extraction. LTTD = Low-temperature thermal desorption. NPR -4 = Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4. 19:000977. AK06.00.02.98_A803 T54.DOC-11/03199-HPa Reliability of the method in meeting treatment levels is moderate. Heavier petroleum fractions could increase treatment times significantly. Reliability of the method in meeting treatment levels is moderate. Heavier petroleum fractions more difficult to degrade, and method is susceptible to site weather conditions. is 0 "oloa and emironmen6 inc. 0 5. Analysis of Proposed Removal Action Alternatives 5.1.2 Alternative No. 2: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and On -Site Thermal Treatment by LTTD The components for this alternative are described in detail in Sec- tion 4.3.2. Effectiveness. Removal of contaminated soils from the well site would meet the RAO of preventing migration of contaminated soil into the Colville River. Proper plugging of the two well casings would prevent future releases of hazardous substances to the envi- ronment. Thermal treatment of contaminated soils would comply with ARARs and provide for the protection of human health and the environment. LTTD is a proven technology for treatment of petroleum -contaminated soils. It offers a long-term, permanent solution because the DRO and RRO contaminants would be re- moved from the soil and destroyed. Short-term effects associated with LTTD include off -gas emissions and dust generation. Implementability. Soil excavation and well abandonment could be implemented at the site. Much of the equipment and materials needed for these tasks is available on the North Slope and could be mobilized to the site via overland access routes. However, special permits and/or access agreements would be needed to provide a suitable route to the site. Mobile LTTD equipment is available in Alaska. Smaller units (e.g., 5 tons to 15 tons per hour) would be needed if the equipment were transported to the site by air cargo planes. Trained operators would be needed throughout the project to mobilize, operate, and demobilize the LTTD unit. A critical issue in the viability of this method is the ability to supply fuel to the LTTD unit. A water dis- tribution system from the Colville River may be needed to supply sufficient water to the treatment area. A site-specific air permit would be required for units that process more than 5 tons per hour. Because contaminants other than pe- troleum hydrocarbons have been detected at the site, a trial burn likely would be needed to obtain the permit. Extensive health and safety monitoring may be required during the soil treatment phase. Cost. The total cost associated with Alternative No. 2 is $10.2 ow million. No long-term operation and maintenance (O&M) or operation andpresent worth cost was determined because it is anticipated that maintenance this alternative could be completed within one construction season. Table 5-1 provides a breakdown of the cost estimate for this alter- native. 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_A803 5- e '.J ecolory and environment, inc. 5. Analysis of Proposed Removal Action Alternatives 5.1.3 Alternative No. 3: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and On -Site Thermal Treatment by HAVE The components for this alternative are described in detail in Sec- tion 4.3.3. Effectiveness. Removal of contaminated soils from the well site and proper plugging of the well casings are consistent with the RAOs for the site. Thermal treatment of contaminated soils would comply with ARARs and provide for the protection of human health and the environment. The HAVE system is a proven tech- nology for treatment of petroleum -contaminated soils. HAVE of- fers a long-term, permanent solution because the DRO and RRO contaminants would be removed from the soil, reducing the risks associated with the excavated soil. Short-term effects associated with HAVE would include off -gas emissions and dust generation. Implementability. The implementability of the excavation and well abandonment phases is the same as that for Alternative No. 2. Mobile HAVE equipment is available in Alaska and is transported easily by air cargo planes. Two units would be needed to treat the soils within one extended field season (seven months). Significant logistical planning would be needed to keep sufficient fuel supplies on site throughout the project. Because the HAVE process would require water to recondition the soil only at the end of the treatment process, a water distribution system may not be needed. A water truck may be sufficient. Cost. The total cost associated with Alternative No. 3 is $9.1 mil- lion. No O&M costs are presented and no present worth cost was determined because it is anticipated that this alternative could be completed within one season. Table 5-2 provides a breakdown of the cost estimate for Alternative No. 3. 5.1.4 Alternative No. 4: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and Ex Situ Bioremediation by Landfarming The components for this alternative are described in detail in Sec- tion 4.3.4. Effectiveness. Consistent with Alternative Nos. 2 and 3 above, the removal of contaminated soils from the well site and proper plug- ging of the NPR -4 well casings would meet site RAOs. Biodegra- dation of the contaminants in the excavated soil by landfarming would be protective of human health and the environment provided that cleanup objectives are met. Landfarming offers a long-term, •. ecology and environment, bic. 0 5. Analysis of Proposed Removal Action Alternatives permanent solution because the DRO and RRO contaminants could be degraded. Short-term effects associated with this alternative would include worker exposure to petroleum -contaminated soils. Implementability. The implementability of the excavation and well abandonment phases is the same as that for Alternative No. 2. Construction of the landfarm cell would not require specialized equipment or highly trained labor. Administratively, no special permits would be required. All materials could be obtained easily in Alaska, and they could be mobilized to the site by air cargo planes. This alternative would have minimal infrastructure re- quirements and would be well-suited for a remote site. Although it is innovative, the proprietary process chosen for this evaluation has been shown to be effective in Arctic environments. Cost. Although this process is expected to be carried out over a two-year period, costs were assumed to be allocated as a one-time capital cost. No long-term O&M costs have been assigned, nor has a present worth analysis been performed. The total capital cost as- sociated with this alternative is $8.6 million. Table 5-3 provides a breakdown of the cost estimate. 5.2 Comparison of Removal Action Alternatives In this section, the four alternatives analyzed individually in Sec- tion 5.1 are compared to each other using the following four crite- ria: protection of human health and the environment, effective- ness, implementability, and cost. The comparative analysis of the alternatives is presented in Table 5-5. The information in this table will be used to support the selection of an appropriate alternative for addressing petroleum -contaminated soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5. .i. i +1 •:3rrr.Pkef 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_A803 5-9 Table 5-5 Comparative Analysis of Removal Action Alternatives for Petroleum -Contaminated Soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5; Former Umiat Air Force Station; Umiat, Alaska Imple- mentability Is the easiest alternative to im- plement because no work is required. The most difficult alternative to implement (see additional discussion in Table 5-4). Less susceptible to delays caused by poor weather conditions. Somewhat easier to implement than Alternative No. 2 (see Ta- ble 5-4). Less susceptible to delays caused by poor weather conditions. Slower processing rates mean treatment opera- tions would need to extend into the winter. Much easier to implement than Alternative Nos. 2 and 3 (see Table 5-4). More susceptible to delays caused by poor weather conditions. Total cost $0.0 $10.2 million $9.1 million $8.6 million Key: ARARs = Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements. HAVE = Hot air vapor extraction. LTTD = Low-temperature thermal desorption. NPR -4 = Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4. RAOs = Removal action objectives. in 19:000977. AK06.00.02.9B_AB03 T55. DOC- I 1 /03/99-HP4 0 0 Conclusions and 6 Recommended Removal Action In this section, the recommended removal action alternative for petroleum -contaminated soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 is identified. To determine the most feasible removal action for the well site, the criteria of effectiveness, implementability, and cost were considered using the results of the individual and comparative analyses presented in Section 5. Alternative No. 1, which specifies no action, was eliminated be- cause it would not prevent future releases of hazardous substances to the Colville River. Alternative Nos. 2, 3, and 4 are considered equivalent in their protection of the Colville River because each includes provisions for P&Aing the two wells and removing the contaminated soils from the eroding riverbank. Alternative Nos. 2, 3, and 4 differ in the method used to treat the contaminated materi- als that have been removed from the well site. The thermal treatment methods included in Alternative Nos. 2 and 3 may be considered more reliable for meeting the Category A cleanup levels within a specified time frame, but logistically they would be the most difficult treatment methods to implement at Umiat. Both thermal treatment units would require additional in- fastructure, including large quantities of fuel and water. Because no fuel source is readily available on site, all fuel would need to be imported. The availability of an adequate number of fuel flights for a steady supply is a concern. Weather conditions, airstrip maintenance, and the increased chance for fuel spills during fuel transport and transfer operations are legitimate considerations. Both thermal treatment alternatives would require large quantities of water for soil quenching and dust control. Additional water may be required if the rotary -kiln LTTD unit is equipped with a wet scrubber. In order to meet the water needs of these two treatment methods, a water distribution system would have to be constructed from the Colville River to the Main Gravel Pad. 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 6-1 ecology and emi ronment. inc. 0 6. Conclusions and Recommended Removal Action Alternative No. 4: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and Ex Situ Landfarming, was selected as the preferred removal alter- native to address petroleum -contaminated soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5. The primary factors contributing to the selection of this alternative are: ■ Significantly reduced equipment requirements, ■ Minimal power, fuel, and water requirements, and ■ Lower cost of implementation. A_7 N 0 0 References 18 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 60, Solid Waste Manage- ment Regulations. 18 AAC 50, Air Quality Control Regulations. 18 AAC 70, Water Quality Standards. 18 AAC 75, Articles 3 and 9, Oil and Hazardous Pollution Control Regulations. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), 1999, Draft Guidance on Developing Soil Cleanup Levels Under Methods Two and Three. , 1998, Guidance on Cleanup Standards Equations and Input Parameters. Alaska Oil and Gas Commission, Abandonment and Plugging Regulations, 20 AAC 25, Article 2. Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1999, Final 1998 Field Investiga- tion Report, Former Umiat Air Force Station, Umiat, Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska. , 1998a, Final Phase III Remedial Investigation Re- port, Former Umiat Air Force Station, Umiat, Alaska, An- chorage, Alaska. , 1998b, Technical Memorandum, Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, Former Umiat AFS, Anchor- age, Alaska. , 1998c,1998 Final Field Investigation Work Plan, Former Umiat Air Force Station, Umiat, Alaska, Anchor- age, Alaska. 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 7-1 ecoIoev and end ronment, inc. 7. References , 1997a, Risk Assessment Report, Former Umiat Air Force Station, Umiat Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska. , 1997b, Remedial Investigation Report for the Former Umiat Air Force Station, Umiat, Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska. , 1997c, Phase III Remedial Investigation Work Plans, Former Umiat Air Force Station, Umiat, Alaska, Anchor- age, Alaska. , 1997d, Request for Proposal, Indefinite Delivery Type (IDT), Remedial Action (RA), Anchorage, Alaska. , 1997e, Technical Memorandum, Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Former Umiat Air Force Station, Anchorage, Alaska. , 1995, Umiat Remedial Investigation Project Report, Former Umiat Air Force Station, Umiat, Alaska, Anchor- age, Alaska. LCMF, Inc., 1996, Property plans for the former Umiat Air Force Station, prepared for Ecology and Environment, Inc. Parkhurst, D.F., 1998, Arithmetic Versus Geometric Means for En- vironmental Concentration Data, Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 32, Issue 3, pp. 92A -98A. