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
100-214
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 STA'G'E F40115vW019, mlwwr July 11, 2013 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: (. fl'aser vat'lork Division of Spill Prevention and Response Contaminated Sites Program SCOIAED APP 0 1 2014 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 BLM 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 XFP-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. r-\enaFP,1-1Aornrirc\T')OT\BT.M\Projects\Le¢acvWells\71113 Letter to BLM on LegacyWells.docx Wayne Svejnoha luly 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 G:\SPAR\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 hviclence 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 Na / 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 Navy/ 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 drilling fluids left in hole no data Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #10 US Na / BLM Low None None Unknown assessment & workplan drillinq 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 Na / 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 Na / BLM None- Uncased, i None None Unknown areas gas blowout and fire reve etated site Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #17 US Na / BLM None- Uncased, 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, i 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, i None None Unknown assessment & workplan drilling fluids left in hole no data Simpson Core Test #21 US Na / 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 Na / 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 Na / BLM Low None INone INo jappears healthy Plugged to surface site not cleared Page 1 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 2 of 14 v- enceo -- �e_aa-as= —1i 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 --T — plugging operations inadequate and Wellhead left as Umiat #3 US Na / 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 Na / BLM / FUDS None pending 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 b BLM in 2004 incomplete historic site? plugging operations inadequate and Wellhead left as Umiat #10 US Navy/ BLM / FUDS None pending 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 1 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 Yes lCleanup. 1mud & diesel to surface Idebris. Page 2 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 3 of 14 vi ence o - BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP I Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Status Need HRR, PA, SI with 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 iYes istressed vegetation Ito surface I Pylons Page 3 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 4 of 14 -Y-Widenceo 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 Sloe 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 Slope 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 Slope 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 Slope Boro None None None Unknown assessment & workplan unknown fluids no data Page 4 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 5 of 14 yr Uendea --- — -- .. .. a— — -1 BI -M 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Status South Barrow #18 US Na /North Slope Boro None None None Unknown 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 comfeted 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 rsg; 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, Min a Velocity#1 US Navy/ BLM one one one Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI cs to 27' o en cs csg @ 31'. 280' of drill pipe, drill collar, and core Oumalik Core #1 US Navy/ BLM None -No observa None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI. barrel left in hole. reve elated Page 5 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 6 of 14 BLM 2013 Risk vi ence of Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPEAR Notes Status !IStatus J 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 Na / BLM Low None None Yes surface csg to 9'. debris open csg sticking out of ground; wood & metal Oumalik Core #12 US Na / 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 Na / BLM Low None None Unknown apparent in site photos csg to 30'; underwater status Need HRR, PA, Sl. 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 Na / 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 Na / BLM Low None lNone 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 lNone 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 drilling 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 1 US Navy/ BLM Low lNone lNone No release. drilling 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 / RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Status Need HRR, PA, SI. = z� _ open casing Vegetated, no evidence of csg set shallow; drilling sticking out of Simpson Core Test #14a US Na / BLM Low None None No release. 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 Na / BLM Medium None None Yes Plugged by BLM in 2004. unassisted flow. and rusting barrels Need HRR, PA, Sl. 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 Navy/ 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 INone No appears healthy drilling 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,- p;pooled pooledoil. Plugged by BLM csg cemented at150'; wood & metal Simpson Core Test #30 US Navy/ BLM Low None INone Yes, see notes in 2004. drilling fluids left in hole debris Need HRR, PA, SI. 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' as 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 Navy/ BLM None INone INone IYes,seenotes IBLMin2OO4. 1 drilling fluids left in hole out of round Page 7 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 8 of 14 vi ence of 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, 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, Sl. 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 Na / 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 EV-1clence o BLM 2013 Risk Historic J.SPAR AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? Workgroup Notes Status Status Add to Site list. Need HRR, 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, l' 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 Navy/ 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 Navy/ 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 1 Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR VVorkgroup 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 sticking up; metal & Knifeblade #2a US Na / BLM Low None None No Need HRR, PA, SI. 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 Na / BLM Low None None No during the summer drilling 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 corr 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 Navy / BLM / 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 IYes lwater durinq breakup. no data Idata Page 10 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 11 of 14 vi ence of �`c - BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR IfYorkgroup Notes Status Status 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 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 Navy / 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 NRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Drilling Muds on site -slowly revegetating. Not abandoned, More information on drilling site not cleared, 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 Na /BLM High None None Yes -Report notes retain water 1950'; tbg to 1939' affected 50'x50' Need HRR, PA, SI. 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 INone unknown Cleanup. On roads stem water concrete debris Need HRR, PA, SI. 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 Slope Borol Medium INone INone IYes Isurface water in well cellar fluids and water debris Page 11 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xfsx Page 12 of 14 vi ence o =- _-- t== _ a,�s ---I i 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes 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 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 44 US Navy/ BLM None-uncased hq None INone jUnknown INeed HRR, PA, Inot in AOGCC database IMonthly Meeting Page 12 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 13 of 14 vi ence o -- -- ". BLM 2013 Risk Historicz- AOGCC Subsurface- AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes 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 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 Na / BLM None-uncased hc None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, not in AOGCC database Monthly Meetin 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 Plugged to surface abandonment no data to support proper Umiat #5 US Navy / BLM None Pending Clo 335.38.001/3078 Yes, see file Plugged to surface abandonment properly plugged and surface site Umiat #9 US Na / BLM Hi h -PCB cleanul Active 335.38.001/3093 Yes, see file abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface site Umiat #6 US Na / BLM None Pending Cloi 335.38.001/3080 Yes, see file abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface site Umiat #7 US Na / BLM INone Pending Clo 335.38.001/3091 Yes, see file abandoned Iremediated Need HRR, PA, Plugged by properly plugged and surface site Ati aru Point #1 USGS / BLM None None None No BLM in 2009. abandoned remediated Page 13 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 14 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 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 None 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 property 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 Navy/North Sloe Boro 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 None None None IYes reserve and flare pits. abandoned remediated Page 14 of 14 Q A�N�NTOFJy y� United States Department of the Interior R mei � 9 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT �aQCH 3 �A Alaska State Office 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504 http://www.blm.gov/ak In Reply Refer To: Umiat No. 6 Well (AK932) April 30, 2012 Mr. Daniel T. Seamount, Jr., Chair Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 333 West 7`'' Ave., Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Seamount: t TAKE Pmoz* IHAMERlCA RECE, VED MAY p 210, f . .. Subject: Umiat No. 6 Well Plug and Abandonment Well completion Report 10-407 JUL 0 5 Z01Z Bureau of Land Management, Umiat No. 6 CSuT:n:dr"y 00-214 Number 311-349 Bureau of Land Management hereby submits the well completion report for its Umiat No. 6 well. The well was plugged and abandoned to surface with cement and a marker plate was installed. To plug and abandon this well the following steps were performed: • Ran 1" tubing to 415' and circulated cement down the 1" tubing and up the 1" x 8" hole and 1" x 8- 5/8" casing annuluses to the surface; • Excavated around wellhead to 4 feet below ground level and dug around casing and ground annulus area; • Cut off 8-5/8" casing and 1" tubing at 3 feet below ground level; • Topped off annulus and tubing with cement and laid cement around 8-5/8" casing and ground area; •Welded marker plate on 8-5/8" casing stub; • Filled excavated hole with 9 cu. yds. of clean gravel; • Backfilled and mounded clean excavated dirt over well cellar area. ZZ (Zi The following attachments are included in this final report: S' 1. Well Completion Report Form 10-407; Umiat No. 6 2. Final wellbore diagram after P&A; Umiat No. 6 3. Photographic documentation of P&A; Umiat No. 6 0 • If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Tom Zelenka at 907- 271-4224. Sincerely, Wayne ejnoha Branch Chief, Branch of Energy and Minerals BLM, Alaska State Office Enclosure(s): Well Completion Report Form 10-407; Umiat No. 6 Final wellbore diagram after P&A; Umiat No. 6 Photographic documentation of P&A; Umiat No. 6 2 STATE OF ALASKA AL& OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COM ION WELL COMPLETION OR RECOMPLETION REPORT AND LOG 1a. Well Status: Oil ❑ Gas ❑ SPLUG ❑ Other ❑ Abandoned Q Suspended❑ 20AAC 25.105 20AAC 25.110 GINJ ❑ WINJ ❑ WAG ❑ WDSPL ❑ No. of Completions: _ None 1b. Well Class: Development ❑ Exploratory Q Service ❑ Stratigraphic Test ❑ 2. Operator Name: Bureau of Land Management 5. Date Comp., Susp., or Aband.: 4/11/2012 12. Permit to Drill Number: 100-214 — 949 3. Address: 222 W. 7th Avenue, #13, Anchorage, AK 99513-7504 6. Date Spudded: 8/14/1950 13. API Number: 50-287-10006-00-00 4a. Location of Well (Governmental Section): Surface: Sec. 3, T 1 S, R 1 W, U.M. Top of Productive Horizon: Sec. 3, T 1 S, R 1 W, U.M. Total Depth: Sec. 3, T 1 S, R 1 W, U.M. 7. Date TD Reached: 12/12/1950 14. Well Name and Number: Umiat No. 6 8. KB (ft above MSL): 270' GL (ft above MSL): 267' 15. Field/Pool(s): Umiat Undefined Oil Pool 9. Plug Back Depth(MD+TVD): Surface 4b. Location of Well (State Base Plane Coordinates, NAD 27): Surface: x- 417,712.215mE y- 1,714,874.084mN Zone- 4 TPI: x- n/a y- n/a Zone- n/a Total Depth: x- n/a y- n/a Zone- n/a 10. Total Depth (MD + ND): 825' MD/TVD' 16. Property Designation: Lease AA -081726, Tract 991 L-005 11. SSSV Depth (MD + ND): n/a 17. Land Use Permit: n/a 18. Directional Survey: Yes ❑ No F,-/ 1 (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: 770' MD/TVD 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 WT. PER GRADE SETTING DEPTH MD SETTING DEPTH TVD HOLE SIZE CEMENTING RECORD AMOUNT CASING FT TOP BOTTOM TOP BOTTOM PULLED 8-5/8" n/a n/a 0' 35' 0' 35' 8-5/8" Driven 0' 24. Open to production or injection? Yes ❑ No Q If Yes, list each interval open (MD+TVD of Top & Bottom; Perforation Size and Number): RECEIVED MAY 0 2 2012. ,vOGCC 25. TUBING RECORD SIZE DEPTH SET (MD) PACKER SET (MD/TVD) V. 415' n/a ACID,FRACTURE,CEMENT 26DEPTH AND INTERVALI KIND OF MATERIAL USED n/a n/a 27. PRODUCTION TEST Date First Production: Method of Operation (Flowing, gas lift, etc.): Date of Test: Hours Tested: Production for Test Period Oil -Bbl: Gas -MCF: Water -Bbl: Choke Size: Gas -Oil Ratio: Flow Tubing Press. Casing Press: Calculated 24 -Hour Rate --fo, Oil -Bbl: Gas -MCF: Water -Bbl: Oil Gravity - API (corr): 28. CORE DATA Conventional Core(s) Acquired? Yes ❑ No Q Sidewall Cores Acquired? Yes ❑ No Q 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. iftrMMMS MAY 0 3 Form 10-407 Revised 12/2009 _ CONTINUED ON REVERSE Sum, Ig' al only C .�lG>�l/2- • 29. GEOLOGIC MARKERS (List all formations and markers encountered): 30. FORMATION TESTS NAME MD TVD Well tested? ❑ Yes FZ] No If yes, list intervals and formations tested, briefly summarizing test results. Attach separate sheets to this form, if Permafrost - Top n/a n/a needed, and submit detailed test information per 20 AAC 25.071. Permafrost - Base 770' 770' Formation at total depth: 31. List of Attachments: 32. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Contact: Tom Zelenka PE; 907-271-4224 Printed Name: Wayne Svejnoha Title: Branch Chief, Branch of Energy and Minerals �J Signatur Phone: 907-271-4407 Date: � 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 1 b: 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 12/2009 Umiat Test Well # 6 Lat: 690 22' 44" Final Condition Long: 1520 0.5' 40" Top of Conductor at 3' BGL No. Spud: 14 AUG 1950 Comp: 12 DEC 1950 P&A: 10 APR 2012 Ground Level 8-5/8" Casing Driven to 35' N— Ring of Cal -Seal Placed around Casing at Surface 1" Tubing now From Surface to 415' v Hole Filled with —� 10.7 ppg ASL Cement from 415' to Surface 8 - 5/8" Hole —► r 'its, MD �qS Cable Tool Fish Top of Fish @ 758' �� TOC @ 758' Hole Cemented from 783' to TD Umiat # 6 TD @ 825' All Depths from Ground Level REV: 20 APR 2012 l f ... 0 Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) 0 Page 1 of 2 /00— From: e0—From: Zelenka, Thomas J [tzelenka@blm.gov] Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 10:32 AM �T To: Svejnoha, Wayne Cc: Diel, Bill; Pindell, Darla; Miller, Justin T; Schwartz, Guy L (DOA); Wixon, Donna L; Flora, Susan M; McIntosh, Stacie J; pw_75@hotmail.com; Zelenka, Thomas J Subject: DAILY REPORT --WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY, APRIL 11-12, 2012 - UMIAT NO. 6 A D 7 WELL P+A OPERATIONS We moved over the Umiat No. 7 well Dation late Thursday. We have staged equipment around wellhead and will be attempting to cut off 6-5/8" casing collar to weld on our BOP adaptor flange. The 6- 5/8" casing seems to be supported by a oddball clamp, no casing hanger between 6-5/8" and 11-3/4", another oddball Navy wellhead configuration. There is supposedly 4 bbis of oil in the 6-5/8" x 11-3/4" casing annulus. Once we get access to the annulus, we will run a plumb down and see if we can tag anything. We do not want oil at the cut off at 3' below ground level. The Navy really left us a mess dealing with these wells. There is no telling what was left behind in the wells. Each one is an individual challenge. The internet has been down since the move yesterday and it was spotty all morning yesterday and I was unable to send in the report. I did leave you a verbal voice mail on our status. We officially completed Umiat No. 6 P+A operations at 1100 hrs on Wednesday, April 11, 2012. We will push ahead. Susan Flora is coming out to look at the brine spill at Umiat No. 6 today. Justin is planning on heading back on Monday, April 16 and I am scheduled out on Saturday, April 21. I will be in the office on Monday April 23 barring no problems out here. You know how well work can be, very unpredictable. UMIAT NO.6 -- Wednesday, 4/11 ... Temperature at P+A Camp was -17F with winds at 2-4 mph and P/cloudy. Safety meeting was held at 0700 hours emphasizing installing the BOP equipment on the next well. All equipment was fueled. Dumped 3 cu yds of remaining Umiat No. 6 gravel into excavation. Due to soil removal, an additional 1 bag of gravel was brought over from No. 7 location and dispersed into the excavation. A total of 9 bags (9 cu yds) of clean gravel were used to fill the Umiat No. 9 cellar excavation area. The clean dirt was then backfilled on top forming a mounded surface approximately 4 feet high. All mounding work was completed on the Umiat No. 6 well and BLM's Tom Zelenka gave approval of final mounding and approval to proceed to Umiat No. 7 P+A at 1100 hrs. All P+A work completed on the Umiat No. 6 well. Daily reporting on this well is closed today. I will continue to report on the spill remediation work should it be decided on while I am here. Equipment movements to No. 7 location continued the rest of the day. Camp is still at No. 6 location. Well location was secured for the night at 2100 hrs. UMIAT NO. 7 -- Wednesday, 4/11 ... Temperature at P+A Camp was -17F with winds at 2-4 mph and P/cloudy. At 1100 hrs, MC began loading and moving Batch Mixer skip mounted unit to Umiat No. 7 location. The storage connexes were then move to the No. 7 well site. The Solsten boiler was decommissioned and the tank was drained, as well as the boiler and fuel tank. Crew moved the Atigun tank, heaters, scaffolding, and pallet timbers to No. 7 location. At 1700 hrs cut drum from around No. 7 wellhead. The 6-5/8" casing has an ice plug 1.5' down inside the casing. Groomed around the wellhead area so that it is hard enough to lay a tarp down on Thursday and move Batch Mixer onto tarp and closer to the wellhead. Well location was secured for the night at 2100 hrs. UMIAT NO. 7 --Thursday, 4/12 ... Temperature at P+A Camp was -22F with winds at 4-5 mph with low clouds and light snow. Safety meeting was held at 0700 hours emphasizing setting up No. 7 well site and staging equipment around the wellhead. All APR 4/13/2012 0 Page 2 of 2 equipment was fueled for the day. The crew started preparing to install tarp under Batch Mixer unit location for secondary containment. They laid out the tarp and set Batch Mixer unit on tarp with 12"x12" beam supports at strategic points under the skid. They next set the Atigun Boiler (new boiler) next to the well and hooked up generator, and heater to get the boiler ready for water and startup. They heated the generator and boiler then hooked up electrical power to the connexes. They completed secondary containment under the Batch Mixer and attached tarp to side of mixer for support at 1400 hrs. They then laid out a tarp on the wellhead side from the Mixer skid toward the wellhead. The camp housing trailer sleds were moved from Umiat No. 6 well location over to the Umiat No. 7 well location and electrical connections reestablished to all cars by 1800 hrs. The crew then set the Koomey BOP accumulator against the Batch Mixer. The No. 7 well location was secured for the night at 2100 hrs. Thomas 7. Zelenka, P.E. Petroleum Engineer Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue, #13 Anchorage, AK 99513 907-271-4224 Office 4/13/2012 Page 1 of 2 Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) From: Zelenka, Thomas J [tzelenka@blm.gov] to 'a) Ly Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 1:46 PM To: Svejnoha, Wayne Cc: Diel, Bill; Pindell, Darla; Miller, Justin T; Flora, Susan M; McIntosh, Stacie J; Wixon, Donna L; pw_75@hotmail.com; Schwartz, Guy L (DOA); Zelenka, Thomas J; Yarawsky, Sharon Subject: DAILY REPORT -- TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2012 -- UMIAT NO. 6 AND 7 WELL P+A OPERATIONS We finished adding 4 additional sacks of gravel (total 9 sacks or 9 cu yds) to the excavated hole. We then backfilled the clean excavated dirt over the well stub and mounded it to 4' above ground level. We completed the P+A of the Umiat No. 6 well at 1100 hrs on April 11, 2012. The cat train arrived this morning and three Steigers with trailers are on location to move the heavier P+A equipment over to the Umiat No. 7 location to commence P+A operations. All P+A work on the Umiat No. 6 well have been completed. The MC inspector arrived but the BLM and ADEC inspectors could not make due to other emergencies. They are expected in later this week. The MC inspector with the assistance of another MC employee are digging search holes around the discharge point to identify the areal extent of the spill and the direction it may have taken. We have the excavator standing by on location should they require snow removal to look at the tundra. We are moving equipment to the No. 7 location and staging around the wellhead in preparation for P+A operations. Umiat No. 6 - Tuesday, 4/10 ... Temperature at P+A Camp was -17F with winds at 3-5 mph and P/cloudy. Safety meeting was held at 0700 hours emphasizing fire watch during torch cutting and welding operations. All equipment was fueled for the day. Crew set tarp and board around well area for BOP adaptor flange cutoff. They cut off the existing BOP adaptors flange and the 4" x 8-5/8" crossover off the well casing. They moved the Batch Mixer from the well area and put out traffic cones to mark off the brine spill area for inspection. Crew placed tarp in Alaska Heater Tank #104, set tank on a tarp, and installed tarp from tank to well over the exposed swing area of the hoe. Excavation of the well cellar area around the well casing began at 1300 hrs. Excavation of snow showed that oil from casing annulus traveled in a SW direction from the well for a distance of 15'. Stained snow and tundra were cleaned up and dumped in the lined 50 bbl tank. Continued digging around the casing to a depth of 4' below ground level. Measured and cut casing off at 3' below ground level at 1700 hrs. There was cement at cut off and topped off same with batch mixed cement and dumped 20 gals of cement around base of casing and ground contact area. Attached well ID plate welded on casing with completion at 1800 hrs. All excavation work, casing cut off, and ID well plate installation was documented with required photos. MC supervisor took GPS coordinates of well capped location: NAD 83; N 690 22.637' and W 1520 05.768'; Sea Level Elevation -264'. Crew filled excavated hole with 5 bags (1 cu yd/sack) of gravel. Remaining gravel will be filled into the hole tomorrow before capping with excavated dirt. The well location was secured for the night at 2100 hrs. Umiat No. 7 - Tuesday, 4/10 ... Work began on the Umiat No. 7 well P+A location. Equipment not being utilized on the Umiat No. 6 P+A was mobilized over to the No. 7 well location; heaters, light plants, Koomey accumulator unit, choke manifold, choke pipe, pipe tools, etc. The 4" x 6" crossover was welded onto the well casing in preparation for welding on the BOP adaptor flange. The extra mud boxes were moved to the No. 7 location. rAPR 12 2012 4/11/2012 Page 1 of 2 is 16 Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) From: Zelenka, Thomas J [tzelenka@blm.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 9:16 AM To: Svejnoha, Wayne Cc: Diel, Bill; Pindell, Darla; pw_75@hotmail.com; Schwartz, Guy L (DOA); Flora, Susan M; McIntosh, Stacie J; Wixon, Donna L; Miller, Justin T; Yarawsky, Sharon; Zelenka, Thomas J Subject: DAILY REPORT -- MONDAY, APRIL 9, 2012 -- UMIAT NO. 6 WELL P+A OPERATIONS Good morning. Still cool here, -17F which is good for work. We wll be cutting off the BOP adaptor flange and moving it over to Umiat No. 7 well for attachment. We will begin excavating the well cellar area around the No. 6 well casing and containing the material for possible disposable due to contamination with wellbore fluid that came up around the casing during cementing operations. We will dig down 4-5 feet and cut off at 3-4 feet below ground level. We will do any rememdial cementing to fill the casing, if needed, then attach the well ID plate and cover the well stub with clean gravel to surface and mound appropriately. We will begin setting up the scaffolding around No. 7 well and attaching the adaptor flange in prepartion for BOP installation and P+A operations. Othere P+A equipment will be moved over to the Umiat No. 7 location once the Steiger train returns back to camp from Franklin Bluffs. Monday, 4/9 ... Temperature at P+A Camp was -17F with winds at 3-5 mph and clear. Safety meeting was held at 0700 hours emphasizing rigging down and removing BOP equipment. All equipment was fueled for the day. Crew prepared well area for removal of BOP equipment. All 4 (four) wellbore samples were packed and sent to Arctic Fox Lab in Deadhorse for analysis. Sample depths were: surface, 35', 90', and 200'. Atigun circulation tank was moved away from wellhead location and crew cleaned up underneath tank area and around the wellhead. BLM called Deadhorse AOGCC inspector, Bob Noble, at 0915 hrs and gave them 24-hour notice of casing cut off for Tuesday morning. Mr. Noble called back and said that if BLM didn't hear from him or another inspector in 12 hours that the AOGCC would waive their presence at the cut off. BLM indicated that they would document the cut off with photos. Lou Giribaldi, AOGCC inspector called BLM back at 1030 hrs to inform BLM that the AOGCC would waive their presence at the cut off. Crew rigged up elevators and latched 1" pipe. The pipe slips were removed and well checked for pressure on choke manifold side. There was no pressure and the pipe rams were opened with the accumulator. Crew unbolted the mud cross from the BOP adaptor flange and using the hoe, lifted the BOP stack off the adaptor flange, and moved it off to the side for cleaning. The BOP rams stack (pipe and blind) were lifted over the Atigun tank and steam cleaned. The scaffolding around the wellhead was dismantled and any oil around the well cellar area was cleaned up by funneling to a low area sump and sump pumped to slop tank. The well cellar area was then lined with absorbent cloth materials to absorb any remaining oil film. Crew rigged up 1" top job pipe to top off concrete at 33' and attempted to pull water column from above concrete top. Solsten supervisor spoke with Anchorage Solsten XP staff and was advised to discontinue current operations of cementing top job and continue with the excavation of the well cellar area for casing cut off. Solsten supervisor informed crew the change in operations to not be working around the well cellar until the identification of the oil contaminant was determined in the lab even though a minimum amout of batch cementing was remaining to cap the well annulus. Crew lead advised Solsten supervisor that if any further crew surface work was even considered around the wellhead that he would call for a safety shutdown to prevent this work because the material on the well cellar pad could be toxic without knowing otherwise until lab results 4/10/2012 0 Page 2 of 2 s are determined. MC P+A Camp supervisor announced that if surface material being excavated was unknown that he would not allow the excavating equipment to be contaminated and risk the equipment to contaminate any other areas around the well site. Operations around the wellhead were discontinued for the time being and the crew continued with demobilization of the equipment in preparation for its movement to Umiat No. 7 location. The rinsate drums were moved from around the well location and the crew prepared for moving all equipment that is next to the well casing so that when excavation is continued, the excavator will be able to access all areas around the well casing except for that area where the brine spill occurred which will be coned off. The spill inspection area is awaiting arrival on Wednesday of MC and ADEC inspection personnel. All well operations were suspended for the night and the well location was secured at 2100 hrs. Thomas J. Zelenka, P.E. Petroleum Engineer Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue, #13 Anchorage, AK 99513 907-271-4224 Office 4/10/2012 Page 1 of 2 0 Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) From: Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 10:08 AM To: 'Zelenka, Thomas J'; DOA AOGCC Prudhoe Bay Cc: Svejnoha, Wayne; Miller, Justin T; Diel, Bill; Pindell, Darla Subject: RE: VARIANCE REQUEST -- UMIAT NO. 6 WELL P+A DEPTH (PTD 100-214) Tom, As we discussed last night and by email sent last night you have approval to start the P & A operation by plugging back from 415' with cement. The Commissioners are aware of the status and agree with the variance to the approved sundry. Good luck with the procedure as you proceed today to cement the well to surface. Guy Schwartz Senior Petroleum Engineer AOGCC 793-1226 (office) 444-3433 (cell) From: Zelenka, Thomas J [mailto:tzelenka@blm.gov] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 10:26 PM To: Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) Cc: Svejnoha, Wayne; Miller, Justin T; Diel, Bill; Pindell, Darla; Zelenka, Thomas J Subject: VARIANCE REQUEST -- UMIAT NO. 6 WELL P+A DEPTH This email is to document my verbal request for a variance in plugging depth for the Umiat No. 6 well. Originally the BLM was approved to plug and abandon the Umiat No. 6 wellbore