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1998, Re- gion 9, Preliminary Remediation Goals. , 1993, Guidance on Conducting Non -Time -Critical Removal Actions Under CERCLA. , 1988, Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investiga- tion and Feasibility Studies Under CER CLA, Interim Final, EPA/540/1-89/002, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), Washington, D.C. (OSWER Directive 9355.3-01). 0 0 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 A-1 DERIVED COST DC03 DERIVED COST DC04 DERIVED COST DC05 Umiat NPRA Well Nos.2 5 Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis Derived Costs EARTHWORK EOUIPMENT MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION reference description quantity unit unit cost cost Contractor rolligon transport - mobilization 8 loads $10,000 $80.000 Contractor ice road construction 0.6 miles $45,000 $27,000 E&E aircraft support 2 each $8,500 $17,000 016 408 0340 (BCCD) Excavator, crawler mounted, 3.5 CY bucket 2 weeks $7,600.00 $15,200 E&E Hauling, 3-30 CY dump trucks 6 weeks $5,500.00 $33,000 016-408-4110 (BCCD) Dozer, 200 HP 2 weeks $3,000.00 $6,000 Crew B1 (BCCD) Mobilization Crew 10 days $835 $8,352 Contractor rolligon transport - demobilization 8 loads $10,000 $80,000 Crew B-2 Foreman & 4 laborers 30 days DC03 $266,552 Assumptions: Covers additional equipment not mobilized to the site by the well decommissioning contractor All costs include labor and materials EXCAVATION, TRANSPORTATION & STOCKPILING OF IMPACTED SOIL reference description quantity unit unit cost cost/cubic yard 016 408 0340 (BCCD) Excavator, crawler mounted, 3.5 CY bucket 4 weeks $7,600.00 $30,400 Crew B-12 D (BCCD) Excavator operator 30 days $357.20 $10,716 Crew B-12 D (BCCD) Oiler 30 days $292.80 $8,784 E&E Hauling, 3-30 CY dump trucks 12 weeks $5,500.00 $66,000 Crew B -34B (BCCD) Dump Truck Operator 90 days $270.80 $24,372 016-408-4110 (BCCD) Dozer, 200 HP 4 weeks $3,000.00 $12,000 Crew B-1 OB (BCCD) Dozer Operator 30 days $345.60 $10,368 016 420 3600 Light towers, 4000W (4) 16 weeks $410.00 $6,560 Crew B-2 Foreman & 4 laborers 30 days $1,375.20 $41,256 Crew B-35 (BCCD) Mechanic (skilled labor) 30 days $354.00 $10,620 E&E Camp, 12 crew @ 30 days 360 man -days $220.00 $79,200 016 420 7200 (BCCD) Crew truck, 4 -WD 4 weeks $245.00 $980 015 904 0550 (BCCD) Building (warm-up shack) 1 month $273.00 $273 016 420 2600 (BCCD) Generator, diesel engine (3) 12 weeks $370.00 $4,440 016 420 7290 (BCCD) Miscellaneous, rope, soap and dope 1 lump sum $10,000.00 $10,000 DC04 $315,969 EXCAVATION COMPLIANCE SOIL SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS - EXCAVATION Reference description quantity unit unit cost cost/sample E & E geologist 0.3 hr $25.00 $8 E & E field technician 0.3 hr $20.00 $7 33 02 0401 (ECHOS) disposable materials per sample 1.0 sample $6.74 $7 33 02 2023 (ECHOS) 4 -ounce sample jar 1.0 each $2.66 $3 E & E sample shipment from Deadhorse to Anchorage 0.025 cooler $60.00 $2 E & E petroleum hydrocarbon immunoassay field test 1.0 ea $30.00 $30 Contractor diesel range organics analysis 0.1 ea $60.00 $6 Contractor residual range organics analysis 0.1 ea $60.00 $6 DC05 $69 Assumptions: 100% of the samples analyzed in the field by immunoassay; splits analyzed by offsite lab at a 10% frequency Assume 1 cooler is shipped off-site per week of excavation A-3 DERIVED COST DC06 DERIVED COST DC07 DERIVED COST DC09 Ueriat WPI No5.2 5 Evaluation Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis Derived Costs LANDFARM CELL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION reference description quantity unit unit cost cost E &E Air transport 9 each $8,500 $76,500 E &E Trucking 1 each $20,000 $20,000 Crew B1 (BCCD) Mobilization Crew 10 days $835 $8,352 016 408 0450 (BCCD) 1 CY Wheel Backhoe/Loader 6 days $250.00 $1,500 016 420 2020 (BCCD) Wheel Mounted Fork (4000 # capacity) 6 days $200.00 $1,200 016 408 5250 (BCCD) 12 cy Dump Truck (2 required) 12 days $375.00 $4,500 016-408-4110 (BCCD) Bulldozer 6 days S365.00 $2,190 $114,242 Assumptions: Equipment mobilized from Deadhorse to Umiat via air cargo planes. Allow 6 flights for mob/demob equipment Allow 3 flights to mobilize geosynthetic materials CONSTRUCTION OF LANDFARM CELL(S) reference description quantity unit unit cost cost Berm Construction 016 408 0450 (BCCD) Crew B-10 R (BCCD) 016 408 5250 (BCCD) Crew 5-34B (BCCD) 016-408-4110 (BCCD) Crew B-1 OB (BCCD) Liner Construction 1 CY Wheel Backhoe/Loader 1 weeks $750.00 $750 Wheel Backhoe/Loader Operator 7 days $345.60 $2,419 Hauling, 2-12 CY dump trucks 2 weeks $1,125.00 $2,250 Dump Truck Operator 14 days $270.80 $3,791 Transport & Spread, bulk dozer 1 weeks $1,100.00 $1,100 Dozer Operator 7 days $345.60 $2,419 33 08 0531 (ECHOS) 60 mil geotextile, nonwoven 33 08 0571 (ECHOS) 40 mil polymeric liner hdpe Protective soil layer (64nch gravel/sand) 016 408 0450 (BCCD) 1 CY Wheel Backhoe/Loader Crew B-10 R (BCCD) Wheel BackhoeA oader Operator 016 408 5250 (BCCD) Hauling, 2-12 CY dump trucks Crew B -34B (BCCD) Dump Truck Operator (2) 016-408-4110 (BCCD) Transport & Spread, bulk dozer Crew B-1 OB (BCCD) Dozer Operator 440,000 square it $0.16 $68,913 220,000 square It $1.28 $281,261 2 weeks $750.00 $1,500 10 days $345.60 $3,456 4 weeks $1,125.00 $4,500 20 days $270.80 $5,416 2 weeks $1,100.00 $2,200 10 days $345.60 $3,456 Cover 33 08 0590 (ECHOS) Waste pile cover, 135 Ib tear, 2-2.5 year fife 24.400 square yard $2.01 $49.058 DC07 $432,490 Assumptions: For a 16,800 CY volume, 4.5 acres of treatment cell area are needed for a 28 -inch thick soil layer Allow for 4 cells, each with an interior dimension of 100' x 500' For liner area, allow for an additional 10% of total area for seaming and covering berm. LANDFARM CELL reference description quantity unit unit cost cost/event E & E Mobilization/demobilization 6 each $8,500 $51,000 Remove and stockpile soil near cell 022 238 0200 (BCCD) Excavation, backhoe 20430 cubic yard $1.62 $33,097 022 266 0310 (BCCD) 12 CY dump truck, 1/4 mile round trip 20430 cubic yard $2.15 $43,925 022 204 1300 (BCCD) Transport & spread, bulk dozer, 300' haul 20430 cubic yard $0.96 $19,613 Liner disposal E&E Dispose of geosynthetics at offsite landfill 60 tons 5900 $54,000 DC09 $201,634 Assumptions: Equipment mobilized from Deadhorse to Umiat via air cargo planes. Allow 6 flights for mob/demob equipment Allow $50 per ton for disposal, $850 per ton for transport to Fairbanks area landfill Soil volume includes 6 -inch protective layer A-4 DERIVED COST DC11 DERIVED COST DC12 DERIVED COST DC13 DERIVED COST DC14 DERIVED COST DC15 Umiat NPR -4 Well Nos.2 5 . Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis Derived Costs LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION EQUIPMENT MOBILIZATION Reference description quantity unit unit cost cost Contractor Trucking 2 each $35,000 $70,000 Crew B1 (BCCD) Mobilization Crew 10 days $835 $8,352 Contractor Air cargo plane 5 each $8,500 S42,500 016 408 0450 (BCCD) 1 CY Wheel Backhoe/Loader 6 days DC11 $120,852.00 Assumptions: Unit is transported via trucks to Deadhorse, then flown in to Umiat LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION Reference description quantity unit unit cost cost/cubic yard Contractor LTTD treatment of soil 1 cubic yard $150.00 5150 DC12 $150.00 Assumptions: Unit cost covers labor (4 crew), equipment, per diem, crew transfers, fuel (flown in from Fairbanks) Unit cost does not include cost of confirmation sampling and analysis Unit cost includes an allowance of $75,000 for a temporary water distribution system. HOT AIR VAPOR EXTRACTION EQUIPMENT MOBILIZATIONIDEMOBILIZATION Reference description quantity unit unit cost cost/unit Contractor Trucking (mobilization/demobilization) 2 each $10,000 $20,000 Crew B1 (BCCD) Mobilization Crew 5 days $835 $4,176 Contractor Air cargo plane 6 each $8,500 551,000 016 408 0450 (BCCD) 1 CY Wheel Backhoe/Loader 6 days DC13 $75,176.00 Assumptions: Unit is transported via trucks to Deadhorse, then flown in to Umiat Allow 3 flights for mobilization and 3 flights for demobilization HOT AIR VAPOR EXTRACTION Reference description quantity unit unit cost cosUcubic yard Contractor HAVE treatment of soil 1 cubic yard $111.92 S112 DC14 S112.00 Assumptions: Unit cost covers labor, equipment, per diem, crew transfers, fuel (flown in from Fairbanks), and includes the cost of confirmation sampling and analysis Unit cost includes an allowance of $5,000/month for 7 months for a water truck. STOCKPILE PAD EQUIPMENT MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBILIZATION reference description quantity unit unit cost cost Contractor Air transport, round trip 7 each $8,500 559,500 Contractor Trucking 1 each $10,000 $10,000 Crew B1 (BCCD) Mobilization Crew 10 days $835 58,352 016 408 0450 (BCCD) 1 CY Wheel Backhoe/Loader 6 days $250.00 $1,500 016 420 2020 (BCCD) Wheel Mounted Fork (4000 # capacity) 6 days $200.00 $1,200 016 408 5250 (BCCD) 12 cy Dump Truck (2 required) 12 days $375.00 54,500 016-408-4110 (BCCD) Bulldozer 6 days $365.00 $2,190 DC15 $87,242 Assumptions: Equipment mobilized from Deadhorse to Umiat via air cargo planes. Allow 6 flights for mob/demob equipment Allow 1 flight to mobilize geosynthetic materials Costs based on national averages A-5 DERIVED COST DC16 Umiat Well Nos.2 5 Engineering Evaluation Evaluation Cost Analysis Demed Costs STOCKPILE PAD CONSTRUCTION reference description quantity unit unit cost cost Berm Construction 016 408 0450 (BCCD) 1 CY Wheel Backhoe/Loader 1 weeks $750.00 $750 Crew B-10 R (BCCD) Wheel Backhoe/Loader Operator 7 days $345.60 $2,419 016 408 5250 (BCCD) Hauling, 2-12 CY dump trucks 2 weeks $1,125.00 $2,250 Crew B -34B (BCCD) Dump Truck Operator (2) 14 days $270.80 $3,791 016-408-4110 (BCCD) Transport & Spread, bulk dozer 1 weeks $1,100.00 $1,100 Crew B-1 OB (BCCD) Dozer Operator 7 days $345.60 $2,419 Geosynthetics 33 08 0571 (ECHOS) 40 mil polymeric liner hdpe 90,000 square ft $1.28 $115,061 E&E 12 -ounce nonwoven geotextile (2 layers) 180,000 square ft $0.15 $27,536 33 08 0584 (ECHOS) Plastic laminate waste pile cover 100,000 square ft $0.15 $15,298 Protective soil layer (64nch graveUsand) 016 408 0450 (BCCD) 1 CY Wheel Backhoe/Loader 1 weeks $750.00 $750 Crew B-10 R (BCCD) Wheel Backhoe/Loader Operator 5 days $345.60 $1,728 016 408 5250 (BCCD) Hauling, 2-12 CY dump trucks 2 weeks $1,125.00 $2,250 Crew B -34B (BCCD) Dump Truck Operator (2) 10 days $270.80 $2,708 016-408-4110 (BCCD) Transport & Spread, bulk dozer 1 weeks $1,100.00 $1,100 Crew B -10B (BCCD) Dozer Operator 5 days $345.60 $1,728 DC16 $179,160 Assumptions: Stockpile dimensions are 275' x 275' (interior); allow 300'x 300' for geosynthetics (for seaming and berm coverage) Geomembrane liner is cushioned between to geotextile layers; 6 inch gravel layer placed over cell bottom for additional protection in the winter. A-6 • 0 Umiat NPR -4 Well Nos. 2 and 5 EE/CA Basis for Cost Estimate The following assumptions and data are used as a basis for the cost estimates for various alternatives for the Umiat site project. 1 Costs are estimated at current 1999 levels. 2 Environmental Cost and Handling Options and Solutions (ECHOS 1996) estimating data are used for some of the estimate line items; ECHOS reference numbers are provided for those items. ECHOS costs include labor, equipment and materials except for sample supplies. The 1996 costs were adjusted to 1999 assuming a 3% increase per year. 3 R.S. Means, Building Construction Cost Data (BCCD), vendor quotes and a contact report were used for some of the estimate line items. The R.S. Means numbers are provided for those items and include labor, equipment and materials. 4 The assumptions and calculations for derived cost items are shown on the respective work sheets for those items. 5 Line item costs as presented in the summary sheets are for direct costs only. Overhead and profit is added as a separate line item at the bottom of these sheets. 