from 758' (top of fish) to the surface. The BLM verbally requested (through 2000 hrs telecommunication) from AOGCC (Guy Schwartz) a variance on the plugging depth to allow the well to be plugged back from 415' due to deteorating holes conditions that were being encountered below 415 feet. The circumstances that developed during clean out of the wellbore to 758' that prompted this variance request are stated below. Based on these circumstances, AOGCC granted the BLM the variance to start plugging and abandoning the Umiat No. 6 well from 415' Circumstances Precipitating Variance Request We began making good hole recovery while cleaning wellbore from surface to approved depth of 758'. An Aqua -Gel plug was encountered at 90' that slowed hole recovery but we broke through the plug at 138' and made good hole to 415'. While picking up another 10' joint, the well took a gas kick at 1355 hrs. Fluid returns on the slip bowl rose about 8 inches. We had identified this potential problem and had gone through BOP Kick Drills. The well was immediately shut in at 415' by closing the circulating valve on the tubing, the choke valve downstream from the mud cross was opened, the pipe rams were closed, and flow was sent to the choke manifold and choke tank. The choke valve downstream from the adjustable choke (adjustable choke half closed) was then closed containing the kick. The crew on the floor at the time of the kick took a gas measurement reading on their detector at 19 LEL (Low Explosion Level). Solsten supervisor then called his office in Anchorage and reported what had occurred. We checked the pressure on the choke manifold after about 45 minutes and it was 0 psi. We also noticed small bubbles coming up from around the casing. Initial concern was that gas had breached the casing annulus due to no cement. We then took a gas reading and it only measured some CO2 gas, no LEL or H2S measurement but it was quite windy. While keeping the pipe rams closed, we opened the choke manifold valve, and began circulation down the tubing from the Atigun circulating tank and taking returns through the choke manifold into the choke tank. There was a lot of oily fluid in the returns. Since we only had about 8 bbls in the circulating tank, 4/7/2012 Page 2 of 2 ft we began heating our Batch Mixer #2 Tank which had 32 bbls of fresh water and at 1600 hrs were mixing up 34 bbis of 9.3 ppg brine for circulating. We moved another 8 bbis of brine from the #1 Tank to the Atigun circulating tank and displace 8 bbis of brine down the tubing and back to the choke tank. We have approximately 26 bbis of hole volume at 415'. We circulated a total of 50 bbis of brine down the tubing and back up the annulus into the choke tank (2 hole volumes) to remove the gas bubble in preparation to running any pipe. We shut in the well after displacing the 50 bbis of brine. We observed gas bubbling outside of the casing. We then opened the choke valve to the choke tank and gas began bubflowomg and bubbling out into the choke tank. Gas continued to flow up the well to the choke tank. We shut the choke valve and removed the gauge from the kill line which is upstream of the mud cross. Using the gas meter, we measured a reading of 42 LEL off the needle valve. The gas seems to keep entering the wellbore even after circulating two hole volumes. The safest procedure was to continue flowing the well to the choke tank rather than breaching the casing annulus with a complete shut in. The BLM then called AOGCC requesting a variance to plug the well from 415'. I will let you know how we progress with the plugging operations. We are proceeding with getting all the fluids lined out and getting set up to mix and pump cement in the morning. Thomas 7. Zelenka, P.E. Petroleum Engineer Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue, #13 Anchorage, AK 99513 907-271-4224 Office 4/7/2012 Page 1 of 1 46 Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) From: Zelenka, Thomas J [tzelenka@blm.gov] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 11:45 AM To: Svejnoha, Wayne Cc: Diel, Bill; Pindell, Darla; pw_75@hotmail.com; Miller, Justin T; McIntosh, Stacie J; Flora, Susan M; Wixon, Donna L; Yarawsky, Sharon; Schwartz, Guy L (DOA); Crisp, John H (DOA); Zelenka, Thomas J Subject: DAILY REPORT -- THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2012 -- UMIAT NO. 6 WELL P+A OPERATIONS I couldn't get on the internet earlier. We are at about 240' and making good hole. Yesterday we averaged 16' an hour including time to work through a gel plug. It is OF today and a little wind. We got started going in the hole at 0840 hrs. We are hoping to have a good day cleaning out to our 758' TD. We could be cementing late tomorrow or Sunday. I will give AOGCC inspection a heads up 24-hour notice based on our performance making hole today. Thursday, 4/5 ... Temperature at P+A Camp was -21 F with winds at 6-8 mph and cloudy. Safety meeting was held at 0700 hours emphasizing the safety needed when working with the 1" work string. All equipment was fueled up for the day. The brine was heated up in Tank #1 and 8 bbls were transferred over to the Atigun circulating tank. The crew rigged up the pump system and tested same. System was freezing up as they were testing the lines. They had to tear the piping apart to find the ice plug. At 1245 hrs, the well was opened up. There was no pressure on the well and fluid was at the surface, no fluid losses over the evening. At 1315 hrs, crew rigged up circulating head on 1" tubing and broke circulation at 95'. Picked up #10 joint, made connection and ran in hole to 105'. Circulated bottoms up at 105'. Start working 1" pipe and banging with chiseled mule shoe on Aqua -Gel to 130'. Transferred 8 bbls of 9.3 ppg brine from #1 Tank to Atigun suction tank (left side) to make up for losses due to borehole opening up as we worked through the Aqua -Gel plug. Brine temperatures going in are 105 -11 OF and the returns measure temperatures are from 75-85F. Crew continued working pipe and broke through the Aqua -Gel plug at 138'. We then circulated bottoms up with brine temperature going in at 106F and 9.3 ppg. At 1635 hrs, we continued to slide and wash tubing down to 195', reaching this depth at 1840 hrs. We circulated bottoms up for 5 minutes with brine temperature going in at 11 OF and 9.3 ppg heavy and 9.4 ppg coming out. We made 90 feet in approximately 5.5 hrs or 16+ feet an hour for the day. That includes the slow going on the gel plug. The crew laid down 1 joint of tubing to 185', set floor safety vale, locked closed same, and closed the BOP pipe rams and secured the well for the night at 1850 hrs. The crew pumped the Atigun suction tank (both tanks) and lines to waste sled and cleaned out suction lines. Batch Mixer #1 Tank has 24 bbls of 9.4 ppg brine and #2 Tank has 32 bbls of fresh water. The crew secured the well location for the night at 2200 hrs. Thomas J. Zelenka, P.E. Petroleum Engineer Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue, #13 Anchorage, AK 99513 907-271-4224 Office 4/6/2012 Page 1 of 2 Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) From: Zelenka, Thomas J [tzelenka@blm.gov] Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 10:05 AM To: Svejnoha, Wayne Cc: Diel, Bill; Pindell, Darla; McIntosh, Stacie J; Flora, Susan M; Wixon, Donna L; Miller, Justin T; Yarawsky, Sharon; pw_75@hotmail.com; Schwartz, Guy L (DOA); Crisp, John H (DOA); Zelenka, Thomas J Subject: DAILY REPORT -- WEDNESDAY, APRIL 4, 2012 -- UMIAT NO. 6 WELL P+A OPERATIONS We are preparing to go back washing down with brine to our approved depth of 758'. We are making approximately 10 feet (1 joint) per hour of wash down. I am hoping that the Aqua -Gel clean out speeds up and we get to softer material to wash through. We will continue to make hole and I will consider when we will stop based on how much hole we gain over the next two days. Other parties are suggesting we stop early based on yesterday's results. I think our crew can work harder and working the pipe to get better depth with the cleanout than 10 feet per hour. I will keep you posted. Is there anything further you require from us out here? Just let me know. It is a busy day when we are running pipe. Wednesday, 4/4 ... Temperature at P+A Camp was -22F with winds at 3-5 mph and cloudy. Safety meeting was held at 0700 hours emphasizing balancing fluids and working fluids between tanks safely. All equipment was fueled for the day. Heat brine tanks and #2 Tank of fresh water. The crew rigged up the pump system with 4" trash pump from Atigun circulating tank (left side and suction) to Kelly circulating valve on work deck. Total 41 bbls NaCl brine water available. The crew opened the well (open blind rams) and filled well with 2 bbls of brine. We started going in the hole with 1" tubing at 1100 hrs. We ran 3 joints (10 foot each) of 1" tubing with 5' mule shoe to 35' (casing shoe) and circulated out. Picked up 2 joints of 1" tubing, connected, and ran in hole to 55' and circulated out. Picked up 1 joint, made connection and worked down to 65' and circulated out. At 65', MC (Scott) collected three 1 -liter bottles (#1 Sample Depth) of fluid returns with fluid to be analyzed prior to disposal. Picked up 1 joint of tubing, connected, and worked string down to 75'. The NaCl brine temperature was 96F and fluid weight at 9.3 ppg heavy. We were getting well returns at 55F temperature and 93 ppg. We picked up joint #9, connected to string and went in hold and pipe seemed to bury itself. We had no returns on our circulation. We pulled back and disconnect, and laid down the #9 joint. We regained circulation. We circulated bottoms up. We continued circulating while heating Atigun suction tank (left side) to 100F with well returns at 82F. Picked up 5' joints, connected to string and worked pipe down while circulating through tight spot. (1 full length joint is 10 feet, too to use, and circulate for use shorter 5' joint when needed) . We tagged a hard spot at 90', stopped and circulated bottoms up. We were getting Aqua Gel material on the returns at 9.3 ppg. We worked pipe (left, drop, and bang pipe from 90'-95'. We circulated bottoms up to clean out used up Aqua -Gel and yellow, oily fluid (take Sample #2) at 95'. We continued working pipe with 5' joint at top down to joint #10 to 105' and circulate bottoms up at 105'. Pulled up and laid down 1 joint to 95'. Set floor valve in tubing string and closed valve, then shut in the pipe rams around the V tubing. The well was secured for the night at 1630 hrs. Crew cleaned out the Atigun tank (both sides) and pumped dirty fluid to waste sleds. Counted brine fluid volume with 36 bbls of brine in #1 4/5/2012 • Tank. Well site was secured for the night at 2100 hrs. Thomas 7. Zelenka, P.E. Petroleum Engineer Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue, #13 Anchorage, AK 99513 907-271-4224 Office 4/5/2012 Page 2 of 2 49 w Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) Page 1 of 2 From: Zelenka, Thomas J [tzelenka@blm.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 10:30 AM To: Svejnoha, Wayne Cc: Diel, Bill; Pindell, Darla; Miller, Justin T; pw_75@hotmail.com; Schwartz, Guy L (DOA); Crisp, John H (DOA); Wixon, Donna L; Yarawsky, Sharon Subject: DAILY REPORT -- TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 2012 -- UMIAT NO. 6 WELL P+A OPERATIONS Attachments: 10 BBL_SPILL_1.JPG; 10 BBL_SPILL_2.JPG Wayne, We had a major undesirable spill event at the Umiat No. 6 well location identified at approximately 1000 hrs on Tuesday, April 3. An unobserved leaking victrolic gasket in the piping below the brine mixing Tank #1 allowed approximately 10 bbls of brine to leak to the tundra before the loss was discovered. I have attached some pictures of the spill below the gasket and pipe. The Solsten supervisor was informed of his requirements for reporting the event based on BLM regulations NTL -3A -Alaska to the BLM (he also has to report it to the Alaska Department of Conservation). Solsten will be submitting their spill report to the BLM Authorized Officer, Wayne Svejnoha, Branch Chief. The spill was under the Batch Mixer skid so clean up of the spill site will occur after we move off the location. I will keep our ArFO in the loop on any report filings. We were busy addressing the situation and trying to get going on the operations so I did report this until today since we had it contained and the appropriate agencies were made aware of the spill. We will be going in the hole and circulating brine. The well is taking fluid so we will have to circulate at a rate to overcome the loss of the brine. The heavier cement (10.7 ppg vs. 9.3 ppg) could see a greater loss once it turns the corner out of the 1". This is definitely a more problematic P+A than the previous ones with so much open hole. I will keep you posted. If you require any additional information on the spill from me, please let me know. Tuesday, 4/3 ... Temperature at P+A Camp was -28F with winds at 3-5 mph. Safety meeting was held at 0700 hours emphasizing purpose and operation of the choke manifold system. All equipment was fueled for the day. The brine was heated to 100F. The crew added 10 bbls of fresh water to Batch Mixer Tank #2 (to be used for cement) and heated water to 90F. The crew removed the tarp to be able to operate the hoe which controls the 1" pipe elevators. BLM noticed the Atigun circulating tank (left side) was full to 13.6 bbls and asked the Solsten supervisor how much additional brine was in the #1 Tank. At 1000 hrs, Solsten supervisor asked the crew lead how much volume of brine do we have and he said 28 bbls. We had mixed 28 bbls of 9.3 bbls brine in the #1 Tank on Monday. The crew reported that there was no brine in the #1 Tank. The Solsten supervisor went up on the #1 Tank and observed that there was brine in the bottom of the tank with approximately 4 bbls in the suction lines at the bottom. The Solsten supervisor asked the crew lead about the volume discrepancy and he said he did not know. Supervisor had crew lead look under the #1 Tank for any leaks. After removing the front board around the bottom of the #1 Tank, it was observed that there was a leak of fluid through the Victrolic gasket under the tank and that is where the 10 bbls of brine had been lost through. Upon spill discovery, Solsten supervisor made BLM's T. Zelenka aware of the 10 bbls of brine spill under the #1 Tank. The 10 bbls of brine had gone through the snow to the tundra making it a major undesirable event. 4/5/2012 Page 2 of 2 BLM made Solsten aware of NTL -3A -Alaska undesirable event report information that was required to be recorded for a major event and which must be sent to the BLM AO office within 15 days. Discussion with BLM representative on the job constituted initial contact of the spill to BLM. At 1100 hrs crew lead was instructed to empty the #1 Tank and repair the leaking gasket. The gasket was replaced and 10 bbls of fresh water was added to the #1 Tank and the pipe was tested and the leak was corrected. Additional water was added to the #1 Tank to make up 32 bbls of fresh water and the water was heated. One Super Sack of NaCl was added to the water to make 28 bbls of 9.3 ppg brine. Solsten supervisor completed his notification of the spill to the Solsten XP office at 1530 hrs. The crew function tested the BOPs at the request of T. Zelenka, BLM. The crew did a walkthrough of the choke system and its function during a kick, should one occur. We then did a walkthrough of a kick drill to familiarize all persons with their responsibilities and the procedures that would be performed to control the situation. The crew picked up the 5 foot mule shoe joint and went in hole to circulate. We could not fill hole with flow down 1" tubing so pulled out tubing shoe and filled hole with auxiliary hose. The hole took 7 bbls of brine to fill. We transferred 11 bbls of brine from the Batch Mixer #1 Tank to the Atigun circulating tank (left tank). The #1 Tank still has 27 bbls of brine in it. At 1800 hrs after running two joints of tubing in the hole (without circulating valve), Solsten supervisor called a Kick Drill; floor safety valve was screwed into the open tubing in the open position then locked closed with the key, the choke valve immediately downstream of the mud cross which moves the flow through the choke manifold was opened. Finally, the pipe rams were closed around the tubing completing the recirculation of the wellbore fluid and gas from the wellbore through the choke manifold to the choke tank. The Kick Drill was completed in 45 seconds — good. We attempted to circulate down the 1" tubing with the circulation valve but could not keep up with the fluid loss down hole. The crew pulled out the 2 joints of 1" tubing from the hole and used the auxiliary hose to fill the hole to the top, the hole took 2 bbls of brine to fill. The well was secured for the night at 2100 hrs. Tomorrow we will use the Triplex pump on the Batch Mixer for circulating brine. We will pump from the Batch Mixer down the well and take returns into the Atigun tank (left side) then the fluid will have to be moved from the Atigun tank back to the #1 Tank to complete the circuit loop. We will be set up to fill the annulus with brine using an auxiliary hose to keep the hole full during circulation. Thomas 3. Zelenka, P.E. Petroleum Engineer Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue, #13 Anchorage, AK 99513 907-271-4224 Office 4/5/2012 Page 1 of 2 Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) From: Zelenka, Thomas J [tzelenka@blm.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 9:00 AM To: Svejnoha, Wayne Cc: Schwartz, Guy L (DOA); Crisp, John H (DOA); Pindell, Darla; Diel, Bill; pw_75@hotmail.com; Wixon, Donna L; Miller, Justin T; pw_75@hotmail.com Subject: DAILY REPORT -- MONDAY, APRIL 2, 2012 -- UMIAT NO. 6 WELL P+A OPERATIONS Attached is the daily report for Monday, April 2. We will be going in the hole with 1" tubing and warm brine and start cleaning out the well bore. We will be monitoring returns for possible trapped gas. As you know we have only 35' of casing then the rest of the hole is open to the drilled formation. There were sloughing problems encountered during the initial drilling operations of the well in 1950. We anticipate the same during our operations. We will watch the conditions and will be prepared to shut and cement from the greatest depth practical. We will not risk getting stuck. A change in cement depth will require a vairiance to our original approved AOGCC Sundry of Approval for this P+A. I have the AOGCC necessary contact information if needed. I will keep you informed on our progress. I hope to have successful plugging information for you soon. Monday, 4/2 ... Temperature at P+A Camp was -19F with winds at 3-5 mph. Safety meeting was held at 0700 hours emphasizing cleanout and hole conditions during cleanout and possible hole sloughing occurring during clean out. He also addressed monitoring and maintaining brine weight (9.3 ppg) and temperature (100F) during circulation operations. All the equipment was fueled for the day. The crew worked on correcting the Batch Mixer leaking pipe connections. BLM's T. Zelenka received an email from AOGCC, Guy Schwartz, at 0910 hrs approving the BOPE testing and giving his approval for us to proceed with the Umiat No. 6 P+A operations. BLM representative did not want to proceed with clean out operations until the Batch Mixer leaks were resolved due to possible degrading bad hole conditions that may be encountered and the need to go to cementing operations before the Batch Mixer leaks have been resolved. Leaks in the piping could affect the success of cementing this wellbore from the maximum depth attained during cleanout. Solsten continued to repair Vitriolic gasket leaks. The crew utilized unused hopper line Victrolic gasket to repair discharge Victrolic clamp gasket. The existing gasket was is bad shape. Transferred brine from Atigun tank (9.7ppg heavy) back to the Batch Mixer tank and added 10 bbls of fresh water and sack NaCl material to obtain a weight of 9.3 ppg for a total of 28 bbls of brine. New Victrolic gasket parts arrived via Bald Mountain Air at 1300 hours with a new Solsten hand who changed out with the temporary Solsten roustabout. The Solsten supervisor walked the new roustabout around and attempted to get him familiar with the P+A operations while work continued on the gasket repair on the Batch Mixer. Crew tested the three leaking Victrolic clamps with a fluid pump test at 1630 hrs, and one continued to leak slightly. Repaired the leaking clamp and did a final pump test on all three clamps/gaskets at 1800 hrs and all tested dry. The fluid test was witnessed by BLM's T. Zelenka and met with his approval. The crew rigged down the test hoses and drained same. The crew readied the work area for running 1" pipe in the morning. The wellhead area was secured for the night at 2100 hrs. Thomas J. Zelenka, P.E. Petroleum Engineer 4/5/2012 Page 2 of 2 to w Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue, #13 Anchorage, AK 99513 907-271-4224 Office 4/5/2012 0 Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) From: Zelenka, Thomas J [tzelenka@blm.gov] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 9:19 AM w Page 1 of 2 To: Svejnoha, Wayne Cc: Diel, Bill; Pindell, Darla; pw_75@hotmail.com; Miller, Justin T; Schwartz, Guy L (DOA); Crisp, John H (DOA); Wixon, Donna L Subject: DAILY REPORT -- SUNDAY, APRIL 1, 2012 -- UMIAT NO. 6 WELL P+A OPERATIONS We have completed the BOPE testing and I have been in contact with both the AOGCC inspector and petroleum engineer and provided them and their organization with our results and our acceptance of the testing results and we would like to proceed with the P+A operations. See my attached notes at the bottom of this daily report. We are preparing to move forward with the P+A by verifying equipment hookup and will be ready once we hear back from the AOGCC. Only -19F here, it is definitiely beginning to warm up. We went over to the Umiat No. 7 location to measure the top valve to prepare a BOP adaptor flange for the P+A operations. Have a good day. Sunday, 4/1 ... Temperature at P+A Camp was -36F with winds at 6-8 mph. Safety meeting was held at 0700 hours emphasizing Blow Out Kill Drill procedures. All the equipment was fueled. The brine was reheated in the tanks and the mud weights checked (9.7 ppg heavy). Solsten XP supervisor had his morning call with his Anchorage office. The crew rigged up the piping to the choke manifold in preparation to do a function test on the two adjustable choke valves (#4 and #5) on the choke manifold. We will attempt to function test each choke valve at a constant flow rate by closing the choke valve incrementally and reading the back pressure on the system to verify that both of the chokes are operating properly. We had initially used the charge pump to flow fluid through the choke valves #4 and #5 separately but we could not see enough positive pressure changes so decided to do the test with the Batch Mixer Triplex pump. Initial use of the Triplex pump resulted in a leak in the 5" Victrolic gasket in the piping system. There were multiple leaks on the Victrolic gaskets on the Batch Mixer prior to the choke manifold test. The Batch Mixer uses a Triplex pump and it will be used in the cementing of these wells so the leaks must be repaired immediately. Solsten had to order additional Victrolic gaskets for the Batch Mixer Triplex pump piping and they are expected in Deadhorse on Monday afternoon. The crew hooked up the 4" trash pump to the choke manifold to test the choke valves at 1630 hrs. At 1730 hrs we performed a manual choke valve test on the #4 and #5 choke valves using a starting pump pressure of 60 psi on each individual valve. A pressure chart recorder was installed upstream of the chokes during this testing to verify and record the changing back pressure as the chokes were incrementally closed during the test. The results of the function test is as follows: #4 Choke #5 Choke closed 70 psi '/4 closed 70 psi 'h closed 75 psi '/ closed 75 psi % closed 80 psi 3/ closed 80 psi The test was completed by 1800 hrs and we rigged down the test equipment from the choke manifold. The well was secured for the night at 2100 hrs. 4/5/2012 Page 2 of 2 prepared and completed a report to the AOGCC petroleum engineer, Guy Schwartz, on the history of the Umiat No. 6 well and our email correspondence on field testing the BOP adaptor flange. I sent him the results of the BOPE testing that started on Friday, March 30 and was completed on Sunday, April 1. 1 also addressed a waiver request to accept the field test of the accumulator and choke manifold in lieu of the required shop test of all BOPE equipment before transport to the field as was approved by AOGCC of our Sundry Notice application. The shop testing could have been done but I have not yet received any documentation to that affect. I did receive a pressure chart on the test of the pipe and blind rams (low test 500 psi and high test 10,000 psi) but there was no date on the chart. I did ask Solsten XP to check on the availability of this equipment test information and forward it to me if it exists. I also made the AOGCC aware that the approved depth of clean out and cementing of the Umiat No. 6 from 758' was an absolute maximum depth and a low probability. Due to the historic drilling and testing difficulties of this well in 1950-51, we expect to have difficulty reaching these deep depths and will not jeopardize stuck pipe and will request for a shallower plugging depth should we run into difficulties. We will make the effort to get as deep as possible without taking unnecessary risks. I completed my report after the Sunday function tests on the choke valves on the choke manifold and sent my report to Guy Schwartz on Sunday evening. I expect to hear back from AOGCC on Monday. I prepared a separate report on the BOPE testing operations from Friday, March 30 through Sunday, April 1 as requested by the Deadhorse AOGCC inspector, John Crisp, and sent it to the Department of Administration, AOGCC, Deadhorse for their review. I competed the my report after the functioned testing of the choke valves in the choke manifold and sent it out to the DOA on Sunday evening. Thomas I Zelenka, P.E. Petroleum Engineer Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue, #13 Anchorage, AK 99513 907-271-4224 Office 4/5/2012 a Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) From: Zelenka, Thomas J [tzelenka@blm.gov] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 2:02 PM Page 1 of 2 To: Svejnoha, Wayne Cc: Diel, Bill; Pindell, Darla; pw_75@hotmail.com; Miller, Justin T; Schwartz, Guy L (DOA); Crisp, John H (DOA); Wixon, Donna L Subject: DAILY REPORTS -- FRI & SAT, MARCH 30-31, 2012 -- UMIAT NO. 6 WELL P+A OPERATIONS Attached are the Daily Reports for the BOPE testing operations that took place on Friday and Saturday, March 30-31, 2012. We successfully tested the BOPE and will be sending an email correspondence on the BOPE testing results to the AOGCC for their concurrence. We anticipate the continued the P+A operations on this well following AOGCC review. We can be reached at this well location through the following phone number: 1-877-265-3196. Friday, 3130 ... Temperature at P+A Camp was -32F with winds at 3-5 mph. Safety meeting was held at 0700 hours emphasizing thawing of the 8 -inch open hole during P+A operations. All equipment was fueled. P+A crew place cribbing under BOP stack for support should the casing fall (only 35 feet of casing driven with Cal -Seal around surface of casing). Solsten supervisor participated in conference call with his office, daily event at 0730 hrs. Pumped 32 bbls fresh water from water hauler into Batch Mixer #1 tank then heated water with steam to 95F. Generator set began having fuel filter problems. Temporarily used new MC 12v fuel pump until new parts came in. Called Mag -Tek in Deadhorse and ordered replacement fuel pump for generator and extra fan belts for the heaters. After water was heated, we began circulating and checking for leaks. Small leak found on manifold due to Victrolic clamp rubber gasket. Solsten used gasket from unused section of manifold and ordered out more 5" and 6" rubber gaskets. Once water was heated, added one Super Sack of salt (2,200#) into tank #1 and circulated and agitated same. Mixture resulted in 34 bbls of 9.3 ppg NaCl brine at 95F. Crew rigged up trash pump for returns to waste tank next to wellhead. Crew rigged up pipes and equipment to test BOPEs at 1400 hrs. The generator parts arrived on Bald Mountain Air at this same time. Crew proceeded to test BOPs at 300 psi low pressure test and 1,500 psi high pressure test at 1600 hrs. All pressure tests are set up to be recorded on a chart recorder. First test was on the pipe rams and the last three valves on the choke manifold (valves #1, #2, and #3). We got a 300 psi low pressure test for 10 minutes on this equipment. We then proceeded to pressure up to 1,500 psi for the 10 minute high pressure test on this same equipment. We got up to 1,500 psi and immediately lost pressure. We tried pumping back up to 1,500 psi again and could achieve no pressure. The bottom of the BOP was pressuring up against a casing ice plug (as was done successfully on the Umiat No. 9 BOP test) and the ice plug gave way during the high pressure test. We pulled the test joint from the BOP ram stack and observed no fluid in the casing bore so pumped 3 bbls of brine into casing and could not see a fluid level. Solsten notified their office (Ted Stagg) of the problem. He recommended filling the hole to the top. So they added another 5 bbls of brine to the hole to finally see returns and fill hole to the top of the BOP stack. A total of 8 bbls of brine was pumped into the wellbore to fill it, approximately 118 feet of depth. Solsten made final evening call to the office and reported on results. Solsten would wait on the fluid level and observe the level in the morning. The crew wrapped and put heat on the BOP stack and secured the well for the night at 2100 hrs. 4/5/2012 49 a Page 2 of 2 Saturday, 3/31 ... Temperature at P+A Camp was -36F with winds at 3-5 mph. Safety meeting was held at 0700 hours emphasizing working with the brine pump. All equipment was fueled. The well was opened to observe fluid level. Level had dropped 5 feet and a bubble or two was seen at the surface of the fluid. The brine in the Batch Mixer and the brine in the Atigun suction tank next to the wellhead were both heated. The well was rigged up to test the blind rams against a full wellbore of fluid. They pumped in from below the blind rams reaching a maximum pump pressure of 250 psi while trying to reach 300 psi (low pressure test). After pumping approximately % bbls of brine the pressure dropped to 175 psi indicating that the formation broke down. The pump was shut down. Solsten notified their office of the blind ram test results. At 1100 hrs we rigged up the choke manifold and began testing the valves. We started with the outside three choke manifold valves, #1, #2, and #3 (had previously been successfully low tested with the pipe rams on Friday) in the closed position and performed a low pressure test to 300 psi and a high pressure test to 1,600 psi, holding each test for 10 minutes. The #1, #2, and #3 valves tested okay for both tests. The next valves to be tested were the wheel valves (adjustable chokes), valves #4 and #5. They were initially pressure tested together. We could not get a pump pressure higher than 200 psi and fluid was leaking out the manifold outlet line. We pressure up several times with still no results. We then tried isolating each wheel valve and testing separately, still no results so we moved on to the two inside valves, #6 and #7 and tested both valves to a low test of 600 psi and a high test of 1,700 psi with the wheel valves #4 and #5 opened. The #6 and #7 valves tested okay for both tests. We successfully pressure tested choke manifold, outside valves (#1, #2, and #3) and inside valves (#6 and #7). The two wheel valves (adjustable chokes; #4 and #5) did not test. We completed testing the choke manifold at 1730 hrs. Solsten supervisor transmitted his BOPE test results to his Anchorage office. Solsten supervisor then called AGCC inspector (John Crisp) in Deadhorse, giving him details of the BOPE tests. Mr. Crisp suggested we email him with the details of the test results and BLM's approval of these tests. AOGCC will then review the test results and get back to us on their recommendations. Mr. Crisp also mentioned that API 253 Recommended Practices does not require the manual chokes to be pressure tested (to hold pressure) due to the fact that the choke valves are designed to hold back pressure. He recommended that if we could document a function test of these choke valves at various choke settings and showing that the choke is capable of holding and regulating back pressure while flowing through the choke that would be a positive result. The Solsten supervisor then called his office with the results of the AOGCC telecommunication. Heating ducts were placed on the equipment for the evening and the well site was secured for the night at 2100 hrs. Thomas 7. Zelenka, P.E. Petroleum Engineer Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue, #13 Anchorage, AK 99513 907-271-4224 Office 4/5/2012 0 0 Page 1 of 2 Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) p —1D jo , 211 From: Zelenka, Thomas J [tzelenka@blm.gov] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 9:38 AM To: Svejnoha, Wayne Cc: Diel, Bill; Pindell, Darla; Miller, Justin T; Wixon, Donna L; pw_75@hotmail.com Subject: DAILY REPORT — THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 2012 -- UMIAT NO. 6 WELL P+A OPERATIONS Attached is our report of operations at the Umiat No. 6 well location. We now have the existing boiler operational and we will continue with operations with it until the new boiler arrives. We may swap it out for the Umiat No. 7 well P+A. We are trying to gain some time back using all functional equipment we now have. I will be notifying AOGCC to our upcoming P+A operations should they want to be present for these operations. We did receive a waived presence on the upcoming BOPE test for today, Friday, March 30. We have previously notified AOGCC on Sunday, March 18 with a 24 -hr notice but equipment problems postponed that operation until now. I will continue with my reports tomorrow and hopeful[ our good luck will continue. Thursday, 3/29 ... Temperature at P+A Camp was -32F with winds at 8-10 mph. Safety meeting was held at 0700 hours emphasizing proper lifting of equipment, tools, and bags (salt and cement Super Sacks). All the equipment was fueled and all equipment operations were maintained. We are waiting on new rental boiler to be delivered which is on the Steiger train returning to Umiat from Franklin Bluffs. Solsten went through a training session with the crew on the purpose and operation of the BOP manifold system and how the well would be shut in should an unexpected fluid/gas kick occur during wellbore cleanout operations. The boiler technician and operator (Glenn Epperson with Atigun) for the new boiler arrived by Bald Mountain Air on the food flight at 1045 hrs. Solsten supervisor and the new boiler tech immediately began trouble shooting the old boiler electrical system. Boiler troubleshooting was successful in getting boiler to fire and it became operational at 1845 hrs. Boiler was operated to test all functions and it built pressure to 105 psi to check safety feature sand discharged pressure (as steam) to check kick -on pressure (boiler started back up when pressure fell to 95 psi). The ground wire was configured for initial start up then boiler tech with Solsten assistance permanently secured ground wire with proper conduit piping from Fire Box to Controller Module for continued boiler operations. BLM's PE and inspector, T. Zelenka, called AOGCC Deadhorse inspector, John Crisp, to update him on the Umiat No. 6 P+A operations. John Crisp had previously waived AOGCC presence at the BOPE test when contacted on Sunday, 3/18 with 24 -hr notice of pending BOPE test. BLM wanted to update the AOGCC with the BOPE test that would be coming up on Friday, 3/30 if all equipment continued operate properly. He enquired as to our P+A procedure which I verbally provided him and he again waived AOGCC presence at the BOPE test on Friday, 3/30. 1 invited him (as an AOGCC inspector) to be present at the actual cement plugging of the well which is anticipated for Sunday, 4/1, at the earliest. Based on success of steaming operations tomorrow, BLM will again contact AOGCC and formally extend an invitation for their presence at the cement plugging of the well as well as for the final casing cutoff and back fill of the excavated well cellar area following cutoff. We will document the BOPE test, as well as the cementing and casing cutoff operations with photos for both the BLM and AOGCC. I did express my concern that we adequately protect the casing from possibly sliding down the hole during steaming 4/5/2012 Page 2 of 2 operations since there is only 35 feet of driven casing supporting the BOPs with questionable surface cement and possible casing shoe washouts from initial drilling operations. Solsten will address this possible occurrence with a crib support around the casing to take the load off the BOPs should the casing slip down the hole. We have monitoring procedures in place to observe any changes in position of the casing at the surface. We are trying to anticipate all well responses to steaming before they occur. AM, 3/30 ... We are currently heating water in the boiler in preparation for mixing up 32 bbls of NaCl brine to first test the BOPE to be sure all equipment is operational and functioning properly. The BOPE will be tested to a high pressure of 1,500 psi and a low pressure of 250 psi, both held for 10 minutes each per BLM regulations. There are 12 separate test sequences involved to test all BOPE (rams and choke manifold) and valves. Once the BOPE has been tested successfully, we will attempt to steam down a short distant (not to exceed 20-25 feet, setting depth of 8-5/8" structural casing was 35 feet driven). Steaming with brine cleanout and cementing operations will commence during a full day of operations, the earliest time being Saturday, March 31. Thomas 3. Zelenka, P.E. Petroleum Engineer Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue, #13 Anchorage, AK 99513 907-271-4224 Office 4/5/2012 0 Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) From: Zelenka, Thomas J [tzelenka@blm.gov] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 9:04 PM To: Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) • Page I of 4 Cc: Crisp, John H (DOA); Svejnoha, Wayne; Diel, Bill; Pindell, Darla; pw_75@hotmail.com; Miller, Justin T Subject: UMIAT NO.6 WELL P+A OPERATIONS -- BOPE TESTING -- WAIVER REQUEST Guy Schwartz: I hope this email isn't too lengthy but I wanted to have to complete picture of what has transpired on to date on the P+A operations on the Umiat No. 6 well. We have had discussions with AOGCC inspector John Crisp on the BOPS testing and he recommended we fully document our testing and BLM acceptance of the tests that were performed and their results. As we discussed in our emails of February 22, 2012 regarding getting a pressure test on the BOP adaptor flange: We were able to successfully get a low pressure test at 300 psi for 10 minutes on the BOP adaptor flange while we were testing the pipe rams and the outer 3 valves (#1, #2, and #3) of the choke manifold ( low pressure test performed on Friday, March 30 at 1600 hrs). While doing the high pressure test on this same BOPE equipment, we shut the well in at 1,500 psi and it immediately broke back to 0 psi when the ice plug in the casing which we were pressuring up against broke down and went down hole. We feel that we have adequately tested the adaptor flange before this breakdown occurred. We were unable to test down the well bore after losing the ice plug. The following is the BOPE testing summary that has so far been accomplished on the Umiat No. 6 well: Friday, March 30 ... We hooked up our BOPE equipment and started testing on Friday, March 30 at approximately 1600 hrs. We were able to obtain a low pressure test of 300 psi (held 10 minutes) on our pipe rams and the three outer valves (valves #1, #2, and #3) of the choke manifold. We had set up to pressure up against the casing ice plug in the top of the casing to get backside pressure. This is the same procedure that was used successfully to test the BOPE on the Umiat No. 9 well that the BLM successfully plugged and abandoned last year in this same field. Following the low test, we then pressured up to perform the high pressure test (to 1,500 psi) on the pipe rams and same three choke valves and got up to 1,500 psi and shut in to monitor the pressure. The pressure almost immediately broke down to 0 psi when he casing ice plug broke down and went down hole. The test pipe was removed from the pipe rams and the wellbore was filled with 8 bbls of brine which represented about 118 feet of wellbore depth down to the ice plug. The well was secured for the night. Saturday, March 31 ... The fluid level in the wellbore was checked in the morning and the level had fallen 5 feet. The Solsten XP office recommended performing a pressure test of the blind rams against a full fluid column in the well bore. The well bore was topped up with 9.3 ppg brine (approximately 1/2 bbl). A low pressure test was initiated first. The blind rams were closed and we pumped through the tee on the kill side of the mud cross, pressuring up against the blind rams and the filled hole. A pressure of 250 psi was achieved (attempted to ,2/2012 0 • Page 2 of 4 get to 300 psi) and after approximately 3/4 bbl of pumped fluid, the formation broke down to 175 psi. Pumping was halted. No further ram testing against the wellbore fluid will be attempted. The uncemented short length of 8-5/8" casing driven to only 35 feet could be pumped up the hole should an ice plug exist in the open hole immediately below the casing shoe. We do not want that event to be precipitated by any further field testing. The BOP rams were shop tested to a low pressure test of 500 psi and a high pressure test of 10,000 psi in the shop before coming to the field. The BLM is satisfied with those test results. We next focused our BOPE testing efforts on the choke manifold since it arrived to the field without any prior testing certification showing it had previously been tested prior to transport. We closed the 3 outside valves, #l, #2, and #3 and first performed a low pressure test to 310 psi which was held for 10 minutes. The high pressure test on these same three valves was to 1.600 psi and held for 10 minutes, slowly dropping some pressure over the 10 minute interval (less that 10% of the initial pressure). The next valves tested were the wheeled adjustable choke valves, #4 and #5. Downstream valves #2 and #3 (these are each downstream of the choke valves #4 and #5, respectively) were opened and the choke valves #4 and #5 were closed. We pumped up to 500 psi and shut in the pump flow and the pressure dropped immediately to 150 psi. We tried it several times but pump pressure never got above 150 psi. We tried testing the choke valves individually to see if one of them would test but neither did. There was some leakage of fluid past the choke valves during these pressure tests. We moved next to the inside choke manifold valves, #6 and #7. We opened the choke valves, #4 and #5 and closed the inside valves, #6 and #7, respectively. We first tested these valves with a low pressure test to 650 psi which bled slowly down to 600 psi in 10 minutes. This was a decrease in pressure of less than 10% of the initial pressure and the test was considered successful. The high pressure test of these valves was to 1,810 psi. The pressure declined slowly to 1,630 psi in 10 minutes. This was a decrease in pressure of less than 10% of the initial pressure and the test was considered successful. The brine temperature during the choke manifold testing began at 80F and by the end of the testing the brine temperature had declined to 27F. These slow declines in pressure during the test could have been due to the brine temperature changes or air trapped in the system, or a combination of both these factors. There was no fluid loss observed from any of the BOPE during any of the pressure tests except the choke valves #4 and #5 as noted earlier. Solsten supervisor then called AOGCC inspector (John Crisp) in Deadhorse, giving him details of the BOPE tests. Mr. Crisp suggested we email him with the details of the test results and BLM's approval of these tests. AOGCC will then review the test results and get back to us on their recommendations. Mr. Crisp also mentioned that API 253 Recommended Practices does not require the manual chokes to be pressure tested (to hold pressure) due to the fact that the choke valves are designed to hold back pressure. He recommended that if we could document a function test of these choke valves at various choke settings and showing that the choke is capable of holding and regulating back pressure while flowing through the choke, which would be a positive performance result. Sunday, April l ... We rigged up on the choke manifold and performed choke adjustments individually on each of the adjustable chokes (valves #4 and #5) at a high flowrate to check the choke at different choke settings to provide back pressure for well flow control and to verity their successful function. We first opened the 94 choke valve to full flow and measured a flow pressure of 60 psi. The wheel valve was then turned to a 1/4 closed and the back pressure increase to 70 psi. The valve was then turned to a %2 closed position and the back pressure increased to 75 psi. The valve was then turned to a 3/4 closed position and the back pressure increased to 80 psi. The function test 4/2/2012 0 0 Page 3 of 4 was next performed on the #5 choke valve. The full flow pressure was measured at 60 psi. The wheel valve was then turned to a 1/4 closed and the back pressure increase to 70 psi. The valve was then turned to a %2 closed position and the back pressure increased to 75 psi. The valve was then turned to a 3/4 closed position and the back pressure increased to 80 psi. The BLM accepts this function test of the adjustable choke valves to be in compliance with proper operations for the P+A operations at hand. The pressures were recorded by a chart recorder for documentation. There was an analog gauge present which had a maximum pressure of 6,000 psi deflection with smallest pressure increment of 100 psi. You could visually interpret back pressure increases with restricted closures of the chokes. The well was secured for the evening at 2100 hours. BLM personnel were present for all the BOPE field testing and the function testing of the adjustable chokes on the choke manifold. BLM accepts these tests and considers the choke manifold to be properly tested and the BOPE to be fully functional and capable of performing successfully in the upcoming P+A operations There are sufficient valves in the choke manifold to control any flow that we may encounter and provide flow bypass control in the event of a gas kick. We do not anticipate any abnormal pressures or flow from this well based what we saw in the original drilling history and records on this well We are planning to perform a BOP kick drill to simulate and practice the procedures that will be performed to maintain well control should a gas kick occur while we are washing down the wellbore with warm brine water and break through an ice plug and start taking fluid to the surface. Previous well drilling records on this well indicate that the zones that were encountered at or above 250 feet which would pose a low pressure affect. We would immediately open the choke valve off the mud cross allowing flow through the choke manifold (through one of the adjustable chokes) to the open choke flow tank (50 bbl capacity). Once the choke valve is open, the tubing circulation valve and pipe rams are closed to force any fluids coming up the well to be sent to the choke system. This operation will also prevent a hard closure which could cause an underground bypass of the gas around the uncemented casing shoe at 35 feet and up the outside of the casing. This is something that we do not want to occur and it is preventable with proper instruction before the event occurs. We would like to proceed with the Umiat No. 6 P+A operations with your concurrence of any deviations that we may have made from our approved Sundry Notice of Approvals to P+A this well. We plan to test the adaptor flange on the Umiat No. 7 well at an intermediate pressure, say 500-700 psi, to be sure we have adaptor integrity. The ability of the ice plug below the pipe rams to hold this pressure for 10 minutes is problematic but doable none the less. We still plan perform this pressure test against the casing ice plug. The BLM would like to request a waiver on the verification of pressure test on the BOPE prior to transport that was required in Item 8 of our Procedure for Plug and Abandonment for the Umiat No. 6 well that we submitted to the AOGCC with our Application for Sundry Approvals (Sundry No. 311-349), AOGCC Form 10-403, for the plug and abandonment of this well. We did receive the pressure test chart on the low test (500 psi) and high test (10,000 psi) on the pipe and blind rams prior to transport even though we could not locate a date of the actual test on the chart to substantiate testing prior to transport. The accumulator and choke manifold came from the same oil field supply company (Oil States Energy LLC) in Ellisville, MS. Solsten Anchorage personnel are inquiring as to availability of this test information from the company. If it is available, we will provide it to AOGCC per your request on the approval of the Umiat No. 7 well P+A procedure. We tested both the accumulator and choke manifold at the well location after hooking up our BOPE system and are satisfied that all equipment is functioning as it 4/2/2012 Page 4 of 4 'should and is capable of controlling any well conditions that we anticipate during these P+A operations. The BLM wants to make AOGCC aware that our intent is to get a cement plug of sufficient length and quality to seal off wellbore flow to the surface in these P+A operations on the Umiat No. 6 well. Most of this wellbore is open hole (from 35' to 758', top of fish) and the Navy had much difficulty with keeping the wellbore open during drilling and testing operations back in the early 1950 and we expect the same or worse. The BLM is proposing to clean out the wellbore as far down as practical to a depth that will allow us to successfully circulate cement down the 1" tubing and back up to surface. We want AOGCC to be aware that even though we proposed cleaning out the open hole to our approved target depth of 758', that depth would be the maximum depth capable of being reached should no hole problems be encountered. We realize that this attainable depth is extremely optimistic. We will not jeopardize an unsuccessful P+A of this wellbore an attempt to get to an unreachable depth. We want to set our cement plug from a depth that we can maintain its integrity throughout the clean out and cementing operations. It may be significantly shallower than the approved depth of 758'. We cannot determine this depth until we begin the wellbore cleanout operations. We would like to get a good open hole cement plug below and across the 8-5/8" casing shoe since this casing (35' of length) was only driven to depth and lacks no casing shoe support. We will maintain contact with AOGCC during our clean out operations and should we reach a point of concern for sticking the pipe, we will approach you with a waiver request at that time for a change in the plugging depth of the well should it be required. Please review our P+A operations on the Umiat No. 6 well to date and let us know how we can proceed with the plugging of this well and any efforts that you would like to see performed. can be reached at the following phone number: Marsh Creek P+A Camp ... 1-877-265-3196. I have sporadic satellite internet with limited band width but should you want me to call you and discuss any of these details and results, let me know the time and contact number you can be reached at. We are just finished up on function testing the adjustable chokes on the choke manifold as recommended by John Crisp in our conversation yesterday evening. We are currently waiting on Victrolic gaskets for the cementing unit piping prior to proceeding with well bore cleanout and cement plug placement from clean depth to surface. Thank you for your assistance Thomas J. Zelenka, P.E. Petroleum Engineer Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue, #13 Anchorage, AK 99513 907-271-4224 Office 4/2/2012 • • ado -�C/` NOTICE POTENTIAL SHALLOW GAS HAZARD UMIAT NO. 6 5�Mft,U APR -� 0 ZOIL AOGCC STAFF APRIL 91 2012 U Umiat No. 6 Well Log and Lithology Log N W HOLE N SPONTANEOUS Z SELECTED CORE DIAMETER 0 N D. 0 Q = F RESISTIVITY FORMATION O O a j POTENTIAL 0 LITHOLOGIC AND y g E 0 0 LL D `a. ' i TEST CASING W LnW 0 0 D. (MILLIVOLTS) 0 0 c ass epi. DESCRIPTION w m �? w : DIAMETER r - --- - N 'f - 45 } Z - (IN }NCNES) 0 IF T75 1 13, I� 8 8-5/8"casing at 35' = Described by well geologist as gravel to 31 ft and g — clay, silt and shale to 100 ft y W 100 —_ -� - Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very q — silty, with a small amount of bluish -while V) -� W =-- bentonite conmird g abnMant mimde biotite 7 O N _ = fmkea at 120-140 ft. and with a very small O U = amount of medium -gray argillaceous sfustone W U — _ = m upper hag ¢ _— Sandstone, medium -light -gray, slightly silty, F- W — argilmcece s, friable, composed of subangular 200 == — clear ant while quartz with dark rock fragments U — —_ and rare —accused plant risk.. Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, alightly to very __ silt;, with rare black carbonaceous shale in Test 1, 37-800 fl: pumped 38,5 bbl cK lower part oil, 11 bbl water, in 13 hr; pumped W a d Sandstone, medium -light -gray, slightly silty. 5.7 bbl OIL 3.5 bbl water in mzt irglllaceoue 13hr. Water salinity 4,000 ppm; > > J Gaseous odor, — BDtstone, medium -gray, sandy, exildlecenes, with water and oil temperature 32 F. Some slight s (vent cut ,.;?„ - -- medium -light -gray sandstone a ad madium-dark- gray clay abale gas came from the well head during test. Z 300 i 1 sandstone, medium -light -gray, silty, slightly Test 3, fl -788 ft: galled venter from Z argillaceous, friable; composed of clear and beneath approximately 3 !t of oLL white quarts and dark rock fragments of star in I. hole, Entry of water into hole — Clay shale, slightly to very silty, with rare clay declined from 3 bbl per hr to 10 gal level = ironstone at 350 fl that contain etructureleee per hr during reel. Gas continued to 342' MD: Logger's TD. — ® calcite pellets similar to those . S20 ft la flow from the well head occasionally Sonde stopped, likely —= ummt teat well 7. Coal rare at base during bailing. by hole caving. — — silletone, medium -gray, argillace... to sandy sandstone, medium -light -gray, silty, arglllaceous, = alightly mlcaceoue ,� •i i-Hlis Sil�tone, medium -gray slightly sandy, __ �• a JJ gilleceoue -- Clay shale, alightly to very silty, with rare —_— carb.—eous black shale near base Sandstone, medium -light -gray, friable; composed oil-bearing sandstone $ f _ L of clear and while quartz, gray e and 0} _— dark rock fragments Clay shale, medlum-dark-gray, with some out - 0 We —_-- atone In upper hag W U JZ ❑� 500 Oil-bearing sandstone __=_ :: ': t sandstone, ligh t- nd W Y Z <y- Poro = 14' k= 0 incl .�......:, :,:,,:[}'`'} k w medium- gray very silt y e argillaceous, slightly micaceous; impermeable _ x x =J - P., = ; K: O llih '•'_�•'::: :.�:.R; :.:: W in part; porosity 8-14 percent 528' MD: well shutdown for 2 t•s U In � J Uy C' 6 hours, balled 12-1/2 gallons z ¢ =— _ — Clay shale, medium -dark -gray; alightly to very of oil per hour; fluid level at M Z = ellb in part. A 6 -ft bed of medium -gray 927' MD. W = = carbonaceous sandstone at 585 ft and clay a — — shale below is carbonacewe in part d = — — ,..; gray, wry silty, with some Sandstone. light-ve 600 1-d straw Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly to wry ay ❑ Oil-bearing sandstone .'•' d • SnMstone, medium -light -grey, silty argillaeeous. z — scricitic ¢ = Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very = silty Oil-bearing sandstone •,•:.)•a sandstone m alightly silty, W Poo = 9-" K- 0and srgtllaceoue, friable; serieltic In part; imper- in 0 4 3 ❑ meable pert; porosity 6.5-8.3 percent; cons - 0 z 700 700' MD: Final _ _ posed of subangular clear and white quartz with 0.2 effective depth,..,::.•.•:•: — abundant dark rock fragments F- N thermistor cables set. — • = Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty ❑_— — e, medium -grey, very arg0laceous Siltatonm 2 ¢ 758'MD: Top offish � —= 770'MD: Estimated Clay shale, dark -gray, varysilty 9ssdetone, edtum-light-grey, slightly afly. (cabledrilling'• t base of permafrost _• !0 r%�O gray; slightly sura in C shale, medium -dark - U, assembly) — from thermistor part -- Data (700' -long cables). slightly tosilty 800 783'-825'MD: plugs set iii: int == 825'MD: Water appeared, �8ehaleq kitty a ill gray, friable Clq shale, medium -dark -gray, alightly to very 8�ICement 25 �= dilly AOGCC April 9, 2012 Adapted from USGS Prof Paper 305-B, Plate 12 • Umiat No. 6 Operations Summary E MD Activity Description 0 Spud August 14, 1950 using Bucyrus -Armstrong cable -tool rig. 35' Surface casing Drilled / drove 8-5/8"casing to 35' MD. 240'— 340' Drilling Sandstone beds displayed gaseous odor and slight solvent cut. 445'— 455' Drilling Oil-bearing sandstone noted in USGS Prof Paper 305-B (p. 140). 498' — 543' Drilling Oil-bearing sandstone noted in USGS Prof Paper 305-B (p. 140). 528' Well bailed Well shut down for 6 hours, bailed 12-1/2 gallons of oil per hour. Fluid level at 427' MD. 529' Coring Core attempted no recovery. 625' — 635' Drilling Oil-bearing sandstone noted in USGS Prof Paper 305-B (p. 140). 655' — 710' Drilling Oil-bearing sandstone noted in USGS Prof Paper 305-B (p. 140). 770' Drilling Estimated base of permafrost based on later thermistor data. 825' TD Water noted in wellbore, continuous bailing for 8 hours did not lower the fluid level from 583'. Wellbore plugged back with cement to 800'. Installed tubing, pump and rods for pump test. 800' Testing Pump test (37' — 800'): in 13 hours, pumped 28.5 barrels of oil and 11 barrels of fresh water. Next 12 hours, pumped 5.7 barrels oil, 3.5 barrels of water. Fluid temperature 32° F; water salinity 4000 ppm. Some gas came from well head during test. 800' Rig change -out Needed to winterize the Bucyrus -Armstrong cable -tool rig, so a Keystone cable -tool rig was moved over wellbore. Tubing was pulled and the wellbore cleaned out to 800'. 783' Drilling Wellbore plugged with cement from 800' to 783'. 783' Testing Bailing test (37' — 783'): bailed water from beneath about 300' of oil in wellbore. After several episodes of preliminary bailing, a 24- hour bailing test showed the oil -column thickness remained relatively constant at about 300' while the entry of water into the wellbore declined from 2 barrels per hour to 10 gallons per hour. Gas continued to flow from the well head occasionally during the bailing test. 783' Fishing Bailer lowered to 70', tool stuck, and cable pulled off. Fishing operation successful. 551' Suspended Wellbore cleaned to 551'. Operations suspended to move winterized Bucyrus -Armstrong cable -tool rig back onto well. 551' Rig change -out Bucyrus -Armstrong cable -tool rig moved over wellbore. 769' Clean-out Wellbore cleaned to 769'. 758' Fishing Drilling line broke, leaving drilling tools in wellbore. Top of fish at 347', but fish later slid to 758'. Caving wellbore below 209' made tool recovery impossible. 758' Mud added Wellbore filled with Aquagel mud to protect oil-bearing sandstones. 342' Logging SP and resistivity log run. Sonde stopped at 342' and would not go deeper likely due to wellbore cavings. 