6 The capital cost estimates assume that a contractor would have complete access to the sites for the entire duration of the removal action. Ecology and Environment Inc 11/1/99 A-7 EPLY TO ATTENTION OF: Programs and Project Formerly Used Defense • DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA P.O. BOX 898 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99506-0898 December 8, 1999 Management Division Sites Ms. Tamar J. Stephens Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Spill Prevention & Response 610 University Avenue Fairbanks, Alaska 99501-3643 Dear Ms. Stephens: Enclosed for your information and comment is the draft Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for Test Wells Number 2 and 5 at the former Umiat Air Force Station. Ecology and Environment, Incorporated, prepared the report for the Alaska District. You are invited to attend a review conference for the draft document at 10:30 a.m. on January 11, 2000. The conference will be held in Room 202 at the Alaska District Offices at 2204 Third Street on Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage, Alaska, if you wish to attend. Comments sent by facsimile, (907) 753-5626, are acceptable, but should also be mailed for the official file. The mailing address is. James R. Baker USAGE, Alaska District CEPOA-PM-P (Baker) Post Office Box 898 Anchorage, Alaska 99506-089 Please contact me at (907) 753-5665 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Q-X�� IR VL James R. Baker Project Manager Enclosures Copies Furnished: Ms. Arlene Thomas, Restoration Advisory Board, North Slope Borough Planning Department, Post Office Box 69, Barrow, Alaska 99723 -2 - Elsie Itta, Tribal President, Native Village of Barrow, Box 1139,Barrow, Alaska 99723 Mr. Don Thornburgh, North Slope Borough, Post Office Box 69, Barrow, Alaska 99723 Mr. William Thomas, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, Post Office. Box 129, Barrow, Alaska 99723 President, Kuupik Corporation, Post Office Box 187, Nuiqsut, Alaska 99787 Mayor, City of Nuiqsut, Post Office Box 148, Nuiqsut, Alaska 99787 Ms. Jean Harrison, Alaska Department of Transportation, & Public Facilities, 2301 Peger Road, Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Ms. Susan Flora, Bureau of Land Management, 1150 University Avenue, Fairbanks, Alaska 99709-3899 President, Nunamuit Corporation, Post Office Box 21009, Anaktuvuk Pass, Alaska 99721 Mayor, City of Anaktuvuk Pass, Anaktuvuk Pass, Alaska 99721 Arctic Slope Native Association, Post Office Box 1232, Barrow, Alaska 99723-1232 Arnold Brower Jr., President, Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope,. P.O. Box 934, Barrow, Alaska 99723 Mr. Richard Riech, North Slope Borough, 3000 C Street, Suite 200, Anchorage, Alaska 99503-3914 Womr. Peter Ditton, Bureau of Land Management, 6881 Abbot Loop Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Mark Morry, President, Village of Anaktuvik Pass, P.O. Box 21065, Anaktuvuk Pass Alaska 99721 Thomas Napageak, Tribal Mayor, Native Village of Nuiqsut, P.O. Box 1232 Barrow Alaska 99723 STATE OF ALASKA AL& OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION CO iSION APPLICATION FOR SUNDRY APPROVAL kLj 20 AAC 25.280 1. Type of Request: d _ Suspend Ll Operational shutdown Lj Perforate Waiver Annular Dispos. Alter casing ❑ Repair well ❑ Plug Perforations ❑ Stimulate ❑ Time Extension ❑ Other Change approved program ❑Pull Tubing ❑ Perforate New Pool ❑ Re enter Suspended Well ❑ �� S"r 2. Operator Name: 4. Current Well Class: 5. Permit to Dr/ill Number: Bureau of Land Management Development F] Exploratory 21002110 Stratigraphic ❑ Service ❑ V 3. Address: 6. API Number: 6881 Abbott Loop Road Anchorage, AK 99507 502871000300 7. KB Elevation (ft): 9. Well Name and Number: 360' RKB 351' GL Umiat Test Well #3 8. Property Designation: 10. Field/Pools(s): AA -081726 842000 11. PRESENT WELL CONDITION SUMMARY Total Depth MD (ft): Total Depth TVD (ft): Effective Depth MD (ft): Effective Depth TVD (ft): Plugs (measured): Junk (measured): 572' 572' 572' 572' N/A N/A Casing Length Size MD TVD Burst Collapse Structural Conductor 62' 7" 72' 72' Surface Intermediate Production Liner Perforation Depth MD (ft): Perforation Depth TVD (ft): Tubing Size: Tubing Grade: Tubing MD (ft): N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Packers and SSSV Type: N/A Packers and SSSV MD (ft): N/A 12. Attachments: Description Summary of Proposal d 13. Well Class after proposed work: Detailed Operations Program Q BOP Sketch ❑� Exploratory Q Development ❑ Service ❑ 14. Estimated Date for 15. Well Status after proposed work: Commencing Operations: 4/10/2004 Oil ❑ Gas ❑ WAG ❑ GINJ ❑ Plugged ❑✓ Abandoned ❑ WINJ ❑ WDSPL ❑ 16. Verbal Approval: Date: Commission Representative: 17. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Contact Stan Porhola Printed Name Stan Porhola Title Petroleum Engineer Signature Phone 907-267-1469 Date 1�a 3 zo© COMMISSION USE ONLY _' Conditions of approval: Notify Commission so that a representative may witness Tdry Number: p Plug Integrity ❑ BOP Test ❑ Mechanical Integrity Test ❑ Rtii � t®arame-- ' Other: RECEIVED WOWRFL RFS 1 MAY 0 3 2004 SubsequeXby* Ala�Ka anal �� Gas Cala. (. ,. �`-i9an BY ORDER OF ORIGINAL l�i1C(fOf �. Approved COMMISSIONER THE COMMISSION Date: v Form 10-403 Re ' d 12/2003 INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE Submit in Duplicate •U. S. Department of the Inter of Bureau of Land Management Well Site Condition Report Date: 8/26/03 2:46 PM Site and Well Name. Location. Condition: Pad Condition: Pit Condition: Site: Umiat Well Name: Umiat Test Well #3 Township and Range, Section and Meridian: TIS, R1W, Sec 3, UM Coordinate System: Geographic Units: Decimal Minutes Latitude: 69° 23.168'N Longitude: 152° 05.312'W DATUM: WGS 84 (NAD 83) Quadrangle: Umiat B-4 Wellhead is located off the northeast corner of Umiat Lake, partially obscured by brush. The well is in line with an extensive piping system that seems to connect Umiat wells #2 through #5 with the Colville River. There doesn't appear to be a set pad at this location. There are some minor debris in the area as well as a small gravel area devoid of vegetation. Erosion is not a concern as the area around the well is anchored by thick willows. No existing pit. Cellar Condition: No existing cellar. Well Head Assembly: Well Specifics: Well Description (from base to top): rr i ir..vtf J - 5'fT ,� 1.. �i Y.,• .7" casing (wip I stick up) leading to flanged casing h!Pa with side plugged outlets 1 side has 2" bull plug other side has nipple, 90, and plug flange, 8 x 1" studs top flange 4 1/2" welded connection with threads 3" from welded connection to 2 3/4 flaired, welded pipe 3" collar, nippled to 2 3/4, collar swedge 2 3/4 to 2" w/t w/2" plug reduced to 3/4" water valve TOTAL STICK UP: 6' No oil or gas was noted seeping at the wellhead. It is worth mentioning that there are natural oil seeps in this area. These seeps can be seen intermittantly on Umiat Lake (see photo below), and in the greater Umiat area. Well Photos 0 BLM Umiat #3 BOP Diagram V"F41 BOP Description 1.) Remove top wellhead assembly 2.) Nipple up Diverter spool, divert line, ball valve and rubber packing element Well Head Description (6' stick up): 7" casing (with 1' stick up) leading to flanged casing head with side plugged outlets 1 side has 2" bull plug other side has nipple, 90, and plug flange, 8 x 1 " studs top flange 4 1/2" welded connection with threads 3" from welded connection to 2 3/4 flaired, welded pipe 3" collar, nippled to 2 3/4, collar swedge 2 3/4 to 2" w/t w/2" plug reduced to 3/4" water valve SCAN NEC MAY 1 4 2004 BOP Description 1.) Remove top wellhead assembly 2.) Nipple up Diverter spool, divert line, ball valve and rubber packing element Well Head Description (6' stick up): 7" casing (with 1' stick up) leading to flanged casing head with side plugged outlets 1 side has 2" bull plug other side has nipple, 90, and plug flange, 8 x 1 " studs top flange 4 1/2" welded connection with threads 3" from welded connection to 2 3/4 flaired, welded pipe 3" collar, nippled to 2 3/4, collar swedge 2 3/4 to 2" w/t w/2" plug reduced to 3/4" water valve SCAN NEC MAY 1 4 2004 La t: 6T23'1 6"N Long: 152*05' 14"W 9" +late 6" Holl 5 7/B" 1 3" LEGEND Umiat Test Well 3 Well Schematic I•_. Cement —I ® Formation Flu7d/Water FAIR/UMIAT/W11MW-WJZ/-% L1 -SR -17- Spud: Nov. 16, 1942 Comp: Dec. 26, 1946 RX13: 9' AGL All Depths RKB 7" Casing, 23#, -Cemented w/25 sx Portland Cement and 5 sx Top Job Depth of Formation Fluids {fill/Water) unknown. -Last Reported. Depth. at 145' Before -Last Pump Test. Expect tce -Or fonmation Bridge in Fluid Column. Expect Fill Beyond 457' j, NO SCALE ���r a ��-r--r—,ta z :,E'T. ,+tQ, .0 k9!. t 'ii• r r►�S'^,nT�. . �yRt '�' •w.. - "_1� yNj 4 . t • � � � tet.,.• ?" b 1, ; t � - J � •• `, 1�� J ;i�i1 �tYill . V Umiat #3 Winter 2004 T p r Ty • United States Department of the Interior O� 9 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT T 1� eqq =�9 Campbell Tract Facility TAKE PRIDE* �" 3 6881 Abbott Loop Road INAMERIGA Anchorage, Alaska 99507-2599 http://www.ak.blm.gov Umiat Plug & Abandonment (941) stp April 7, 2004 Tom Maunder Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 333 W. 7 1 Ave. Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Maunder, Enclosed is the latest version of the statement of work for the Umiat Plug and Abandon project scheduled to begin now in mid April, 2004. This is a hard copy of the newest version that was released back on March 24, 2004. This is being sent to meet the needs of the sundry notice for a summary of the proposal and operations program. If you require an electronic copy of this document let me know. Sincerely � t� V"�O '�`� © rtl� �� \ _ �� Stan Porhola BLM — AK941 Petroleum Engineer 907-267-1469 JbI 3- t o� - SLA RECjEpUE ,C1Q-a \_57 APR - g 2D04 Alaska Ci; & Cas Cons. Commission Anchorage BLM ��� j 1o0"(� C' 1 �� Lat: 69'23`16"N Long: 152*05`14"W 9" -Note 5 7/8" 1 3" LEGEND Cement ® Formation Fiuld/Water Umiat Test Well 3 Well Schematic I FAIR/UMIAT/VMWL-4Z/JA4W 1-1 -5R Spud: Nov. 16, 1942 Comp: Dec. 26, 1946 RKB: 9' AGL All Depths RKB 7" Casing, 23j, -Cemented w/25 sx Portland Cement and 5 sx Top Job Depth of Formation Fluids (Ofl/Water) unknown. -LVO Reported- Depth at 145' Before -Last Pump Test. Expect ice -Or Formation Bridge in Fluid Column. Expect Fill Beyond 457' -NO SCALE Wel! 3 Well Description (from base to top): 7" casing (with 1' stick up) leading to flanged casing head with side plugged outlets 1 side has 2" bull plug other side has nipple, 90, and plug flange, 8 x 1 " studs top flange 4 1/2" welded connection with threads 3" from welded connection to 2 3/4 flaired, welded pipe 3" collar, nippled to 2 3/4, collar swedge 2 3/4 to 2" w/t w/2" plug reduced to 3/4" water valve TOTAL STICK UP: 6' Well 5 Well P&A in winter 2002. Well 7 Open hole. There is no oil or gas seeping around this wellhead. Plumb bob solid at 8 feet. Well Head Description (3' stick up) 7" casing w/collar clamped in 11 3/4" casing, inside 12 1/4"? filled with water Well 9 Casing extends 3' from ground. A 3" gate valve attached on top of the casing head. No gauges. Likewise, there was no indication of oil or gas seeping on site. Well Head Description (stick up 5'): 3' of 8 1/2" casing 5 1/2" casing with collar sticking 2 1/2' out of 8 1/2' 2 side outlets (both plugged) top blind flange (8 x 5/8" studs) 2 3/4" welded collar and nipple, cemented? Well 11 Open hole. No evidence of oil or gas was noted seeping at this location. Well Head Description (5 1/2' stick up) 10 1/2" casing with collar sticking up inside 30" conductor filled with water Well Umiat #3 • Cemented 25 sx Portland, also 5 sx top job. 72' 7" Casing 25# Sand starts at 100' Grandstand Formation 225'- TD DSTd Oil Rates range 25 to 50 BOPD Bottom sand at 370' Open Hole Telescopes from 6" hole to 5 7/8" hole to 3" hole (6" to 457': 3" starts at 538') TD 572' A O Q z z Cement Yield 1.56 cf/sx for the smaller 65 IbsJsx 6.375 2 Production Casing OD 11.75 P&A Csg Depth, Ft 685 Set a 100' Open -hole ID 10.625 cmt plug Hole Depth, Ft 6,005 on 17' gel Casing Capicity, cf/ft 0.6599 pill Open -hole Capacity, cf/ft 0.6157 Also, 24 0.1912 0.3422 sx in 100' Surface Plug, cu. ft. 66 annulus Sacks of Cmt (at 1.56 cf/sx) 42 0.3276 60' Gel Plug, cu. ft. 40 34 Minimum Displacement, Bbls 19 24 Bottom Plug, cu. ft. Not 8 Sxs of Cmt Needed 12 Displacement, Bbls 0 21 Maximum Sxs Cmt to Fill Well 801 13 Max Displacement, Bbls 633 Comments 163 Wet well Fish 340' 105 below OWC 761.25 Mr. 72 6 572 0.221 0.1963 None 21 13 12 6 33 10.75 840 0.6599 0.6303 64 41 38 18 None 24 88 19 69 Rods in Well b.b2b 6.375 8.625 5.5 8.625 35 1196 1231 1257 1339 8.625 6 10.75 Csg to TD 7.75 758 1384 1327 1573 0.3192 0.1912 0.3422 0.12 0.3422 0.4057 0.1963 0.6303 0.3276 38 19 34 12 34 24 12 22 8 22 24 12 38 7 21 11 6 13 3 10 163 None Fish 340' 105 0 69 15 270 34 121 55 12 75 27 96 Open Open pipe SITHP=250 Perfs Pipe Wet well FL brine is never below OWC 600 ft back produced Fish 340' when well any fluid was drilled 10.75 486 9.625 3303 0.5195 0.5053 52 33 21 21 31 15 100 163 plug 440' 105 0 375 1797 297 1283 Open pipe Wet well North of fault Cmt Plug 440' Tagged 337' in 1956 Weatherford lnflatible Packers • 2 3r k 5:f► Production Casing ID 11 P&A 6.3 11 P&A 7.921 5.921 