700' Clean-out Wellbore cleaned to 700'; thermistor cables installed surface to 700'. Wellbore left open at surface December 12, 1950. AOGCC April 9, 2012 Source: USGS Professional Paper 305-8, p. 138-142; Plate 12 Page 1 of 1 0 0 Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) From: Zelenka, Thomas J [tzelenka@blm.gov] VOID Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 9:03 AM / OC) — Z i `f To: Svejnoha, Wayne Cc: Diel, Bill; Pindell, Darla; Miller, Justin T; Flora, Susan M; Wixon, Donna L; Schwartz, Guy L (DOA); McIntosh, Stacie J; Yarawsky, Sharon; Zelenka, Thomas J; pw_75@hotmaii.com Subject: DAILY REPORT -- SUNDAY, APRIL 9, 2012 -- UMIAT NO. 6 WELL P+A OPERATIONS We will be cleaning out around the well casing today preparing for cut off in the morning. Then we will move to the Umiat No. 7 location. Sunday, 4/8 ... Temperature at P+A Camp was -17F with winds at 3-4 mph and clear. Safety meeting was held at 0700 hours emphasizing cleaning the Batch Mixer lines. All the equipment was fueled for the day. The crew cleaned up the Batch Mixer and got it ready for removal. The crew pumped the cement rinsate into 10 drum/over packs for a total of 550 gallons rinsate. They use two wooden boxes from the Super sacks, double lined each with empty Super sacks and filled each Super sack bag with cement rinsate, total of 14 bbls. BLM had crew member measure cement depth in 1" pipe by tying nut to a string and lowering into pipe, approximately 22' to top of cement. BLM told Solsten that the BOPs would not be removed until we had waited on cement to set for a minimum of 24 hrs. We will remove BOPs on Monday. Crew rigged down hoses from rinsate transfer and drained the trash pump. They rigged up a sump pump and removed oil from around the wellhead to a 50 bbl waste sled tank. They installed the lids on the over pack drums. The well location was secured for thLs night at 1900 hrs. Thomas J. Zelenka, P.E. Petroleum Engineer Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue, #13 Anchorage, AK 99513 907-271-4224 Office 4/9/2012 4L, " . APR a 0 ZU'' Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) From: Zelenka, Thomas J [tzelenka@blm.gov] Page 1 of 2 PTS Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2012 2:18 PM To: Svejnoha, Wayne Cc: Schwartz, Guy L (DOA); Diel, Bill; Pindell, Darla; Flora, Susan M; Wixon, Donna L; McIntosh, Stacie J; Miller, Justin T; pw_75@hotmail.com; Yarawsky, Sharon; Zelenka, Thomas J Subject: DAILY REPORT -- SATURDAY, APRIL 7, 2012 -- UMIAT NO. 6 WELL P+A OPERATIONS We completed pumping cement from 415' to the surface late last night. We pumped approximately 48 bbls of cement to fill the tubing and annulus from 415' to surface. We were getting oily returns up the casing annulus during the cementing operations with a lot bubbling action. It ceased after we received cement to the surface. The casing slipped down slightly cracking some of the wood block cribbing used for support. This well plugging had many challenges to overcome to get cement from 415' to surface. We believe some of the cement went down hole during the cementing operations. We don't believe we had an 8" gauge hole but rather smaller diameter down hole with washout below the casing shoe. We may even have pumped some cement up and around the casing shoe. We will be cleaning up all day Sunday and begin moving over to the Umiat No. 7 well site. BLM and ADEC personnel are due out on Wednesday to look at the 10 bbl spill area. We will not excavate the well cellar and do the cut off until after their review due to the close proximity of the wellhead to the spill area. We are prepared to grout annular cement if needed after the cutoff. We will alert the AOGCC inspector of the cut off time at least 24 hours in advance should he want to be present. We will document with photos. Saturday, 4/7 ... The well ceased producing gas through the choke manifold to the choke tank at 0300 hrs. It was monitored throughout the night by the crew. Temperature at P+A Camp was OF with winds at 3-5 mph and cloudy. Safety meeting was held at 0700 hours emphasizing mixing cement for the plugging operations and working with Super sacks (2,200# per sack). All equipment was fueled. We calculated the water volumes and cementing volumes needed for the upcoming cement P+A job. We decided to go with 5 Super sacks (2,200# of cement per sack) mixed with 5.5 gals/sack of fresh water and yielding 9 bbls/sack or a total of 45 bbls of permafrost cement for the job. We would mix 4 Super sacks initially then pump half, stop and mix the #5 Super sack with the remaining volume due to tank volume limitations. The crew cleaned out the Atigun tank (right side) for strapping purposes to use it to determine freshwater needed to do the batch cement job. It would later be used to take on any excess cement that was pumped. The crew added 27 bbls of fresh water to #1 Tank and 10 bbls of freshwater to #2 Tank for rinsate clean up. The crew heated both batches of water to 85F. At 1115 hrs, well was checked for pressure and it had slight blow of pressure from the tubing. The well was opened. Crew filled the annulus side with 8 bbis brine. The crew continued heating cement water. We began batch mixing cement using 4 Super sacks (2,200# cement per sack) which gave a yield of 36 bbls of permafrost cement at 10.7 ppg. We broke circulation on well by circulating brine down tubing and back to the Atigun tank. We switched to pumping cement at 1445 hours at a rate of 1.5 BPM. We continued pumping cement with total volume of cement in tank at 36 bbls. Total volume of an 8" gauge hole from the surface to 758' is 48 bbls. The volume for an 8" gauge hole from surface to 415' is 26 bbls. We were unsure of the hole volume needed so went with more cement assuming that some may fall down hole to the 758' fish and to account for possible washout at the casing shoe as indicated in the initial drilling results report. Once we had pumped half of the cement we shut down and added another 5.5 bbls of freshwater and 1 Super sack to bring our total cement batch for the job to 45 bbls of cement. Pump time on the cement by design was 8 hrs. 4/9/2012 Page 2 of 2 We continued pumping after adding the 5th Super sack. At 1700 hrs we were still pumping and no sign of cement at surface and #1 Tank was down to 5 bbls remaining. BLM called for an additional 11 bbls of fresh water to be taken into the Atigun tank (right side) and heated to make 2 more Super sacks of cement (18 bbls of cement). We stopped cementing at 1920 hrs to transfer 5.5 bbls of freshwater to #1 Tank and mixed an additional 1 Super sack (yield 9 bbls cement) to finish the job (#6 Super sack). We had decided to only go with one additional Super sack of cement. We were running out of pumping time. We began pumping the remaining 14 bbls of cement at 2035 hrs. We could still see clean lube -oil looking crude coming from around the wellhead casing and bubbling. We took a reading with the gas meter and got a 2 LEL measurement. We finally got cement to surface at 2055 hrs and continued to take returns to the Atigun tank. We added cement retardant to both tanks of the Atigun tank to keep the excess cement from setting up. We pumped for an additional 30 minutes to assure that we had uncontaminated cement to the surface annulus. We closed the circulating valve and pumped the remaining cement to the Atigun tank. We estimate that we pumped 48 bbls of cement to surface. The crew ran rinsate through the Batch Mixer tanks, pump lined and up through mud cross and kill line through the BOP rams and to the Atigun tank. They then drained the BOP stack. At 2300 hrs, the pipe rams were closed and the well was secured for the night. The crew then blew down all hoses through with the trash pump and the well site was secured for the night at 2400 hrs. Clean up in the morning. Saturday, 4/7 ... Thomas 7. Zelenka, P.E. Petroleum Engineer Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue, #13 Anchorage, AK 99513 907-271-4224 Office 4/9/2012 • • Page 1 of 2 Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) From: Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 10:08 AM To: 'Zelenka, Thomas J; DOA AOGCC Prudhoe Bay Cc: Svejnoha, Wayne; Miller, Justin T; Diel, Bill; Pindell, Darla Subject: RE: VARIANCE REQUEST -- UMIAT NO. 6 WELL P+A DEPTH (PTD 100-214) Tom, As we discussed last night and by email sent last night you have approval to start the P & A operation by plugging back from 415' with cement. The Commissioners are aware of the status and agree with the variance to the approved sundry. Good luck with the procedure as you proceed today to cement the well to surface. Guy Schwartz Senior Petroleum Engineer AOGCC 793-1226 (office) 444-3433 (cell) From: Zelenka, Thomas J [mailto:tzelenka@blm.gov] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 10:26 PM To: Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) Cc: Svejnoha, Wayne; Miller, Justin T; Diel, Bill; Pindell, Darla; Zelenka, Thomas J Subject: VARIANCE REQUEST -- UMIAT NO. 6 WELL P+A DEPTH This email is to document my verbal request for a variance in plugging depth for the Umiat No. 6 well. Originally the BLM was approved to plug and abandon the Umiat No. 6 wellbore from 758' (top of fish) to the surface. The BLM verbally requested (through 2000 hrs telecommunication) from AOGCC (Guy Schwartz) a variance on the plugging depth to allow the well to be plugged back from 415' due to deteorating holes conditions that were being encountered below 415 feet. The circumstances that developed during clean out of the wellbore to 758' that prompted this variance request are stated below. Based on these circumstances, AOGCC granted the BLM the variance to start plugging and abandoning the Umiat No. 6 well from 415' Circumstances Precipitating Variance Request We began making good hole recovery while cleaning wellbore from surface to approved depth of 758'. An Aqua -Gel plug was encountered at 90' that slowed hole recovery but we broke through the plug at 138' and made good hole to 415'. While picking up another 10' joint, the well took a gas kick at 1355 hrs. Fluid returns on the slip bowl rose about 8 inches. We had identified this potential problem and had gone through BOP Kick Drills. The well was immediately shut in at 415' by closing the circulating valve on the tubing, the choke valve downstream from the mud cross was opened, the pipe rams were closed, and flow was sent to the choke manifold and choke tank. The choke valve downstream from the adjustable choke (adjustable choke half closed) was then closed containing the kick. The crew on the floor at the time of the kick took a gas measurement reading on their detector at 19 LEL (Low Explosion Level). Solsten supervisor then called his office in Anchorage and reported what had occurred. We checked the pressure on the choke manifold after about 45 minutes and it was 0 psi. We also noticed small bubbles coming up from around the casing. Initial concern was that gas had breached the casing annulus due to no cement. We then took a gas reading and it only measured some CO2 gas, no LEL or H2S measurement but it was quite windy. While keeping the pipe rams closed, we opened the choke manifold valve, and began circulation down the tubing from the Atigun circulating tank and taking returns through the choke manifold into the choke tank. There was a lot of oily fluid in the returns. Since we only had about 8 bbls in the circulating tank, 4/9/2012 Page 2 of 2 we began heating our Batch Mixer #2 Tank which had 32 bbls of fresh water and at 1600 hrs were mixing up 34 bbls of 9.3 ppg brine for circulating. We moved another 8 bbls of brine from the #1 Tank to the Atigun circulating tank and displace 8 bbls of brine down the tubing and back to the choke tank. We have approximately 26 bbls of hole volume at 415'. We circulated a total of 50 bbls of brine down the tubing and back up the annulus into the choke tank (2 hole volumes) to remove the gas bubble in preparation to running any pipe. We shut in the well after displacing the 50 bbls of brine. We observed gas bubbling outside of the casing. We then opened the choke valve to the choke tank and gas began bubflowomg and bubbling out into the choke tank. Gas continued to flow up the well to the choke tank. We shut the choke valve and removed the gauge from the kill line which is upstream of the mud cross. Using the gas meter, we measured a reading of 42 LEL off the needle valve. The gas seems to keep entering the wellbore even after circulating two hole volumes. The safest procedure was to continue flowing the well to the choke tank rather than breaching the casing annulus with a complete shut in. The BLM then called AOGCC requesting a variance to plug the well from 415'. I will let you know how we progress with the plugging operations. We are proceeding with getting all the fluids lined out and getting set up to mix and pump cement in the morning. Thomas 7. Zelenka, P.E. Petroleum Engineer Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue, #13 Anchorage, AK 99513 907-271-4224 Office 4/9/2012 0 Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) From: Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 9:10 AM To: Zelenka, Thomas J Cc: Bill Penrose; Regg, James B (DOA); Crisp, John H (DOA) 0 Page 1 of 5 Z_lq Subject: Re: UMIAT NO.6 WELL P+A OPERATIONS -- BOPE TESTING -- WAIVER REQUEST Tom, I have reviewed the BOP testing report you submitted and I am in agreement that the equipment is in good working order and is tested to appropriate pressure for the expected MASP. The specific wellhead and casing conditions pose a unique situation where as you pointed out there is a risk of deteriorating the shallow casing shoe. As this well was drilled via cable tools there is little danger of reservoir influx other than trapped gas under ice plugs. (no BOP equipment used when drilled). The AOGCC is in agreement that the BOP test acceptable as completed and you are authorized to continue operations as proposed in the approved sundry. Regards, AFR Guy Schwartz Sent from my iPhone On Apr 1, 2012, at 9:04 PM, "Zelenka, Thomas J" <tzelenka(«blm.gov> wrote: Guy Schwartz: I hope this email isn't too lengthy but I wanted to have to complete picture of what has transpired on to date on the P+A operations on the Umiat No. 6 well. We have had discussions with AOGCC inspector John Crisp on the BOPE testing and he recommended we fully document our testing and BLM acceptance of the tests that were performed and their results. As we discussed in our emails of February 22, 2012 regarding getting a pressure test on the BOP adaptor flange: We were able to successfully get a low pressure test at 300 psi for 10 minutes on the BOP adaptor flange while we were testing the pipe rams and the outer 3 valves (#1, #2, and #3) of the choke manifold ( low pressure test performed on Friday, March 30 at 1600 hrs). While doing the high pressure test on this same BOPE equipment, we shut the well in at 1,500 psi and it immediately broke back to 0 psi when the ice plug in the casing which we were pressuring up against broke down and went down hole. We feel that we have adequately tested the adaptor flange before this breakdown occurred. We were unable to test down the well bore after losing the ice plug. The following is the BOPE testing summary that has so far been accomplished on the Umiat No. 6 well: 4/3/2012 0 0 Page 2 of 5 Friday, March 30 ... We hooked up our BOPE equipment and started testing on Friday, March 30 at approximately 1600 hrs. We were able to obtain a low pressure test of 300 psi (held 10 minutes) on our pipe rams and the three outer valves (valves #1, #2, and #3) of the choke manifold. We had set up to pressure up against the casing ice plug in the top of the casing to get backside pressure. This is the same procedure that was used successfully to test the BOPE on the Umiat No. 9 well that the BLM successfully plugged and abandoned last year in this same field. Following the low test, we then pressured up to perform the high pressure test (to 1,500 psi) on the pipe rams and same three choke valves and got up to 1,500 psi and shut in to monitor the pressure. The pressure almost immediately broke down to 0 psi when he casing ice plug broke down and went down hole. The test pipe was removed from the pipe rams and the wellbore was filled with 8 bbls of brine which represented about 118 feet of wellbore depth down to the ice plug. The well was secured for the night. Saturday, March 31 ... The fluid level in the wellbore was checked in the morning and the level had fallen 5 feet. The Solsten XP office recommended performing a pressure test of the blind rams against a full fluid column in the well bore. The well bore was topped up with 9.3 ppg brine (approximately '/2 bbl). A low pressure test was initiated first. The blind rams were closed and we pumped through the tee on the kill side of the mud cross, pressuring up against the blind rams and the filled hole. A pressure of 250 psi was achieved (attempted to get to 300 psi) and after approximately 3/4 bbl of pumped fluid, the formation broke down to 175 psi. Pumping was halted. No further ram testing against the wellbore fluid will be attempted. The uncemented short length of 8- 5/8" casing driven to only 35 feet could be pumped up the hole should an ice plug exist in the open hole immediately below the casing shoe. We do not want that event to be precipitated by any further field testing. The BOP rams were shop tested to a low pressure test of 500 psi and a high pressure test of 10,000 psi in the shop before coming to the field. The BLM is satisfied with those test results. We next focused our BOPE testing efforts on the choke manifold since it arrived to the field without any prior testing certification showing it had previously been tested prior to transport. We closed the 3 outside valves, #1, #2, and #3 and first performed a low pressure test to 310 psi which was held for 10 minutes. The high pressure test on these same three valves was to 1.600 psi and held for 10 minutes, slowly dropping some pressure over the 10 minute interval (less that 10% of the initial pressure). The next valves tested were the wheeled adjustable choke valves, #4 and #5. Downstream valves #2 and #3 (these are each downstream of the choke valves #4 and #5, respectively) were opened and the choke valves #4 and #5 were closed. We pumped up to 500 psi and shut in the pump flow and the pressure dropped immediately to 150 psi. We tried it several times but pump pressure never got above 150 psi. We tried testing the choke valves individually to see if one of them would test but neither did. There was some leakage of fluid past the choke valves during these pressure tests. We moved next to the inside choke manifold valves, #6 and #7. We opened the choke valves, #4 and #5 and closed the inside valves, #6 and #7, respectively. We first tested these valves with a low pressure test to 650 psi which bled slowly down to 600 psi in 10 minutes. This was a decrease in pressure of less than 10% of the initial pressure and the test was considered successful. The high pressure test of these valves was to 1,810 psi. The pressure declined slowly to 1,630 psi in 10 minutes. This was a decrease in 4/3/2012 Page 3 of 5 pressure of less than 10% of the initial pressure and the test was considered successful. The brine temperature during the choke manifold testing began at 80F and by the end of the testing the brine temperature had declined to 27F. These slow declines in pressure during the test could have been due to the brine temperature changes or air trapped in the system, or a combination of both these factors. There was no fluid loss observed from any of the BOPE during any of the pressure tests except the choke valves #4 and #5 as noted earlier. Solsten supervisor then called AOGCC inspector (John Crisp) in Deadhorse, giving him details of the BOPE tests. Mr. Crisp suggested we email him with the details of the test results and BLM's approval of these tests. AOGCC will then review the test results and get back to us on their recommendations. Mr. Crisp also mentioned that API 253 Recommended Practices does not require the manual chokes to be pressure tested (to hold pressure) due to the fact that the choke valves are designed to hold back pressure. He recommended that if we could document a function test of these choke valves at various choke settings and showing that the choke is capable of holding and regulating back pressure while flowing through the choke, which would be a positive performance result. Sunday, April 1 ... We rigged up on the choke manifold and performed choke adjustments individually on each of the adjustable chokes (valves #4 and #5) at a high flowrate to check the choke at different choke settings to provide back pressure for well flow control and to verity their successful function. We first opened the #4 choke valve to full flow and measured a flow pressure of 60 psi. The wheel valve was then turned to a 1/4 closed and the back pressure increase to 70 psi. The valve was then turned to a 1/2 closed position and the back pressure increased to 75 psi. The valve was then turned to a 3/4 closed position and the back pressure increased to 80 psi. The function test was next performed on the #5 choke valve. The full flow pressure was measured at 60 psi. The wheel valve was then turned to a 1/4 closed and the back pressure increase to 70 psi. The valve was then turned to a % closed position and the back pressure increased to 75 psi. The valve was then turned to a 3/4 closed position and the back pressure increased to 80 psi. The BLM accepts this function test of the adjustable choke valves to be in compliance with proper operations for the P+A operations at hand. The pressures were recorded by a chart recorder for documentation. There was an analog gauge present which had a maximum pressure of 6,000 psi deflection with smallest pressure increment of 100 psi. You could visually interpret back pressure increases with restricted closures of the chokes. The well was secured for the evening at 2100 hours. BLM personnel were present for all the BOPE field testing and the function testing of the adjustable chokes on the choke manifold. BLM accepts these tests and considers the choke manifold to be properly tested and the BOPE to be fully functional and capable of performing successfully in the upcoming P+A operations There are sufficient valves in the choke manifold to control any flow that we may encounter and provide flow bypass control in the event of a gas kick. We do not anticipate any abnormal pressures or flow from this well based what we saw in the original drilling history and records on this well We are planning to perform a BOP kick drill to simulate and practice the procedures that will be performed to maintain well control should a gas kick occur while we are washing down the wellbore with warm brine water and break through an ice 4/3/2012 Page 4 of 5 plug and start taking fluid to the surface. Previous well drilling records on this well indicate that the zones that were encountered at or above 250 feet which would pose a low pressure affect. We would immediately open the choke valve off the mud cross allowing flow through the choke manifold (through one of the adjustable chokes) to the open choke flow tank (50 bbl capacity). Once the choke valve is open, the tubing circulation valve and pipe rams are closed to force any fluids coming up the well to be sent to the choke system. This operation will also prevent a hard closure which could cause an underground bypass of the gas around the uncemented casing shoe at 35 feet and up the outside of the casing. This is something that we do not want to occur and it is preventable with proper instruction before the event occurs. We would like to proceed with the Umiat No. 6 P+A operations with your concurrence of any deviations that we may have made from our approved Sundry Notice of Approvals to P+A this well. We plan to test the adaptor flange on the Umiat No. 7 well at an intermediate pressure, say 500-700 psi, to be sure we have adaptor integrity. The ability of the ice plug below the pipe rams to hold this pressure for 10 minutes is problematic but doable none the less. We still plan perform this pressure test against the casing ice plug. The BLM would like to request a waiver on the verification of pressure test on the BOPE prior to transport that was required in Item 8 of our Procedure for Plug and Abandonment for the Umiat No. 6 well that we submitted to the AOGCC with our Application for Sundry Approvals (Sundry No. 311-349), AOGCC Form 10-403, for the plug and abandonment of this well. We did receive the pressure test chart on the low test (500 psi) and high test (10,000 psi) on the pipe and blind rams prior to transport even though we could not locate a date of the actual test on the chart to substantiate testing prior to transport. The accumulator and choke manifold came from the same oil field supply company (Oil States Energy LLC) in Ellisville, MS. Solsten Anchorage personnel are inquiring as to availability of this test information from the company. If it is available, we will provide it to AOGCC per your request on the approval of the Umiat No. 7 well P+A procedure. We tested both the accumulator and choke manifold at the well location after hooking up our BOPE system and are satisfied that all equipment is functioning as it should and is capable of controlling any well conditions that we anticipate during these P+A operations. The BLM wants to make AOGCC aware that our intent is to get a cement plug of sufficient length and quality to seal off wellbore flow to the surface in these P+A operations on the Umiat No. 6 well. Most of this wellbore is open hole (from 35' to 758', top of fish) and the Navy had much difficulty with keeping the wellbore open during drilling and testing operations back in the early 1950 and we expect the same or worse. The BLM is proposing to clean out the wellbore as far down as practical to a depth that will allow us to successfully circulate cement down the 1" tubing and back up to surface. We want AOGCC to be aware that even though we proposed cleaning out the open hole to our approved target depth of 758', that depth would be the maximum depth capable of being reached should no hole problems be encountered. We realize that this attainable depth is extremely optimistic. 4/3/2012 Page 5 of 5 We will not jeopardize an unsuccessful P+A of this wellbore an attempt to get to an unreachable depth. We want to set our cement plug from a depth that we can maintain its integrity throughout the clean out and cementing operations. It may be significantly shallower than the approved depth of 758'. We cannot determine this depth until we begin the wellbore cleanout operations. We would like to get a good open hole cement plug below and across the 8-5/8" casing shoe since this casing (35' of length) was only driven to depth and lacks no casing shoe support. We will maintain contact with AOGCC during our clean out operations and should we reach a point of concern for sticking the pipe, we will approach you with a waiver request at that time for a change in the plugging depth of the well should it be required. Please review our P+A operations on the Umiat No. 6 well to date and let us know how we can proceed with the plugging of this well and any efforts that you would like to see performed. can be reached at the following phone number: Marsh Creek P+A Camp ... 1- 877-265-3196. I have sporadic satellite internet with limited band width but should you want me to call you and discuss any of these details and results, let me know the time and contact number you can be reached at. We are just finished up on function testing the adjustable chokes on the choke manifold as recommended by John Crisp in our conversation yesterday evening. We are currently waiting on Victrolic gaskets for the cementing unit piping prior to proceeding with well bore cleanout and cement plug placement from clean depth to surface. Thank you for your assistance Thomas 7. Zelenka, P.E. Petroleum Engineer Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue, #13 Anchorage, AK 99513 907-271-4224 Office 4/3/2012 Page 1 of 1 Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) From: Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 2:53 PM To: 'Zelenka, Thomas J' Cc: Diel, Bill; Svejnoha, Wayne; Miller, Justin T Subject: RE: Confirmation of Umiat No. 6 P&A Well Casing Cutoff Depth Change Tom, Cut off as described below ( 3-4 ft below GL) is approved. As you said below a 40 ft deep hole doesn't make much sense!! Good luck with the work out there. Guy Schwartz Senior Petroleum Engineer AOGCC 793-1226 (office) 444-3433 (cell) From: Zelenka, Thomas J [mailto:tzelenka@blm.gov] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 2:38 PM To: Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) Cc: Diel, Bill; Svejnoha, Wayne; Miller, Justin T Subject: Confirmation of Umiat No. 6 P&A Well Casing Cutoff Depth Change Guy Schwartz, I am confirming with this email our telecom conversation at 1330 hrs, Monday, 3/19/12 regarding the change in the casing cutoff depth for the Umiat No. 6 well to a cutoff depth of 3-4 feet below ground (5-6 foot well cellar excavation) and AOGCC's approval for this new cutoff depth. To summarize the history; the AOGCC had previously approved BLM's Umiat No. 6 P&A well request (Sundry Approval Form 10-403; Sundry Number 311-349) with a cutoff depth below the Colville River midstream river bottom based on BLM's initial thinking that the Umiat No. 6 wellhead was very near the Colville River bluff and to future erosion considerations. After obtaining actual on location elevation and well distance information; the well is set back approximately 100 meters from the river bluff and approximately 20 feet above the Colville River surface. Accounting for snow cover (— 2') , ice thickness (— 3'), and water depth ("'10') at mid channel, the river mud surface would be at approximately 35 feet from the well ground level. To obtain a 3 -foot cut off below the river bottom would require an excavation of 40 feet of tundra. With the Umiat No. 6 wellhead being set back from the river by 100 meters, the previous deep cutoff depth of this wellhead is no longer warranted and the waiver for this C.asina cutoff depth chanac was requested. We will notify you of any additional P&A changes should waivers to the original Sundry Approval be r eauired due to unplanned for wellbore conditions that may be encountered on fll ff f�{�.�1`if 111T f!T i'�bs P'If i�f-+ Thank you for vour waiver for the new cutoff depth on the Umiat No. 6 well casing. Thomas Zelenka BILM Petroleum Lc iaineer! Insocctor lil%i fl �l f1� • • Wayne Svejnoha Branch Chief Bureau of Land Management 222 W 7th Ave., Ste. 13 Anchorage, AK 99513-7504 Re: Umiat Field, Undefined Oil Pool, Umiat No. 6 Sundry Number: 311-349 Dear Mr. Svejnoha: ,� f 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 Commission grants for good cause shown, a person affected by it may file with the Commission 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, 40/—�� Daniel T. Seamount, Jr. Chair DATED this day of November, 2011. Encl. TATE OF ALASKA ALASKA OIL ANIS CONSERVATION COMMISSIONd �CEt APPLICATION FOR SUNDRY APPROVALS 1,116,� 90 AAr 95 990 1NOV 0 8 2011 1. Type of Request: Abandon Q ' Suspend ❑ Operational shutdown ❑ Perforate ❑ Waiver [] Other❑ Alter casing❑ Repairwell ❑ Plug Perforations ❑ Stimulate ❑ Timoffito sii^'fu❑, f,j� Cm. Comm, 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 0 . Stratigraphic ❑ Service ❑ 1002140 3. Address: 6. API Number: 222 W. 7th Avenue, #13, Anchorage, AK 99513-7504 50-287-10006-00-00 ' 7. If perforating, closest approach in pool(s) opened by this operation to nearest 8. Well Name and Number: property line where ownership or landownership changes: Spacing Exception Required? Yes El No [21Umiat No. 6 9. Property Designation: 69' 22.638'N Lat, 152' 07.95V W Long 10. KB Elevation (ft): 11. Field/Pool(s): AA -081726; Section 3, T1 S, R1 W, U. M., North Slo I 3' AGL I Umiat Undefined Oil Pool 12. PRESENT WELL CONDITION SUMMARY Total Depth MD (ft): Total Depth TVD (ft): Effective Depth MD (ft): Effective Depth TVD (ft): Plugs (measured): Junk (measured): 825' 825' 758' 758' 783'- 825' 758' Casing Length Size MD TVD Burst Collapse Structural 35' 11-3/4" 35' 35' Conductor Surface Intermediate Production Liner Perforation Depth MD (ft): Perforation Depth TVD (ft): Tubing Size: Tubing Grade: Tubing MD (ft): N/A N/A None N/A N/A Packers and SSSV Type: Packers and SSSV MD (ft): N/A N/A 13. Attachments: Description Summary of Proposal ❑ 14. Well Class after proposed work: Detailed Operations Program BOP Sketch ❑ Exploratory Q • Development ❑ Service ❑ 15. Estimated Date for 16. Well Status after proposed work: Commencing Operations: March 15, 2012 Oil ❑ Gas ❑ Plugged Q Abandoned Q WAG ❑ GINJ ❑ WINJ ❑ WDSPL ❑ 17. Verbal Approval: Date: Commission Representative: 18. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Contact Tom Zelenka, PE 907-271-4224 Printed Name Wayne Svejnoha 907-271 4 7 Title Branch Chief, Branch of Energy and Minerals SignaturePho Date c� 2 �, i� r COMMISSION USE ONLY that may witness Sundry Number: Conditions of approval: Notify Commission so a representative Mechanical Integrity Test ❑ Location Clearance Plug Integrity BOP Test ❑ Other: FL4 oto c.0-r—e- �Irk a CevT-O �� 1� 1"0rc- £ �t 61ALA-k W�� �fp�'rt f �"1 I�at�rw.�+.� le 4.y�/lP11 ZG A/4 ZgI Subsequent Form Required: /U UO 7 7 APPROVED BY Approved by: COMMISSIONER THE COMMISSIO Date: ! l ! O RBDMS Form 10-403 Revised 06/2006 NOV iy2oVIC nR1GINAL Won Submit in Duplicate * US Bureau of Land Management Umiat Test Well No. 6 North Slope, Alaska Procedure for Plug and Abandonment Background Well Information The Umiat No. 6 well was drilled in late 1950 on the Federal Naval Petroleum Reserve Number 4, later renamed "National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska" through legislation of the National Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976, in the Umiat area. Umiat is located on the north bank of the Colville River 60 miles upstream from the village of Nuiqsut. This well was drilled to test the southern limits of the Umiat anticline. The well was drilled entirely by cable tool techniques. Structural 8-5/8" casing was driven to 35 feet and a ring of Cal -Seal was placed around the casing at the surface. The well was then drilled with an 8 -inch bit from surface to a depth of 825 feet (790' of 8 -inch ID open -hole section). A 42 -foot cement plug was placed at the bottom of the well with top of cement at 783 feet in order to stop water influx from sand at the base of the permafrost. There is a cable tool fish located at approximately 758' and is likely to be frozen in place. The well was bailed to 700' prior to the last well operations and can be expected to have frozen or partially frozen fluids (a mixture of water and oil) in the wellbore at an unknown depth. Testing operations on the Umiat No. 6 well included bailing and pumping tests. The well tested at approximately 80 bbls oil per day during bailing and pumping tests from several producing ✓ sandstone zones located between 390' and 725'. Well records indicate the well having no existing pad with some minor debris around tF–e—w–eTHead including an empty 55 gallon drum, as well as there being no existing pits or well cellar present. The well was left open with 8-5/8" casing to the,/ surface. It has no gauges, valves, or cover plate. Two thermistor cables protrude to the surface and rest on the lip of the casing. This well poses no threat to human health or the environment unless development occurs. These plug and abandonment procedures are proposed to meet both the P&A requirements of the BLM and the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC). Attachments 1 and 2 show the current wellbore status and proposed final plug and abandonment configuration of the well, respectively. The proposed P&A work will be conducted as a standalone self-sufficient operation. Any restoration of the wellsite will be conducted following the P&A operations. In order to complete the P&A of the well in accordance with BLM and AOGCC regulations, the following P&A program is necessary. Plug and Abandonment Procedure 1. Procure all necessary approvals for the work from the BLM, AOGCC and North Slope .�� Borough. /�lo• .A.11 2. Mobilize all necessary equipment and personnel to the Umiat > 9_we11 location. The anticipated equipment and personnel complement is the following: Personnel: • Working supervisor (1) Well specialist (1) Cementer (2) Equipment operators (2) Roustabouts (1) Boiler/vac unit hand (1) Gat e, �• s4; -' 1 0 Equipment: Batch cementing unit, 50 bbl Bulk cement tank w/ 175-200 sacks permafrost cement Backup centrifugal pump Vac unit Open top tanks Waste transport tanks NaCl sacks for brine Forklift Excavator Spill Kit Pipe, hoses, valves, fittings as needed Tools as needed k 4" BOPE and required fittings and flange adaptors 3. A minimum of 24 hours before P&A operations work commences, notify the BLM and AOGCC North Slope representatives of the plan to start well work. 4. Excavate around the wellhead to a depth sufficient to access all casing valve outlets. Do not - make the excavation any larger than necessary. 5. Install a well enclosure over the well. Apply heat to warm the well. 6. Verify that there is no pressure on the 8-5/8" casing. Check 8-5/8" casing side outlets for evidence of cement to surface. Verify fluid depth in casing below surface. 7. Clean up 8-5/8" casing stub and install necessary sized flange for BOP flange attachment. 8. Install BOPE equipment on casing flange and function test BOPE. L �j � 9. Install a circulating spool/riser on the wellhead.m fro�.es 10. Batch mix 9.3 ppg NaCl brine in required batches necessary for wellbore displacement from 783' PBTD (758' top of fish) to the surface (approximately 49-50 bbls; assumed 8" gauge . open hole). Be prepared to catch, store, and test all recovered fluids from wellbore displacement operations. The fluid waste material will be disposed of according to content. 11. Isolation of open hole section from 783' PBTD (or top of fish at 758') to surface will be accomplished in the following ways: �� (��,��- L---ir a) Run 1" jointed pipe down to the top of the ice plug (fluid level). Start circulating warm brine to melt ice while going down to the bottom of the well. Monitor returns at all time. There is a risk of a gas bubble trapped in the ice. Displace hole completely with NaCl brine. b) After circulating NaCl bring near top of fish at 758', mix 50 bbls of permafrost cement and pump it down the 1" tubing and up the 8" OH x 1" tubing (and 8-5/8" casing x 1" tubing) annulus until cement returns appear at the surface. (Calculated volume 758' of 8 -inch gauge hole is 48 bbls). Y" '7 x0&12 M-110-. c) Close BOPs and squeeze 1-2 barrels throyh and below the fish at 758'. Limit surface pressure to 1,500 psi (due to well age). d) Open BOPS; flush BOPS with water to remove cement. e) Observe well for 2-3 hours allowing the cement to build gel strength. 2 f) Cut 1" pipe at BOP level. g) Disconnect the BOPs. 12. Collect cement rinsate in a separate tank from the well returns tank to segregate Class I from Class II waste. Send waste fluids for injection disposal at approved North Slope facilities. 13. Excavate around well casing to a depth sufficient to place the casing stub 2-3 feet below the Colville River center mudline depth. There could have been gas migration into the annular areas therefore vigilance to this possibility should be observed during removal of the casing below surface level. Cutoff wellhead as deep as possible in the excavation. 14. Heat annulus areas to try and determine if any voids exist in the existing annulus and grout annulus with cement to as deep as possible then top off all annulus areas with cement as necessary. Since 8-5/8" casing was driven, there may not be much annulus area to cement. 15. Weld a minimum 1/a" thick, 8-5/8" round steel plate on top of the 8-5/8" casing with the follow' o b n the plate: Operator: US NAVY Well Name: UMIAT No. 6 Location: Sec 3, TIS, R 1 W, U. M. API: 50-287-10006-00 Leave a weep hole in the well identificationate. It 16. The wellhead will not be reattached to the cut off casing stud due to close proximity to the Colville River and possible future river encroachment over well location. 17. Backfill the excavated area and mound the soil by sufficient material to account for summer thaw subsidence. This may require the addition of clean gravel over the cut off casing. 18. Demobilize all well P&A equipment and personnel to next well location or Deadhorse and beyond, should no additional Umiat wells be P&Ad. 19. File well completion report with photos documenting well P&A work for both the BLM and the AOGCC. Waste Management Solid wastes generated during the plug and abandonment project including the wellhead and cutoff casings will be backhauled and disposed of in the North Slope Borough Landfill. Based on wellbore material analysis, these materials will be disposed of in the appropriate locations. Well returns from cementing operations will be transported back to Deadhorse in secure tanks and taken for injection disposal at one of the North Slope disposal facilities. Cement rinsate from cementing equipment cleanup operations will also be transported to Deadhorse and disposed of by Class I injection or other appropriate disposal means. 3 • Attachment No. 1 CURRENT WELL STATUS *** Current Wellbore Status Diagram *** ESTIMATED CEMENT TOPS Structural 8-5/8" (Driven) Ring of Cal -Seal placed around casing at surface 758' Fish Cemented from 783to 825' TD Unknown 3' AGL 35' • UMIAT No. 6 AGL=3' Ground Level Hole filled with Aquagel mud; expect numberous bridges 8" Hole Cabel Tool Fish with Top of Fish at - 758' 783' PBTD 825' TD • • Attachment No. 2 PROPOSED FINAL WELL STATUS *** Wellbore Status After Final Plug and Abandonment *** ESTIMATED CEMENT TOPS UMIAT No. 6 AGL=3' 3' AG L Cement grout, if possible Structural 8-5/8" (Driven) Cmt 1 1 Cmt Cmt I I Cmt 758' Fish 783' PBTD Cemented from 783' to 825' TD Ground Level Wellhead and casing cut off 2-3' below river bed w/ ID plate. 35' 1" tubing 8" Hole Cable Tool Fish with Top of Fish at -- 758' 825' TD United States epartment of the Interior 1 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 'T Alaska State Office �N EPRDE* Branch of Energy and Minerals ICA 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504 http://www.blm.gov/ak In Reply Refer To: Umiat No. 6 Well, 3160 (AK932) November 3, 2011 Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 333 W. 7th Avenue, Suite 100 Anchorage, AK 99513-7504 To: AOGCC Application Approvals From: Wayne Svejnoha, Chief — Branch of Energy and Minerals BLM, Alaska State Office Subject: Application for Sundry Approvals (10-403) Well: Umiat No. 6 Permit to Drill Number: 1002140 API Number: 50-287-10006-00-00 Dear Sir: RECEIVED wov 07 ?nt Alaska Ali! & Gas Cans. Commission AncnorWo Enclosed please find our Application for Sundry Approvals (Form 10-403) for the Umiat No. 6 well (2 copies) with P+A Procedure, Pre-P+A wellbore diagram (Attachment No. 1), and Post- P+A wellbore diagram (Attachment No. 2). We propose to complete the final plugging and abandonment to surface of the Umiat No. 6 well. The well was spudded by the U. S. Navy on August 14, 1950, drilled to a depth of 825' TD and completed on December 12, 1950 with PBTD at 783' with an 8 -inch open hold section from base of the 8-5/8" structural casing at 35' to 783' PBTD. The well was bailed and pumped for production testing with rates at approximately 80 bbls oil per day. The well has a cable tool fish located at 758' and the tool is likely to be frozen in place. Umiat is located on the north bank of the Colville River 60 miles upstream from the village of Nuiqsut. The well was left open with 8-5/8" casing to the surface. It has no gauges, valves, or cover plate over the casing opening. Two thermistor cables protrude to the surface and rest on the lip of the casing. If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Thomas Zelenka at (907) 271-4224. Sincerely, Wa vej Chief, Branch of Energy and Minerals BLM, Alaska State Office Enclosure(s): AOGCC Form 10-403 (2 copies) P+A Procedure (2 copies) Pre-P+A Wellbore Diagram (2 copies) Post-P+A Wellbore Diagram (2 copies) 2 Well Ranking Before identifying the risks associated with the legacy wells, the BLM reviewed the list of wells to determine 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 ��'0 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 Tune 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 intact, because of their potential Figure 11: Umiat #2 and #5 prior to removal and 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 • Umiat #9 L� 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. 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 Figure 12: Aerial view of Umiat #9. 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. Surficial 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 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 airship. 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 0 . 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 Umiat Work Umiat has been a site of recent cleanup projects. The cleanup process began in 1994 with the removal of about 1,000 drums, 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. 26 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. This well is in danger of becoming engulfed by the ocean. The diesel fuel in the well and reserve pit contaminants raises concerns. The concerns can be eliminated by pumping out the diesel, or displacing the diesel with water and adding a bridge plug and cement to close off the hole. The casing would be cut off below surface. The diesel would be disposed of at the nearest Figure 17: Aerial view of the breached reserve pit. facility. If necessary, the reserve pit could be excavated down to remove contaminated soils, which would be placed into Super -Sacks and hauled out by Cat -Train for grinding and injection into a Class II well or other approved disposal site. 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 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 0 0 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 - Figure 21: Simpson Core #31 is located within an 4,000 cubic feet of gas per day. active oil seep. Flowing pressure was measured at 60 29 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 LJ Simpson Core Test #30 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. 1� 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 5/8 -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 429 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 '/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 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 i 0 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 0 0 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 0 • 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 i 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 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 0 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 :1 0 0 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 41 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. 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 Figure 33: Meade #1 wellhead. resources. 41 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. Figure 34: Titaluk #1 wellhead with wooden cellar. 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 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 forinations. 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 confinned 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 '/2 -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. Surfrcial 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 0 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 1/4 mile in an east -west direction and '/8 of a mile in a north - J Figure 36: Topagoruk #1 casing on its 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 ('/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. Figure 37: Drilling muds and a wooden box that resembles a cellar are located about '/4 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 0 well at 1,049 feet. 0 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 Forniations (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. 0 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. 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 (Burruss, 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, conse uentl bur in the c i a h d 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 q y y g as nb ea . 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 surfrcial 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 up and erosion progress should be monitored on an . It is also worth mentioning that the same type of scenario is unfolding at (another USGS well). Wave action from the reserve pit is beginning to Figure 42: Awuna wellhead with exposed wooden pilings and Styrofoam. annual basis Tunalik # 1 51 0 • 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 - - test, are stored in the Alaska Geologic Materials Center. Barrow Gas Wells extremely friable. It is likely that these 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 • Square Lake #1 Plugged Wells 0 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 45 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 0 • 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 1/4 -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. Umiat #8 Figure 46: Umiat #4 prior to plugging. The wellhead is located in the center of the photograph. 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 s 0 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 downhole to help lubricate the drill bit above the 650 -foot marker (from the surface). More Aquagel-brine mud was used down to about 1,000 feet to keep the hole from caving. The wellhead contains two valves; a master and a gate, both are closed. The total height of Umiat #10 is approximately 10 feet. The 8 5/8 -inch casing is flared and open at the top. This well was plugged May 6, 2004 (Figure i 47). Figure 47: Plugging operations at Umiat #10. May 2004. The surface near Umiat #10 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 Kalikpik 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 v lU 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 UnAliat a North S[op giant James S. Watt Allen Huckabay Mark R. Landt Renaissance Alaska LLC Houston CA- �_` L`% � �\Q KA NORTH SLOPE Well Name I PTD # UMIAT TEST 01 1002090 9-1.9 UMIAT TEST 03 1002110 UMIAT TEST 04 1002120 UMIATT ST UMIAT TEST 06 1002140 UMIAT TEST 07 �I-� 1002150 UMIAT TEST 09 1002170 UMIAT TEST 10_1002180 UMIAT TEST 11 �� 1002190 _ UMIAT 14 2071780 30 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 I1 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- 160° 150° 140° 6� �o h, Beaufort Sea Pru dhoe=""r •te — _ _ — Kuparuk 100 m uctures _ _ _ *1 002 Area,` National Petroleum i Reserve -Alaska Umlat �� 1 'o►elan n "`.......Cl •C CANADA Basi :-' �� Arctic National oma° Wildlife Refuge � 4 Front 1 Y Alaska a4 A? 1. i Bird and Molenaar, 1992 nority owner of Renais- sance Umiat LLC. Since acquiring the acre- age in 2006 and 2007, Renaissance has derisked the project through extensive geoscience studies and an 86 sq mile 3D seismic survey shot in 2008. Re - jO.,i/ Journal / Jan. 11, 2010 V FRANK H. MURKOWSKJ, GOVERNOR Aa7KA OIL AND GAS 333 W. 7TH AVENUE, SUITE 100 CONSERVATION COMMSSION ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501-3539 PHONE (907) 279-1433 FAX (907) 276-7542 Stan Porhola Petroleum Engineer Bureau of Land Management j - 1: 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. 1 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 ` 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. 1.11% t;nairman DATED thisJ day of April, 2006 Encl. f 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. MURKOWSK/, 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. n 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. The,5e,1}'include isolation of fluids to their native formations for envsrpnfl and conservation 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. STATE OF ALASKA A& OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION CONSSION APPLICATION FOR SUNDRY APPROVALS 20 AAC 25.280 Alaska pix & Gas Cans- Camm'ss Ancharage 1. Type of Request: Abandon / Suspend Operational shutdown Perforate Waiver Other Lj 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 ❑a Stratigraphic ❑ Service ❑ 100-214 3. Address: 6. API Number: 6881 Abbott Loop Road Anchorage, Alaska 99507 50-287-10006-00 7. KB Elevation (ft): 9. Well Name and Number: 337' Rig Floor 334' GL Umiat Test Well #6 ' 8. Property Designation: 10. Field/Pools(s): AA -081726 - SIJ210C., 11. PRESENT WELL CONDITION SUMMARY Total Depth MD (ft): Total Depth TVD (ft): jEffective Depth MD (ft): Effective Depth TVD (ft): Plugs (measured): Junk (measured): $ZS,-pb oZr+/ = 31's4 783' 783' 783' 758' Casing Length Size MD TVD Burst Collapse Structural Conductor 35' 8 5/8" 35' 35' 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 L'i 13. Well Class after proposed work: Detailed Operations Program 0 BOP Sketch ❑Z 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 rf Phone 907-267-1469 Date t1� 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 ❑ Other: ITCZv�� ,�� Subsequent Form Required: 1A7&—\ APPROVED BY by: Date: T Approved SSIO COMMISSION u Form 10-403 Revised 07/2005 '"�.r° f✓\ f �.ro, � 4ai +fie �..,, a eamremeees mo ®tuuu �Z''9 ` �i'T'^i - 3•S/•OL `/ \\\ Submit in Duplicate STATE OF ALASKA ALOA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION CO&SIGN APPLICATION FOR SUNDRY APPROVAL 20 AAC 25.280 NOUN:101 MAR 2 2 1001,., 1. Type of Request: Abandon ✓ Suspend Lj Operational shutdown Lj Perforate Alaffil[1 G&SWM Alter casing ❑ Repair well ❑ Plug Perforations ❑ Stimulate ❑ Time Extension ❑Anchorage 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 ❑ 1002140 3. Address: 6. API Number: 6881 Abbott Loop Road Anchorage, AK 99507 502871000600 7. KB Elevation (ft): 9. Well Name and Number: 337' Rig Floor 334' GL Umiat Test Well #6 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): IPlug measured): Junk (measured): 840' 840' 783' 783' 758' Casing Length Size MD TVD Burst Collapse Structural Conductor 35' 113/4" 35' 35' Surface Intermediate �O 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 and SSSV MD (ft): N/A Vackers 4 V 1 12. Attachments: Description Summary of Proposal ✓ 13. Well Class after proposed work: Detailed Operations Program ❑✓ BOP Sketch ❑✓ 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 andco ct to the best of my knowledge. Contact Stan Porhola Printed Name Stan Porhola Title Petroleum Engineer Signature Phone 907-267-1469 Date 3122= 10 6 COMMISSION USE ONLY Conditions of approval: Notify Commis on so that a representative may witness Sundry Number: / Plug Integrity ❑ BO Test ❑ Mechanical Integrity Test ❑ Location Clearance ❑ Other: Subsequent Form Required: BY ORDER OF Approved by: COMMISSIONER THE COMMISSION Date: Form 10-403 Revised 12/2003 INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE ORIGINAL ubmit in Duplicate on • Umiat #6 • Pressure: No pressure is expected to be encountered in this well consistent with other wells in the area. An ice plug at the surface prevents communication with the surface. Ice Plug: An ice plug of unknown thickness exists at the surface of this well which is no more than open casing. Well Casing: Umiat #6 consists of 8 5/8" casing from surface to 35 feet and openhole down to 825 feet. A cement plug was placed at the bottom of the hole from 783 feet to 825 feet to shut-off water production. Well Fluids: Umiat #6 has an ice plug at surface of unknown thickness and a water-based drilling mud left in the hole. Well Plugging Procedure: This well will be plugged by entering the wellbore with a 5 '/2" bit and air drilled down to 110 feet KB. Once this depth has been reached, the workstring and bit will be pulled out of the hole and an inflatable packer will be set at 100 feet KB. After setting the packer, 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. r BLM 10 y$ • Attachment 1 Umiat #6 • Wellhead / Photo Well Head Description (3' stick up) Open ended casing (7"?) with collar, looks like thermistor cables inside BLM 3/13/2006 20 BILM !01PL Umiat #6 RI Keystone Cable Tool Rig S ud: August 14, 1950 Umiat Test Well Meridian Township Range Section Umiat Umiat 1S 1W 13 1.2 mi Current Wellbore Schematic GL: 334.0' AMSL DF: 337.0' AMSL Inigok 69° 22.638' N - 152° 07.951' W 49 mi vngmat mur = a.v taoove %JL Casing and Tubing Detail 8 5/8" Hole . Size Weight Type Grade ID Top Btm 5 sx of Cal -Seal 8 5/8" --- Conductor --- --- 0 35 Drilling Fluids Base Depths Weight Additives Brine 0-825 --- NaCl Formation Geology Age Depths Shows Alluvium Quaternary 0-31 --- Seabee Upper Cretaceous 31-221 --- Ninuluk Upper Cretaceous 220-350 --- Chandler (Killik Tongue) Upper/Lower Cretaceous 350-630 Oil Grandstand Upper/Lower Cretaceous 630.825 Oil Base of Permafrost --- 770 --- Fish/Fill Information Item Date Depth Comment A 12/12/50 1120-3588 Aquagel Mud left in hole (50 sacks) B 46 Thermistor Cable C 46 Thermistor Cable D ? Thermistor Cable E 700 Thermistor Cable F 758 Cable tool bit lost in hole G 783 Cement plug Gas produced Production Tests Depth Time Oil 24 hr Oil Water 24 hr Water W 799 13 hrs 28.5 bbl 52.6 bbl/d 11 bbl 20.3 bbl/d 799 12 hrs 5.7 bbl 11.4 bbl/d 3.5 bbl 7 bbl/d Drilling Mud Oil show x x x x x x x x Cement Plug Gas show Oil produced Fluoresence-Cut Gas produced Statement of Work U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Well Plugging Umiat Test Wells #3, #62 #7, and #9 FY 2006 National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska March 8, 2006 oU 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 BLM 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.........1.........................................................................................................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................................................... l l Attachment 6 — Wellsite Layout............................................................................................................ l l Attachment 7 — Project Timeline...........................................................................................................11 Table of Figures Figure1 — Project Location.............................................................................................................................3 BLM 2 • Background 0 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. Figure 1— Proj e`c`t_Location { r C F Project Description `��"��' ' �rIN a'�e�..�' 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. BLM 3 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 - Proiect Management and En ineering 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 - Protect 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 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 -E guipmen 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 80T. 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 connexes. 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 CS 1000 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 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 Plugzinz Procedures Listed are the unique characteristics of the four (4) wells (Umiat 43, Umiat #6, Umiat #7, and Umiat #9) requiring plugging for this winters work. 0 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 BLM 13 Attachment 7 Route Map X L 10 .1 to Cape Samp v Y"� i" t �7 Z ci .1 1 "oqu, L 4t FPO 34 ,T#; �r ------ .0mo Ram P -IB Z J, A I CA hi Route length 2, -N + BLM Route W" f-!?:. r"-j"-U-fIGIq 'I' �0 -4 W211 tv': IW v 3/13/2M Mdm& 41 0 40 Attachment 4 EgUipthent Spread Challoflool" s 0 MW BLM _ 3/13/2008 " • 0 0 Christensen CS1000 P6L Core Drill • • CS1000 P6L PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS DEPTH CAPACITY CORING (WIRELINE OR CONVENTIONAL) B WIRELINE 4,500 FT (1,370 M) N WIRELINE 3,500 FT (1,070 M) H WIRELINE 2,400 FT (730 M) P WIRELINE 1,300 FT (400 M) DEPTH RATINGS ARE BASED ON VERTICAL AND DRY HOLE 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/MIN (40 M/MIN) 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 IN (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 FUMIN (119 M/MrN) FULL DRUM 1,500 FT/MIN (457 M/MIN) MAST AND FEED SYSTEM FEED TRAVEL: 11.5 FT (3.5 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 ENGINESAVAILABLE ON REQUEST HYDRAULIC SYSTEM PRIMARY PUMP: 3,500 PSI -43 GPM (24.IMPA-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 IN HV CHAIN DRIVE IN OIL BATH -2.5 RATIO SPINDLE: 4 5/81N (117MM) SPINDLE SPEEDS: GEAR RATIO SPEED (RPM) TORQUE, FT LB (NM) I 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 (662454) RANGE SELECTION: MANUAL CONTROL FROM OPERATOR'S STATION HINGED HEAD: SWING AWAY CHUCK ASSEMBLY TYPE: HYDRAULIC OPEN, SPRING CLOSED MAXIMUM INSIDE DIAMETER: 4 5/8 IN (117MM) HOLDING CAPACITY: 40,000 LB (18,143 KG) DRILL BASE SUPPORTS QUANTITY: 4 PAD DIAMETER: 12 IN (305 MM) TRAVEL LENGTH: 12 IN (305 MM) WEIGHT 125 LB (57 KG) BATTERY BOX & BATTERY: HIGHWAY FLY -IN MAJOR TOTAL WET TOTAL WET COMPONENTS WET 9,205 LB (4,176 KG) 8,605 LB (3,904 KG) 8,120 LB (3,683 KG) DRILLHEAD: 22 LB (10 KG) MUD TANK OUTRIGGERS (4): 1,040 LB (472 KG) 1,040LB (472KG) 1,040LB (472KG) DRILL BASE: 400 LB (182 KG) 680 LB (309 KG) 680 LB (309 KG) 680 LB (309 KG) LOWER MAST: 2,000 LB (908 KG) 2,000 LB (908 KG) 2,000 LB (908 KG) UPPER MAST: 800 LB (363 KG) 800 LB (363 KG) 800 LB (363 KG) ENGINE COMPONENT WET: 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: 134 LB (61 KG) 134 LB (61 KG) DRILL BASE SUPPORTS (4): 100 LB (45 KG) 100 LB (45 KG) OPERATOR'S PLATFORM: 22 LB (10 KG) 22 LB (10 KG) MUD TANK OUTRIGGERS (4): 104 LB (47 KG) 104 LB (47 KG) WHEELS & STUB SHAFT (4): 400 LB (182 KG) HITCH: 200 LB (91 KG) DIMENSIONS LENGTH WIDTH HEIGHT DRILL BASE: 114 IN (2,896 MM) 64 IN (1,626 MM) 58 IN (1,473 MM) LOWER MAST: 200 IN (5,080 MM) 26 IN (660 MM) 33 IN (838 MM) UPPER MAST: 145 IN (3,683 MM) 21 IN (533 MM) 29 IN (737 MM) ASSEMBLED MAST: 28.8 FT (8.8 M) DRILL HEAD: HORIZONTAL VIEW 31 IN (787 MM) x 44 IN (1,118 MM) VERTICAL VIEW 21 IN (533 MM) x 44 IN (1,118MM) ENGINE COMPONENT: 43.5 IN (1,105 MM) x 49 IN (1,245MM) x 29 IN (737 MM) HYDRAULIC COMPONENT: 37.5 IN (953 MM) x 49.5 IN (1,257 MM) x 29 IN (737 MM) DRAW WORKS COMPONENT: 27.8 IN (706 MM) x 56.5 IN (1,435 MM) x 26 IN (660 MM) STANDARD EQUIPMENT -HYDRAULIC MAST RAISE -TOWING PACKAGE -HYDRAULIC OIL RESERVOIR FILL PUMP & FILTRATION OPTIONS -HYDRAULIC P -SIZE HOLDING CLAMP -SINGLE, LARGE DIAMETER MAIN HOIST SHEAVE -HYDRAULIC DRIVEN MUD PUMP FMC WI 122BCD MAX FLOW: 37 GPM (140 LPM) MAX PRESSURE: 700 PSI (4.9 MPA) -DERRICK IN TWO SECTIONS -FUEL TANK 34 GAL (125 L) -FUEL FILTER & WATER SEPARATOR -HYDRAULIC MUD MIXER -MAST LIGHTING KIT -HYDRAULIC JACKS -SKID MOUNTING -CRAWLER MOUNTING ALL WEIGHTS AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE Atlas Copco Exploration Products `a 640 McKeown Avenue, +t7 North Bay, Ontario Canada Tel (705) 472-3320, Fax (705) 472-6843 Attachment 6 Spill Control Wellsite Layout 3/13/2006 Umiat L6Q611d feet o s 10 15 zU 42 • I* 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 Resupply Umiat Mob Day #1 Umiat Mob Day #2 Umiat Mob Day #3 Umiat Work Day #1 Uniat Work Day #2 Umiat Work Day #0 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Umiat Work Day #4 Umiat Demob Day #1 Umiat Demob Day #2 Umiat Demob Day #3 Deadhorse Demob Day #1 Deadhorse Demob Day #2 3U Umiat Project Schedule As of 3/08/06 WASHINGTON STATING 4 CONTROL HEADS, INC. / ,w. 1i'4rti Ji �t'ta L'tr { F t t rs err r . a" e'LfSl. F.1 tea! :. r..Y:1 ix •h -fro".- 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 • rMod01 3022 [D VER 1HR'RYSMEM 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. CLICK HERE FOR MHMMMS BACK TO DIVERETIM MQID HOME] LABOUT US ] PM Rii�] MDff MN6US ] BERMLLSYMURIMU[821 ] ES 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 410 was plugged with a bridge plug and 100' of cement above. Umiat 44 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 #3 and setting surface plugs for Umiat #6, 47 and #9. Previous plans to plug Umiat 41 and #11 have been put on hold. Work scheduled for summer 2004 includes PCB testing of well fluids for Wolf Creek 43 and possible wellhead improvements to Wolf Creek #1. 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 .t,�'» _. of 1 7/21/2004 3:50 PM • PTD: 100-214 Umiat #8 PTD: 100-216 Umiat #9 PTD: 100-217 Umiat # 10 PTD: 100-218 pdy ; L.�..x 5 -.s a vF 3.= L-5 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 ,1Umiat #6 PTD: 100-214 Umiat #8 PTD: 100-216 Umiat #9 PTD: 100-217 Umiat # 10 PTD: 100-218 Gentlemen: • FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, GOVERNOR 333 W. 7T AVENUE, SUITE 100 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501-3539 PHONE (907) 279-1433 FAX (907) 276-7542 Sundry: 304-115 Sundry: 304-117 Sundry: 304-116 Sundry: 304-114 _ Cy I^ c1f n v 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. These include isolation of fluids to their native formations for environmental and conservation • 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 nate this or any future well work. lorman, STATE OF ALASKA ALAR OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMWION APPLICATION FOR SUNDRY APPROVAL 20 AAC 25.280 1. Type of Request: Abandon ✓ Suspend Operational shutdown Lj Perforate Lj Waiver Lj Annular Dispos. Lj 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 ❑✓ Stratigraphic ❑ Service ❑ 1002140 l� 3. Address: 6. API Number: v 6881 Abbott Loop Road Anchorage, AK 99507 502871000600 7. KB Elevation (ft): 9. Well Name and Number: 337' Rig Floor 334' GL Umiat Test Well #6 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): 840' 840' 783' 783' N/A 758' Casing Length Size MD TVD Burst Collapse Structural Conductor 35' 113/4" 35' 35' 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 ✓ 13. Well Class after proposed work: Detailed Operations Program ❑✓ BOP Sketch ❑✓ Exploratory ❑✓ Development ❑ Service ❑ 14. Estimated Date for 15. Well Status after proposed work: y Commencing Operations: 4/10/2004 Oil ❑ Gas ❑ Plugged Q Abd e ✓ 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 „w Phone 907-267-1469 Date 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 ❑ RECEIVED Other: APR - 8 2004 'red: Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission Subsequent F eq 04RIGINALBY ORDER OF Anchorage Approve COMMISSIONER THE COMMISSION Date: 41 Q i F 10-403 Rvis 12/2003 INSTRUCTIONS ON R it in Duplicate • s U. S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Well Site Condition Report Date: 10/15/02 10:49 AM10/15/02 Site and Well Name. Location. Condition: Pad Condition: Pit Condition: Site: Umiat Well Name: Umiat Test Well #6 Township and Range, Section and Meridian: T1S, R1W, Sec 3, UM Coordinate System: Geographic Units: Decimal Minutes Latitude: 69° 22.638'N Longitude: 152° 07.951'W DATUM: WGS 84 (NAD 83) Quadrangle: Umait B-4 Umiat well #6 lies to the northeast of the airstrip and is visible from the gravel road that leads from the east end of the airstrip to the Colville River. No existing pad. There is some minor debris near the wellhead including an empty 55 gallon drum. No existing pit. Cellar Condition: No existing cellar. Well Head Assembly: Open hole with thermistor cables. There is no indication of any oil or gas seeping within the area of this wellhead. Well Head Description (3' stick up) Open ended casing (7"?) with collar, looks like thermistor cables inside scANINED APR 3 0 2004 Draft: Internal Document SCANNED APR 3 0 2004 i f 1 Make connection to diverter spool to take returns to the fold -a -tank or circulating tank. 155 gallon drum (empty?) next to Umiat #6. 1 Umiat #6 • BOP Diagram Flow nipple with rubber packing. Ball valve. Diverter spool. Weld on flange and nipple up BOP equipment on existing 7" casing. Remove thermistor cables. 3t BOP Description 1.) Remove thermistor cables from well 2.) Weld on flange to existing 7" casing 3.) Nipple up Diverter spool, divert line, ball valve and rubber packing element Well Head Description (3' stick up) Open ended casing (7"?) with collar, looks like thermistor cables inside sC,AN NEi) APP 3 0 2004 Lot: 69'22'44"N Umiat Test Well 6 Spud: Aug. 14, 1950 Long: 152'05'40"W Well Schematic Comp: Dec. 12, 1950 Top -of Surface Pipe = 3' ACL All Depths from Top of Surface Pipe Surface Cosine R—n►+"d to be Open to Atm 8 5/8" Hole LEGEND n Mud and/or 1_J Formation Fluids Gement FAIR/UMlAT/IlUW"IIVW_% Ij- -SR -26- 8 5/8" Casing Driven to 35'. Ring of Cal–Seal Placed around Casing at Surface Hole Filled with Aquagel Mud Expect Numerous Bridges Cable Tool Fish with Top of Fish at 758' Hate Cemented from 783' to TD NO SCALE Umiat #6 Summer 2003 n U 0 Umiat #6 Winter 2004 -0 • • • • will be similar for all wells, unless PCB fluids are encountered. The sequence of wells is tentatively scheduled in this order Umiat #8, #10, #9, #11, #4, #3, #6, #7, #1 The downhole plugging procedure for all wells, except Umiat #8, are listed below: Umiat #10, #9, #11, #4, #3#6, , #1 1. Locate the well Set up connexes and insulated panels around well. Place gas detection equipment at well, open wellhead valve (if available) and monitor up to two hours for any indication of gases. If any sign of sustained gases (natural gas or H2S), notify BLM representative and proceed to next well. If gas subsides, continue operations on current well. 2. Remove any brush/willows in order to bring in connexes using cutting equipment (hacksaws or chainsaws). While continuously monitoring gas detection, nipple down existing wellhead, piping and valves, if needed. Store wellhead components onsite in preparation for reattachment at the end of plugging operations. 3. Weld on flange and nipple -up a diverter spool, ball valve capable of cutting through the 2" HDPE pipe and additional spool (if needed). Connect diverter line to take all circulated fluids to the well fluids tank. 4. Determine the fluid level in the well by lowering down in the well a sounding tape or similar device to locate how deep the fluid level is in the well. It can be expected to find an ice plug relatively shallow in the well (shallow ice plugs exist in Umiat #6 and Umiat #7 at 6" and 12" respectively). Spot hot brine on the ice and try again to lower a device to determine a fluid level. If brine does not fall down the well, but rather builds up near surface, then proceed to step 5. If the hot brine does melt the ice plug and falls down the well, then continue to locate the fluid level. 5. Circulate hot brine and melt the ice plug down to 100' and then pump 100' column of cement, utilizing the ice plug to hold the cement. Monitor the cement to ensure ice plug is holding and the cement is not falling down the well. 6. If ice plug is washed -through, then continue to identify the fluid level. 7. If the fluid level is determined to be deeper than 100', proceed to set an inflatable bridge plug at 100' and place a 100' column of cement on top of the plug. 8. If the fluid level is determined to be shallower than 100', obtain a one-half liter sample of the liquid and suspend all downhole activities. Utilize a field testing kit to test sample for PCBs. If the test comes back negative, continue plugging operations. If the field test is positive, send the sample by air to the lab in Anchorage and analyze it for PCB content. Close the ball valve and move to the next well. The lab report is expected to take three days. If PCB content is detected, the well will be left shut-in and not P&A'd because it would require displacing contaminated well fluids to the surface, which requires very costly disposal of the contaminated fluids and is extremely hazardous. 9. If no PCB content is analyzed in the sample of shallow well fluids, then when returning to well, run in the hole with 2" HDPE pipe (with a diverter nozzle as the BLM 6 bottom hole assembly) to 160'. Have bull cutters always available at the well site to cut HDPE pipe above the ball valve and close the ball valve should a gas situation warrant. 10. Mix the gel pill (equivalent volume for 60' in the hole), pump and spot the pill at 160'. POOH 60' of HDPE pipe. 11. Displace HDPE pipe with fresh water and spot 30' column of fresh water on top of gel pill. 12. Mix 100' equivalent volume of cement and pump down HDPE, spotting on top of gel pill and displacing fresh water spacer up the hole. Displace cement to a balanced plug. 13. Wait on cement. 14. Flush water through surface cement equipment into a clean-up tank. 15. Tag cement with spud bar. If cement level is not to the desired depth, use 1" HDPE pipe to perform remedial cementing. 16. Nipple down flange, diverter and ball valve. 17. Reattach preexisting wellhead components. 18. Mobilize out and move connexes and equipment to the next well. 19. Return CAT 977s to well and mobilize out any drums at site. The downhole plugging procedures for Umiat #8 are listed below: Umiat #8 1. Locate the well and place gas detection equipment at well. If any sign of cracks or leaking gases (natural gas or H2S), notify BLM representative and evaluate situation. Special procedures will be taken to isolate/stop any leaks, if practicable. 2. Remove any brush/willows in order to bring in connexes using cutting equipment (hacksaws or chainsaws). While continuously monitoring gas detection, nipple down needle valve and plug located above existing 3" ball valve. 3. Warm wellhead with indirect heat 4. After wellhead is sufficiently warmed, nipple up fittings, influent and effluent lines. Lines will have check valves installed in line that will remain shut while 3" ball valve is opened. If valve fails to open then OES will move to next well head. If valve opens OES personnel will prepare hot brine solution for pumping down hole. 5. With 3" valve open, pump 350 gallons of hot brine solution down hole. If all brine pumps away easily and creates a vacuum this is a good indication that the tubing is competent. If no vacuum, tubing is likely partly or severely corroded. And if annulus pressure builds from 250 PSI to 280 PSI it is a good indication that no brine is lost to the formation gas sand. An experienced well closure specialist will supervise the work 6. After monitoring the effects of the brine solution on the well's pressure and it is determined by BLM and OES staff that the piping is adequate for delivery of the cement, OES personnel will set for cement delivery into well # 8 via piping. A 350 gallon warm water spacer will be pumped ahead of the Arctic Set 3 cement. BLM -A #_AL41jkrA,cti c; r Cjrrl S�,ENr op Ty United States Department of the Interiors BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT yqN 3-� Campbell Tract Facility TAKE PRIDE' 6881 Abbott Loop Road INAMERICA 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. 7th 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 CYA k 0�-- -a�c� s Stan Porhola BLM — AK941 Petroleum Engineer 907-267-1469 RECE' ViE LJ APR - $ 2004 Alaska 0i1 '� Cas Cons. Commission Anchorage I Zoo s Stan Porhola BLM — AK941 Petroleum Engineer 907-267-1469 RECE' ViE LJ APR - $ 2004 Alaska 0i1 '� Cas Cons. Commission Anchorage Lot: 6.9'2244"N Long: 152',05'40"W swface Casing iter^-i"a to be Open to Atrr 8 5/8" Hole LEGEND ElMud and/or FormationFluids Cement I FAIR/UMIAT/UMWL6/a9/38 _% ! 1 SR Umiat Test Well 6 Well Schematic -26- Spud: Aug. 14, 1950 Comp: Dec. 12, 1950 Top of Surf -ace Pips = 3' AGL All Depths from Top of Surface pipe -8 5/8" Casing Driven to 35'. Ring of Cal—Seal Placed around Casing at Surface Hole Filled with Aquagel Mud Expect Numerous Bridges Cable Tool Fish with Top of Fish of 758' Hvie Cemented from 783' to TO 0 Well 1 Well Head Description: 11 3/4" casing with collar 11 3/4" casing welded on blind plate 2" nipple 2" gate valve (water -type) - operational TOTAL STICK UP: 36" Well 4 Open hole with a steel plated cover. No oil or gas seeping on site. • Well 2 Well P&A in winter 2002. Well Head Description (2 1/2' stick up): 11 3/4" casing to flange (12 x 3/4" studs with 6 in place) 2 plugged 2" side outlets top of blind flange, 2" plug and 3" welded collar with 1" rod clamped off Well 6 7 7 Open hole with thermistor cables. There is no indication of any oil or gas seeping within the area of this wellhead. Well Head Description (3' stick up) Open ended casing (7"?) with collar, looks like thermistor cables inside Well 8 Gas Well with SITHP 250 psi Well 10 Two valves and zero gauges. No oil or gas seeping on site. Well Head Description (10' stick up): 5' of 11 3/4" casing with collar clamp to 8 1/2" casing with collar welded to flange 2 side outlets below flange, 1 plugged and one 2" Walworth Gate Valve (DD 500, 4892) Flanged (8 x 5/8" studs) Walworth Master Valve (DD 200, V -S344 -A) 2 ft of 8 1/2" flared open casing Well Umiat #6 k Open Pipe at Surface I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Cmt'd 783'-TD -----------� Casing driven to 35': ring of Cal -Seal placed around casing at surface. 35' 8 5/8" Casing Sand starts at 250' Grandstand Formation 630' - TD Open Hole 8 5/8" Cable Tool Fish at 758' TD 825; Tested 11 BOPD with 30% water cut 0 0 Cement Yield 1.56 cf/sx for the smaller 65 IbsJsx 6.375 8.625 5.5 8.625 2 f'Z 4 Production Casing OD 11.75 P&A 7 11.75 Csg Depth, Ft 685 Set a 100' 72 33 Open -hole ID 10.625 cmt plug 6 10.75 Hole Depth, Ft 6,005 on 17' gel 572 840 Casing Capicity, cf/ft 0.6599 pill 0.221 0.6599 Open -hole Capacity, cf/ft 0.6157 Also, 24 0.1963 0.6303 8 22 sx in 12 38 100' Surface Plug, cu. ft. 66 annulus 21 64 Sacks of Cmt (at 1.56 cf/sx) 42 13 41 60' Gel Plug, cu. ft. 40 None 12 38 Minimum Displacement, Bbls 19 6 18 Bottom Plug, cu. ft. Not 69 15 270 Sxs of Cmt Needed 55 None None Displacement, Bbls 0 Open Open pipe SITHP=250 Maximum Sxs Cmt to Fill Well 801 Pipe 24 88 Max Displacement, Bbls 633 19 69 Comments Fish 340' Rods in Well any fluid Wet well below OWC z 761.25 8.625 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 otils 10.75 486 9.625 3303 0.5195- 0.5053 52 340 33 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 1954 is Weatherford Inflatible Packers Rods in Well Open Open pipe SITHP=250 Perfs 2 never 5 ?'t �'ti;6,,." �� produced Fish 340' when well :,: 10 Tata 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. it. 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 Inflatible 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 Wet well Pipe Wet well FL brine is never below OWC below OWC 600 it back produced Fish 340' when well any fluid was drilled Open pipe Wet well North of fault Cmt Plug 440' Tagged 337' in 1954 U 0 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 Ib 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 500 , } �t L` • -04 Water 20.7 gals/sx 7.25 gals/sx • • 138 Depth (feet) E%PLORA* OF NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVE NOSALASBA, 1944-53 Notes from drill records—Continued Remarks rereamed with same bit, using 154 bbl of Umiat crude oil to retain circulation. After waiting 4 days for cement, 49 joints of 5% -in. 15-1b National seamless line pipe were run to 1,068 ft and cemented with 150 sacks of cement. Annulus between 8%- and 5'Ya-in. casings cemented at surface with 20 sacks of Cal -Seal. Top of plug at 1,065 ft; hole filled to surface with Umiat crude oil and shut in. On top of 8% -in. surface casing is SY84n. coupling with 8%s- by 10 -in. nipple with a flange welded to it. The 5Y2 - in. casing head is cemented to flange and projects above it, with screwed flange on top. A 2'44n. flanged tubing head is capped by swage nipple, coupling, and bushing. Casing head and fixtures extend about 3 ft above ground. DRILL AND CORE BITS A total of 24 cable -tool drilling bits were used in drilling the hole —one 10y -inch bit, 13 bits 8 inches in diameter, and the rest 6 inches across. To improve the condition of the hole, bits 5, 6, 10, 23, and 24 were used entirely for reaming. Bits 8 and 11 also did some reaming as well as drilling. One core bit 5% inches in diameter was used with a Baker No. 6 cable -tool core barrel to take 20 feet of core. Except for 2 feet of drilling, the rotary rig was used entirely for reaming and cleaning out the hole. Four Reed rock bits (2 SE -HM, and 2. SE-2HM) were used, and one Hughes OSC-2 bit; all were 7'/s inches in diameter, except one of the- SE-2HM bits, which was 5Yss inches across. A 9'z -inch Baker wall scraper and a 10'/ -inch Grant wall scraper were also used. At some depths one bit was,used for short alternate inter- vals of drilling and reaming; toavoid confusion on the graphic log (pl. 12); these bits are shown as having drilled only. DRILLING Fir UM The first 200 feet of hole was drilled with a small amount of fresh _water in the hole, to which only a little salt was. added. Between ;200 and 1,075 feet, brine was used, consuming 3,875 pounds of salt in a mixture that ranged from 35 to 50 pounds of salt for each 53 -gallon barrel ,of water. Below 1,075 feet crude oil from Umiat or Simpson Seeps wells was used as a drilling fluid, as well as a Iittle (11 bbl) of diesel fuel. A total of 107 barrels of Simpson crude oil and 550 barrels of Umiat crude ail was used. UPMT TEST WELL 6 0 0. A l q Location: Lat 690,22144" N., long 152°05'40" W. Elevation: Ground level, 334 feet,, rig floor, 337 feet. Spudded: August 14, 1950. Completed: December 12, 1950; pumped estimated 80 barrels of oil per day; junked and abandoned. Total depth: 825 feet. This well, the third drilled with cable tools, is about 3,500 feet southwest of, and structurally lower than Umiat test well 2. Its purpose was to extend or define the limits of production on the south flank of the anticline. Below alluvium, the Seabee (about 31 to 220 feet_), Ninuluk (220-350 ft), Chandler ($illik tongue) (350-630 ft), and Grandstand (630-825 ft) formations were penetrated; oil shows were noted in several sandstone beds below 245 feet. They were inadequately tested, because water appeared at a depth of 825 feet and could not be completely shut off, causing ice to form in the tubing during production tests; however, a possible recovery of about 80 barrels of oil was indicated. An unsuccessful fishing attempt and a badly caving hole prevented further testing and drilling; so the hole was filled with mud and capped. The condition of the hole precluded deepening it to test the lower sandstone bed of the Grandstand forma- tion, although plans originally called for possible deepening if it was warranted by production from that sandstone in Umiat test well 5. DESCRIi'TION OF CORES AND CUTTINGS Lithologie description [where no cores are listed, description is based on cutting samples] Core I Depth (feet) I Remarks -----I 0-3 3-100 100-120 120-140 ----- 140-160 _ 160-170 170-175 175-210 ____ 210-220 ----- 220-240 --240-260 260-270 Surface pipe to ground. No sample; Marvin A. Heany, well geologist, states the hole penetrated gravel for the first 31 ft, and clay, silt and shale between 31 and 100 ft. Top of Seabee formation is at 31 ft. Clay shale, medium -dark -gray; very silty and slightly calcareous in part. Clay shale, with a small amount of bluish - white bentonite with abundant minute biotite flakes, and very small amount of medium -gray argillaceous noncalcareous siltstone. Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty, with very small amount of siltstone. Clay shale, slightly to very silty. Clay shale with some medium -gray, very argillaceous siltstone. Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty, noncalcareous. Clay shale; calcareous in part; very cal- careous medium -gra y siltstone. Clay shale, with rare sil tstone and bentonite. Top of Ninuluk formation at 220 ft. Sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine- grained, slightly silty and argillaceous, friable, slightly calcareous in part; com- posed of subangular clear and white quartz with dark rock fragments__ and rare carbonized plant flakes. Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty, noncalcareous, with very small amount of sandstone and siltstone in upper part and rare black carbonaceous shale in lower part. OT WELLS, UMIAT AREA, ALASKA 0 Lithologic description—Continued f Lithologic description—Continued Core I Depth (feet) ( Remarks ----- 270-280 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine-grained, slightly silty and argillaceous, noncal- careous; some medium -grained sandstone contains abundant carbonaceous particles ----- 531. 5-535 and very small amount of clay shale. ----- 280-285 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine- grained, noncalcareous; and medium - ----- 560-570 dark -gray clay shale. _____ 285-290 Siltstone, medium -gray, sandy, argillaceous, ----- 580-585 noncalcareous; medium -light -gray very fine-grained sandstone; and medium - dark -gray noncalcareous clay shale. 290=295 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, very silty, 585-590 noncalcareous. ----- 295-325 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine-grained, noncalcareous, friable; composed of sub- angular clear and white quartz'g�rray dark chert and rock fragments; medlum- grained sandstone increases from very ----- 595-600 rare at 310 ft to 20 percent at 325 ft. ----- 325-335 Clay shale, very silty, with small amount ____ 605-610 of very argillaceous siltstone and rare sandstone. _____ 335-350 Clay shale, slightly to very silty. Very rare clay ironstone at 350 ft contains structureless oolitelike pellets of calcite, ----- 615-620 similar to those at 515 ft in Umiat test ----- 620-625 well 7. 350-380 Clay shale, with small "amount of medium - gray very argillaceous siltstone and very ----- 625-630 small amount of black dull to shiny coal in lower part. Top. of Killik tongue of ----- 630-655 Chandler formation at 350 ft. ----- 380-385 Siltstone, medium -gray, argillaceous to sandy, and medium -dark -gray clay shale ----- 655-680 with some black carbonaceous clay shale. 385-390 Clay shale. ----- 390-410 Sandstone medium -light -gray, fine- to very fine-grained, argillaceous, silty, slightly micaceous, calcareous, with a very small 3 680-683 amount of clay shale and rare siltstone in lower part. 410-415 Siltstone, medium -gray, slightly sandy, argillaceous, slightly calcareous. ----- 415-420 Clay shale, slightly to very silty, with very small amount of medium -light -gray non - 4 683-687 calcareous siltstone. ----- 420-440 Clay shale, slightly to very silty, with very rare carbonaceous black shale at 435 ft. ----- 440-450 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine-grained, ----- 695-720 slightly argillaceous and silty, noncalcare- ous; friable; composed of subangular clear ----- 720-730 and white quartz and dark rock fragments. 450-465 Clay shale, with small amount of siltstone ----- 730-735 in upper 5 ft. 465-475 Clay shale, with some siltstone. ----- 475-495 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, noncal- ----- 740-745 careous. ----- 495-505 Sandstone, light -gray, fine-grained, non - ----- 745-755 calcareous, friable; composed of sub- angular clear and white quartz with rare 755-770 gray and dark rock fragments. ----- 505-508.5 No sample. I 508. 5-515 Recovered 6 ft 6 in.: Microfossils absent. ----- 775-785 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine- grained, very argillaceous and silty, ----- 785-795 slightly micaceous, very slightly cal- careous, massive. _____ 515-525 Sandstone as above. ----- 525-529 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine- ----- 800-825 grained, very silty and argillaceous, • slightly calcareous, and very silty clay shale. 2 529-531.5 Recovered 2 ft 6 in.: Miscrofossils absent. Sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine - 139 Core Depth (feet) Remarks grained, very argillaceous and silty, slightly micaceous, very slightly cal- careous, massive. ----- 531. 5-535 Sandstone as above. ----- 535-560 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty, noncalcareous. ----- 560-570 Clay shale, with some siltstone. ----- 570-580 Clay shale, slightly to very silty in park ----- 580-585 Sandstone, medium -gray, very fine-grained, carbonaceous, with black carbonaceous clay shale and medium -dark -gray clay shale. 585-590 Clay shale, slightly to very silty. ----- 590-595 Clay shale and sandstone, light -gray, fine - to very fine-grained, slightly silty and argillaceous, noncalcareous; composed of subangular clear and white quartz with rare dark rock fragments. ----- 595-600 Sandstone as above. ----- 600-605 Siltstone, light -gray, with some sandstone. ____ 605-610 Sandstone, very fine-grained, very silty, with some siltstone. ----- 610-615 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty, with very small amount of sandy siltstone. ----- 615-620 Clay shale, slightly to very silty. ----- 620-625 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine- grained, silty, argillaceous, sericitic, non - calcareous, with some clay shale. ----- 625-630 Clay shale and siltstone, medium -light -gray, very argillaceous. ----- 630-655 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty, noncalcareous. Top of Grand- stand formation at 630 ft. ----- 655-680 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine-grained, slightly silty and argillaceous, noncil- careous, friable; composed of subangular clear and white quartz with abundant dark rock fragments. Very small amount 3 680-683 of clay shale in top 5 ft. Recovered 1 ft: Not sampled for micro - fossils. Sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine- grained, silty, argillaceous, very seri`^ citic, noncalcareous, with common car- bonaceous partings. 4 683-687 Recovered 2 in.: Not sampled for -micro - fossils. Sandstone as above. ----- 687-695 Sandstone as above. ----- 695-720 Sandstone as above, with very small .amount of clay shale. ----- 720-730 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty, noncalcareous. ----- 730-735 Clay shale and siltstone, medium -gray, very argillaceous, noncalcareous. ----- 735-740 Clay shale, very silty. ----- 740-745 Siltstone, very argillaceous, with small amount of clay shale. ----- 745-755 Clay shale, slightly to very silty, with very small amount of siltstone. - 755-770 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine-grained, slightly silty, noncalcareous, friable. ----- 770-775 Clayshale and sandstone. ----- 775-785 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray; slightly silty in part. ----- 785-795 Clay shale, dark -gray, very silty; and very fine-grained sandstone. ----- 795-800 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine- to very fine-grained, friable, with abundant dark rock fragments. ----- 800-825 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty, noncalcareous, with very small amount siltstone.. 140 EXPLORW OF NAVAL PETROLE CORE ANALYSES I Analyses given in the table below were made with the equipment described on page 127. Analyses of core samples from Umiat test well 6 Depth (feet) Effective pores- Air permeability ity (percent) millidarcys 508-515------------------------ 14.0 529-531------------------------ 3.35 680---------------------------- 9.45 681-683------------------------ 8.5 OIL AND GAS OM AND GAS SHOWS In drilling this well oil-bearing sandstone beds were penetrated at 445-455, 498-543, 625-635 feet, and 655– 710 feet; the deepest, the upper sandstone bed of the Grandstand formation, was the most productive. A gaseous odor and slight cut in CCl, were obtained from sandstones between 240 and 340 feet. FORMATION TESTS Tests described below were recorded by the petroleum engineer Gordon Oosting. At a total depth of 528 feet, the well was shut down for 6 hours; during that time 25 gallons of oil was bailed every 2 hours. The fluid level was at 427 feet. At 825 feet water was noted in the hole, and continuous bailing for 8 hours did not lower the fluid level from 583 feet. The well was first pumped when it had reached a depth of 825 feet. To shut off water, the hole was plugged back with cement to 800 feet, and tubing, pump, and rods were installed with the bottom of the tubing at 799 feet and the bottom of the pump at 786 feet. Thirteen 1 -foot by Ys-inch were spirally placed from 787 to 790 feet in tubing wrapped with 4 layers of wire screen. The pumping test began 2 days later; fluid reached the surface in 12 minutes; 28.5 barrels of oil and 11 barrels of fresh water were pumped in 13 hours. In the 12 hours following, 5.7 barrels of oil and 3.5 barrels of water were pumped, using 19 strokes per minute. The temperature of the oil and water at the well head was 32°F, and the salinity of the water was 168 grains per gallon. Some gas came from the well head during the test. When the tubing was removed after the test, it was filled with mushy ice. The only other test of the well was made after the well was shut down for more than 6 weeks. A bailing test to verify the water shut-off was made of the interval between the bottom of the surface casing at 37 feet and the top of a plug at 783 feet. Before bailing began, the top of the oil was at 277 feet, and the top of the water in the hole was at 500 feet. After 10 hours of bailing, fluid from the bottom consisted of half water IIAd RESERVE NCO ALASKA, 1944-53 and half oil; an hour later, more water had drained into the hole. After the following hour of bailing, the fluid level was at 430 feet, and 14.5 barrels of water had been recovered in the 12 -hour period. In the next 12 hours, 15 barrels of water was bailed. After standing 1 hour the top of the oil was at 295 feet, and the water level was at 600 feet. Ten barrels of water was bailed in the next 2 hours, after which the top of the oil was at 345 feet and the water at 680 feet. After standing 8 hours the top of the oil was still at 345 feet, and the water was at 660 feet. During a 12 -hour bailing test, the hole was bailed dry with the removal of 22 barrels of water in 4% hours and kept dry by bailing 1% barrels of water every 1%Z hours thereafter. In the 24-hour period following, the hole was bailed about every 3 hours, and the entry of water declined from 2 barrels to 10 gallons per hour. The oil level, after 5 hours, was at 474 feet, and the water level, at 760 feet. After a standing period of 4 hours, 1% barrels of water was bailed; after a 2 -hour wait, 1l/ barrels was bailed. After 6 hours the top of the oil was at 445 feet, and the water level was at 748 feet; 13 hours later the oil was at 445 feet, and the water, at 725 feet. Gas continued to flow from the well head occasionally. WATER ANALYSIS The National Bureau of Standards analyzed a sample of water from the tank taken after the well had reached its maximum depth and while it was being pumped. The water contained the following radicals, in parts per million: sodium, 2,450; calcium, 15; magnesium,. 