8.625 4.67 7.921 9.76 Csg Depth, Ft 685 Set a 100' 72 33 35 1196 1231 1257 1339 486 Open -hole ID 10.625 cmt plug 6 10.75 8.625 6 10.75 Csg to TD 7.75 9.625 Hole Depth, Ft 6,005 on 17' gel 572 840 758 1384 1327 1573 3303 Casing Capicity, cf/ft 0.6599 pill 0.221 0.6599 0.3192 0.1912 0.3422 0.12 0.3422 0.5195 Open -hole Capacity, cf/ft 0.6157 Also, 24 0.1963 0.6303 0.4057 0.1963 0.6303 0.3276 0.5053 sx in 100' Surface Plug, cu. ft. 66 annulus 21 64 38 19 34 12 34 52 gallons 494 156 478 284 143 256 90 256 389 Weight of 100' cement, lbs. 5,282 1,670 5,116 3,039 1,530 2,739 960 2,739 4,158 PSI on packer 56 59 56 52 56 56 56 56 lnflatible Packer Size, inches 7.25 5.63 7.25 5.63 3.50 NA 3.50 5.63 7.25 Inflatable working psi from chart 230 500 250 200 210 400 280 320 Rods in Well Open Open pipe SITHP=250 Perfs Open pipe Wet well Pipe Wet well FL brine is never Wet well below OWC below OWC 600 ft back produced North of fault Fish 340' when well any fluid Cmt Plug 440' was drilled Tagged 337' in 1954 • Artic Set 3 Lite Recipe Artic Set 3 Lite cement +9% D44 (NaCl) + 30%D53 (gypsum) + 50% D124 (spheres) + 1.5% S1 (CaC12) + 1.5% D79 (ext.) + 0.4% D46 (defoam) Slurry Weight 10.7 ppg Slurry Yield 4.44 cf/sx Stan confirmed this with Telecon to Schlumberger Thickening Time 6+ hours 1/9/2004 (Mike Martin) ph 273-1700 2656205 229-6266 The lower density of this cement is favorable to place the cmt plug on top of a gel pill. Cost is approximately $280 per 188 lb sack Based on telecon with M. Martin 3-11 From cement calculations spreadsheet 500 cf Conventional 112.6 sx 188 lbs/sx 21,171 lbs Special packaging 325.7 sx 65 lbs/sx Slurry volume 4.44 cf/sx Smaller sacks will yield 1.56 cf/sx Cost if require 50006` is -04 Water 20.7 gals/sx 7.25 gals/sx r1 • 116 E%PLORAW OF NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVE NAALASKA, 1944-53 HOLE -DEVIATION RECORD Deviation measurements were taken with the Totco; no directional surveys were made, as the deviation of the hole never exceeded 2°45'. Between 100 and 500 feet the deviation was 1° or less; between 700 and 1,200 feet it averaged slightly more than 2°; below 1,200 feet it was generally under 1' and never exceeded 1'15' (pl. 11). ELECTRIC LOGGING Electric well logs were made with the Schlumberger well -logging truck at the rig site. Seven runs were made, with no difficulties except on the sixth, when only one trip of the instrument was possible because of a bridge which blocked the hole after the run was made. The long normal curve, made on that run, showed no indications of oil or gas; so the other curves were logged on the seventh run. Runs 1-7 covered footages as fol- lows: Run 1, 103-751 feet; run 2, 751-1,006 feet; run 3, 1,005-1,700 feet; run 4, 1,700-2,999 feet; run 5, 2,999- 3,737 feet; run 6, 3,737-4,684 feet; run 7, 4,684-6,203 feet. VELOCITY SURVEY A velocity survey of Umiat test well 2 was made using three shot holes. They were 41, 44, and 47 feet deep and penetrated 25, 28, and 31 feet of gravel, respec- tively; the upper part of the gravel contains a few feet of silty clay and is underlain by shale of Cretaceous age, The holes were 820 feet S. 59016' W., S. 66016' W., and S. 73°16' W., respectively, from the test well and 100 feet apart. None were cased. The records obtained were good and showed a slight decrease in velocity with depth, which is unusual. The velocity decreased rapidly from about 12,000 feet per second to a little more than 11,000 feet per second in the first thousand feet; below that depth it fluctuated somewhat but averaged slightly less than 11,000 feet per second in the lower part of the hole. TEMPERATURE SURVEY A Schlumberger temperature survey was run when the final electric log was made. The lowest temperature recorded was 40.5°F at 260 feet. Above that depth the temperature was about 42°F; it fluctuated slightly above and below 43°F between 310 and 525 feet; and then, except fora regression of 10 at 850 feet, it rose gradually to 104°F at 6,198 feet, the lowest depth reached by the instrument. UMIAT TEST WELL 3 • 00 _ Z 11 Location: Lat 69°23'16" N.; long 152°05'14" W. Elevation: Ground, 351 feet; kelly bushing, 360 feet. Spudded: November 15, 1946. Completed: December 26, 1946. Pumped 24 barrels of oil per day; abandoned. Retested: October 1, 1947, to November 15, 1947. Total depth: 572 feet. Umiat test well 3, originally described as Umiat core test 1, was drilled to determine the stratigraphic posi- tion of a tentative location for Umiat test well 2 and to test some of the oil-bearing zones penetrated in drilling Umiat test well 1, if possible. The well is located on the Colville River flats at the northeast corner of Umiat Lake and is about one-fourth mile north toward the axis of the anticline, from Umiat test well 2. When the total depth of the well was reached, bailing tests produced oil at a rate of 50 barrels per day; but 9 months later, after being cleaned out and shot, only 24 barrels of oil per day was recovered. DESCRIPTION OF CORES AND CUTTINGS No samples were taken from the upper 60 feet of the hole; between 60 and 225 feet the Killik tongue of the Chandler formation is represented by alternating clay shale and sandstone, with common clay ironstone in the upper part. The electric log through this section sug- gests that a larger proportion of clay shale is present than the samples indicate. The log is probably more reliable, as the ditch samples may be contaminated with sand drilled higher in the hole. A small amount of the oil produced came from this formation. Below 225 feet the drill penetrated 150 feet of sand- stone with thin beds of shale, underlain by about 170 feet of clay shale with thin sandstone and siltstone beds, all in the Grandstand formation. The sandstone beds are believed to be the primary source of the oil recov- ered from the hole. Lithologic description [Where no cores are listed, description is based on cutting samples] Core I Depth (feet) I Remarks ----- 0-9 Kelly bushing to ground level. ----- 9-60 No sample. ----- 60-100 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, very slightly silty and micaceous, noncalcareous; yellow- ish -gray clay ironstone, slightly calcareous in part, increases from rare at 60 ft to half of the rock at 100 ft. ----- 100-140 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine-grained, silty, sericitic, noncalcareous; composed of angular to subangular grains of clear and white quartz with dark rock fragments and carbonaceous particles, becoming very fine grained and sericitic in part at base. Clay shale rare throughout. ----- 140-150 Clay shale, medium -dark- to dark -gray, slightly to very silty with some sandstone and medium -gray argillaceous noncalcareous silt - stone. ----- 150-160 Clay shale and siltstone, with rare sandstone. ----- 160-180 Clay shale, slightly to very silty, with rare sandstone and siltstone. ----- 180-210 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine- grained, silty, noncalcareous, with small amount of siltstone in upper 10 ft; rare clay shale throughout. ----- 210-225 Sandstone, very fine-grained; sericitic in part; small amount clay shale. Tie WELLS, UMIAT AREA, ALASKA 0 Lithologic description—Continued Core Depth (feet) Remarks ----- 225-236 Clay shale and some sandstone. Top of Grandstand formation at 225 ft. 1 236-245 Recovered 1 ft 6 in.: Microfossils absent. Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, rarely slightly silty, noncalcareous; very slightly micaceous in part. Beds approximately flat lying. 2 245-249 Recovered 4 ft: Microfossils rare. 3 ft, clay shale, medium -dark -gray, partly silty, noncalcareous, with abundant ir- regular laminae of siltstone and sand- stone in upper foot. Beds lie approxi- mately flat. 2 in., coal, black, shiny' to dull; blocky to shaly fracture. 10 in., sandstone, light -brownish -gray, fine- grained, very slightly silty, noncalcareous, moderately hard, massive; composed of subangular to subround grains of clear quartz with some white quartz, da k rock fragments, and abundant carbonaceous particles. 3 249-257 Recovered 4 ft: Not sampled for microfossils. Sandstone as above, friable. 4 257-262 Recovered 4 ft: Not sampled for microfossils. Sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine-grained, slightly silty, noncalcareous; composition as in core 2. 5 262-272 Recovered 1 ft: Not sampled for microfossils. Sandstone as above, very fine- to fine- grained; carbonaceous laminae in upper few inches dip 7°. 6 272-281 Recovered 7 ft 6 in.: Not sampled for micro - fossils. Sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine-grained, slightly silty, micaceous, noncalcareous; massive except for rare faint slightly car- bonaceous laminae, dipping 7°, in upper 1 ft. 7 281-286 Recovered 5 ft: Not sampled for microfossils. Sandstone as above. 8 286-294 Recovered 3 ft 6 in.: Not sampled for micro - fossils. Sandstone as above. 9 294-303 Recovered 2 ft 6 in.: Not sampled for micro - fossils. 1 ft, drilling mud, with fragments of clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly silty and micaceous, noncalcareous. 1 ft, sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine-grained, silty, argillaceous, noncal- careous. 6 in., drilling mud with fragments of clay shale and very fine-grained sandstone. 10 303-312 Recovered 1 ft: Not sampled for microfossils. Sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine- grained, silty, argillaceous, massive. 11 312-320 Recovered 4 ft 6 in.: Not sampled for micro - fossils. 3 ft, drilling mud with fragments of medium - dark -gray slightly silty clay shale anc very fine-grained sandstone. A. 1 -incl nodule of pyrite at top of core. 1 ft. 6 in., sandstone, as in core 10 above 12 320-328 Recovered 2 ft: Microfossils common. Interbedded siltstone, medium -gray, verb argillaceous, noncalcareous, and medium dark -gray clay shale, slightly to very silty 13 328-335 Recovered 5 ft: Microfossils rare. 1 ft 6 in., claystone, medium -dark -gray slightly silty, noncalcareous, with rar, nodules of brownish -gray clay ironstone A few streaks of light -gray sandstone a base. Lithologic description—Continued Core I DeDth (feet) I Remarks 14 335-344 15 344-352 16 352-359 17 359-368 18 1 368-377 19 377-385 20 385-393 117 1 ft 6 in., sandstone, medium -gray, fin:�- grained, very argillaceous, noncalcareous, massive; composed of subrounded grains of clear quartz, gray chert, and dark rock fragments. Small slickensided surfaces are horizontal. 2 ft, interbedded andinterlaminated medium - dark -gray slightly to very silty clay - stone and medium -gray slightly to very argillaceous, rarely sandy siltstone. Car- bonaceous plant fragments rare. Recovered 4 ft: Not sampled for microfossils. Drilling mud with fragments of medium - dark -gray claystone and very small frag- ments of fine-grainLd sandstone. Recovered 8 ft: Not sampled for microfossils. 2 ft 3 in., irregularly interbedded and inter - laminated fine-grained light -gray sand- stone and medium -gray siltstone with silty clay shale, showing "swirly" bed- ding. Irregular carbonaceous and mi- caceous partings common. 2 ft, claystone, with rare minute irregular lenses of siltstone and sandstone dipping about 5°. Grades to clay shale, with good shaly cleavage dipping 7°. 3 ft 9 in., sandstone, medium -light -gray, medium -grained, very slightly silty, non - calcareous, massive; composed of sub- roun&d grains of cloar and white quartz, some gray chert, and common carbona- ceous partici-s. W covered 6 ft 6 in: Not sampled for micro - fossils. Sandstone as at base of core 15, fine-grained; rare laminae of carbonaceous material in upper part dip as much as 15°. Recovered 9 ft: Microfossils common. 3 ft, sandstone as in core 17. 1 ft 6 in., drilling mud with fragments dark - gray clay shale, and a 1 -in. nodule of olive -gray clay ironstone. 4 ft 6 in., clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly micaceous, noncalcareous, with rare faint slightly silty laminae dipping 90 Recovered 6 ft: Not sampled for microfossils. Clayshsle, medium -dark -gray, noncalcare- ous, slightly to very silty in part; small irregular laminae and lenses of siltstone and very fine-grained sandstone make up about half the rock in upper 2 ft, decreas- ing to very rare with depth. Siltstone and sandstone in lower part of core are in laminae instead of irregular lenses; laminae dip about 10°. Recovered 3 ft: Not sampled for microfossils. 1 ft, sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine- grained. 2 ft, clay shale with common small irregular lenses of siltstone and sandstone as in top of core 18. Recovered 4 ft: Not sampled for microfossils. 1 ft, fragments of sandstone, medium -light - gray, fine-grained, silty, argillaceous, non - calcareous. 1 ft, drilling mud with fragments of medium - dark -gray clay shale. 