20; sulfate, 685; chloride, 1,400; bicarbonate, 3,350; iodide, 2.6; and silica, 5.2; the total is 7,927.8. LOGISTICS Personnel and housing.—A drilling foreman and a petroleum engineer -geologist were the 2 supervisors at the well site; the drilling crews consisted of a driller, 2 tool dressers, and 2 pumpers and gaugers. All other workers were temporary and came from Umiat camp when needed. They included a welder to dress the drill bits, a mechanic, a bulldozer operator, and laborers. The personnel was fed and housed at Umiat camp; the buildings at the well consisted only of the enclosed rig house, a boiler wanigan, a power wanigan, and a tool shed. Vehicles and heavy equipment.—Three weasels were kept at the well site for transportation, and a D8 Caterpillar bulldozer and small crane (cherry picker) were brought from Umiat camp when needed. One each of the following major items of drilling equipment was listed by the Arctic Contractors as having been used. Bucyrus -Armstrong water -well drill rig, model 29—W, with a 45 ft all -steel mast which had a 6 -ft extension. TM WELLS, UMIAT AREA, ALASKA 9 141 Keystone cable -tool rig. Buda 6 -cylinder gasoline engine, model HP -298. Lufkin TC -3A, pumping unit, powered by a Buda gasoline engine. Kohler 4 -kw light plant. Barnes 71YI water pump. Water tank, capacity 250 gal. Oil tank, 100 -bbl, bolted steel. Oil tank, 64 -bbl, bolted steel. Oilmaster 2iz4n. by 2 -in. by 8 -ft stationary -barrel top - anchor pump, model A-528-8. Fuel, water, and lubricant consumption.—In drilling Umiat test well 6, 1,234 gallons of 72 -octane gasoline, 42 pounds of lubricating grease, 31 gallons of No. 9170 lubricating oil, and 29,350 gallons of water were used. After the drill rig was winterized, a boiler was added which used 1,197 gallons of diesel fuel. DRILLING OPERATIONS The Bucyrus -Armstrong cable -tool rig was mounted on skids and towed to the well site by a D 8 Caterpillar tractor. It was later removed for winterization, and a Keystone cable -tool rig was used to plug the hole back. When the Bucyrus -Armstrong rig was reinstalled after winterization, it was mounted on a welded -steel sled. DMIJING1 NOTES Drilling operations described below were recorded by the petroleum engineer Gordon Oosting. Notes from drill records Depth (feet) Remarks 0-35 ---------- Hole drilled and casing driven, about 3 ft at a time. Small amounts of Aquagel used to drill through gravel for first 31 ft. Casing driven to 35 ft, 4 ft into shale below gravel. 108 ----------- Thawing formed a large cavity around pipe at surface. Cavity was filled with gravel, and a ring of 5 sacks of Cal -Seal was set around pipe at ground level, above gravel. Cal -Seal ring prevented surface. material from falling into hole; ring would also support casing by collar should it tend to slip down hole. 529 ----------- Attempt to core with basket on tubing was un- successful, as tubing was only lowered 6 in.; no recovery. 825----------- Ten sacks of Cal -Seal dumped at bottom of hole with bailer, filling hole to 815 ft, but it did not shut off water entering hole from the formation. Six more sacks, raising plug to 805 ft, were also ineffective, as were six additional sacks, which brought plug to 800 ft. Tubing, pump, and rods installed, and rig moved off of well site. After pumping test a Keystone rig was moved over hole. Attempt to pull tubing from hole failed; removing top joint of tubing and top rod showed tubing to be full of mushy ice. Hot brine in tubing and a steam linein hole outside tubing necessary to thaw ice in Notes from drill records—Continued Depth (feet) Remark+ __ tubing. It was necessary to saw 6 rods into 2 pieces in order to remove the rods and tubing from the hole. Bridge found at 564 ft, before hole was cleaned out with 7 -in. horn socket on 3y2 -in. tools. Cal -Seal plug found at 810 ft. Well plugged to 780 ft with 10 sacks of Hi -Early cement mixed with 8 percent by weight of calcium chloride. Water heated before being mixed with cement. After standing cemented for 24 hrs, plug found at 783 ft. Bailer lowered to 70 ft stuck, and cable pulled off of it. Attempt to retrieve it with latch jack and jars resulted in leaving one prong of latch jack in hole. Hole shut down 4 days waiting for tools: next attempt to recover bailer was successful. Reaming from base of casing to 500 ft was easy, but was difficult from 500 to 551 ft (the maximum depth to which the Keystone rig drilling line could go), owing to the pres- ence of an apparently solid bridge. Oper- ations suspended with 100 lbs of salt and 2 bbls of water in hole and casing capped. About 6 weeks later winterized Bucyrus -Arm- strong rig brought to well site, and well cleaned out to 783 ft. Elevation of rig floor` was 3 ft higher than that of previous rig; all depths have been corrected to original rig floor. Fluid level was at 133 ft, and bridge was drilled from 479 to 510 ft. After a bailing test for water, 800 gals of brine (with 1.36 lbs of salt per gal of water) put into hole, after which top of oil was at 247 ft. Cavings cleaned out to 769 ft, and while going into hole with bit, drilling line broke, leaving tools in hole. Top of fish was at 347 ft and could not be recovered; well shut down 334 days waiting for additional fishing tools from Barrow. Fish slid down hole to 758 ft during further fishing oper- ations, and caving hole below 209 ft made recovery impossible. Hole was filled with mud made from 50 sacks of Aquagel to protect oil-bearing sandstones, and Widco electric log was made. Bridges to 700 ft drilled out, and thermistor cables installed before hole was abandoned. The 8544n. casing topped with an open coupling covered only with wooden block to which thermistor cables are attached. Top of coupling 20 inches above ground. DRILL AND CORE BITS One 5% -inch core bit in a No. 6 Baker cable -tool core barrel cored 16 feet of rock, of which 5 feet 7 inches was recovered. The cored rock was badly broken. Eight drilling bits were used to reach the total depth of the well, and a ninth was used for reaming. When bits wore dull they were sharpened by hard -surface welding at Umiat camp. An unsuccessful attempt was made to 142 EXPLORA# OF NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVE NO SKA, 1944-53 core with a basket on tubing; it probably failed because there was no way of cleaning out cuttings. DR OUANGi FLUID A small amount of Aquagel was used to help drill through the surface gravel. Below that, brine made of 35 pounds of rock salt to 53 gallons (1 bbl) of water made the drilling fluid. One barrel of brine filled 3 bailers, and 1 bailerful was used with every 2-3 feet of hole drilled, so a 100 -pound sack of salt was used with every 2-25 feet of hole drilled. Enough brine was kept in the hole to cover the cable tools. A total of 3,000 pounds of salt was used in the well. IFT CrRIC LOGGING A Widco electric log was made after drilling had been abandoned, and the hole filled with Aquagel. Only 307 feet was logged (from 35 to 342 ft) because the sonde would go no deeper; it was probably blocked by cavings. It had been impossible to make an electric log before, because of the salt water put into the hole. TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENT STUDIES By MAX C. BREWER Two thermistor cables, the longest reaching to 700 feet, were installed in Umiat test well 6 on December 11, 1950. Two months later two short thermistor cables were installed in the upper air-filled (46 ft) part of the hole (now sealed at 7.2 ft) to give more detailed near -surface temperature measurements. The thermal profile at Umiat test well 6 is character- ized by two different gradients within the permafrost zone. The slope of the profile between 100 and 225 feet in depth is approximately 93 feet per degree centigrade, and the slope between 250 and 700 feet is approximately 117 feet.per degree centigrade. A short extrapolation of the thermal profile obtained at this site indicates that the bottom of permafrost is at a depth of approximately 770 feet. This is believed to be very close to the true depth of permafrost in this part of the Colville River valley as the temperatures at the greater depths should be very close to their normal equilibrium temperatures. It is probable that the depth of permafrost at this site has been affected by the nearness and consequent warming effect of the Colville River. Data from installations farther from the river lend considerable support for such a hypothesis and indicate that approximately 900 feet is a more normal depth of permafrost in this area when the effect of the river is removed. The cooling curves (time vs. temperature at a given depth) for this cable -tool hole have very jittle in common with the cooling curves obtained at any of the rotary drill holes that penetrated to or through the bottom of permafrost. The temperatures at all depths within this hole have returned to within a few tenths of a degree centigrade of equilibrium tempera- tures within 3 weeks after abandonment of the hole and the installation of the first thermistor cables. This is in contrast to the several months required for temperatures in rotary -drilled holes of similar depth to return to within the same few tenths of a degree centigrade of equilibrium. These observed differences in the time of cooling in cable -tool and rotary -drilled holes is explained by the circulation of "warm" drilling fluid in rotary holes, whereas there is no similar degree of circulation of warm fluid in the cable -tool holes. The circulating warm fluid can, and does, lose a much greater amount of heat to the area surrounding the rotary holes than does the near stationary fluid in the cable -tool holes. The trends in the cooling curves at depths of 500400 feet were smooth until May 12, 1951, when the tem- peratures observed at 575, 650, 675, and 700 feet indicated a very marked departure from previous trends. On May 24 the temperatures at the same depths had returned almost to normal while the tem- perature at 600 feet showed an abnormal decrease. On June 7 the temperatures at all depths were continuing their previously established trends. The above depths outline two sand units that are present at both Umiat test well 6 and Umiat test well 5, where considerable fluid was being added the last week in April 1951. As test well 5 is close to test well 6 and the sands dip from 5 toward 6, preliminary interpretation makes it seem reasonable that the fluid that was added to Umiat test well 5 caused some dis- placement of fluid near, and in, Umiat test well 6. From the results to date it seems that the displacement was upward at 575 and 650 feet and downward at 600, 675, and 700 feet in Umiat test well 6. Although the temperature variations were on the order of 0.10°C, it is not believed possible for heat conduction alone to be active over this vertical distance in so short a time without leaving any lingering evidence. Other tem- perature fluctuations were noted between depths of 600 and 650 feet from July through October 1951. It is thought that these fluctuations can also be traced to activity at Umiat test well 5. Should the above interpretation be correct, it would indicate that at least two unfrozen units having tem- peratures below 0°C lie well within the so-called permafrost zone at Umiat test well 6. US Army Corps of Engineers ALASKA DISTRICT !I5R,7 cluct�ion FN; 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 • 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 prefarred alternatives. Oil .__T0.-0,0. g ip ? -- Airstrip Complex!. easonal Stream S Main Gravel Pad (Unit B) Lardiill; _ ' - - Unit -4 Shut-in NPR -4 Oil well 0 `` Dry NPR -4 Test Hole ® Estimated Erosion Area Scale in Miles- — 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 prefarred 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. • pro. v;dp information on how the public can be -- involved in finai i;y�ai iuN ����+ur 1s. Final decisions on the sulbmittelves d by the ill not be made until a comments end of the public comment period have been reviewed and considered. Changes to the preferred altematives 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. Fonme&Y Used Mense Sae's (FUDS) prograrn 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. Sit4e Locatlon 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. - - -- w - 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 drTfed 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. 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. Environnita:l 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 Nuiqsut. 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 Pin (Areas A. B and C)1995 ti Phase 11 RI Work Plan (Areas A, B and C)1995 °i Phase 11 RI Report (Areas A, B and C) 1997 Risk Assessment Report (Areas A, B and C) 1997 Feasablity Study (Areas A, B and C) 1997 Phase III RI Work Plan (11 NPR -4 Wells)1997 ioxin Study (Area 7)1997 Phase III RI Report (11 NPR -4 Wells)1998 E/CA PCB Soil Removal (Area 7)1997 CB Soil Removal Action (Area 7) 1998 i' Phase IV RI (6 NPR -4 Wells) Work Plan 1998 Phase IV RI (6 NPR -4 Wells) Report 1999 Risk Assessment (Wells 1, 7 and 9) 1999 Dio>an Study (Area C and Well 9) 1999 EE/CA (Well 2 and 5) 2000 Phase 1 Stockpile Construction 2000 Phase II (Well 2 and 5) Plug and Sol Removal '. Focused Feasibility Study Wells (4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11) Phase III Soil Treatment 2002 2003 Evaluation of Lead at Well 7, 2003 DDT Soil Study 2002 PCB Oct Study 2002 — In 1995, Phase 11 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. CIClfllt�� LGVC�S 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 AAC ater 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. comhupAobMeftes 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. EEI 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 v� 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 altematives 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. FS -77C SClll�t 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. APPROX. MEA OF SOIL CONTAMINATION = SS -12 • l--✓ 1,250 Fi':OEPTN OF CONTAMINATION IS ESTIMATED Tb BE 2.5: ESTIMATED SOL 6N1-1 • VOLUME EXCEEDING CLEANUP CRITERIA = 116 CY. MW -1 .Aa TUNDRA RWL-1 • ..— EDGE OF GRAVEL --- ----- EDGE OF WATER 017 -SL • /ssxonwte �rt of caxrN•unox s4u0 ox Son sa9vVs -� ox®.c Nue muaww w¢uutan auwcE uw.s foxaPoffO IA1sG]3): t � A-2 9P0 1>� oom N0.p 1x73 opm /SB -17 SCALE W FEET o Ia0 200 300 1996 Po SAMPLE LOCATION O • 58-32 • se -m 1994 I6 SAMPLE LOCATION '~-• 58-30 - • 58-29 1996 RN MONITORING WELL LOCATION SB -26 1996 RI SURFACE WATER AND-�r56-27 SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION A'! ifAt APRON SO -34 *SB -33 1986 RI SAMPLE LOCATION • EXTENT UNKNOWN• •SB-tB •SB -24 58-153• O �JRT Ra _ • 58-25 SB -25 •RWL-3 •58-19 OSB -13 •$B -t 1t -EDGE JF GRN SS -6 � •S8-23 OSS RUNWAY WM OSE -7 �!✓. • -22 •SB -21 19HI-3 (' \! , SB - •$B-1 20 •SB -6 / • �-16 I1-7 • ✓ •\_ 15 / IM -2 S8- • 'SB -5 , SB -12 - 017 -SL BN1-2 5B-4 i V 4 E!k:E OF vIL:bE. - � BHl- • MW_7 � SB -2• 3 SB -4 SS -40 I roaMpNx • • tiz Ii -922 SB -38 U � f.�--EDGE J% GRiVEL .on .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 j 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. 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 -team 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 the alternatives 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 (O &M) of $67,000 per year with a five-year present worth cost of $172,000 and a total cost of $930,000. No O & 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 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. Befuse 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 Gravel 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, GROS 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 produced by incomplete burning of solvents and oils. SB -SB• 1996 N SIMPLE LOCATION A-,py ESTNAIW BOL VOLUME . 1J3 Cr. THIS AREA 6 CURREVkY N USE BY A NON-DEPMn1ENT OP S1A-Rw• 1996 OR FIELD LAB SAMPLE LOCATION �:1»• =SIT— W -toy 1996 N MONITORING WELL LOCATION �,�, ,�-� SB .�/a1K '6' NOTE: ' .` •BHI-] BN10-]• 1994 N SAMPLE LOCATION -161• I /IFItO-. SB -172 , i' SB-Im aB4O-2 M¢y / 0 150 300 KO ESTIMATED SOL VUlIR1E. 70 CC EDGE OF GRAVEL f/Y/ 58-183 w10 _.. EDGE OF WATER CONCRETE PAD ��:�Bx,O-] 5B-t51A✓ CRO 1425 PPM'1 58-,19• ti. DEPTH OF CONTAMPATNN IS ESMMIED TO EE 2.5 FEET. ORO ,Z'S PPm A4EA 9 ESTIMATED �L 4 E . 58 CY UNOIXGROUND S70PACE TANK (6 N PIACE) -T-B4� vv,,� •56-1a f — a9110-- ! GRO 100 ppm STORAGE TA ABOVEGROUND NK 6EPTN OF CGHTNIMARUN 6 ESTIMATED BE 2 FFET. ESTIMATED SOL \OIIAE K EY. (I IN PLACE) r BM -5 / Sa 141. APPROX MEA OF BNL CNITAW T_ J. TUNDRA N -1]B •80aB-1M11T7t 5119-� \\ ` �. 60HTAMNAn6M 15 ESTI ATED TG BE 3 FEET 1HIq(. ESTIMATED SOILVOLWE - a41 CY. / SB-IK�• &B IT I r .c •St MT-J� 5141 -iL 51�-611 �)-i/ Blw-FL Sh?`J/ •156-M _ND•/SB •tJ. AREA 7 W -1M / 58-7 at•5-R • K-0. � 4=..SIO-1 / � �stw-��� ��� �MF�AS sB-•z •38-56BN2p6-8K ••s,4>�, ss-ss.�„ •ss ->1 's�sa-uJ •m -n• �-m n._''.'.0 ,[sB-Ta $MR_,0 •SB-1sf •A_» tuiAREA 2 'ti.i? i• i s siE�;��/ $YW-IJ �_1�• ', •98-87� •SB -a) BN2-M,Wi_�5�-rW'-9 /`'�% SB -B1 •59-t t0 •aB-1t4 •Sa-t52 • wy' ,�K ,�-K WR -2 �-9BL� •BB ->J ^, SSB 115 ,�W ,m-Bz ,98-106 •SB -.M K•9Nz-> -SB-ISG I t yF, -•3_ •48-M _ V- *^� .�'� :.' ) i ��1,9�' I�i ���� �•6Hz-e v ,1 •,h,tmuz•`',- __�-.`` sa-». sfi-ts>J �''/ •eNa-J .ss-1oa ss -1J1 s 8n-AAEA S,B_10]• AR w •58-KJ•zB-t.17 ' 9s -w7 •%-P7 WIS-t •ene-4 .•NI5-S TSB -IW •SB -114 •sa-130 ..^- .1PPW MEA OF BOIL CONTANNAIION - 900 FT' I AD S DEPTH OF CONEWRIABON 6 ESIMATFD TO EE 4 FEEL // •ss •38-,M . TO 1HJNv ESTNAIW BOL VOLUME . 1J3 Cr. THIS AREA 6 CURREVkY N USE BY A NON-DEPMn1ENT OP -,o2 . ss -,X • A" 8116-z, •Lal-tz7 „-1J5��• •ze-Iw -----_. --^� DEFENSE PMW ANO 6 NOT NOUIDED N THE WLUME ESNEAIE// =SIT— •$B-126 APPROX. AREA OF BOL CONTAMINATION . 4W FT' NOTE: ' .` •BHI-] SCALE IN FEET DEPTH OF CONTAMINATOR 6 ESTIMATED TO BE 2 FEET. APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION BASED SOL SMpIES IXCEEDNG REGULATORY GIADANGE LFIELS ( TBMC75) 8NB-4•. M¢y / 0 150 300 KO ESTIMATED SOL VUlIR1E. 70 CC OR INK -RASED CONCETIIRATMNS. �,K SNS PROPOSED IBMC75: 50-a1 MPI -15 APPRNL AREA OF SOL CONTAMINATION - 625 Ff' CRO 1425 PPM'1 58-,19• ti. DEPTH OF CONTAMPATNN IS ESMMIED TO EE 2.5 FEET. ORO ,Z'S PPm A4EA 9 ESTIMATED �L 4 E . 58 CY BRIT ADEC NORM SLOPE PADS ( WBNN 50' OF EDGE OF PADS) \ APPROX. AREA OF SOIL CONTAM GInWN = 625 FT' GRO 100 ppm �� 6EPTN OF CGHTNIMARUN 6 ESTIMATED BE 2 FFET. ESTIMATED SOL \OIIAE K EY. DRO 200 ppm RRO 2'000 996 EPA REGION J RISK-BASED CONCENTRAnONS: CLEANUP LEVELS AT SU`ERFUND 5REs: APPROX MEA OF BNL CNITAW T_ .WTINONY 31 ppm LEAD 400 pp,.. -. LOCATED MMN SO FEET OF RE WETLANDS _. EMEWNG THE NNOH SLOPE CLEANTIP lAIQ1.5 . 7.574 R' COPPER 3.100 ppm Igor 23.000 ppm 60HTAMNAn6M 15 ESTI ATED TG BE 3 FEET 1HIq(. ESTIMATED SOILVOLWE - a41 CY. SACKGROUN0 CONCENINATIONB: AI r11 6.4 — t.•n FPA 1NTF.1u FnNTANCE FOR ESTAB .1. SDA. LEAD .c RISK ASSESSMENT After the Phase II 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. UrnatTest Wells 2and 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. IF 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 Rebar j KEY SD,SW Colocated sediment and surface water sample SS surface Sample .Mbw MW o Bottom of slope 518 SB (gravel pad) 519 SB ' Top of slope (gravel pad) 517 SB 515 SB 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. Umiat Test Wells 3, 4, 6 , 8, 10 and 11 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*98 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 the 1997 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 6 Chemical ADEC Method 2 Criteria Highest Reported Concentration Number of Samples Abo%e Method 2 Soil m k DRO 12500a 37000 3 RRO 13700a 44000 3 Notes: e This value is the low er of the ingestion/inhalation level in 18 AAC 75.341, Table B1 and 82, Arctic Zone mglkg milt rams per Idram 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. I KEY- { Q Surface soil sample location Well location APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 50 100 Feet 715 SL 723 SL O O Ponded Water 713 SL 714 SL 720 SL 721 SL/722 SL 730 SL O 0 C Q 0 705 SL 704 SL 0 711 SL/712 SL 709 SL 728 SL 729 SL O O O 0 255 SS Well No, 7 700 SL 703 SL 710 SL 706 SL 732 SL/733 SL 725 SL 731 SL O 0 O Q 4 707 SL 726 SL 0 O 708 SL 734 SL 735 SL/736 SL 737 SL 727 SL O O 4 O O I KEY- { Q Surface soil sample location Well location APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 50 100 Feet In the second study all oft%RO 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. Summary of Chemicals Detected at Well 7 Chemical ADEC Method 2 Criteria Highest Reported Concentration Number of Samples Above Method 2 Soil (mg/kg) DRO 125008 25000 1 Lead 4008 2600 2 Notes: ' This value is the low er of the ingestionfinhalation level in 18 AAC 75.341, Table B1 and B2, Arctic Zone lmglkg mill' rams per kilogram ' This value is the low er of the ingestion/inhalation level in 18 AAC 75.341, Table 61 and B2, Arctic Zone mill' rams per Id ram 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 Well 8 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 Nates: ' This value is the low er of the ingestionfinhalation level in 18 AAC 75.341, Table B1 and B2, Arctic Zone lmglkg mill' rams per kilogram 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. 75.341, Table 61 and B2, Arctic Zone mg/kg milligrams per kilogram 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 nyorocaroons [PAHs]). Lead was the only significant non - petroleum contaminant and was only detected at Well 7. Summary of Chemicals Detected at Well 11 Chemical ADEC Method 2 Criteria Highest Reported Concentration Number of Samples Above Method 2 Soil (mg/kg) DRO 125008 29000 1 RRO 13700a 30000 1 1 Notes: e This value is the low er of the ingestion/inhalation level in 18 AAC 75.341, Table B1 and B2, Arctic Zone rngft milli rams per kilo ram A site-specific risk assessment was completed at risks identified at Wells 9 and the Air Strip Wells 1, 7 and 9, and also for former Umiat Air Complex because of similar site conditions, and Station. type and concentration of contaminants. 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 Human Heath Risks Umiat Test Wells 4, 6, 8, 10 and 11 The main human health risk comparison was based on the risk assessmellfrom 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 (IEUBK). 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'afogical 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 40 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 Noloction 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 0&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. Umiat Test We -H 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 bum 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 Soil (mg/kg) DRO 125008 54000 7 RRO 137008 75000 8 PCB 18 1100 9 Notes: a This value is the low er of the ingestion/inhalation level in 18 AAC 75.341, Table B1 and B2, Arctic Zone rng/kg milli rams per kilogram See Inset KEY: zssss o 1997 Surface soil sample location NOTE: Sample location 263SS is not shown on map APPROXIMATE SCCALE 0 5 10 Feet 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, 972 S5 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. 968 SS 971 SS APPROXIMATE SCALE O O 0 50 100 Feet 4( —300, 967 SS 966 SS O O 961 SS 962 S8 KEY: O o Sample locations 96oss 959S8 97o SS O O p NPRA well location —300, 957 SS 955 SS 9698S 956 SB 95880 954 SS 953 SS 952 SS O C C O C O - 973S 964 SS 947 SS 965 SB 863 55 951 SS 948 SB 946 SS 945 SS O O O O O O Outline of 931 SS Depression in Slope 950 SS 949 SS 935 SS 9348S 833 SS 932 SB 938 SS 939 SS 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 905 SS 904 SS 903 SS 902 SS 900 SS/901 SS 982SS y^1 sS 937S$ 936 SS 920 SB 919 SB 91888 917 SB 915 SB/916 SB O O C O C O O 980SS p 977 SS 908 SS sos SS 907 SS NPR -4 906 SS 930 SS 976 S5 923 SB 922 SB 924 SB well N0.9 921 SB O 974 SS O O O i_1 c 975 SS 814 SS 91355 912 SS 911 SS 91OSS O 978 SS Bumed Area 929 SB 928 SB 927 SB 926 SB 925 SB 940 SS 0 o c c e 0 O 879 SS 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 contamtiated 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 contaminate n 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. 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). Section Guide Introduction---- —--- —------ —----- -----_-------------------------------------------«--------------«--------.......... 1 Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) Program-----------------------------------------------------'--"'--""—"' 2 Site Location and History---- ------- --------- —--- —------- —--- ------__«------------------ —---------- ---------___— 2 Environmental Investigation and Cleanup History ----- ------------ ------------------- _--- _----------- ________ 3 Cleanup Levels — ---- —---------- —---- -----_ 4 CleanupAlternatives «--------- --------- -------------------------- —------ —---- -------- —--------------------- --------_ 5 SiteSummaries --- —--- ---------------- ---------«--------------------- ------------- ------«-------____---------- 6 AirStrip Complex---------------------------«---------------------_------------------ ---------------- --- 6 Main Gravel Pad ----- 11 UmiatTest Wells 2 and 5---------------------------------------------------------------------«--«----«---«----- 14 Umiat Test Wells 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11---_-_- -------- —--- —----- --------- --------_---_----_----- -------------- 17 UmiatTest 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 Comn�unty Conimenb unci Pffirticipton 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 ffeld 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 r� 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 eCOIGgNT TC and em ironme nt, hie, International Specialists in the Environment 840 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, Tel: (907) 257-5000, Fax: (907) 257-5007 recycled paper able of Contents Section Page Executive Summary....................................................................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-11/03/99-HP4 Tables of Contents wont.) 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_UM IAT. DOC -11 /03/9941P4 Lst 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-11/03/99-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 52-10 ....................................... 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 V TTh ATAT TVX` 11/02/00.1 A Executive Summary Pursuant to United States Army Engineer District, Alaska, Contract AFS No. DACA85-9-8-R-0013, Ecology and Environment, Inc., pre- Air.Force Station pared this engineering evaluation/cost analysis for a removal action NPR -4 to address contaminated soils at two petroleum exploration wells Naval :Petroleum Reserve 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 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 V TTh ATAT TVX` 11/02/00.1 A ecotoa and emirmment, inc. 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 (ey; 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. n.nnnn— Av 4 nn nI oQ AQna 7 • 0 11 USAED Alaska United..States Army Engineer District, Alaska E -& E Ecology and.. Environment, Inc. EE/CA engineering evaluation/costanalysis NPR -4 , Naval Petroleum Reserve AFS Air Force Station 19:000977.AK06.00.0198 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 ecoloe and emironwnt, ine. 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. 111 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 BLI>fl published field investigation reports (FIRs; E & E 1998a, 1999). Bureau iof 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 I W US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT ALASKA ,M i' - .1 ,t''" rr ° ': ,x,./{, i 1} } i ✓!.. ;i iM •�-4 a ."' \\ ' si $• a..:;, . .,i i y y i Jp �V. ih .-,. ,/r' /�.: ..,s. ..':_i �,,,1''T��' ~ �x ,_•ro,-,� �) i f •.� j G• i. a� 'Q ...! \ v J t ., S , •, y ..` � � / -ji / ��} Y 11 �1� ...,r .i '`�; j i� / `# y/ .r,�s'�, (� . -'>;: r t� ,., .::.. Y; i .>E�-,+. , h :.. �AYRAIL.. ... I. ..: '4 , C .. � J .. .r5 ., i / _ ... R .. yy --;` f \S.. '' I t�"� j�p t ..,, '� �urtlD j '.., lf t. R/�, r r �- ,-. ' ji �.-�,,'� �4';1 }r � � , r.,� �' ..,� �1 I �i7� n ) ,_n) �':: �� ,, 1, ky�'� , ✓! { �� x �` � � ..„ { } t 9 \ Cf u t NPR -4 TEST WELLS F i •,''� +«.+, '' .. s t ° ._`I 11 TOTAL �a iJVTI l...., �::.: i .-a ,aai':,.. n yi-`._..,! i'\ '.i .. i #,.{`.: ,, , :• } ;. },',f �.. g... J iA p yrt r\3�r t. ."', 0 % ��tLy{,.,tg,l�'t-i::...... y:"• 1^;'.�'' - ...' f L l.{t _.( r ) , +. n ,y� `\,, \ Y ; j .+ \ Z '• 3 l.•. Trl ,.i Tff E-11'�.. t ! v WI:':. .., !`,t "{'' iTt�t•UG,*/y' .,, ^ :.,` \JF. � R..,..; / � �. ��ly a ,• S Y': � " �� 3 '� 'S � I 05 ,Y X .',ia � ham^'• i( /� 4++ _ ,, �• ; \t ('�.,.,h� .S ar: ✓% 1.Th, � t ` 1 \ � ` - fi' t44 .._. _ .. ,'._ SEABEE CREEK ,d {obf '! �' - i '• ' + 1 AIRSTRIP COMPLEX Tk,a � ESTIMATED AREA.., pi _. OF EROSION jt :.. :.,.. ,` ""'..1 �; e�� fir{ x �fiil ►t A1rftCldj t � f 7 , fin 1'Jr �t ` .r { t ` 1 lh _5 r` y r 0,4 t -• `^F i} IV :.,lsa i, . 4.. 1 ,��„�' r� r a \TNi.L S i, MAIN GRAVEL PAD r' {„ ' y .. , S,"t. ,,..'' s, •...... .,-% ': r n .. . ;.;.., y11 g� 1. i • a ° s v ��,. '�; h 'f' � " , R r .`t}1s' ! - . ':�, �, - �r ,;: r s` •Q h:, .;... r +3J s~ ) t ! _; t^ ... .:. '' ',. `.. ) ,'. • ,,. 1"t] `:r ..,.., y {'.:* ]. :".,]`^J'"„""". :; ',y, 1 ,{, i t,:,.. .1r.:.... .. �rll\ �� I rl , t5. irr ,_.., r ° x r ,. '" •,'' 1 ./' S: r` €t� / I. , j �j 1 µ.f, I t �L�� t t/ � :. C•i•• •.,� ,r,rrkq •"i, / '''}LLL�[*w , f .ij',;.: fy��' i y �f ey` <,h.. '4 ,/ t '�� f:✓ .. i'37�1 .. E;.. i J 1 .,r.., I dY ✓� `r.,t .: -, .: .,Y 1 . •- t'�. { .. /J .., c ( \ :�. %J .i �z'p '"/ , '� V y !,, ...\ ,,", G _r •. i ^t`w.t3.. l{}/• D F ,V �'�Y• ...E * _ t { rT }�cir � I.K� r ���, y i:.• , r T i i }�' , , �'t � 4`11 T2 t. {� r j"� i'..�.� ser;\` KEY: .�• ENNU3ARM'r ALAS ANCHORAGE. ALusaNA ecology and environment, International Specialists RDI ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION b Shut-in NPR -4 oil well It PF epnr of tty end A L_J PF Property Y Dry NPR -4 teal hole SCALE O ''A 1 2 Mlles Figure 2.2 SITE VICINITY AND TOPOGRAPHY MAP eirt M Me Environment Anchorage, Alaska ANCHORAGE, ALASKA Umiat, Alaska 1, Abandoned NPR -4 oil well eroded into Colville This area Rihas O .5 1 2 Kilometers FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION Y ver Umial Former Umial Air Force Station Alaska SIZE JOB NO. FILE NO. DATE SOURCE: USGS (Topographic) Ousdrangle: Umiel, (B-4) Alaska 1955 p 0009lt_AM 00 O2 se FIg2-2.CDR 990CT25 '61oe and emvaimcnt, inc. 2. Site Characterization NPR-4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 are located on a common gravel pad AOGCC approximately 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&AedCommission (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 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 Sam le 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: GRO 8/13/97 4.8 8/13/97 5.2 8/13/97 6.5 8/16/97 UI (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 9,400 J 9,400 67 1,500 240J 160 13,000 21,000 RRO 10,000 9,800 240 3,700 410 J 1 970 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 9.9 J 6.8 J Barium 4,200 4,100 1,000 260 190 NA 270 360 Beryllium 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 Copper 56 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 0.0511 0.026 J Nickel 49 48 43 27 18 NA 29 32 Potassium 1.900 J 1.700 1,700 520 J 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 allium U (0.14) 0.14 0.12 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 4,4'-DDD 0.018 J 0.027 R 0.019 R 0.11 0.0034 R U (0.0056) 0.04 J 0.36 J 4,4'-DDE 0.0045 R 0.0065 R 0.015 0.04 U (0.0034) U (0.0056) U (0.0042) U (0.085) 4,4'-DDT 0.041 J 0.062 R 0.045 0.0121 0.036 U (0.0056) 0.049 J 0.13 J 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) 0.12.1 UJ (0.05) UJ (0.05) Acetone 0.26 J 0.07 R 0.18 J 0.27 J 0.098 J 0.94 J 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 0.01 J 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 In hthalene U (0.45) 6.7 J 1.6 2 0.19 J 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) hdWate 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) Na hthalene 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 1 0.037 0.081 0.088 U (1.7) Notes: All concentrations reported in milligrams per kilogram or parrs per million. Number in parentheses represents the detection limit for the sample. Kev to abbreviations: B - Attributed to blank contamination. DDD - Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane. DDE - Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene. DDT - Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane. DRO - Diesel range organics. GRO - Gasoline range organics. 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. 19:000977M06.0002.98 A802 F0e:1NPRASS-11/3199-HP4E_r,. 2-5 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 NPR4-5-4 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 DRO 240 J 310 650 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 Chromium 13 11 3.5 14 Cobalt 8.2 8.2 4 8.9 Copper 18 21 12 17 Iron 17.(X)0 15.000 6,200 18,000 Lead 5J 5.11 3.4J 62J 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 430 J Selenium 0.39 0.39 0.3 0.32 Vanadium 23 20 9.1 25 Zinc 52 43 25 54 Pesticides/PCBs 4,4' -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 0.18 J 0.18 J Benzene (1.00099 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) VOCs 2 -Meth Ina hthalene 0.1 0.077 0.068 0.3 Meth 1 hent 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 1 0.33 Notes: All concentrations repotted 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 - Dichlorodiphenyldichloroedtylene. 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. 19'.000977AK06.00.02.99 A802 2-6 Fil.:INPRASO - 11/999-NP4 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 Duplicate Sample (97-UMT-): 211 -SW 210 -SW Sample Date: 8/14/97 8/14197 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 ethylene chloride 1.9 J U (5.7) 1.8 U (10) Metals Aluminum 220 240 390 250 Barium 86 88 92 86 Iron 550 590 980 610 Maneanese 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: J - Estimated. U - Undetected at the reported limit ND - Nondetect. VOCs - Volatile organic compounds. PAHs - Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. SW - Surface water. 19:(8N)977.AK06.00.02.98_A803 2-7 UMIAT EECA TABLE_2-1.XLS.NP.RASW - 11/3/99 N I 00 M000977.AKo6.' 'B A803 -LE3 1F'^ " �- Table 2-2 1998 INVESTIGATION SURFACE SOIL RESUL'T'S NPR -4 TEST WELI, NOS. 2 AND 5 FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION UMIAT, ALASKA Sample Number (98-UMT-): 500-88 501-88 502 -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 710 J 740 J 750 J 2,600 J 2-Butanone ND [0.0041 ND [0.0039] ND [0.004] ND [0.0039] ND [0.0045] 0.038 Acetone 0.0751 0.053 0.039 0.029 J 0.062 0.17 Benzene ND [0.00033] ND [0.00032] J ND [0.00032] J ND [0.00032] J 0.01 _ ND [0.00032] Naplttitalene ND [0.0054] J ND [0.0053] ND [0.00531 J ND [0.0052] J ND [0.0061] J ND [0.0053] J Phenanthrene ND [0.1] ND [0.098] ND [0.099] ND [0.1] ND [0.11] ND [0.099] bis-(2-eth ]hex 1)Phthalate I ND [0.31] ND. [0.31 ND [0.3] 1 ND [0.31] 1 ND [0.34] 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 330 J 1,1001 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 [0.00032] ND [0.00035] ND [0.00032] J Naphthalene ND [0.0053] J ND [0.0054] J ND [0.0053] J 0.0068 ND [0.0053] _ Phenanthrene ND [0.0991 ND [0.1] ND [0.1] 0.057 ND [0.1] bis-(2-eth ]hex 1)Phthalate ND [0.31] ND [0.32] ND [0.31] ND [0.34] ND [0.31] Notes: All concentrations reported in milligrams per kilogram or parts per million. Number in brackets represents the detection limit for the sample. Key to abbreviations: BCS = Below ground surface. = Estimated value. ND = Nondetect at the reported limit. SS = Surface soil sample. 19:000977. A K06.00.02.98_ A903 UMIAT EECA TABLE 2-2.XL5 - 11/3199 9 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 1,200 J 890 11 J 28 J 34J 69 J 310J ample 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 ample Depth (feet BGS): 5.0-6.5 2.0-2.5 5.0-5.4 8.0-8.4 5.0-5.4 6.0-6:4 2.0-2.4 5.0-5.4 2.0-2.5 5.6-5.5 5.0 Diesel range organics 360 J 760 1,200 J 1,700 J 18J 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. Kev to abbreviations: BGS = Below ground surface. = Estimated value. SB = Subsurface soil sample. 19:000977. A K06.00.02.98_ A903 UMIAT EECA TABLE 2-2.XL5 - 11/3199 9 N I N O A North NPR -4 Well No.5 SB 5-4 (projected into (projected into cross section A -A') cross section A -Al I A' South 101 S85-15 100.87" to 1,068' BGS (shut in with diesel in place) 10 0.44' 7 4:1 Note: Elevations are relalive to local datum, not state plane coordinates. 100 KEV. 515S13 Sample numbs 1,200 DRO concentration in mgftg Be 5-15 pQ �C�� ' ORD Diesel range organics VERTICAL SCALE .L � J vczR�o.-DG,4-'_.'rr��a�DQ� rr��l�,vDQv, <°OQ�.cr�li U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99 v ,Q-4 Fill g-- 7 f Colville River 50 feet mg/kg Milligram per kilogram .;v -,ppm j�; CROSS SECTION A -A' E� Sill and clay peat 98 SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY Break In horizontal scale a 97 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 7 385-18 � SOURCE: Ecology and Environmerx. Inc, lege. Approximate extent of contamination based on soil samples exceeding ADEC screening value of 200 mg/kg Vertical Exaggeration 1:10 SIZE I . .. ..... . . o`--_—_- —_--_--_--_ 515 Be (Ipro)icted Into v 96 - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — .300 A cross section XAJ. Fig2-4.CDR I 99OCT25 518 SB4 16 95 it X 94 J A 519 38 28 ZI! M,:7 9 3 516 SB e 1.200 T Eroding Bank 533 Be �`r`:7,` fY "t�: 7000 92 - ermafrost �y' Vs ;4r Permuff Tat go . ...... s. . j; 5w ss z e., 160 Well 5 Coning Extond a 85 to 1,068' BGS (shut in with diesel in place) rm Note: Elevations are relalive to local datum, not state plane coordinates. KEV. 515S13 Sample numbs 1,200 DRO concentration in mgftg Be 5-15 Soil Boring Location ORD Diesel range organics VERTICAL SCALE ecology and environment, Inc. I U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA ANCHORAGE, ALASKA Sandy growl Fill 0 2 4 Feet mmmmmE=:==� Figure 2-4 mg/kg Milligram per kilogram -sandy gravel CROSS SECTION A -A' E� Sill and clay peat HORIZONTALSCALE SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY Break In horizontal scale U , t Former Urniat Air Force Station Alaska SOURCE: Ecology and Environmerx. Inc, lege. Approximate extent of contamination based on soil samples exceeding ADEC screening value of 200 mg/kg Vertical Exaggeration 1:10 SIZE I JOB NO. I FILE NO. I DATE A 000977AK06_00_02_98 Fig2-4.CDR I 99OCT25 0 B West 508 SS SSS -14 140 100 99.43' 929 SB <; 47 NPR-4 Well No.2 Concrete SB5-16 SB 513 Foundation 99.97' 99.00' n i. 530 SB . 2 600 S85-10 100.05' se 5-17 99.89' IN SB 5-8 99.31' B' East ti(4) 55 Gallon drums slumping from above sediment and vegetation surrounding drums covered n thick petroleum product. Test Well No. 2 and &I ISM Anna SB eo SBorings SB " - - - 5-8 projected into cross section 84. Note: Elevations are relative to local datum, not stale plane coordinates. KEVo ernln y and envlrsnm ^... Ina. VDIa.STRIGTARrC ,AU.KA fNpM1EER ANC 40RAGE, At^ ? Extent or depth unknown SOBS Sample number Fill -sandy gravel HORIZONTAL SCALE 0 40 Feet Figure 2-5 140 DRO 20 SB 5-14 Soil boring location concentration in mg/kg Peat CROSS SECTION B -B' SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY Sandy gravel VERTICAL SCALE AT NPR -4 TEST WELL NO.2 DRO Diesel range organics Approximate extent of contamination based on soil 0 4 8 Feet Urnjat Former Umiat Air Force Station Alaska SIZE JOB NO. FILE NO. DATE mg/kg Milligram per kilogram sample. exceeding ADEC screening value of 200 mg/kg DRO SOURCE: Ecology and Environment, Inc. 1999. Vertical Exaggeration 1:5 000997 Arco. ao oz 9e Fig2-S.CDR I 99OCT25 ecoIoe and enOrmwnt, hrc. 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 ARARsapplicable or relevant and appropriate requirements applicable or 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 r- equir consideredements requirements gaily binding and do not have the status of a potential ARAR, 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 ecoloe and ewvromnem inc. 0 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 1n ■ 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 1n 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 19:000977AK06.00.02.99 A803 3-1 t ecoloRr and emirmnent, hm 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: ■ 200 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) of DRO, and mg/kg 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 Environmental Protection identified and screened using the evaluation criteria developed by 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.AK06.00.02.96 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 41.DOC-11/03/99-HP4 Process ,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; ent 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; costl lm 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. I solidified mass. ):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. f. 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 than 5 tons per hour. A trial burn costs. No systems are 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 T41.DCC- 11103/99-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 ):000977. AK06.00.02.96_A803 31.DOC- 11/03/99-HP4 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 a 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. ):000977. AK06.00.02.96_A803 31.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. c and 5; Former Umiat Air Force Station: Umiat Alaska Removal Cubic yard. 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. Q&M = Operation and maintenance. RAOs = Removal action objectives. 19:000977. A K06.00.02.98_ A 803 T41.DOC-11/03/99-HP4 a 4 V ecdo v and emimment, inc. 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. 3 .1oR,v and environment, 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: 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 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_A803 4— 3a ecoloLv and emirmment, uic 0 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 BLM 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- A C) t _; ecoloF_v and emirmnrent. 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.A"6.00.02.98_A803 4-9 ecoloo and emimment, inc 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- 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_A803 4-11 1 %4' ecolea and emirmnien4 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 ecologv and ernironment, iurc. r 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 landfam-ing 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.AK06.00.02.99_A803 4-13 0 ecolopv and en vro inet inc. 4. Removal Action Alternative Development 19:000977.AM.00.02.98_A803 r 4-15 0 Analysis of Proposes! 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. Cost. No cost would be associated with this alternative. 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 5-1 A_UMIAT.DOC- 11/03/99-HP4 : 0 Table 5-1 REMOVAL ACTION COST ANALYSIS • ALTERAATIVE No. 2 EXCAVATION AND ON-SITE LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION TREATMENT ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND COST ANALYSIS NPR4 TEST WELL NOS. 2 AND 5 FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION UMIAT. ALASKA Capital Costs Reference Item Descriptions Quantity Unit CosVUnit Factor Cost DC15 DC16 Contractor Contractor DC03 DC04 Stockpile Pad Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization 1 lump sum $87.242 1.35 $117.780 — Stockpile Pad Construction I lump sum $179,160 1.35 $241,870 Well Abandonment Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization I -lump sum $1,360,000 1 $1,360,000 Plug and Abandon Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 2 each $670,000 1 $1,340,000 Earthwork Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization 1 lump sum $266,552 1 $266,550 Excavation, Hauling and Stockpiling of Impacted Soil 1 lump sum $315.969 1.35 5426.560 DC05 E & E Excavation compliance soil sample collection and analysis 125 sample $69 1.35 $11,040 Trial Burn I lump sum $50,000 1 $50,000 DCI l DC12 DC05 LTTD Equipment Mobilization & Demobilization from Anchorage to Umiatl lump sum $120,852 1 $120.850 LTTD (Low Temperature Thermal Desorption) Treatment 18,200 cubic and $150 1 $2,730,000 Compliance soil sample collection and analysis (I sample/200 CY) 100 sample $G9 1.35 $9,320 Subtotal Direct Capital Costs $6,674,570 Overhead and Profit (25%) $1,668,640 Total Dirert Capital Costs (Rounded to Nearest $1.000) $8,343,000 Indirect Capital Costs LTTD Performance Bond (2% of treatment cost) $57,020 Engineering and Design (2%) $166,860 Legal Fees and LicenseiPermit Costs (0.590) $41,720 Contractor Reporting Reuirements(1.5%) $125,150 Construction Oversight (2%) $166,860 Total Indirect Capital Costs (Rounded to Nearest $1.000) $558.000 Subtotal Capital Costs $8,901,000 Contingencv 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. = 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. 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. AK06.00.02.98_A803 COPY UMIAT EECA COST ESTIMATEALS - 11/x99 0 0 .D7�1VV�VVV Notes: t 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 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 19:000977.AK06.00.02.96_A603 Table 5-2 REMOVAL ACTION COST ANALYSIS - ALTERNATIVE NO.3 EXCAVATION AND ON-SITE HOT AIR VAPOR EXTRACTION TREATMENT ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND COST ANALYSIS NPR4 TEST WELL NOS. 2 AND 5 FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION UMIAT. ALASKA Ca capital Costs Reference DC15 Item Description Quantity Unit Cost/Unit Factor t Cost' stockpile Pad ui ment Mobilization/Demobilizatioo- 1 lum sum $87,242 1.35 DC16 Stock ilePadConstmction $117,780 Contractor 1 lum sum Well Abandonment ui ment Mobilization/Demobilization 1 lum $179,160 1.35 $241,870 Contractor sum Flu and Abandon Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 $1,360.000 1 $1,360,000 DC03 2 each Earthwork Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization I lumpsum $670,000 1 $1,330,000 DC04 Excavation, Haulingand Stockpiling of Im •acted Soil $266,552 1 $266,550 DC05 I lum sum Excavation con liance soil sam le collection and analysis 125 $315,952 1.35 $426,550 DC13 sam le HAVE Equipment Mobilization 8 Demobilization from Anchora a to Umiat $69 1.35 $ 11,640 DC14 2 each HAVE (Hot Air Vapor Extraction) Treatment 4 18.200 cubic and y Subtotal Direct Capital Costs $75,176 $112 1 1 $150.350 $2,038.40 0 Overhead and Profit (25%) $5,953.150 Tura! Direct Capiral Costs (Rounded to Nearest $1.000) $1.488.290 Indirect Capital Costs $7.441.000 HAVE Performance Bond (2% of treatment cost) En ineering and Design (2%) $43.780 Le al Fees and License/Permit Costs (0.5'90) $148.820 Contractor Reporting Requirements (1.5%) $37,210 Construction Oversight (2%) $111,620 Total Indirect Capital Costs (Rounded to Nearest $1.000) 5138'820 Subtotal Capital Costs 5490.000 Contingency Allowance (15%) $7.931,000 Total Alternative Cost (Rounded to the nearest $100,000) $1.189.650 .D7�1VV�VVV Notes: t 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 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 19:000977.AK06.00.02.96_A603 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 Reference 6C06 Item Description Landfarm Cell Construction Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization Quantity 1 Unit lump sum Cost/Unit $114,242 Factor,Cos.2 1.35 $154,230 DC07 Contractor Construction of Landfarm Cell Well Abandonment Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization 1 I lump sum lump sum $432,490 $1,360,000 1.35 1 $583,860 — $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 I lump sum $266,552 1 $266,550 DC04 Excavation. Hauling and Stock -piling of Impacted Soil I 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 Decommissioning 1 lump sum $201,634 1.35 $272,210 DC05 Compliance soil sample collection and analysis (I samplet200 CY) 84 sample $69 1.35 $7,820 Subtotal Direct Capital Costs $5.651,120 Overhead and Profit (25%) $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) $24,570 Engineering and Design (2%) $141,280 Legal Fees and License/Permit Costs (0.5%) $35,320 Contractor Reporting Requirements (1.5%) $105,960 Construction Oversight (tele) $141,280 Total Indirect Capital Costs (rounded to nearest $1,000) $448.000l Subtotal Capital Costs $7,512,000 Contingency Allowance (15%) $1.126,800 , Total Capital Costs (rounded to the nearest $100,000) $8,600,000 Notes: I 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.AK06.00o2.96_A603 COPY UMIAT EECA COST ESTIMATEXLS - 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. AK06.00.02.98_A803 T54.DOC-11 /0399-HP4 No. 4 'EvaluationAlternative Criteria • On -Site -. Estimated 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 5,000 gallons; • A batch water system (e.g., water • Does not require highly trained labor truck) may be sufficient because water 7 during treatment operations; • Requires installation of a water distribution system to meet water is needed only for reconditioning 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 distibution system—watering gallons to 21,600 gallons depending than rotary -kiln LTTD units, so delays qan 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 treatment likely; 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. AK06.00.02.98_A803 T54.DOC-11 /0399-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; Umiat, Alaska Alternative No. 4 Evaluation Alternative No. 2 Alternative No. 3 Ex Situ Bioremediation by Criteria On-Site Thermal Treatment by LTTD On-Site Thermal Treatment by HAVE Landfarming Other Reliability of the method in meeting Reliability of the method in meeting Reliability of the method in meeting considerations I treatment levels is high. I treatment levels is moderate. Heavier treatment levels is moderate. Heavier petroleum fractions could increase petroleum fractions more difficult to treatment times significantly. I degrade, and method is susceptible to site weather conditions. Key: HAVE = Hot air vapor extraction. LTTD = Low-temperature thermal desorption. NPR -4 = Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4. 19:000977. AK0G.00.02.98_A 803 T54.DOC-11/03/99-HN is .oloa and enwimment, utc 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 O&M million. No long-term operation and maintenance (O&M) or operation and present 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 5-7 y 'k. ecolory and emironmenf. uic. 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. Landfanming offers a long-term, .we V"n ecotoy and en%ironment, inc. 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. 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 1$0.0 $10.2 million $9.I $8.6 million 1 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. 19:000977. A K0G.00.02.98_AB03 T55.000- I 1/03/99.11P4 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 r 0 S ecology and enil ronment, inc. 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 0 ! Fc ci8`V,-_ CJ 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 - 4 ecology and emironment, hic- 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 CERCLA, 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 19:00077.AK06.00.02.98A803 A-1 DERIVED COST DC03 DERIVED COST DC04 DERIVED COST DC05 EARTHWORK EQUIPMENT MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION reference Umiat NPR -4 Well Nos.2 5 quantity unit Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis cost • Derived Costs 40 EARTHWORK EQUIPMENT 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 Bt (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 -10B (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 Umiat NPR -4 Well Nos.2 5 . 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 ff 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 33 08 0571 (ECHOS) 40 mil polymeric liner hdpe 220,000 square ft $1.28 $114,242 Assumptions: Equipment mobilized from Deadhorse to Umiat via air cargo planes. Allow 6 flights for mob/demob equipment 1 CY Wheel Backhoe/Loader 2 weeks $750.00 $1,500 Allow 3 flights to mobilize geosynthetic materials Wheel Backhoe/Loader Operator 10 days $345.60 CONSTRUCTION OF LANDFARM CELL(S) 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 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 Liner Construction 33 08 0531 (ECHOS) 60 mil geotextile, nonwoven 440,000 square it $0.16 $68,913 33 08 0571 (ECHOS) 40 mil polymeric liner hdpe 220,000 square ft $1.28 $281,261 Protective soil layer (64nch gravel/sand) 016 408 0450 (BCCD) 1 CY Wheel Backhoe/Loader 2 weeks $750.00 $1,500 Crew B-10 R (BCCD) Wheel Backhoe/Loader Operator 10 days $345.60 $3,456 016 408 5250 (BCCD) Hauling, 2-12 CY dump trucks 4 weeks $1,125.00 $4,500 Crew B -34B (BCCD) Dump Truck Operator (2) 20 days $270.80 $5,416 016-408-4110 (BCCD) Transport & Spread, bulk dozer 2 weeks $1,100.00 $2,200 Crew B-1 OB (BCCD) Dozer Operator 10 days $345.60 $3,456 Cover 33 08 0590 (ECHOS) Waste pile cover, 135 Ib tear, 2-2.5 year life 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 DECOMMISSIONING reference description quantity unit unit cost costtevent 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 2041300 (BCCD) Transport & spread, bulk dozer, 300' haul 20430 cubic yard $0.96 $19,613 Liner disposal E&E Dispose of qeosvnthetics at offsite landfill 60 tons $900 $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 $8,500 542,500 016 408 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 OC12 S150.00 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 cosUunit 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 575,176.00 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 cost/cubic yard Contractor HAVE treatment of soil 1 cubic yard $111.92 S112 DC14 5112.00 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 lost 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 $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 51,200 016 408 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 S87,242 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 NPR -4 Well Nos.2 5 Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis • Derived 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 it $0.15 $27,536 33 08 0584 (ECHOS) Plastic laminate waste pile cover 100,000 square it $0.15 $15,298 Protective soil layer (64nch gravel/sand) 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-1 OB (BCCD) Dozer Operator 5 days $345.60 $1,728 $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 11299 A-7 EPLY TO .TTENTION 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, QVL -�� IR 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 WO'Mr. 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 0 • UMIAT TEST WELL NO. 6 CRETACEOUS Seabee Formation: 3117-220' Ninuluk Formation: 220'-350' Chandler Formation, Killik tongue: 350'-630' Grandstand Formation: 630'-825' WELL STATUS YEAR .JAN. Form 9-59.3 (April 1952) UNITED STATES APR. * Sec. ----- JUNE DEPARTMENT OF OF THE INTERIOR ----'- OCT. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY T-------------------- -------------------'-----'--------- ------------ ----- 1950 ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- CONSERVATION DIVISION R. 1 INDIVIDUAL WELL RECORD ________________________ Mer. ----------- ----------- Date ------ June--3r--lg5qt---------- Ref. No. -------- --------- N.P.R.#k ----------- ----------- Land office-------------------------------------------------------- State ----------Alaska SerialNo------------------�-------------------------------------------------- -- - ----------- ---------------- ------------- - Lessee------------------------ ---------------------------------------------. Field ------------------ Unli.mt__Ar-ea-------------------------- ---- -- Operator ---- - U. S. - ITavy--- --------------------------- District ------- ----------------------- Well No.----Umiat Test Well --#- ----- -------- Subdivision --------------------------------------------------------- Location - Drilling approved ------------------------------------- 19-------- Well elevation ........ 337_I?. F—' - -- --------------- feet Drilling commenced ------- Aub ---------- 19_50__ Total depth :------- __ ___-------------- -------- ______feet Dec. 12 Drilling ceased ___________________________________________ 19_50__ Initial production __F$ 80 b d Completed for production _____Dec � 2 ---- 19_50-_ Gravity A. P. I. Abandonj%6mbmppLVXj at - Dec. 12-_, 19 -SQ-_ Initial R. P. ---- ------------------------------------ Geologie Formations Productive Horizons Surface Lowest tested Name Depths Contents Grandstand 630-825 Oil WELL STATUS YEAR .JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE JULY Am SEPT. OCT. Nov. Dice. 1950 ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- - - ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- Drg. ----------- ----------- Dr . � ----------- ----------- DrG. ----------- ----------- Dry. ----------- ----------- POW Abd. ----------- ---------- * Unsurveyed REMARKS--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------Abd.__beeause _ of _,junk in hole .------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------Geolagieal Serve y Prafessione-----Viper--3955--------------------------------------------------- U. ---------------------- U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 16-380GT-4 EXPLANATION 0 OIL WELL * GAS WELL OIL AND GAS WELL OIL SHOW -ABANDONED �f- GAS SHOW -ABANDONED ARCON BARROW I SUSPENDED GAS WELL • OIL AND GAS SHOW ABANDONED S. BARROW 2 - DRY AND ABANDONED S. BARROW 5 SUSPENDED OIL WELL BARROW AREA .� O C F r 1 G �. TULAGEAK I a N P R G S.BARRO 11V. D SE I M + WALAKPA -IRO BAY r' SIMPSON I + WALAKPA 2 - + + o E. SIMPSON 2 J. W. DALTON I s ULL CLIFF I KUYANAK J �8' E. SI�AP WL..• y . T. FOW I o SIMPSON I .., :. .. DREW. PEARD I—!, ' - r�' IMPSON I J POINT 1 • -;CAPE HALKETT TOPAGORUK I 5 - .p - t " KUGRUA I '~ E. TOP RUK I+ �SHEPUK.w�.\ ,ATiGARU _ i - .•w. POINT I PIKPUK �• Aij S.MEADE 1 ^n„ S.HARRISC N ALIKPIKI o FISH CREEK I . K _ L. H TUNALIK I �� . W. ' N.INIGOK wf+K 14' T w-� CREE .+'- --A ✓ eN + r0" ..� -�_ T1"!: _ MADE 1.. Q ,,� T- INIGOK I } _ ITKiLLIK° ___ _ �-KA'OLAK I _ -` 5 ; RIVER I c _ �- � '-�L : 4- ` `+ (industry) a OUNIALIK I OUM ? i T 1 . AL KOLU�K` I, SENTINEL ,LIHILL � SQUARE , I LAKE I � GUB I WOLF AREA '_ ? IAT TIKTITALUK I SEABEE i_CREE _.� 4WUNA I N4. - ! NIFEBLADEN.� i , I, 2 GRANDSTAND �� t `fie ILISBURNE I p 25 50 Mi. 0 25 50 T5 Km. Olo�, F® v TETRA TECH REPORT NO.8200 Tar�an�ier4, nrc,•„_ INDEX MAP -PET -48 NPRA TEST WELLS AND SELECTED CORE TESTS, 1944-53, 1974 - 91 ALASKA NPA •—E.0 GU��PF � _ BARROW AREA I �- ARCON BARROW I + S. BARROW i # S. BARROW 2 S. BARROW -4 S. BARROW 5 S. BARROW 6 I S. BARROW 7 ii S..BARROW 8 S. BARROW 9 E S. BARROW 10 S. BARROW I I S. BARROW 12 S. BARROW 13 S. BARROW 14 i S. BARROW 15 -- S. BARROW 16 S. BARROW 17 S. BARROW 18 S. BARROW (9 S. BARROW 20 AVAK I ® UMIAT AREA + UMIAT I + UMIAT 2 0 UMIAT 3 0 UM IAT 4 • UMIAT 5 UMIAT 6 i UMIAT 7 UMIAT 8 0 UMIAT 9 0 UMIAT 10 -f UMIAT 11 FIGURE 2 "Old" P'a%y wells (1944-53) Well game Avak - 1 South Barrow -1 /00 -Oz South Barrow -2 South -Barrow-3 l South Barrow -4 /60r;_096 Fish Creek -1 /oo 4_6 i Grandstand -1 100 '3 Gubik-1 /00-0D I Gubik-2 %00 -aa of Kaolak-1 100 -994 f j Knifeblade-1 IOV - 49 i Knifeblade-2 1 by - a Knifeblade-2A )d A040 9je_lolade 5 Meade -1 0umalik-1 100-//41 j East Oumalik-1 /00�-//6-- Simpson-1 Nos -f{, Si%n/�soq-/ yoU-O/� Squ*are Lake -1 Titaluk-1 14)0- igb Topagoruk-1 100 -lq Eadt Topagoruk-1 Umiat-1 100 Umiat-2 lo0-'a10 j Umiat-3 100 - a 11 Umiat-4 100 Umiat-5 /00 -a13 i Umiat-6 /00 -cg/4/ Umiat-7 106 � j Umiat-8 /UO 2J� Umiat-9 160 Umiat-10 1 al Umiat-11 1C7U'al� t Wolf Creek -1 Wolf Creek -2 I vvI l `Zj I Wolf Creek -3 "Intermediate" Wells at Barrow.(1955-1974) South Barrow -5 166 -bald South Barrow -6 South Barrow -7 /66-030 ,South Barrow -8 /0611--031 South Barrow -9 /00-63a. South Barrow -10 /OD -633 South Barrow -11 /CD -63Y South Barrow -12 H6"