2 ft, interbedded clay shale, medium -dark - gray, noncalcareous; slightly silty in part; and medium -light -gray very fine-grained very silty and argillaceous, noncalcareous sandstone, with rare carbonaceous part- ings. 118 Core Depth (feet 21 393-402 22 1 23 EXPLORATIO OF NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVE NO. 4PASSA, 1944-53 Lithologic description—Continued 402-411 411-419 24 419-429 25 429-439 26 439-445 27 445-454 28 1 454-463 Remarks Recovered 1 ft 6 in.: Not sampled for micro - fossils. Drilling mud with fragments of medium - dark -gray clay shale. Recovered 4 ft 6 in.: Microfossils absent. 2 ft 3 in., sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine-grained, grading to very fine with depth, silty, sericitic, moderately calcar- eous; carbonaceous and argillaceous part- ings rare at top, common at base, and dip 5° to 10°. 2 ft 3 in., Siltstone, medium -gray, very ar- gillaceous, with abundant thin beds and laminae of medium -dark -gray clay shale; some sandstone laminae. Recovered 6 ft: Not sampled for microfossils. 4 in., siltstone, medium -gray, very argil- laceous, moderately calcareous, massive, grading to unit below. 2 ft, claystone, medium -dark -gray, very alightly calcareous, micaceous. 8 in., claystone as above and interbedded very fine-grained medium -light -gray mod- erately calcareous sandstone, with "swirly bedding." 3 ft, claystone, medium -dark -gray, partly silty, slightly calcareous, slightly mica- ceous, with blocky fracture. Recovered 4 ft: Microfossils absent. Drilling mud, with fragments of medium - dark -gray claystone, micaceous, noncal- careous; slightly silty in part. Recovered 4 ft: Microfossils common. 3 ft 6 in., drilling mud with claystone as above. 6 in., siltstone, medium -gray, argillaceous, moderately calcareous, with irregular lenses of clay shale in upper 2 in. Recovered 6 ft: Microfossils absent. Clay, shale, medium -dark -gray; slightly to very silty in part; laminae and thin beds (less than 2 in.,) of medium -gray very argillaceous slightly calcareous siltstone, commonly slightly crossbedded; poor shaly cleavage dips less than 7°. Recovered 9 ft: Microfossils common. Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, noncal- careous, . slightly micaceous; slightly silty in part; laminae of slightly calcareous medium -gray siltstone in upper half and common laminae and thin beds (as much as 3 in.) of medium -gray slightly cal- careous, slightly sandy siltstone in lower part. Siltstone commonly crossbedded. Shaly cleavage dips less than 71. Recovered 6 in.: Microfossils absent. 2- in., sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine-grained, very argillaceous and silty. 4 in., claystone, medium -dark -gray, non - calcareous, with moderately calcareous slightly silty laminae. Lithologic description—Continued Core Depth (feet 29 463-472 30 472-478 __ _ 478-481 31 481-490 32 490-498 33 498-507 34 507-514 35 514-520 36 520-529 37 529-538 38 538-547 39 547-555 40 555-563 41 563-572 Remarks Recovered 7 ft: Microfossils common. 6 ft 4 in., clay shale, like claystone in core 27 but with fair shaly cleavage dipping less than 5°. A 5 -in. bed of very argil- laceous medium -gray siltstone at 466 ft. 8 in., siltstone, medium -gray, argillaceous, slightly sandy, moderately calcareous, massive. Recovered 4 ft 6 in.: Microfossils abundant. Fragments of medium -dark -gray claystone, very slightly silty in part, noncalcareous, with drilling mud. No sample. Recovered 8 ft: Microfossils very rare. Claystone, with intermingled streaks, beds, and very irregular lenses of siltstone and very silty claystone. Minute fragments of clay shale (less than %6 -in. thick and Y4 -in. long) with a coating of sand grains, and small nodules of brownish -gray clay ironstone rare. One nodule broken and crack filled with silt. Recovered 4 ft 6 in.: Microfossils common. Claystone, medium--dark-gray; slightly silty in - part; irregular laminae and small lenses of siltstone as above. Recovered 6 in.: Not sampled for micro - fossils. Fragments of sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine-grained, very silty and argil- laceous, with carbonaceous particles. Recovered 1 ft 6 in.: Not sampled for micro - fossils. Siltstone, medium -gray, slightly sandy, very argillaceous, noncalcareous, with some carbonaceous particles. Recovered 3 ft: Microfossils rare. Claystone, medium -dark -gray, noncalcar- eous; slightly silty in part. Ditrupa sp. at 515 ft. Recovered 9 ft: Microfossils abundant. Claystone as above. Recovered 9 ft: Microfossils abundant. Claystone as above. Recovered 9 ft: Microfossils abundant. Claystone, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty, micaceous, noncalcareous, with rare small carbonaceous plant fragments. No recovery. Recovered 8 ft: Microfossils abundant. Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, noncalcar- eous, slightly to very silty; very poor shaly cleavage suggests a dip as much as 5°. Recovered 8 ft: Microfossils abundant. Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, noncalcar- eous; slightly silty in part; slightly mi- caceous; poor shaly cleavage dipping less than 5°. • TEST WELLS, UMIAT AREA, ALASKA • CORE ANALYSES data on porosity and permeability and on analyses were determined by the Fairbanks labo- 7 of the U. S. Geological Survey. calyses of core samples from Umiat test well 3 made by the Fairbanks laboratory )E.,, Depth (feet) Effective porosity (percent, Wash- burn -Bunting po- rosimeter) Air permeability (millidarcys, Hayward perme- ameter) Content of car - bonate minerals (percent by weight) Z7 ------------ 16._5 165.0 0.4 ;259------------ 13.6 47.0 4.9 `261_-_-_----_-_ 12.4 57.0 5.4 ,273 ------------ 8.5 <10 5.9 :276 ------------ 9.5 <10 7.6 278 ------------- 8.1 <10 9.6 -------------- 9.7 <10 7.1 X�8800 ,282------------ 7.1 <10 5.1 :284 ------------ 8.8 <10 15.9 186 ------------ 8.8 <10 11.4 "288 ------------ 7.0 <10 13.2 191 ------------ 8.0 <10 14.8 197 ------------ 7.3 <10 13.9 299 ------------ 7.3 <10 14.8 344 ------------ 17.0 480.0 3.0 -350 -----------_ 14.7 70.0 3.0 352 ------------ 16.6 188.0 7.4 355 ------------ 16.5 80.0 8.1 -357 ------------ 14.2 7.4 6.2 '359 ------------ 13.2 11.0 11.6 A61 ------------ 15.4 42.0 3.3 Additional porosity and permeability information is supplied by P. D. Krynine in the following table. Analyses of core samples from Uiniat test well 3 [Analysis by P. D. Krynine] Poro Permeability (mlllidarcys) sity - Depth (feet) I (percent) Air Klinken- Klinken- Brine Fresh berg I berg r water 251_____________ 1 16.2 97.0 91.393.4 70.0 55.2 257-------------- --------- 155.0 ---------- ------------------------------ 259-----------------!---------- 48.5 ---------- -------------------- ---------- 261----------------'------ 61.5 ---------- ------------------ 265-- 4.0 64.0 - ------------------ - -- 344_____________ 18.2 465.0 390 333 295 200 352----------------- 17.6 ----- 138 117- 56.5 87.5 355----------------- ---------- 90.0 ---------- ---- - - 359_________________I 13.9 13.0 10.0 10.9 5.2 4.02 Before liquid flow. 9 After liquid flow. Sieve analyses of sandstones from Umiat test well 3 PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSES 119 A detailed petrographic study of thin sections from three cores from Umiat test well 3 made by Paul D. Krynine (in Payne and others, 1951) is summarized below and in the following table. The graywacke sandstone from 344 feet consists of poorly oriented grains of several rocks and minerals, with the matrix evenly distributed between them and with scattered thin overgrowths of secondary quartz coating and cementing some of the grains. Quartz, the main constituent (see table below on petrographic characteristics), is mostly of intrusive igneous origin, though much of it may have been through another sedimentary cycle before deposition in its present posi- tion. Between 10 and 20 percent of the quartz is derived directly from the aureole of a batholith, coming from pegmatites and veins, and from schists that were permeated with quartz -bearing magmatic liquids. Both metamorphic quartz and volcanic quartz are very rare, and very few quartz grains show strain shadows. The grains are generally subangular to angular and subequant to subelongf ted. They are 0.18-0.19 mil- limeters in diameter. Petrographic characteristics of sandstones from Uiniat test well 3 [Determined by 1'. D. Krynine] Depth - Characteristics 344 feet I 352 feet I 359 feet Texture Average diameter range ---------- mm -_I 0.50-0.30 0.08-025 I 0. 1'14 Principal mode___________________mm__ 0.17 0.18 0.19 Grains:matrix:cement-ratio in percent__ 97:2:1 95:33za)4 84:I5:1 Grain composition in percent Quartz - 8 t Feldspar------------------------------- Mica flakes, large----------------------- vJ20 Slate, phyllite------------------------- Quartzite, schist------------------------ olcanic rocks__________________________ Biotite--------------------------------- Chlorite________________________ _ ___ Muscovite Garnet_________________________________ Pyrite------------ -- ----------------- Pyrite ------------ Sand grain size, Wentworth scale (percent) Depth (feet) 40 20 4 2 l 1 Trace -------------- Present -------------- ------------ ------ ------- Present 2 Sericite-------------------------------- -------------- Trace Trace Illite----------------------------------- Trace 35 mesh 60 mesh 120 230 mesh 325 <325 Kaolinite------------------------------ 1.5 (coarse) (medium) mesh (very mesh mesh Total Trace 1 -------------- (fine) fine) (silt) (clay) 258_____________ Trace 1.81 66.20 10.71 2.33 18.95 100.00 259_____________ 111 56.8 14.9 23.3 99.95 274_____________ __________ .02 4&00 18.05 3.00 j 33.08 100.15 278-------------i________-- ----___--- 29.0 29.5 41.3 99.8 282_____________ __________ Trace 49.0 20.8 3.91 1 26.8 100.51 288------------- ---------- ----- - - 32.2 1 29.7 38.3 100.2 290------------- ---------- 0.01 38.60 24.00 7.3o 29.94 99.85 2.0 29.0 35.3 34.5 100.8 PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSES 119 A detailed petrographic study of thin sections from three cores from Umiat test well 3 made by Paul D. Krynine (in Payne and others, 1951) is summarized below and in the following table. The graywacke sandstone from 344 feet consists of poorly oriented grains of several rocks and minerals, with the matrix evenly distributed between them and with scattered thin overgrowths of secondary quartz coating and cementing some of the grains. Quartz, the main constituent (see table below on petrographic characteristics), is mostly of intrusive igneous origin, though much of it may have been through another sedimentary cycle before deposition in its present posi- tion. Between 10 and 20 percent of the quartz is derived directly from the aureole of a batholith, coming from pegmatites and veins, and from schists that were permeated with quartz -bearing magmatic liquids. Both metamorphic quartz and volcanic quartz are very rare, and very few quartz grains show strain shadows. The grains are generally subangular to angular and subequant to subelongf ted. They are 0.18-0.19 mil- limeters in diameter. Petrographic characteristics of sandstones from Uiniat test well 3 [Determined by 1'. D. Krynine] Depth - Characteristics 344 feet I 352 feet I 359 feet Texture Average diameter range ---------- mm -_I 0.50-0.30 0.08-025 I 0. 1'14 Principal mode___________________mm__ 0.17 0.18 0.19 Grains:matrix:cement-ratio in percent__ 97:2:1 95:33za)4 84:I5:1 Grain composition in percent Quartz - 8 t Feldspar------------------------------- Mica flakes, large----------------------- vJ20 Slate, phyllite------------------------- Quartzite, schist------------------------ olcanic rocks__________________________ Biotite--------------------------------- Chlorite________________________ _ ___ Muscovite Garnet_________________________________ Pyrite------------ -- ----------------- Pyrite ------------ 62 21 2 Trace 5.5 2.5 0.5 Present ______ _____ - ------- Present -------------- 42 35 1 }11.5 1 1.5 Present Present Present Present I------------- 40 20 4 2 l 1 Trace -------------- Present -------------- ------------ ------ ------- Present interstitial material in percent Chlorite-------------------------------- Trace Trace 2 Sericite-------------------------------- -------------- Trace Trace Illite----------------------------------- Trace 2-3 6 Montmorillonite------------------------ -------------- Trace 1 Kaolinite------------------------------ 1.5 1 2 Silica cement--------------------------- 1.0 0.5 Trace Carbonates----------------------------- Trace 1 -------------- Pore snare and characteristics Pore size, principal mode_____ microns__ 68 50 26 3 Visible porosity --------------- percent__ Residual porosity----------------------- 15 Very good 12 Good Poor Bonding material_______________________ SiO2 Elite Elite Illite Clay -coated wall area_________ percent__ Wall coating type-- 10 Illite 20 Elite 60 Illite, kaoli- --------------------- nits Potential hydration____________________ Very low Low High 120 EXPL*ION OF NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVE • 4, ALASKA, 1944-53 Several types of chert are present, ranging from a very fine cryptocrystalline variety with particles 1-2 microns across, through a coarser, commonly yellowish type with grains 2-3 microns in size, to chert with particles 30 microns in diameter. The grains are equi- dimensional, subangular to subround, and rarely con- tain abundant dolomite-ankerite rhombs. Rock fragments are a minor constituent. The metamorphic rocks include metamorphosed siltstone, light and dark slate and phyllite composed of sericite and illite, and sericite schist with muscovite, quartz, or chlorite as auxiliary minerals. All these rocks contain 20-50 percent of quartz. The metamorphic cock fragments are smaller than the quartz and chert grains, being 0.08-0.12 millimeters across; they are elongated and commonly better , rounded than the quartz. Feldspar, making up 2 percent of the rock, is dominantly microcline, with some orthoclase and plagioclase. Most feldspar fragments are fresh and unaltered. Volcanic. rock fragments, andesitic or rhyolitic, are very rare. Garnet, also very rare, is colorless and in some cases abnormally anisotropic. The matrix consists of small "nests and bunches" of clay minerals, mostly kaolinite though a little authigenic illite coats and partly replaces some quartz grains. An X-ray diffraction pattern of fine material (less than 0.044 millimeter diameter, which passed the 325 -mesh sieve) shows it to be made of fine quartz particles (70 percent), with small amounts of kaolinite, illite, albite, and montmorillonite. Elongate pores 40-200 microns in diameter (visible porosity), and flattish voids and planes of discontinuity between grains (residual porosity), combine with the small amount of clay -mineral wall coating to make this a rock with very good reservoir characteristics. Swelling from hydration should be negligible, because montmorillonite is absent. The graywacke sandstone sample from 352 feet is finer grained and contains a slightly higher percentage of matrix and cement than the one from 344 feet. It contains considerably less quartz, but more chert- and a slightly larger amount of rock fragments. The grain area with illite coating is twice as great as in the upper sample. The cement includes "nests" of siderite, as well as secondary quartz. The mineral and rock grains are similar in shape and composition to those from 344 feet. The matrix is composed of fine particles of quartz and micas from metamorphic rocks, and rare montmorillonite, as well as the kaolinite and illite found at 344 feet. Clays and hydromicas make up about 3.5 percent of the rock, while the quartz, chert, and rock particles less than 50 microns in diameter total about 6.5 percent. An X -ray -diffraction pattern of the material under, 0.044 millimeter in size showed it to have the same amount of quartz, but less kaolinite and more illite than the matrix from 344 feet. The pore spaces are smaller (30-65 microns across) and the total porosity is slightly less than in the upper sand- stone. The very minor amount of montmorillonite present is in aggregates, which reduces its tendency to fill all pore space by swelling from hydration; this, with the comparatively high porosity, makes, this a good reservoir rock. The sample from 359 feet was not described in detail; the available data is shown in the preceding table. It is considered a poor reservoir rock. HEAVY -MINERAL ANALYSIS The analyst, Robert A. Morris, reported (written communication) that "samples ranging from 250 to 370 feet are assigned to the hornblende zone. Glaucophane is present in three of them." The kinds and the abundance of heavy minerals are shown on plate 10. OIL AND CTAS OIL SHOWS Several good shows of oil were noted in' the sand- stones between 248 and 380 feet, and there were some shows below that. The following shows were reported by D. W. Jopling, Arctic Contractors well geologist. Oil shows, Umiat test well 3 Depth (feet) Remarks 238-245 --------- Strong odor of oil in the ditch. 248-320 --------- Sandstone well saturated with oil. 348-362 --------- Sandstone saturated with oil. 362-370 --------- Shale with spotty oil odor. 377-380 --------- Sandstone with some oil saturation. 402-405 --------- Sandstone with oil odor but no visible satura- tion. 507-514 --------- Sandstone, well saturated. FORMATION TESTS Two bailing tests were made before the rig was re- moved in December 1946. The first one, made when the. hole was 286 feet deep, was to test an oil-bearing sandstone between 248 and 286 feet. Oil was bailed from the well at a rate of 7 gallons per hour, giving an estimated rate of 5 barrels per day. The fluid rose to 232 feet in 24 hours, and after 40 hours it reached a stationary level of 212 feet. After the total depth of 572 feet was reached, mud was bailed from the hole to a depth of 400 feet, and the well then produced 17 barrels of oil in 7 hours, with an estimated capacity of 50 barrels per day. After standing for 171ours the top of the fluid was at 163 feet. A 24-hour bailing test pro- duced 49 barrels of oil with a trace of drilling mud; the well was bailed continuously from the bottom of the oil-bearing sandstone during the last 14 hours of the TESWLLS, UM test, and 26 barrels of oil were produced, giving an estimated rate of 44 barrels per day. In September 1947 a Keystone spudder was installed over the hole (see pl. 7Q, and the fluid level was found at 145 feet, and a bridge, possibly of ice, at 240 feet. The well was cleaned out to a depth of 457 feet, using a 6 -inch bit. Pumping began on October 6, 1947; 14 barrels of oil and 0.2 percent of basic sediment and water were produced in the first 1'/ hours, at twenty-six 12 -inch strokes per minute. Fourteen strokes per minute for the next 4 hours, and 12 per minute for the 17 hours following, produced 14 more barrels of oil, with a trace of basic sediment and water. Intermittent pumping (1 hr at 12 strokes per min and 1 hr off, alternately) produced 17.2 barrels of oil and no water on October 7. The well was then pumped intermit- tently, at 16 strokes per minute, for a total of 8 hours on October 8 and 7 hours on October 9, recovering 16.6 and 15 barrels of oil and no water, respectively. For the next 5 days the well was pumped intermittently for 6 hours each day, and 14, 15, 14, 15, and 13 barrels of oil and no water were recovered during that time. On October 15 continuous pumping at 12 strokes per minute was resumed, with 13.8 barrels of oil recovered in the first 24 hours, and 13 barrels per day in the next 2 days. During the pumping tests the air temperature ranged from 32° to 2°F, averaging about 20°-25° for the first 4 days and 100-15° for the last 8 days. The temperature of the oil decreased slightly with the colder air, averaging about 250 on the first 4 days and 22°-240 on the last 8 days, with a maximum of 260 and a minimum of 200. After the pumping test, the hole was shot several times with 60 percent seismograph dynamite, and the hole loaded to the surface with oil before each shot. Sixty pounds of dynamite was placed between 355 and 362 feet in four 15 -pound charges. After the shot, the hole was bridged at 334 feet. A second shot of five 5 -pound sticks was made at 315-324 feet, and the WE was then found bridged at 314 feet. The third shot, again with five 5 -pound sticks, was between 305 feet and 314 feet, and the hole was bridged at 304 feet. Shot number four, with five 5 -pound sticks of dynamitf placed between 294 and 304 feet did not bridge the hole Shots 5 and 6 each used ten 5 -pound sticks placed at 274 to 294 feet and 254-274 feet, respectively. The hoh was then cleaned out to 457 feet with a 6 -inch bit, an( another pumping test was made. After recovering the load oil, 15 barrels of oil with no water was pumped ii 12 hours of continuous pumping. Continuous pump ing for the next 2 days recovered 24 barrels of oil the IAT AREA,ALASKA 121 first day and 24.1 barrels the second. Pumping was liscontinued for 6 days because there was no storage loom in the tanks. After a burn pit was prepared, ibout 400 feet from the well, testing was resumed at 14 ,trokes per minute, and 53 barrels of oil with no water vas pumped the first 23 hours after the test was started. For the next 6 days, continuous pumping at 14 strokes per minutV produced 25.5, 24.1, 24.8, 24.1, 23, and 22.8 barrels of oil, and no water, in the 6 days. Engine trouble caused by cold weather resulted in 22 hours of pumping per day for the next 2 days, with a recovery of 23 and 22 barrels of oil, respectively. The test was continued 4 days more, however,. with recoveries of 23.5 barrels in 24 hours, 21 barrels in 21 hours, 18 barrels in 19 hours, and 29 barrels in 24 hours. An estimated 5 barrels of the last 29 probably collected in the well during the shutdown from engine trouble the day before. The indicated capacity of the well is 24 barrels per day. The air temperature ranged from 10 to 17°F for the first part of the test and from —23° to -{-14°F for the last part. The oil temperature dropped gradually from 24°F to 18°F, during the test. OIL ANALYSES Two samples of crude oil from Umiat test well 3 were analyzed by the Petroleum Chemistry and Refining Section of the U. S. Bureau of Mines Petroleum Ex- periment Station at Bartlesville, Okla. A quart of oil was submitted in 1946 (sample 46164), and a gallon in March 1947 (sample 47017). Routine analyses (see p. 122) and analyses of the gasoline and diesel oil fractions (see p. 123) were made for both samples. The second sample was large enough to permit -addi- tional studies of the gasoline and diesel fractions and the residuum (see p. 123,124). Characteristics of products for the two crude oils are compared in table on p. 124. The oil is light colored and differs from most other crude oils by having a very high naphthene and aro- matic content. The naphthene content is approxi- mately constant in the gasoline fractions, then in- creases rapidly, maintaining a constant high value in the higher part of the diesel fuel and in all the lubricat- ing -oil boiling range. Paraffin content is very low. Pour points of the 2 crude oil samples are —15°F and —25°F; the pour point of the combined gasoline fractions is less than —80°F, and that for the diesel fuel cut is about —10°F. The average API gravity of the 2 samples is 36.5°, the Saybolt Universal viscosity at 100°F is 36.5 seconds, and sulfur content is less than 0.1 percent. Analyevs of U. S. Bureau of Mines crude petroleum samples 46164 and 47017 from :Umiat test well 3 ►-+ N jGeneral characteristics of sample's follow: Semple 46164: sp gr, 11.848; sulfur, <0.1 percent' Saybolt Universal visoosity at 100°F, 37 see; gravity XOAPI; pour point -15°F; aolor, 14atl. - Petroleum Assoc. no. 6. Sample 47017: sp gr, Q.842; sulfur, 0.079 percent; Saybolt Universal viscosity at 100°F, 36 sec; gravity, 36.6°APII pour point, -25°F; color, Natl. Petroloum Assoe.,no. 4;h] DWillatfon by Bureau of Mines routine method _ Cut at- Percent Sum percent 8pecifie Gravity, °API *F Correia- Saybolt Universal viscosity at- ° Aniline Cloud test Viscosity; Index of refrac tion (sodium.D Diesel index Pour point (°F) Fraction 43 41 j }62.8 gravity I at 60 tion index point (°C) (°F)' index line at 20°C) 5 lb ------ _ .776. .823 ° 40.4 100°F 130°F 1 210°F -b ------------ Z 75 °C 1 °F 46184 47017 46164147017 46164147017 46184147017 46164147017 46164 47017 48184 47017 48184147017 48184 47017 48184147017 48184 47017 46164 1 47017 46164147017 46164 1 47017 J 26.8-25.6 81 47 80 ------ 48 ------ 4g ------ 88 3 ------ 36 20 4b 30 45 ------ --ao at aunospnene pre6eare of sample 46164, 757 nm Hg. 66m de 47017.748 atm Mg. Fist dma_ wnmelw d611td. 62°f!:!1'N.°N1. o.....ae giant°. eoon:ii•�ov� I ---- 200 225 122- 6.4 7.1 5.1 7.8 64.3 71.4 62.9 70'.7 0.873 0.869 30.6 29.7 31.3 30.6 45 43 43 41 j }62.8 62.4 j 42 48 42 0.739 64.2 M9 60.0 -- 5 lb ------ _ .776. .823 ° 40.4 }. 3 -b ------------ Z 75 187 1.1 0.7 1 1 - 0.7 .878 .884 .873 .883 28.6 28.8 43 42 J 26.8-25.6 81 47 80 ------ 48 ------ 4g ------ 88 3 ------ 36 20 4b 30 45 ------ 2&1-25.4 - ----- -------------------------------------------------------------- Distillation loss-------------------------------------------------------- . 10.8 .4 -1J 3----.----- 100 125 212 ,257 6:3 &3 4.5 9.0 6.4 14.7 b,2 14,2 0 723 .768 0.739 .769 64 2 52.7 80 0' 52.5 - _-- _ 36 ----- 88 ------ -- ----- 83 94 59.1 60 38.1 38 -------- 55 -- - 63 - 46. 14094 1.4131 - ------ - -- 5___--_____ 6 150 175 302 347 7.0 7.0 2L7 21.2 .785 .788 48.8 48.1 36 37 9.0 8&7 --- --- 87.8 97 --- ------ -""----- 70 - :_ - 1.4265 1.4324 1.4270 1.4390 -- 51.3 Below Belom ---------- 7 ---------- 200 392 7.2 5.3 6.9 5.7 28.9 34.2 28.1 33.8 .799 .800 45.6 43.0 45.4 43.0 35 85 36 35 ------ ------ _„-_ ___ --- ------ --_ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 1.4400 1.4454 ------ --- ------ -80 -7( 8-__--__--_ 225 437 6.1 6.5 40.3 40.3 .811 .823 .811 40.4 40.2 35 35 ----- _-_ --- ------ ------ ------ -• --- --__ -- ^----- 1.4450 1:4506 9 9 ---___--- ---------- 250 275 :482 527 7.4 10.2 7.5 10.0 47.7 57.9 47.8 =.838 .824 .839 37.4 37.2 37 37 8 82.4 -.--- --- _. --,--_ - ' ------ ------ ------ 1.4525 1.4622 1.4682 1.4683 --- ------ .-_--- 50.3 57.8 :855 .858 34.0 83.4 40 : 41- ----- -- --- 1. 4763 1.4768 =----- Stage 2, -Distillation 'continued at 40 nun HS . 11--------- 12--------- 200 225 392 437 6.4 7.1 5.1 7.8 64.3 71.4 62.9 70'.7 0.873 0.869 30.6 29.7 31.3 30.6 45 43 43 41 j }62.8 62.4 j 42 48 42 0.739 64.2 M9 60.0 -- 5 lb ------ _ .776. .823 ° 40.4 }. 3 -b ------------ 13 --------- 250 482 6.0 6.5 77.4 77.2 .878 .884 .873 .883 28.6 28.8 43 42 J 26.8-25.6 81 47 80 ------ 48 ------ 4g ------ 88 3 ------ 36 20 4b 30 45 ------ 2&1-25.4 -- ----- -------------------------------------------------------------- Distillation loss-------------------------------------------------------- . 10.8 .4 -1J .916 - 275 627 4.7 5.2 82 1 82.4 .893 .888 27.0 27.9 44 41 _-____ ------ 83 94 59.1 60 38.1 38 55 55 -- - 63 - 46. - Rlb--_---_-_ esiduumt 300 572 5.3 12.4 6.4 10.8 87.4 88.8 .899 .897 25.9 26.3 44 43 ------ ------ 165 190 87.8 97 44.8 4b 6b 70 99 85 -------- -------- -------- -------- ------ ------ -^---- ------ -------- -------- ............ 99.8 99.6 .913 .916 23.5 23.0 ----- ----- ------ ------ ------ ---°-- ------ ------ 102.9 110 ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- -------- ------ ------ -------- -- ----- -------- 41 aj�t; •� s• -W+ y i - - w- r cuwyareu wan water at W-1''. Carbon residue of residuum for both samples 1.7 percent; carbon residue of crude, 0.2 percent. Approximate summary Constituent Percent Specific gravity Gravity, °API Saybolt Universal viscosity 46164 47017 46164 47017 46164 47017 46164 47017 Light gasoline--------------------------------------------------------- Total gasoline and naphtha-------------------------------------------- 6.4 34.2 5.2 88.8 0.723 0.739 64.2 M9 60.0 ------------ ------------ Kerosene distillate----------------------------------------------------- 6.1 6.5.. .776. .823 .782 .824 40.4 49.5 40.2 ------------ ------------ Gas oil----------------------------------------------------------------- onv scoue lubricating diattllate_______________________________________ 2& 6 11.9 28.1 11.7 .868 0,879- .894 .858 0.875-.889 33.4 29.5-20.8 83.4 302-27.7 ------------ ------------------------ 50-100100 ------------ 50-100 Medium lubricating distillate------------------------------------------ Viscous lubricating distillate------------------------------------------- 6.2 6.0 .894- .901 ' .889- .898 26.8-25.6 27.7-26.1 100-200 100-200 Residuum .4 2.7 . ,901-.902 .898-.902 25.6-25.4 2&1-25.4 Above 200 Above 200 -------------------------------------------------------------- Distillation loss-------------------------------------------------------- 12.4 .2 10.8 .4 ! .013 ! -- - .916 - 23.5 - - 23.0 ------------ - ------------ t 9 Z� l� TES LLS, rhon analyses of gasoline and diesel -oil cuts from Umiat tea well 3 samples 46164 and 47017, using American Society foes;;Testing Materials method ES -45a , 01;: ',; [Analysis by U. S. Bur. Mines] Gasoline Diesel oil (Hempel �poeition and characteristics (Hempel fractions 1-7) fractions 8-12) 46164 1 47017" 46164 I 47017 `s1<rzj Blends UMIAT AREA, ALASKA 10 Amakos plus olefins-------------- 23.4 22.7 26.1 22.9 pbtbenes------------------------ 43.4 44.8 73.9f10 77.1 rams--------------------------- 33.2 325 .0 .0 Total------------------------ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 unpoint --------------- -No-- Below -80_ Below-70 1.33 ---------b_ -15 4.33 • ---------------percent-- ------------ 0.84 ----------- 5.14 Data on raffinate (paraffin plus naphthenes) a91ty at 207 compared with Percent Specific vateratVC_____________________ 0.7520 0.7546 0.8262 0.8268 lax of refraction with sodium D Percent by volume Average boiling point (OF) Density at 20° Viscosity (centistokes) ins at 20*C ---------------------- 1.4176 1.41910 1.4641 1.4539 erage boiling point --------- oC__ 136 136 262 262 olecnlar weight, estimated_-_____ 121 121 207 207 AOT& volume_________________ 160 160 250 250 phene» 39.8 ------ percent by weight_- 34.5 30.9 143.1 144.2 raffia and paraffin side chains -----------------------_________ 420 3.3 43.1 percent by weight_- 65.5 63.1 56.9 56.8 A napphthenle compound such as octylcyelohexane (C14I12s) would contain b7 per- it.d the carbon atoms in the paraffin chain; so the analyses showing 73.9 and 77.1 reent naphthenes and 0 percent paraffins are not in conflict with the ring -chain �t. 123 Hydrocarbon analysis of gasoline fraction of sample 47017 distilled at 1500-273°F [Analysis by U. S. Bur. Mines] Percent Hydrocarbons of erudc oil .. N-hexane------------------------------------------ Methylcyclopentane--------------------------------- 2,2- and 2,4-dimethylpentane------------------------- Benzene------------------------------------------- Cyclohexane----------- ---------------------------- 1,1-dimethylcyclopentane----------------------- --- 2,3-dimethylpentane and 2-methylhexane-------------- Trans-1,3-dimethylcyclopentane--------------------- Trans-1,2-dimethylcyclopentane---------------------- 3-methylhexane------------------------------------- N-heptane----------------------------------------- Methylcyclohexane--------------------------------- Ethyl cyclopentane --------------------------------- 2,2-dimethylhexane--------------------------------- 2,5- and 2,4-dimethylhexane-------------------------- Toluene------------------------------------------- Trimethylcyclopentanes (?) 222°-235°F-----.-_-_--____ 2,3-dimethylhexane--------------------------------- A trimethylcyclopentane (?) P34' -243'F --------------- Trans 1,3- and trans 1,4-dimethylcyclohexanes and other naphthenes (243°-251°F)-------------------------- 2-,3-,and 4-methylheptanes------------- -------------- Ethylbenzene------------------------------------- Trans 1,2-dimethyleyelohexane----------------------- N-octane ----------- ----------------_-----N-octane----------- -----`------------------ N-Propyleyelopentane, isopropyleyelopentane and ethyl - cyclohexane -------------------------------------- 0. 56 .45 .20 '26 1.51 .28 .55 .42 .27 .34 .64 2.56 .55 .24 .19 1.67 .51 .15 .14 1.30 56 .26 72 1.04 99 Total---------------------------------------- 16.44 Characteristics of diesel -oil fraction of sample 47017 from Umiat test well 3 [Analysis by U. S. Bur. Mines] 1 See tables p. 122 and above. 2 Not as accurate as other data. a See table below for data. Composition and characteristics of residuum for sample 47017 from Umiat test well 3 [Analysis by V. S. Bur. Mines] Percent Specific Viscosity at- Index of refraction at 20oC. Pour Melting Fraction Temper- ature WF Percent by volume Average boiling point (OF) Density at 20° Viscosity (centistokes) 100oF 130oF 2101F Cetane no. Are - matics (percent) Mercury Sodium Fraction Sum 68oF 100oF D line a line g line 50 -10 ---------- ---------- ---------- 73 1.4987 1.5077 11.4633 ------------------------------------- 400 39.8 39.8 ------ ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ---------- -------- - -----------------------_________ 420 3.3 43.1 410 0.8164 2.128 1.681 1.45375 1.45606 1.46549 243 1£ ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- 450 480 3.1 & 2 46.2 49.4 } 450 .8490 .8470 2.720 2.957 1.952 2.086 1.47176 1.47135 1.47430 1.47391 1.49527 1.48481 } 42 2i ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- 510 520 3.2 3.3 526 55.9 505 .8526 .8563 3.501 4.158 2.403 2.745 1.47614 1.47765 1.47884 1.48033 1.49030 1.49177 ll 46 I 2( ----------------------------------- ------------------------------------ 530 560 3.2 3.2 59.1 62.3 535 .8604 .8635 4.998 6.100 3.206 3.898 1.47969 1.48113 1.48234 1.48379 1.49377 1.49526 l 47 )11 2f ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- 580 605 & 2 &2 85. b 68.7 581 8602 .8636 7.797 10.011 4.669 5.761 1.47859 1.47947 1.48116 1.48213 1.49229 1.49307 53 21 sidne 2 - - 625 -----------27.9 3.3 720 99.9 615 _ .8708 13.324 7.291 1.48351 1.48578 1.49729 254 21 1 See tables p. 122 and above. 2 Not as accurate as other data. a See table below for data. Composition and characteristics of residuum for sample 47017 from Umiat test well 3 [Analysis by V. S. Bur. Mines] 1 Calculated from index measured at 100*F. Percent Specific Viscosity at- Pour Melting Index by volume of crude Oil percent Wax percent gravity at 60OF 100oF 130oF 2101F Viscosity index point (IF) point (oF) refraction at 20oC (D line) esidnum------------------------------ --------------- ewaxed oil------------------------------------------- ax--------------------------------------------------- 27.9 19.9 & 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0.900 .916 .865 311 149 51.6 295 136 50.1 ---------- ---------- ---------- 85 81 ---------- 50 -10 ---------- ---------- ---------- 73 1.4987 1.5077 11.4633 1 Calculated from index measured at 100*F. 124 E%PLORAW OF NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVE N* ALASKA, 1944-53 Test data for motor -gasoline and diesel -fuel ,fractions of sample 47017 from Umiat test well 3 [Analysis by U. S. Bureau of Mines] Characteristics Gasoline Diesel fuel Yield ------------------------ volume percent of trade oil-- 40.0 32.2 Distillation by ASTM method D-86: 84 Sam Initial boiling point -------------------------------- F__ 199 400 5 percent evaporated ------------------------------°F__ 218 ------------ 10 percent evaporated- --------------------------- °F-- 225 F-3 octane number with 4.0 ml tetraethyl lead 50 percent evaporated ------------------------------°F-- 283 ------------ 90 percent evaporated ------------------------------°F-- 356 600 Endpoint-------------------------------------- 'F__ 387 1.0 ---- Rest ue----------------------------- volume percent__ Loss -----------percent__ 0.8 ------------ ______------ Specific gravity at 60° F compared with water at SO°F_____ 0.790 0.858 Gravity -------------------------------------------- °API__ 47.6 33.4 Reid vapor pressure___________________________________lb__ 1.2 ------------ Aromatic content ------------------------volume percent-- ------------ 25.7 Cetanenumber------------------------------------------- ------------ 48 Characteristics of products from Umiat test well 3 [Analysis by U. S. Bureau of Mines] Product sample 47017 Routine analyses unit, model N-15. 1 ----------- Kohler 1.5 kw a -c generator unit. (1 gal 84 Sam 1 ----------- tin 0170 461641e Aviation gasoline base stock___ percent by volume-_ 16 21 22 F-3 octane number with 4.0 ml tetraethyl lead pontoon section. 1 ----------- steel water tank, 300 gal. per gallon (calculated)------------------------ 84 --------------- Motor gasoline----------------- percent by volume__ 40 34 34 F-2 octane number, clear ----------------- 57.2 ---------- 59 F-2 octane number, with 3 ml tetrethyl lead pergallon------------------------------------- 77.2 ---------- ---------- Jet propulsion fuel percent by volume at 100°-600°F__ 65 67 69.8 Aromatics ---- _____________percent by volume__ __________ 31.2 27.6 Sulfur -------- _------------- percent by weight-- ---------- o.03 0.03 Viscosity ------------------- centistokes,-40°F-- ---------- 8.6 9.2 Viscosity ------------------ centistokes, 100°F-- ---------- 1.3 1.3 Diesel fuel (400°-600°F boiling range) percent by volume__ 32 37 37 . Cetane number determined--------------------- 50 ---------- 50 Lubricating oil: 50-200 Saybolt Universal viscosity at 100°F percent by volume__ __________ 17.7 18.1 50-200-1- Saybolt Universal viscosity at 100°F percent by volume__ __________ 20.4 18.5 LOGISTICS Personnel. -Men employed at the well site were the drilling foreman, 3 drillers, 6 semiskilled laborers (roughnecks), and 1 tractor driver. Additional em- ployees, including carpenters, electricians, and me- chanics, were sent to the rig site from Umiat camp as they were needed. Drilling equipment. -A Star well -drilling machine (spudder), model 71 -SK, powered by a Continental gasoline engine (model PF -162) was used by Arctic Contractors for spudding, instead of the Failing rig employed later, because there were no bits available for the latter capable of making the desired 9 -inch hole. Below a depth of 72 feet. the Failing model 1500 (314-C) core rig was used. It was mounted on skids and enclosed by a wanigan constructed on a sled with pipes for runners. Power was furnished by a Chrysler gasoline engine (model 108-506), and the rig was equipped with a Gardner -Denver 4- by 5 -inch mud pump, model FF-F2F F. The contractors also used the equipment given below: 1 ----------- O'Keefe -Merritt 15 -kw a -c engine generator unit, model N-15. 1 ----------- Kohler 1.5 kw a -c generator unit. 1 ----------- Bettis 40 hp steamer, type 4992. 1 ----------- shop -made Prospect -type boiler. 1 ----------- Hughes 7 -in. master gate. 2 ----------- mud pits, 5 by 7 by 2Y2 ft, made of pontoon sections cut in half. 1 ----------- water tank, 25 bbl, made of 5- by 5- by 7 -ft pontoon section. 1 ----------- steel water tank, 300 gal. From September through November 1947, one each of the following items of equipment was used in shooting and testing the wells: Keystone spudder, model 53, with tools and auxiliary equipment. Lufkin T7 -3A pumping unit. Le Roi 4- by 4 -in. 4 -cylinder engine. Simplex stuffing box. No. A2192. Oilmaster 2% -in. by 2 -in. by 8 -ft, stationary barrel, top - anchor oil pump, No. A-528-8. Fuel consumption. -The pump, drilling, and light - plant engines used 2 drums of gasoline (106 gal) daily. The shop -made Prospect -type boiler and 3 heating stoves used 1% drums of diesel oil per day. Water storage and use. -Water was stored in a 300 - gallon tank mounted inside the Failing rig wanigan and in a 25 -barrel tank. Both tanks could be heated, and it was possible to pump water from Umiat Lake, adjacent to the well, even at -52°F, if great care was taken to keep -the hoses empty and in a warm place when they were not in use. Water consumption was kept as low as possible and averaged less than 300 gallons per day. DRILLING OPERATIONS The following drilling operations were recorded by J. R. Coleman, Arctic Contractors' petroleum engineer. Notes from drill records Depth (feet) Remarks 9- - ----------- After a 6- by 6- by 3 -ft cellar was dug, hole was spudded with a Star spudder, using a 9 -in bit.' (All depths are corrected to read from the top of the Failing rig kelly bushing, which was 9 ft above the ground, and 12 ft above the cellar floor). 72 ------------ Sixty-two ft of 23-1b 7 -in. casing was set with top 1 ft below ground level and base 72 ft below kelly bushing. Casing cemented with 25 sacks of portland cement mixed with 100°F water. After settling, top of 1 The available information on bits is included in this section on drilling operations. *ST WELLS, UMIAT AREA, ALASKA i Votes from drill records—Continued Depth (feet) Remarks Top of surface pipe to ground. cement was found 7 ft below cellar floor, 1-90 and 5 sacks of portland cement were added by hand to cement pipe. After setting 7 driller from 2 to 75 ft, and "hard sandy hr, cement was warmed with steam to about 150°F for 4 days. Failing rig was moved ----- over hole during this time. Top of cement Clay shale, medium- to medium -dark -gray, found at 67.5 ft and drilled out with Failing equipment. 155----------- Deviation 00451. 236----------- Drilled 5ys-in. hole from 72 to 236 ft with a 5j1 -in. Hughes roller bit. Mud used was natural, with the addition of Aquagel and moderate -yellow-brown slightly calcare- water. 280----------- Deviation 15'. 390 ----------- Deviation 2°15'. 525----------- Deviation 2°30'. 572----------- Cored 236-572 ft with a 3 -in. by 10 -ft Okla- homa -type "N" double -tube core barrel slightly calcareous sandstone, composed with drag -type cutter heads, recovering 57.5 percent of rock cored. Hole reamed to 538 ft with 5ys-in. Hughes roller bit, and with some dark rock fragments, yellow Schlumberger electric log run from bottom of casing at 72 ft to 525 ft. Mud weight at ____ time log was run was 74 lb per cu ft, and Sandstone and shale, with rare clay iron- viscosity was 37 sec API. At end of bailing tests hole was frozen below ----- 460 ft, and fluid level was at 147 ft. Just Clay shale, dark -gray, slightly carbonaceous, before pumping tests began, hole was found to be bridged or frozen at 240 ft, and fluid level was 145 ft below top of casing. to medium -dark -gray clay shale, and clay Hole abandoned with 7 -in. casing capped by flanged head having two 2 -in. plugged ports. ----- On top of casing head was a flanged tubing Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, very silty, head capped by swages with plugged nipples on the side and 2- by 4 -in. nipple with 2 -in. gate valve on top. Top of installation is 5 amount of siltstone. ft above ground. 130-140 UMIAT TEST WELL 4 0 0` i 2 Location: Lat 69023'20" N, long 152°04'53" W Elevation: Ground, 482 feet; top of surface pipe, 483 feet. Spudded: May 26, 1950. Completed: July 29, 1950; pumped 100 barrels of oil per day; shut in. Total depth: 840 feet. Because the first 3 holes on the Umiat anticline produced only a small quantity of oil, drilling ceased for more than 2 years. In 1950, however, it was decided to drill a cable -tool hole to see if the low production of the earlier wells was caused by the fresh water from the drilling fluid. If the fresh water had lowered permeability of the sandstone by reacting with the matrix or freezing in the pore spaces, then a cable -tool hole, using just enough brine to lubricate the tools, might be a much better test of the possible yield of the anticline. The experiment was successful, as a pumping test produced oil at a rate of 100 barrels per day from Umiat test well 4. The hole (see pl. 8A ) is about 1,000 feet northeast of Umiat test well 3; 125 and although it is higher structurally than the older well, it started in younger beds, probably of the \inuluk formation. because of its greater elevation. -No sam- ples from the Ninuluk formation were saved, but corre- lation with other wells would place its base at about 40 feet. DESCRIPTION OF CORES AND CUTTINGS The first sample, at 90 feet, is in the Killik tongue of the Chandler formation, which is present as alternating clay shale and sandstone to the base of a thin persistent sandstone at 320 feet. Clay ironstone and coal are both present between 180 and 260 feet; the clay iron- stone is more common. At a total depth of 840 feet, the drilling had penetrated only about 80 feet of the lower sandstone bed of the Grandstand formation; a broken drilling line which left tools stuck in the hole prevented deepening the well. Oil was found in both the upper and the lower sandstone units of the Grand- stand; the proportion produced from each is uncertain. The hole was shut in for over a year and a half and then pumped to obtain oil for oil -base mud. Lithologic description [Where no cores are listed, description is based on cutting samples) Core I Depth (feet) I Remarks ----- 0-1 Top of surface pipe to ground. ----- 1-90 No sample. "Hard sand" reported by driller from 2 to 75 ft, and "hard sandy shale" from 75 to 90 ft. ----- 90-100 Clay shale, medium- to medium -dark -gray, slightly silty, micaceous, slightly calcar- eous, with a very small amount of medium - light -gray very argillaceous siltstone and moderate -yellow-brown slightly calcare- ous clay ironstone with conchoidal frac- ture. Small amount of medium -light - gray very fine-grained silty argillaceous slightly calcareous sandstone, composed of subangular clear and white quartz with some dark rock fragments, yellow grains and coaly particles, and rare mica. ____ 100-110 Sandstone and shale, with rare clay iron- stone. Ice reported by driller 100-108 ft. ----- 110-120 Clay shale, dark -gray, slightly carbonaceous, silty, noncaleareous, with some medium - to medium -dark -gray clay shale, and clay ironstone. ----- 120-130 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, very silty, micaceous, noncalcareous, with very small amount of siltstone. ----- 130-140 Sandstone, very light -brown, fine-grained, nonealcareous, friable; composed of sub- angular clear and white quartz with some light -brown grains and dark rock frag- ments; small amount of clay shale is medium dark gray, very silty, micaceous, noncalcareous. ----- 140-150 Siltstone and clay shale with small amount of sandstone. ----- 150-160 Clay shale, medium -gray, very slightly silty, nonealcareous, with rare siltstone and clay ironstone. • UMIAT TEST WELL NO. 3 CRETACEOUS Chandler Formation, Killik tongue: 60'-225' Grandstand Formation: 225'-572' io0-- a() Form 9-598 (April 1952) UNITED STATES Sec. --------------___._ DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - r- GEOLOGICAL SURVEY T --------------------- - - -CONSERVATION DIVISION 1 R INDIVIDUAL WELL RECORD ------------------------ Mer, Date___JT-llue--.3.q__19,,5qL ------ _.__ Ref. No. __________________ N. P. R. #4 Land office ------------------------------ — ---------------- State --------------Alaska- --------------------------- SerialNo.----------------------------------------------------------- `�_---------- ----- �- -- ---- - ----------------------- - - Lessee--------------------------------------------------------------------. Field -------- Umiat Area -- - - --------------------------------------- Operator --------- U. --S- --- . Navy West Coast Region ----- -------------------------------------- District ---- --------------------------------------------------------- __ Umiat Test Well #3 Well No- -------- - -- -- ---------------------------------------Subdivision --------------------------------------------------------- Location ----- at.--69°23'16"_-N.l _Long._ 152°05'14° W. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Drilling approved ------------------------------------- 19-------- Well elevation --- -- -360 K.B. - ---- feel Drilling commenced ------- Nov .--15------- 19.46 Total depth -----------572_--------------- -feet Drilling ceased ________________Dec . 26 19.46__ Initial production ___24_ B/D---________ Completed for production ----- pct____?------- 19_4 7__. Gravity A. P. I. ------ 36.50 ed Abandonalonom9pearapahl -------Nov 15-- , 19-kT-- Initial R. P. ----------------------- --------------------------- Geologie Formations Productive Horizons Surface Lowest tested Name Depths Contents WELLSTATUS----------------------------------------------------------------- YEAR JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. Nov. DEC. 1846 -------------- ----------- - Drg. Lig• Busp. 1947 ---------------- ---------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ---------- 10/1-- ------------------- ----------- - 0 11/ ----------- 5 ----------- ---------- � rveyed REMARKS- --- Unsusu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------711 _sack-a--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------- - --- ----------.-- ----- ------- ------ -------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- rseoxogics] Survey Pxofes:;Ioiia1 Pape305-B U... GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 10-3$0$7-4 EXPLANATION 0 OIL WELL GAS WELL OIL AND GAS WELL OIL SHOW -ABANDONED - GAS SHOW -ABANDONED SUSPENDED GAS WELL • _#_OIL AND GAS SHOW ABANDONED DRY AND ABANDONED SUSPENDED OIL WELL 0 BARROW AREA .ja'�. `\. TULAGEAK 1 S.BAJ D SEI WALAKPA -M BAYI F SIMPSON i + WALAKPA 2 - E. SIMP: ULL CLk'FF I ^ - KUYANAK J �,' E. SIII"i O C F A � 2 J. W. DALTON I , W T cnIM M i oSIMPSON I.IT r • DREW PEARD 1 - 5•� tk POINT I - CAPE T. 36RUK I S. SIMPSON I ' KUGRUA I e1� E. TOP RUK I CAPE PIKPU � TTi • __ U 4 K - 4 -- S. MEADE I- "^� W. FISH CREEK ;� ALIK I N.INIGOK tUN INIGOK I OUhtAE.!.OUMAIIK f r_T T i 1 i -- . A(OLU�IK`TA+ L, S I I� • . �.-,�-s-- l� � QULARKE AI® � TITALUCREEK* 1 K I WOLF SEABEE i1 -r� 4WUNA 1 V IFEBLADE—'� HALKETTI �! ATIGARU POINT I _ � ITKILLIK' f I + FIVER I d. stry) r fir ! SENTINEL j ,11HILL 1 AREA i, 2 2, A _ GRANDSTAND o E _ ^ %- . ... ILISSURNE I �G� p 25 50 Mi. r 0 25 S0 75 Km. QRDIi� OR® TETRA TECH REPORT NO.8200 ®TETRA 1'!!'=n_—_' '!!' , tlMC INDEX MAP-PET•49 NPRA TEST WELLS AND SELECTED CORE TESTS, 1944-53.t974-SL 944-53 1974-91 NPN ALASKA I- BARROW AREA -¢- ARCON BARROW & BARROW I S. BARROW 2 -- S. BARROW.4 S. BARROW 5 S. BARROW 6 if S. BARROW 7 3 S.,BARROW 8 S. BARROW 9 ¢ S. BARROW 10 S. BARROW I I S. BARROW 12 S. BARROW 13 S. BARROW 14 S. BARROW i5 S. BARROW 16 S. BARROW 17 E S. BARROW 18 ` S. BARROW f3 S. -BARROW 20 AVAK I • UMIAT AREA -� UMIAT I + UMIAT 2 0 UMIAT 3 ® MAT 4 • UMIAT 5 0 UMIAT 6 + UMIAT 7 F UMIAT 8 UMIAT 9 0 UMIAT 10 + UMIAT II FIGURE 2 I I I i Avak - ! /OO-Oo7_r, i South Barrow -1 /00 -093 South Barrow -2 South -Barrow-3 I(JOb South Barrow -4 / O U r; Oo'16 I � I Fish Creek -1 /00 -!�% i Grandstand -1 j 00 Gu:bik-1 /06-,9.441 i Gubik-2 %DO -aa Kaolak-1 100 Knifeblade-1 )OV -491 j Knifeblade-2 / 60 -.Aga I Knifeblade-2A ;3 A014J 914cMode 5 Meade -1 Oumalik-1 j East oumalik-1 /00�//S' Simpson -1 /Vo;ih s;�Psora-� yov,o/ Squ*are Lake -1 Titaluk-1 10 x- i90 Topagoruk-1 100 -Jq East Topagoruk-1 1 UM iat-1 100 'a0� Umiat-2 / 00 -'P I 0 Umiat-3 100-0(1 Umiat-4 IOD Umiat-5 /ov i . Umiat-6 ..i Umiat-7 106'a�� Umiat-8 /00-01(v Umiat-9 160 Umiat-10 Umiat-11 100-0/1 Wolf Creek -1 J Wolf Creek -2 JvU- ;)(16 I Wolf Creek -3 Well game "Old" ;;avy Wells (1944-53) "Intermediate" Wells at Barrow.(1955-1974) South Barrow -5 160 -Oat� South Barrow -6 `7 South Barrow -7 /66-030 ,South Barrow -8 /a61--03/ South Barrow -9 /00-63P. South Barrow -10 IOD -C83 South Barrow -11 ICD -53d/ South Barrow -12 I&D -656 -- AK,
